It’s the moment you suddenly realise how AI could either eliminate your job or give you 10 extra brains. Possibly both. It’s called an “AI shock”. It’s happening to people across the world.

Europeans experienced a PFAS shock at the end of March. It was the moment we understood there WILL be a universal ban on forever chemicals. Exactly what shape it will take is still up for grabs. But it’s going to happen. The PFAS shock marks the beginning of the end for forever chemicals in Europe.

Things got real when the European Chemicals Agency, ECHA, published two reports. These were the final, or nearly final*, opinions of two of its committees, those for risk analysis (RAC) and for socio-economic analysis (SEAC).

For three years, these experts – hundreds of them, if we include observers – have worked through thousands of pages of technical documents to advise what to do about PFAS. And now we know.

This is a milestone. A turning point.

Beginning of the end for PFAS in Europe

Both expert committees agreed the following:

• A ban is essential: Continued emissions will mean PFAS levels are reached where adverse effects are likely. PFAS have already led to irreversible adverse effects on the environment and human health. They have given rise to significant costs. Current releases of PFAS will be a source of exposure for generations. The proposed restriction would lead to “manifold benefits” including reduced health and environmental impacts and clean-up costs, SEAC said. With PFAS, there are no safe levels, said the RAC: “The very persistent property of PFAS in combination with other … hazards present grounds for a significant concern for human health and for the environment.”
• It is the most sensible approach: A broad restriction under REACH “is the most appropriate risk management option” to address these risks, said SEAC. It will prevent substitution by other PFAS, which has been the case until now. It will also prevent future exposure to new PFAS that are not currently in use.
• It is fair and just: Such a broad restriction can take into account proportionality, costs and benefits, the committees said.
• The ban will work: It is “implementable, manageable and enforceable”, they said. The committees both agreed a broad ban is the most appropriate action to protect human health and the environment.

SEAC concluded a ban with use-specific “derogations” – time-limited exceptions – is the most appropriate way forward. However, the longer and more numerous these derogations, the greater the future burden of PFAS will be.

ChemSec agrees that certain derogations are necessary to enable the transition to PFAS-free alternatives. But we strongly believe these should be kept to an absolute minimum. Any derogation should be time-limited, use specific and narrow, and may be justified only if PFAS is critical for society in that use. There is now a public consultation period until May 25.

You can read the RAC opinion here, and SEAC’s draft opinion here, and join the public consultation here.

Derogations should be as few, narrow
and short as possible

Industry and the PFAS shock

Some industry groups appeared surprised by the committees’ conclusions – and not in a good way. “The opinions expressed today by the ECHA are alarming,” said the head of the EFPIA, representing the pharmaceutical sector in Europe.

More significant, perhaps, is that the main industry lobby groups which have fought the PFAS restriction have stayed silent in public, both on their websites and LInkedIn. Chemours (PFAS producer), Cefic (the main industry lobby), Recharge (the battery industry), Plastics Europe (needs no introduction), have said nothing publicly.

During the consultation period in 2023, these and other organisations warned a ban on PFAS would be catastrophic. It would “de-industrialise” the continent, “undermine decades of progress”, lead to “millions of job losses”, and be “nothing short of a catastrophe for the EU economy”. Others predicted the “collapse of the whole social infrastructure”, “famine”, “dramatic socio-economic dismantling”, and so on, and so on.

Possibly these organisations will repeat their dire predictions during the new consultation phase. Their public silence so far, however, suggests they may already understand the debate has moved on. It is the beginning of the end for forever chemicals in Europe. This is not a question of if a ban will happen, but how to make it work. Scaremongering about Doomsday is no longer so effective.

There is work to be done

It is the beginning of the end for forever chemicals in Europe. But SEAC’s opinion is provisional. There is still time to improve it.

SEAC assessed the proposed time-limited derogations for specific PFAS uses, and found many of them to be justified. But it did not evaluate the eight sectors added last summer by the EU Member States that are proposing the ban. SEAC says these require “detailed evaluation” as soon as possible despite that dossier submitters had already done work on (some of) them. This evaluation must be made, so all sectors are brought within the restriction framework.

Some of the proposed derogations reveal that SEAC is not up to date with available alternatives or (more likely) has been misinformed by industry. A good example is refrigerants, for which natural alternatives are broadly available for cooling and heating.

Derogations are a necessary evil. They should be as few as possible, focused as narrowly as possible on specific uses, and with the shortest possible time limits. This is what will push the needed innovation and transition to safer alternatives. This in turn will ensure European industry’s competitiveness in a world that will have to deal with the PFAS crises. The European Commission has a duty to pursue a broad PFAS restriction that will signal the beginning of the end of PFAS in Europe.

* SEAC’s report is a draft opinion, not its final one.