|
| A weekly newsletter zooming in on Europe through local perspectives. Every Friday, one topic explored by five independent newsrooms. | | IN THIS ISSUE | §01 · In focus — How Clean Is Europe's Water?
§02 · The local view — Berlin, Riga, Warsaw, Vienna and Zagreb
§03 · The podcast — Listen to the latest episode and join the conversation
§04 · From the newsrooms — Recent reporting from the lensEU network |
|
|
| §01 · IN FOCUS | How Clean Is Europe's Water? | Summer is here – and with it comes the search for the next place to cool off. As the heat across Europe continues, lakes and rivers are becoming increasingly important places for recreation. | Anyone checking the annual bathing water report – the European bathing water ranking – before taking a dip could be forgiven for feeling reassured. Around 22,000 officially designated bathing sites are regularly monitored and rated as "excellent", "good", "sufficient" or "poor". In fact, 85 per cent of all official bathing sites are classified as "excellent". But that sense of security can be misleading. | This is because the official EU assessment mainly answers one question: Is there an immediate hygienic risk? To determine this, only two microbiological parameters are measured – E. coli and intestinal enterococci. These faecal bacteria indicate whether the water may be contaminated with disease-causing pathogens, for example through wastewater, manure or other sources of pollution. | This matters because germs are indeed the greatest immediate health risk when bathing. | However, chemical pollutants such as PFAS, heavy metals and pesticides are not included in this assessment. | In other words, a bathing lake can officially have "excellent" water quality while still being contaminated with persistent industrial chemicals. | This is exactly what we at CORRECTIV.Europe wanted to investigate. We therefore linked the official bathing water quality data with a second dataset for the first time: the Europe-wide monitoring data collected under the Water Framework Directive. | Unlike the Bathing Water Directive, this monitoring programme assesses the chemical status of rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Authorities regularly test these waters for a wide range of pollutants that can accumulate in the environment over time. | This allowed us, for the first time, to systematically compare officially rated "clean" bathing sites with water bodies where chemical pollutants have been detected. | The results are alarming: at least 7,866 officially rated clean bathing sites across the European Union are located in water bodies that are known to be chemically polluted. | Particularly large numbers of these bathing sites are found in Italy, Germany, Denmark, Hungary and France. | This does not mean that swimming there is automatically harmful to health. But it does show that the official assessment reflects only part of the picture. | Among the substances detected are heavy metals and pesticide residues. For many years, authorities have also monitored waters for PFOS, one member of the PFAS family of so-called "forever chemicals". Only since 2026 have monitoring programmes been required to include a much broader range of PFAS substances. Some of these chemicals are suspected of affecting the immune system, damaging the liver and kidneys, or increasing the risk of cancer. Children may be particularly vulnerable. | At the same time, the mere presence of a pollutant does not automatically mean there is a health risk. Whether contamination is harmful depends on the concentration of the substance, the duration of exposure and the specific chemical involved. | This is also an important limitation of our investigation. The data available across Europe show which pollutants authorities have detected in a body of water, but not at what concentrations. Those measurements are generally held only by the relevant regional authorities and are not yet available across Europe. | Even so, our analysis reveals a structural problem: Europe does monitor chemical pollution in its waters, but these findings are barely reflected in the assessment of bathing waters. As a result, people looking for information about water quality mainly receive information about bacterial risks, not about possible chemical contamination. | There are signs of change. The European Union has decided that much more comprehensive data from water monitoring will have to be reported to the European Environment Agency in future. | At the same time, the European Commission is considering whether the Bathing Water Directive should be revised. The Commission itself has acknowledged that the current rules do not adequately address chemical pollution. | Whether this will lead to stricter standards, however, remains unclear. Environmental organisations are currently warning that environmental and public health protections could instead be weakened as part of ongoing deregulation efforts. | The coming months will therefore be crucial in determining whether Europe's bathing waters will, in future, be assessed not only for bacteria but also more comprehensively for problematic chemicals. | But this issue extends far beyond officially designated bathing waters. Seas, former quarries, rivers used more by industry than by swimmers, groundwater, drinking water – every type of water can be contaminated. And that is exactly what this edition of our newsletter is about. | — Lilith Grull, International Reporter, CORRECTIV |
|
|
| | | Berlin · Germany · CORRECTIV | Chemical Pollution Despite Officially Excellent Water Quality | The Filzteich bathing area in Schneeberg, Saxony, is officially classified as having excellent water quality. However, our investigation by CORRECTIV.Europe paints a more complex picture. Close to the lake lies a contaminated legacy site where paper sludge from the paper industry was once disposed of. Right next to it runs a stream that flows directly into Filzteich – a public bathing water with a beach that attracts large numbers of swimmers on hot summer days. | In response to our enquiries, the authorities provided laboratory results showing repeatedly elevated PFAS levels in the water. However, the results of additional water samples taken at the bathing site by the municipal utility, which operates the bathing area, were not made public. To obtain an up-to-date picture, CORRECTIV.Europe commissioned its own water analysis in June. The laboratory detected, among other substances, chemicals from the particularly relevant PFAS-4 group. Although the measured concentrations were just below a former guideline value issued by the German Environment Agency, they exceeded Denmark's stricter guideline for bathing waters by almost a factor of ten. | The Filzteich case shows that a bathing water can be officially rated as "excellent" while still containing measurable levels of persistent industrial chemicals – and that the current assessment criteria do not adequately capture this type of pollution. | How can officially excellent bathing water quality coexist with evidence of problematic chemicals? How widespread is this issue across Germany and Europe? And what impact can PFAS have on people and the environment? | The latest investigation by CORRECTIV.Europe answers these questions. The investigation is available in both English and German. You'll also find a link to our podcast further down in this newsletter. | — Lilith Grull, International Reporter, CORRECTIV |
|
|
|
|
| | Riga · Latvia · TVNET | How’s the Water? | The ever-changing Baltic weather is full of surprises, as usual, and the past week gave people in Latvia a chance to “enjoy” temperatures of up to 26°C. What better reason to head to the nearest lake, river or beach? | Local authorities regularly assure the public that the water at Latvia’s bathing sites is perfectly safe. But is that really the full picture? | According to the Health Inspectorate, the water quality at almost all official bathing sites in Riga was rated excellent in 2025, just as it had been during the previous three bathing seasons. | Still, this reassuring picture is occasionally disrupted by less pleasant news. Most recently, the same Health Inspectorate banned swimming at one of the beaches in Kolka after intestinal enterococci were detected — in other words, signs of faecal contamination. Hardly welcome news in the middle of summer. | But the devil is in the detail. Official bathing-water ratings primarily reflect microbiological safety and do not provide a complete picture of chemical pollution. The Health Inspectorate tests laboratory samples for only two main indicators: E. coli and intestinal enterococci. | Water colour, visible litter, oil products and possible blooms of blue-green algae are assessed only visually. The authorities do not regularly test bathing sites for PFAS — synthetic chemicals that can persist in the environment for centuries — or for other long-lasting chemical pollutants. | As a result, an “excellent water quality” rating does not mean that a lake, river or beach has been tested for PFAS, mercury, lead or pesticide residues. | Separate environmental monitoring carried out in Latvia in 2023 found widespread contamination of fish with mercury and brominated flame retardants, as well as the presence of PFOS. However, the samples were collected only at selected monitoring sites and cannot be used to assess the chemical safety of every individual beach. | So the familiar childhood question — “How’s the water?” — unfortunately remains unanswered. | — Andrejs Timofejevs, TVNET journalist |
|
|
|
|
| | Warsaw · Poland · OKO.press | No swimming in the Baltic this year – well, almost | The data clearly show that water pollution is particularly difficult to control in the Baltic Sea basin. There are approximately 180 swimming areas in coastal resorts, which are often chosen by tourists as holiday destinations. Local communities, heavily relying on tourism as an income source, suffer from the regular closures of these bathing areas. In early July 2026 alone, as many as 140 of them were closed—not only due to high waves and adverse weather conditions, but also because of excessive concentrations of toxic substances and cyanobacterial blooms. This latter problem is particularly acute in the era of the climate crisis. Lower Baltic Sea levels and higher water temperatures facilitate the growth of cyanobacteria, and on July 13 alone, as many as 40 swimming areas were closed due to their presence. | Contact with cyanobacteria can cause a rash, burning eyes and fever. The State Sanitary Inspection maintains a dedicated website where users can check the status of individual swimming areas on an interactive map. Users can access not only current data on cyanobacteria but also on other substances that may contaminate the water. In July, the Inspectorate issued warnings, among other things, about bacterial contamination, including E. coli and enterococci. | — Marcel Wandas, environmental journalist, OKO.press |
|
|
|
|
| | Vienna · Austria · Die Presse | How to avoid the forever chemicals in everyday life | These substances offer countless advantages in industry: PFAS comprise over 10,000 chemicals with carbon-fluorine bonds that act as soap, heat protection or water-repellent coatings. They are found in medical devices, cosmetics, electronics, fire-fighting foam, Teflon pans, plastic seals and more. | Since the 1940s, PFAS have been regarded as a miracle cure. Now it has become clear that they also cause harm and cannot be removed from the environment at all. Hence the term “forever chemicals”. They accumulate in soil, plants, animals and humans. The concentration of these substances increases as they move up the food chain. To date, links have been established with cancer, fertility problems, Alzheimer’s disease and liver damage in humans. | The Environment Agency Austria advises consumers to avoid per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances when buying outdoor clothing, coated textiles, pans and cookware. PFAS-containing textiles already in the home should be washed less frequently and at lower temperatures, and should be air-dried only. | In Austria, the Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES) monitors PFAS levels in food using the EU maximum levels for the four main substances (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS), which have been in force since 2023. Contamination is particularly prevalent in animal offal or foodstuffs from regions where PFAS are used extensively, such as in fire-fighting foam. Drinking water is also tested annually; most recently, 0.5 per cent of samples showed elevated PFAS levels. In such cases, tap water should not be used for drinking or cooking. AGES imposes no restrictions on personal hygiene, cleaning, washing up or doing the laundry. | — Veronika Schmidt, science editor, Die Presse |
|
|
|
|
| | Zagreb · Croatia · Telegram.hr | Not a mainstream topic yet | The issue of PFAS—the so-called "forever chemicals"—has not yet truly become a mainstream topic in Croatia's national political debate. The subject is only sporadically addressed by smaller political parties—and from opposite sides of the political spectrum—meaning that the PFAS issue currently manages to get national media coverage only occasionally. | One such exception occurred very recently: in early June, MPs from MOST, a smaller right-wing parliamentary party currently in opposition, held a dramatic press conference in Lika, claiming that PFAS had been found in drinking water across two towns in that region of Croatia. This claim sparked significant public interest, forcing the Government to react: the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Green Transition requested an opinion from the Croatian Institute of Public Health (HZJZ). The HZJZ determined that at one of the water sources, the detected concentrations were 20 times lower than the prescribed limits, and that the risk to human health was negligible. | On the other side of the political spectrum, on the left, the issue of "forever chemicals" is brought into focus by the green-left party Možemo! (We can!), which is also in opposition in the national parliament while simultaneously governing the capital city of Zagreb. Their Member of the European Parliament, Gordan Bosanac, recently organized a trip for ten Croatian citizens to undergo testing in Brussels to determine the presence of PFAS in their bodies. This is part of a broader European initiative by the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament, which involved one hundred citizens from eight EU member states. The test results will be released this autumn. | — Irena Frlan Gašparović, Journalist, Telegram.hr |
|
|
|
|
| §03 · THE PODCAST | Bathingwater: Do you dare to take a dip? | Prefer listening? This week’s lensEU podcast explores water pollution across Europe, with a particular focus on bathing waters in Europe. | Across the European Union, at least 7,866 officially rated clean bathing sites are located in water bodies known to be chemically polluted. What does that mean for people? And for nature? | |
|
|
| In this episode, we explore what happens when chemical pollutants are present in the water, who is responsible for monitoring water quality, where the pollution comes from, and what happens when water quality falls below the required standard. | To answer these questions, we spoke with experts and local journalists – in particular from Germany and Latvia. |
| | | | | | |
| | |
|
