Medicines that treat cancer or diabetes may be getting more affordable—but cleaning up the water they pollute comes at a cost. The European Commission on Wednesday defended its Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, rejecting calls from MEPs to pause rules requiring pharmaceutical companies to fund the removal of micropollutants. Critics warn the added financial burden could disrupt supply chains for generic drugs.
The debate was triggered by an oral question from MEP Oliver Schenk (EPP/DEU). It laid bare a growing fault line in EU policy: how to pursue environmental ambitions without undermining access to affordable drugs.
The revised Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive requires pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies to contribute to the cost of removing micropollutants from wastewater. Critics say the added burden risks hitting already fragile supply chains, particularly for low-margin generics.
The Commission defence
Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall sought to contain those concerns, stressing that both priorities remain central. “Strong, competitive pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries are and will remain a central pillar of the EU. So too is our commitment to environmental and public health and to water resilience.”
She underlined the rationale behind the scheme, noting that “micropollutants in water bodies impact negatively on the environment and public health.” The extended producer responsibility, she said, applies the polluter pays principle — and targets only the most advanced quaternary treatment stage.
You might be interested
“Pharmaceuticals and cosmetic industries have been identified as the most responsible for micropollutants reaching into the urban wastewater. The cost of the primary, the secondary, and the tertiary treatment are exclusively borne by public budgets and citizens.”
Dispute over the numbers
Lawmakers challenged the cost of the directive and questioned whether the figures used are reliable. Roswall acknowledged diverging estimates but argued that some are based on incorrect assumptions. “I know that numbers differ a lot and, just like you, I wanted to know why. Some numbers are not based on the narrow scope of the final trilogue agreement and so they will naturally overestimate the cost.”
She pointed to updated evidence. “A number of the more recent studies provide valuable additional evidence, including actual experience from Switzerland, Denmark, and Germany.” The Commission maintains that the overall cost remains limited. “The analysis indicated that by 2045… the potential cost of removing micropollutants could amount to 2.7 to 3.2 euros per citizen per year,” she said, adding that this “does not indicate a fundamental change” compared to earlier estimates.
Supply concerns acknowledged
Roswall did not dismiss concerns about medicine availability, particularly for generics. “We need to be prudent as medicines are critical. The Commission is committed to ensuring that no action results in shortages of medicines.”
She pointed to flexibility in how the directive will be applied. “The Directive allows flexibility for member states and industry to ensure the affordability and availability of specific products such as generics.” She added that the Commission will continue working with stakeholders to “share best practices to avoid unintended consequences on price and availability.”
A rollout measured in decades
A key part of the Commission’s response focused on the timeline, which stretches implementation over two decades. Member states will first need to set up financing structures for the extended producer responsibility scheme by 2028, followed by the identification of areas requiring advanced treatment by 2030.
Only by 2045 it will be fully in place. That is 20 years from now. —Jessika Roswall, Environment Commissioner
Deployment will then take place gradually. By 2033, when the Commission reviews the directive, “the deployment of the quaternary treatment will still be at its infancy,” with “no more than 20% of all large plants and 10% of all small plants equipped.” Full implementation will come only later — “only by 2045 it will be fully in place,” Roswall said. “That is 20 years from now.”
Parliament splits along familiar lines
The debate revealed a divided Parliament. MEP Tomislav Sokol (EPP/HRV) warned that the directive risks undermining Europe’s pharmaceutical base and questioned the data behind it. “According to laboratory analyses… the general effect is below 1%. These analyses cannot be taken as a basis for reliable decision-making.”
He also criticised the reliance on flexibility. “We are promised a lot of flexibility, but that won’t help provide for security and safe investment.” He called for further analysis and more time to assess the impact.
Other lawmakers echoed concerns about uncertainty, warning that additional costs could affect investment decisions and supply. Peter Liese (EPP/DEU) said that although Parliament adopted the legislation, not all concerns were addressed. “Yes, Parliament agreed to these rules, but we had other ideas on certain details.” He added that previously adopted legislation “can be re-examined.”
Pushback against ‘industry narrative’
Others defended the directive and rejected claims that it would trigger shortages. MEP Tilly Metz (Greens/EFA/LUX) criticised the framing of the debate, describing it as the result of sustained industry lobbying.
This is the result of a sustained and aggressive lobbying. —Tilly Metz (Greens/EFA/LUX)
The measure, she said, was being “deliberately distorted simply to protect profit margins from companies that continue to generate billions each year.” She pointed to a reassessment already carried out. “Industry demanded a reassessment… The reassessment was carried out and it confirmed that the Commission’s analysis was sound. But industry has chosen to ignore it and push for further delay.” She added that “EPP and ECR are now repeating these false claims,” and called for “swift implementation.”
A broader policy test
The exchange highlights a broader tension at the heart of EU policymaking: aligning environmental rules with efforts to secure medicine supply and industrial competitiveness. Roswall acknowledged that balance in her closing remarks. “We all want a strong pharmaceutical and cosmetic industry here in Europe and we all want… to remove micropollutants from wastewater. The question is who will pay for this and who should pay for this?”
For now, the Commission is moving ahead with implementation. The real test will come as member states begin setting up financing structures by 2028 — and as the pharmaceutical industry weighs its next move.
