Patients could pay the price as MEPs vote to delay who foots the bill for cleaning Europe’s water. Parliament backed a temporary suspension of new costs for drugmakers and cosmetics firms. The vote split the assembly, pitting fears of medicine shortages against warnings that citizens will pay for pollution instead.
MEPs adopted the resolution by 294 votes to 245, with 28 abstentions. The vote targets the extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme in the revised Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. Under that scheme, manufacturers of medicinal and cosmetic products must cover at least 80 per cent of the cost of removing micropollutants from urban wastewater. This advanced step is known as quaternary treatment.
MEPs want the Commission to produce a new impact assessment by the end of 2026. It should identify the substances in urban wastewater, verify the costs of quaternary treatment, confirm how responsibility is shared between polluting sectors, and assess the impact on the availability, affordability and accessibility of medicines. Until that study is done and assessed, MEPs call for a “stop the clock” on the EPR provisions, the quaternary treatment requirement and the related financial obligations.
Parliament did not reject the directive’s aims. The resolution reaffirms strong support for its environmental objectives. It keeps the “polluter pays principle” at its centre. MEPs said advanced treatment costs should not shift onto taxpayers and water consumers. Those costs should fall on the sectors that pollute. EPR remains the most effective tool to apply that principle, the text says.
You might be interested
A split Parliament
The vote exposed a sharp divide. According to the water operators’ federation EurEau, the stop-the-clock call came from the EPP, ECR, PfE and ESN groups. Renew, the Socialists and Democrats, the Left and the Greens backed a rival joint motion that supported full implementation, including the EPR scheme. That motion did not prevail.
Without clear rules, citizens will be left to foot the bill for water pollution caused by products from the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries. — Jutta Paulus, MEP, Greens/EFA
The Greens/EFA group condemned the result. Jutta Paulus, a Green member of the Environment Committee, said the EPP, “in alliance with the far-right,” were working against local communities “in their ideological desire to rip up the rules at the cost of our waterways and public health.” She said citizens would be left to foot the bill for pollution from pharmaceutical and cosmetic products. Drinking water suppliers, she added, would have to spend millions to remove trace substances.
EurEau also urged MEPs to back implementation. It said suspending EPR would not settle the dispute over treatment costs. Instead, the bill would fall on wastewater operators, local and regional authorities and local businesses, including EU-based drug manufacturers. Non-EU manufacturers, it said, would avoid those costs.
Industry says the numbers are wrong
Industry has pressed the opposite case. In February, four associations — Cosmetics Europe, EFPIA, AESGP and Medicines for Europe — called on economy ministers to stop the clock and revise the directive. They argued the science behind the EPR scheme is flawed. They said the Commission misallocated substances to sectors and overestimated the two industries’ share of the toxic load in wastewater.
The associations put forward several figures. The Commission estimated quaternary treatment upgrades at up to €1.4bn a year until 2045. National assessments, the associations said, run three to five times higher. They put the underestimate at 300 to 600 per cent, with real costs between €1.18bn and over €7bn a year. They also said the top four medicines on the Commission’s list were counted as 58 per cent of the total toxic load, but would account for less than one per cent under the laboratory data the EMA requires. For cosmetics, they said the Commission overestimated the sector’s load by at least 15 times.
They argued the directive singles out two sectors without sound scientific justification. The Commission first identified several polluting sectors, they said, then deemed only two responsible. Drug companies work with fixed prices, so they must absorb the costs. That, the associations warned, could hit the supply and availability of medicines.
Industry welcomes the vote
Medicines for Europe welcomed the result. Adrian van den Hoven, its director general, called it a clear message. “Europe cannot put access to essential medicines for millions of patients at risk on the basis of a flawed methodology and inadequate evidence base,” he said. The group said 17 member states had called for new evidence on access and availability at the Health Council. It urged the Commission to pause the EPR scheme and run a comprehensive independent reassessment.
Europe cannot put access to essential medicines for millions of patients at risk on the basis of a flawed methodology and inadequate evidence base. — Adrian van den Hoven, Director General, Medicines for Europe
EFPIA, which represents research-based drugmakers, also welcomed the vote. It said the resolution backs a new independent study and a temporary suspension of the EPR obligation. The association said the directive allocates quaternary treatment costs only to the human pharmaceutical and cosmetics sectors, and so fails to reflect all the sources of micropollutants. Nathalie Moll, its director general, called the outcome “a step in the right direction.” She said the industry supports the directive, “on the basis that it is implemented fairly and proportionately.”
Health ministers had pressed the same case
Parliament’s vote followed months of pressure from national governments. Health ministers returned to the issue at a recent EPSCO Health Council. Germany raised it under any other business, backed by Austria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. It was the third such discussion, after debates in June and December 2025.
Germany said more clarity is needed on the costs and the implementation. Greece called the German note “very mild” and asked for a delay. Italy wanted a new, independent and transparent study. Bulgaria preferred postponed implementation. Estonia warned that small markets could be hit hardest. Poland recalled that it was one of only two member states to vote against the directive.
Commission urges caution
Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi acknowledged the concerns. He said at least 16 member states had raised the risk of medicine shortages since the directive’s adoption. He said the Commission’s December study found that overall costs would stay broadly in line with the original impact assessment. But he said uncertainties persist, because member states cannot yet say how many smaller plants need the advanced treatment. He called the ministers’ demand for predictability and economic viability “fully legitimate.” He invited member states to monitor and report any disruptions.
The revised Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive entered into force on 1 January 2025. It requires member states to ensure that towns and cities collect and treat wastewater properly. In line with the “polluter pays principle,” it introduced EPR for makers of medicinal and cosmetic products. Parliament’s briefing said producers must cover at least 80 per cent of the costs by 31 December 2028.
The directive sets a gradual timetable for plant upgrades. The first upgrades start in December 2033, covering 20 per cent of larger plants and 10 per cent of smaller ones. Coverage reaches 60 per cent by 2039 and full coverage by 2045. The vote followed a plenary debate on 25 March, where MEPs first quizzed the Commission on the supply risks through an oral question.
