Sales bans due to PFAS: Should we be worried?
After spectacular sales bans on fish and meat due to PFAS contamination, consumers are asking themselves: How dangerous are these substances really – and what can still be placed in the shopping basket without concern?
Monday, December 22, 2025
The reports were spectacular: In mid-November, the Canton of Zug imposed an immediate sales ban on perch and pike from Lake Zug. For the local fishing industry and especially for the lakeside restaurants that liked to serve their crispy perch fillets, this was a severe blow. Earlier, the government of St. Gallen had already banned the sale of meat with excessively high PFAS levels. Many consumers wondered: What can we even eat anymore?
A study by the Association of Cantonal Chemists (VKCS) provides meaningful reassurance, as the Tages-Anzeiger reports: “In an analysis of 900 food products sold in Switzerland, only 0.8 percent of samples were flagged for exceeding the legal maximum levels for PFAS.” The focus was on foods of animal origin: 401 meat, 282 egg and 206 fish samples. Five beef samples as well as one egg and one fish sample showed elevated PFAS levels. Among 276 dairy products, only two milk samples and one yogurt were flagged.
The figures show that the fishermen are not wrong to criticize the sales ban imposed by the Zug government. And that the case of Lake Zug cannot simply be applied to Switzerland as a whole. The VKCS study is representative: samples were taken in retail stores across the country and weighted according to the respective population size. As VKCS President Alda Breitenmoser explains: “Consumers in Switzerland do not need to fear that their shopping baskets contain food excessively contaminated with PFAS.”
It remains unclear, however, whether the contaminated products originate from Switzerland or abroad. Around 70 percent of the tested foods came from Switzerland and Liechtenstein; the rest were imported goods. What is already clear is that Switzerland is engaged in a broad discussion about how to deal with PFAS. As elsewhere, the same principle applies: regulating substances that have few viable alternatives for many applications must be risk-based. A blanket ban would be misguided, as chemistry expert Dominique Werner of Scienceindustries also notes. The Federal Council shares this view: on 19 December 2025, it decided to launch an action plan on PFAS, aimed primarily at consolidating ongoing measures and improving coordination and information among all stakeholders.
Sources
Kindly note:
We, a non-native editorial team value clear and faultless communication. At times we have to prioritize speed over perfection, utilizing tools, that are still learning.
We are deepL sorry for any observed stylistic or spelling errors.
Related articles
The bottleneck of hunger: How the crisis in the Gulf is shaking global markets
While heating oil prices in Switzerland are on a rollercoaster, a far greater catastrophe is looming elsewhere. The blockage of the Strait of Hormuz is not only cutting off oil supplies, but also disrupting the global lifeline for fertilizers – with devastating consequences for global food security.
New genomic techniques in plants: what gene editing can do – and what it (still) cannot do
With CRISPR/Cas technology, genetic material can now be modified more precisely and efficiently than ever before. In plant breeding in particular, these “gene scissors” raise high hopes: crops that are resistant to diseases and pests, can withstand drought, and at the same time deliver higher yields. But how realistic are these expectations? What can genome editing actually achieve today – and what progress can we expect in the near future?
Crop protection: the authority is holding itself back
After years of intensive restrictions, a shift in trend is emerging in crop protection. Stefan Nimervoll interviewed Christian Stockmar, chairman of the Crop Protection Industry Group (IGP).
Residue is not the same as residue
Painkillers like Voltaren are a blessing for us – yet in our rivers they can harm fish. If these were crop protection products, calls for bans would be immediate. It becomes clear that we are applying double standards.