The Politics of Poison.

Annaflavia Tarullo
Sep 22
6 min read

Updated: Nov 21

For decades, chemical giant DuPont (now Chemours) discharged PFAS into Dordrecht’s air, water, and soil, despite knowing the dangers of these so-called "forever chemicals". When the truth finally surfaced, it wasn't regulators who first brought the company to account, but citizens, journalists, researchers, and lawyers who refused to stay silent. Court rulings have since declared Chemours’s pollution unlawful, yet the real reckoning is taking place in the public arena. Here, the battle for accountability is performed in protests, hearings, and headlines, turning a chemical scandal into a broader drama about power, health, and justice.

The industrial disaster we're seeing didn’t happen in a vacuum. Gaps in oversight and regulation made it possible. And this isn’t just a one-off problem: it reflects a broader reality that the way we regulate industrial pollution often falls short.

Governments struggle to respond effectively for many reasons, one of which relates to how science and policy interact. The traditional view sees scientists as neutral providers of information, but in reality, both scientists and policymakers make strategic decisions about what knowledge is shared, with whom, and how. On top of that, industry lobby groups can capture environmental politics, tipping the scales in favour of businesses rather than the public.

In response, new forms of civic engagement are emerging. Public demonstrations, civil society arrangements, and informal “stages” are increasingly shaping debates, challenging entrenched power, and imagining alternative solutions.

What are PFAS?

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are a family of more than 10,000 man-made chemicals found in everything from food packaging and non-stick cookware to raincoats and sunscreen. They're called "forever chemicals" because they hardly break down, accumulating in our blood, breast milk, and environment. Studies have linked PFAS to cancer (such as kidney and testicular cancer), hormone disruption, and reduced vaccine effectiveness in children. For more information on PFAS and measures to avoid them, click here or visit the RIVM's website.

The Media: A Checks-and-Balances System?

The media has been instrumental in bringing PFAS into the public spotlight. Investigative journalism, in particular, has exposed what was once hidden from view. Take Zembla’s hard-hitting broadcasts, including the 2023 documentary The PFAS Cover-Up. The program sparked a media storm, raised awareness in Dordrecht about the risks of exposure, and forced politicians to pay attention. As Chiel Jonker, senior researcher at Utrecht University’s Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, told me:

“After the Zembla broadcasts, politicians woke up — they realised they had to do something.”

But the spotlight on PFAS didn’t start in 2023. In 2015, the platform Follow the Money published a groundbreaking investigation that first exposed the dangers of PFAS to the Dutch public. The article didn’t just inform, it had consequences. It triggered official investigations into corporate misconduct and even prompted parliamentary questions about gaps in chemical regulation. Its impact is clear in the Dutch Safety Board’s 2023 report, which stated:

“Publication of the article by Follow the Money attracted public attention and attention from [...] the competent authority and the environmental service. This brought the current risks of PFOA into focus and now some activities are discouraged for health reasons.”

Scandal Can't Be Our Only Safety Net

But there's a dangerous flip side. If decisions are driven primarily by headlines, there’s a risk of sliding into “governance by scandal” instead of forward-looking policy based on expertise and foresight.

Interviews with policy officers, researchers, and environmental inspectors revealed the pressure this creates. Many described how the constant need to respond to the media — whether to defend their authority, correct misunderstandings, or calm public concerns — has stretched their capacity thin. Oversight of the chemical industry can’t depend on firefighting after each scandal, especially given the vast cocktail of hazardous substances in our environment that go far beyond PFAS.

This mediatisation also opens the door to political evasion. Authorities may publicly leverage the media to point to supposed gaps in scientific consensus as a reason for inaction, deflecting responsibility by claiming that “more research is needed.” This was clear during a 2023 provincial hearing on Chemours, when a political representative, responding to citizens calling for stronger measures, asked: “How should we, as governments, take into account in our permits the aspects that we cannot foresee?” While PFAS are indeed scientifically complex — with thousands of substances in the group and challenges in detecting them — this response highlights a reactive rather than precautionary approach.

In The PFAS Cover-Up, one resident directly challenges this narrative in response to claims that insufficient research exists to conclusively link PFAS to his cancer:

“Of course. If you have blood cancer. Blood cancer. And I have all that filth in my blood. How do you explain that? It’s got to be the cause.”

This heartrending quote captures a deeper conflict: the cautious language of science on one side, and the lived realities of citizens on the other. For many, the evidence isn’t only in studies. It’s written into their own bodies.

Citizens As Protagonists

Citizens’ voices have been at the heart of the fight against PFAS emissions from Chemours and other chemical giants. For the past five years, the group Gezondheid Voor Alles (Health Before Everything) has gathered every Saturday at Chemours's gates. By March 5th, 2022, they had dumped nearly ten tons of contaminated soil, marking their 100th protest.

In memory of Joop Keesmaat, seen earlier this year at the 250th bucket protest in front of Chemours. Picture by Richard van Hoek Photography, taken from PZC (2025).

Before the media spotlight shone on PFAS, many residents assumed their environment was safe. But as coverage grew, so did questions about government oversight and accountability. Frustrated by inaction, locals decided to take matters into their own hands — literally. In a short RTV Dordrecht video, Joop Keesmaat, co-founder of the movement, is seen collecting contaminated soil samples while explaining:

“Over the past 40 or 50 years, we have been fooled by Chemours, and the authorities have also looked the other way. So, it seemed like a good idea to take samples ourselves.”

By collaborating with independent researchers, such as in the breast milk study conducted by Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, communities are generating evidence and forcing policymakers to pay attention. In doing so, they reclaim control over their health, their environment, and their future, proving that when institutions fall short, ordinary citizens can rise to the challenge. Their protests, lawsuits, and symbolic performances aren’t “extras” in the drama of regulation. They are leading characters who shape the story.

Industry Shouldn't Write The Rules

For decades, companies like Chemours downplayed the dangers of PFAS, while regulators often hesitated to act. This makes it clear that environmental inspectors need both the authority and the resources to step in, before problems arise and after damage occurs. In the Netherlands, the permitting system complicates this: revoking company licenses is difficult, leaving regulators to prove companies' wrongdoing. As Peter Glas, former Chairman of the De Dommel Water Board (2003–2019) and Delta Commissioner (2019–2023), put it, society is too often left to clean up the chemical industry’s “crumbs,” managing harm after the fact.

Changing this requires bold thinking, and as he put it:

“[...] people like yourself and others should think about bringing to the table the question: ‘Don’t we need a more radical solution?’”

At the heart of that radical solution is a shift in values. Public health and safety must come first, and regulators need the power to scrutinise the chemical industry’s real-world impact. Only by putting these values front and centre can we prevent future disasters.

What PFAS Teaches Us About Science, Policy, and Society

The PFAS case isn't just about one contaminated Dutch town. It's about who gets to decide what's safe, who bears the risks of industrial pollution, and what happens when official systems fail to protect us. The good news? Change is possible when a variety of societal players work together.

But we shouldn't have to wait for the next scandal. We need regulatory systems that prioritise prevention over cleanup, that listen to affected communities, and that put corporate feet to the fire before disasters unfold.

As Rachel Carson warned in Silent Spring (1962, p. 144), "we should no longer accept the counsel of those who tell us that we must fill our world with poisonous chemicals." The damage from forever chemicals cannot be undone, but the fight in Dordrecht shows us a path forward. One where citizens refuse to stay silent, and where accountability isn't optional.

Research methodology: This article draws on research conducted for my Master’s thesis. To understand the emerging processes characterising PFAS regulation, I combined interviews with scientists, inspectors, lawyers, activists, journalists, and policymakers with an analysis of media reports and official documents. All quotes come from interviews conducted between February and May 2025. Numerous government agencies, inspectorates, and scientific organisations are involved in PFAS regulation in the Netherlands. This study couldn't cover them all, which leaves plenty of room for future research to explore how all these different players are contributing to a changing regulatory landscape.

What You Can Do

Learn about PFAS in your area: Check your local or national authority's website for contamination data, or visit the PFAS map developed by the Forever Pollution project.
Reduce your exposure: Take a look at the Environmental Working Group's tips on avoiding PFAS or visit the EPA's website.
Support investigative journalism: Platforms like Follow the Money and Zembla depend on reader support to continue exposing environmental threats.
Contact political representatives: Ask local politicians what they're doing to prevent the next chemical crisis.