Most political debates are about competing priorities. One of the last we had in the European Parliament was far simpler: it dealt with fairness. For if a company profits from products that create pollution, should it also contribute to cleaning it up, or should ordinary citizens foot that bill?

It sounds like common sense. Yet, this is precisely the question that divided the European Parliament earlier this month.

The discussion centred on something most of us can never see: the tiny traces of medicines and cosmetics that end up in our wastewater every day. These microscopic pollutants eventually reach our rivers and seas, where they can harm ecosystems and, over time, affect public health.

The technology exists to remove them. The real question is: who should pay for doing so? For me, the answer is straightforward. The polluter should pay.

This principle sits at the heart of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive through the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme. It requires that pharmaceutical and cosmetics producers to contribute towards the cost of removing the pollution associated with their products, rather than asking taxpayers and water consumers to carry that burden instead.

Recently, concerns were raised that these new obligations could affect the affordability and availability of medicines. These concerns are legitimate as affordable healthcare is a priority and must be protected.

Rather than rushing to conclusions, I supported the original joint motion for a resolution tried to take a sensible and balanced approach, put forward by Socialists and Democrats, Greens and the Left. It called for an independent scientific assessment by the end of 2026 to establish precisely which substances are present in urban wastewater, what advanced treatment will really cost, which sectors should contribute under the polluter pays principle, and whether there is any genuine risk to medicine supply or affordability. If the evidence shows that patients could be affected, the European Commission should act immediately to introduce safeguards.

However, the final text was changed through amendments pushed by the parties on the right of the chamber, including the European People's Party, calling for a temporary suspension of the EPR scheme - meaning that industry would not be responsible for footing the bill for the cleanup of the pollution they themselves create. This led to me voting against the amended joint motion for resolution.  

The EPR suspension does not suspend pollution. It simply delays cleaner wastewater treatment, leaves harmful micropollutants in our environment for longer, and risks that the costs are shifted onto citizens, instead of being shared fairly by those whose products contribute to the pollution.

Some have tried to present this as a choice between affordable medicines and clean water, but that is nothing more than a false choice.

Europe's pharmaceutical industry plays a vital role in improving and saving lives. It also has the expertise and innovative capacity to reduce pollution at source, before dumped into the rivers and seas, while at the same time providing affordable medicines. These objectives are not in conflict. They should, in fact, go hand in hand.

This goes right to the heart of what kind of politics we choose to practice.

For me, the polluter pays principle is non-negotiable. It is at the heart of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is a matter of fairness that those who profit from activities that create pollution should also bear the responsibility of addressing its consequences, not ordinary families.

That is why I find it difficult to accept those - populists among them politicians from the European People's Party - who pontify citizens' protection in speeches and social media posts, only to side with big industry players' interests when it comes to decisions that really matter.

They should know better. Protecting our people also means protecting their health, safeguarding their environment and ensuring they are not left paying for pollution they did not create.

As a scientist and a legislator, I believe public policy should be grounded in evidence, but also guided by principle. We should absolutely protect affordable medicines. We should absolutely protect clean water. We should never accept the false choice that we can only have one at the expense of the other.

Thomas Bajada is a Member of the European Parliament