EU Commission weighs options on potential PFAS ban

11 months ago 34

Some European Union member statesare pressing the European Commission to adopt a complete ban on toxic PFAS chemicals amid warnings of potential trade-offs with green technologies that could slow down the energy transition.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have attracted attention because they do not degrade in the environment and can have an impact on human health when not properly managed.

An international collaboration, the “Forever Pollution Project”, has identified, detected or suspected PFAS contamination at almost 40,000 sites across Europe.

These chemical compounds, widely used in various industrial sectors for their non-stick, heat-resistant and waterproofing properties, are raising concerns about their persistence and long-term effects.

The EU’s water quality directive, last updated in 2020, sets a threshold limit for PFAS concentrations in water as of 12 January 2026. In addition, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has already presented a proposal to restrict PFAS substances in fire-fighting foams.

A draft restriction covering all PFAS, rather than a pre-established list as is the case for water quality, is due to be presented in 2024. The objective is to prevent industries from switching to new PFAS molecules that are just as dangerous.

Last January, five EU countries – Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands – approached the EU’s chemical agency to give an opinion on PFAS. Their objective is to inform the European Commission in view of drafting a proposal for a total ban on the family of sustances to be adopted under the EU’s REACH regulation.

“Now it’s up to the commission to prepare a proposal for that specific use of PFAS”, explains Martijn Beekman, REACH policy officer at the European Commission, who spoke at a Euractiv event on the matter.

Options

According to the European Environment Agency, most PFASs are considered to be moderate to highly toxic to health.

“Restriction is definitely the right tool,” said Jean-Luc Wietor of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), which brings together green NGOs from across the EU. “This is not the first restriction proposal, but it’s probably the eighth one,” he remarked at the Euractiv event.

To mitigate these risks, several approaches can be envisaged. The first is to search for substitutes to PFAS that offer equivalent performance without the associated risks. Another is to make the composition of products more transparent by providing PFAS-free labels to companies putting substances on the market.

However, research into PFASs cost a huge amount of time and money said Professor Mark Bücking, head of department “Trace Analysis and Environmental Monitoring” at the Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology (IME).

Although PFASs have been on the market for at least 50 to 60 years, “we are still not sure of all the substances – there are more than 10,000 different ones,” Bücking said.

What’s more, analysing these components takes time, because the equipment and sometimes even the laboratories have to be rebuilt due to the contamination caused by these eternal pollutants.

“We are still finding PFAS in our samples 17 years after the test,” notes Professor Bücking.

Impact of a potential ban

However, a blanket ban on all PFASs could have a significant impact on manufacturers using the substance, with potential trade-offs for green tech industries.

Manufacturers of fuel cells or electrolytes, which use PFAS, could disappear entirely from E urope if a blanket ban was adopted, warned Florian Henkel from Cellcentric, a joint venture between Daimler Truck and the Volvo Group.

“If we want to ban an entire group of substances – over 10,000 substances – it’s probably a bit like banning all oils, whether olive oil or motor oil,” Henkel said.

In his view, the pros and cons of banning these substances need to be weighed up carefully.

PFASs are essential for operating medical equipment, for example, and can be used in a number of green technologies, such as wind turbines and hydrogen production.

However, others warn that the specific situation of clean tech industries should not be used as an excuse to block tighter regulation of PFAS substances.

“We should not use the ecological transition as an argument for using substances that will then cause us considerable further damage to our health,” said Kestutis Kupsys, vice-president of the Lithuanian Consumers Alliance and member of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).

> Watch the full video of the Euractiv event below: