Contradictions between science and EU policy on air pollution 

Particulates – also referred to as particulate matter (PM), aerosols or fine particles – are tiny particles of solid or liquid suspended in a gas, and are usually defined by the size of the particles, recalls the September paper. 

PM is of "significant importance" as this research means that there is now "clear scientific evidence" of their negative impact on health, including links with "increased mortality" (cardiopulmonary problems and lung cancer) and "reduced life expectancy". 

Moreover, the ERS researchers have identified "clear signs" of other health effects of exposure to PM, including increased risk of strokes and pulmonary affections, as well as "sudden cardiac death and infarction". 

Thus, reducing exposure to PM brings "significant health benefits", finds the research – including life expectancy gains for the average 30 year old of between one month and two years. 

The authors believe that the benefits of "stringent" air pollution legislation thus "clearly outweigh the costs", despite the "major resources" required. Thus the ERS calls for "ambitious" air quality strategies and reduction programmes in Europe. 

They fear that the European Parliament's proposed target of 20 µg/m3 might not be enough to "efficiently protect public health" as "significant adverse effects" have been recorded even at this level. 

Moreover, allowing member states to exclude natural sources of PM as the Commission has proposed "no longer reflects the true exposure to particles" and the practice must be stopped, they add. 

The researchers conclude that plans to reduce exposure to PM in the proposed Air Quality Directive must be "legally binding" if they are to reach their full potential and "stimulate ambitious policies in the member states". 

Delaying the enforcement of ambient air quality limit values would "weaken EU credibility", they add.