This may prove to be another contentious year in the world of toxic chemicals. Effective bans, regulatory overhauls and efficient transition timelines all hang in the balance, each with their own implications for the future of health and human safety.  

No one knows for sure what the year will bring, but we have our suspicions. Here are the biggest policy decisions to keep an eye on in 2026 — and the questions that will be keeping us up at night:

What will come of the new REACH revision?

The EU Commission did not publish its proposal for the REACH revision this year following internal impact assessments and a negative opinion from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB). However, they have announced its release for some time in 2026.

Delay poses real consequences to public health and the environment, but the strength of the revision is just as high stakes: the REACH revision could either deliver a much-needed increase in the protection of citizens or lock in damage for another decade.

Will we come any closer to seeing a comprehensive ban on PFAS “forever chemicals”?

ECHA’s PFAS restriction assessment is moving forward, with a final scientific opinion expected by the end of 2026. The widely anticipated proposal will determine the future of PFAS-use across Europe — potentially globally — and there’s already much buzz about how sweeping the decision from the Commission will be.

A strong proposal could lead to a new era of chemical innovation and a healthier world, while a weak decision (or a split among sectors and uses) will inevitably lead to the continued contamination from “forever chemicals.”

Could recycling lead to more toxic chemicals in products?

The Circular Economy Act is planned for adoption by the Commission in late 2026 with the intention of creating a single market for secondary raw materials and increase the supply of high-quality materials. Great in theory, but a much different story when considering how many harmful chemicals will get locked into use over time.

A circular economy can either multiply chemical pollution — or eliminate it. The Circular Economy Act will decide which path Europe takes.

How much longer will we see cancer-causing chemicals in our cosmetics?

Final negotiations regarding the cosmetics omnibus will also take place this year. This is not a new law, but a continuation of the omnibus tsunami that is cascading through the EU. Likely the final phase of negotiations between member states and the parliament, discussions will include decisions on scope, transition periods and exemptions.

The cosmetics omnibus will either align cosmetics — everything from lipstick to shampoo — with the rest of the Chemical Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) or further extend loopholes and dangers. If the restriction weakens, or even if transition periods are too long, we may continue to see carcinogenic substances in our cosmetics for years to come.

What will happen now that the world’s biggest chemical producer has announced a full PFAS exit?

BASF, the world’s biggest chemical producer, has announced a full phase out of PFAS by 2028. A move like this could have real consequences on businesses and a lasting impact on the global supply chain. Ecolab, a US-based chemical producer, recently announced the same thing — but on a much shorter timeline.

While there is still a long way to go, we may have just seen the first dominos fall in real time, and it will be important to keep an eye on how the markets react moving forward.

Bonus: hot new buzzwords we expect to hear more of

Proportionality: The idea that regulation should match risk — often used to argue that even the most dangerous chemicals deserve “a little more time.”

Balanced approach: A diplomatic way of saying “let’s compromise,” even when the chemistry doesn’t.

Simplification: Either cutting red tape — or cutting corners — depending on who’s holding the pen.

Trust-based regulation: When authorities trust companies to manage risks themselves, and hope nothing goes wrong (what’s the worst that could happen?).