We know them above all for non-stick pans and waterproof fabrics. But few know that PFAS are also found in numerous drugs. These are the so-called “eternal chemical substances”, very resistant compounds that do not degrade easily in the environment and which in recent years have ended up at the center of growing environmental and health alarm.
Now a study conducted in Germany, and made known through an investigation by the public service NDR and WDR, calls into question an idea that has so far been widespread: their presumed indispensability in the pharmaceutical sector. According to the data collected, in many cases alternative solutions free of PFAS already exist.
The work, carried out by the Pharmaceutical Institute of the University of Freiburg in collaboration with the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA), analyzed over 100 active ingredients containing PFAS and in the end the results were clear. As one of the authors involved, researcher Michael Müller, explains:
We already have alternatives for the vast majority of drugs.
More specifically, PFAS-free alternatives are available for 97 of the 111 active ingredients analyzedalready on the market or in an advanced authorization stage. A fact that is also confirmed by the analysis of the German market: among the approximately 70 drugs containing PFAS currently authorized, 61 already have a replacement option free of these substances.
Why PFAS are used in medications
PFAS are used in various industrial sectors because they give stability to molecules, improve their resistance and can increase their lifespan. In the pharmaceutical sector they are found in antibiotics, antidepressants, oncology drugs and asthma inhalers.
However, their use is highly controversial as these substances do not degrade easily and can accumulate in the environment for long periods.
One of the most critical aspects highlighted by researchers concerns degradation products. A significant portion of the active ingredients analyzed can in fact generate trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), an extremely persistent substance that easily disperses in water.
As one of the researchers involved points out, the problem does not only concern the immediate effect of drugs, but also what happens after their degradation: some compounds can remain in the environment much longer than previously thought.
The recent classification of TFA by the German authorities as a substance with possible effects on reproduction has also increased attention on the topic.
The response of the pharmaceutical industry
A more cautious position comes from the industrial sector. The companies point out that replacing PFAS is not always straightforward, especially in drugs that have already been developed and approved.
Hannes Hönemann, spokesperson for Pharma Deutschland, a large association of global and medium-sized companies that mainly produce medicines explained that:
Environmental risks are important, but we argue that the drug must be effective first and foremost. Replacing and reducing PFAS is much more difficult in our context than eliminating them from hair shampoo.
According to this vision, the transition to PFAS-free formulations is possible, but complex.
The position of the experts involved in the German environmental agency’s study is clearer. For researchers, the main problem is not only technical, but also regulatory: today, in fact, the evaluation of drugs favors therapeutic efficacy over environmental impact.
The picture that emerges is certainly complex. On the one hand, research shows that many alternatives already exist or are close to commercialization. On the other hand, the transition is not immediate and requires a case-by-case evaluation.
There is also a point that is still little explored: the overall contribution of drugs to the environmental spread of PFAS and their derivatives.
The European Union has been working for some time on a possible broader restriction of PFAS, a group that includes thousands of different substances. However, the pharmaceutical sector could remain partially excluded or subject to different rules, precisely because the balance between public health and environmental impact is delicate.
