Restriction can sound a lot like red tape, yet it can mean quite the opposite. How a comprehensive EU Restriction on PFAS will hasten innovation for safer alternatives and bring certainty to the market actors we explain below.
Introduction
Ursula von der Leyen is confirmed the new President of the European Commission and shared with the public political guidelines as her vision for the new Commission’s work for the next five years. A word that stands out a lot is ‘innovation’.
This vision reiterates how innovation has always played an important role in Europe, and thus must be ‘at the heart of our economy’ for Europe’s prosperity. Innovation is needed for the EU’s competition, and must be supported, especially frontrunners, by setting the right incentives. This includes higher research spendings, providing the right infrastructure and laboratories.
All this is easily forgotten, and innovation is taking the backseat in the public debate about moving away from PFAS. Frontrunners and innovators of PFAS-free alternatives don’t get the stage, but instead laggards in the transition take the stage. We should focus on the story of the successful transition that started a while ago when regulations on the most harmful PFAS substances started.
The transition is in full swing
As awareness grew over the last twenty-five years about the impact from global PFAS pollution, business have reacted. Prior to its submission to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the countries preparing the restriction dossier conducted a multi-year investigation on the uses of PFAS, their function, volumes and of the availability of substitutes for all identified PFAS uses. The result is a detailed assessment of substitutes already on the market along with specific time-limited derogations of 5 or 12 years for transitioning to PFAS-free alternatives where substitutes are in early stages of development or do not currently exist.[1]
Innovators, brands, and retailers have made great strides in researching and transitioning to safer PFAS-free alternatives in refrigeration, heat pumps, food packaging, firefighting foam, cookware, apparel, cleaners, degreasers, and coatings. The transition to PFAS-free alternatives for semiconductors, hydrogen production, and EV batteries demonstrates how companies in sectors relevant for the green transition are contributing to climate solutions while reducing their chemical footprint, with more innovation to come.
Some of the leading PFAS researchers on PFAS, Scheringer, Cousins and Goldenman even see this development a ‘seismic shift’ as they witness “[f]rom conversations with representatives of the fluorochemical industry and of large brands of consumer products; from recent statements made in the general discussion among industry, consumer groups, environmental NGOs, and academic scientists; from various analyses of the availability of alternatives to PFASs in many use areas, including our own work; and from the decision of a major PFAS manufacturer (3M) to leave entirely the production of PFAS, we conclude that in many PFAS use areas, the transition to nonfluorinated alternatives is underway and is gaining more and more momentum”.[2] They call it a seismic shift, since not long ago, regrettable substitution from one harmful PFAS to another PFAS was still common practise.
Companies want certainty, investors support change
Brands, retailers and investors require regulatory certainty to reduce their long-term business and financial risk, particularly around the use of substances that are essential to their investments.[3] [4] That is why the EU Restriction on PFAS must be adopted. It is a critical tool to level the playing field, bring certainty to financial markets and hasten innovation for more PFAS-free manufacturing and products.
Industry front-runners recognize the importance of regulation in their efforts to remove substances of concern from their product line. Apple, a leader in materials innovation, is methodically phasing out all PFAS in their global supply chain, and leveraging the time-limited status of the exemptions to expedite research into alternatives. Apple felt it important to broaden their scope to consider the manufacturing of fluoropolymers, which is the highest use volume in their products.[5] The launch of the Safer Chemistry Impact Fund with seed investments from Apple and Google was established to speed innovation for healthier substances in global supply chains.[6]
Many brands and retailers have already made great strides in researching and switching to safer PFAS-free alternatives in refrigeration, heat pumps, air conditioning, food packaging, firefighting foam, electronics, cookware, apparel, furniture and fabrics, cleaners and degreasers, and coatings.[7] [8] [9] Companies transitioning to PFAS-free alternatives for semiconductors,[10] hydrogen production[11]and EV batteries[12] demonstrates how companies are reducing their chemical and carbon footprint with more innovation to come[13] while it is noted that PFAS-free lithium batteries for energy storage have been in existence for over a decade.[14]
ChemTrusts new FAQ tells you more about PFAS and the green transition answering your questions like ‘Can a green transition be PFAS-free?’ Spoiler alert, yes it can.
- PFAS-free alternatives are either already available or are up and coming in all the green transition technologies the industry claims PFAS are necessary.
- Read there more about the innovation allowing to move away from PFAS uses in wind turbines, solar cells, semi-conductors etc.
Also, follow ChemSec’s webinar series ‘Beyond PFAS: The Safer Alternatives’ covering F-gases, solar-panels, technical textiles and more, presenting the newest innovation on PFAS alternatives
European investment firms representing $8tn in assets have pressured chemical companies to end production of PFAS “forever chemicals”, which shareholders say represent an enormous and growing threat to manufacturers’ bottom lines.[15] Investors cite the growing litigation brought against PFAS manufacturers, the ever-increasing regulation that imposes strict limits on the chemicals’ use, and the evident public health threat.[16]
Read more in ChemSec’s article on investors asking for a PFAS ban: Investors with $8 trillion call for phase-out of dangerous “forever chemicals”
In a letter to CEOs of the biggest chemical companies coordinated by Aviva Investors and Storebrand Asset Management, they wrote:
“We encourage you to lead, not be led, by phasing out and substituting these chemicals. In addition to the financial risks associated with litigation, producers of persistent chemicals face the risk of increased costs associated with reformulating products and modifying processes, which can have significant implications for company performance.”
In December 2022, 3M announced it will exit PFAS manufacturing, including fluoropolymers, and work to discontinue the use of PFAS across its product portfolio by the end of 2025, stating its decision is based on multiple factors such as accelerating regulatory and changing stakeholder expectations.[17]
The scientists Ateia from the US and Scheringer from the EU manages expectations: transition takes time and that we need compromises:
“With collaborative research and development, performance gaps will narrow over time, just as they have for many other regulated chemicals. Meanwhile, uses where adequate substitutes already exist should transition rapidly. Remaining applications can buy time through risk-reduction measures while innovation occurs. Continuing the widespread use of PFAS can no longer be justified given the consequences. Moving forward will take open-minded problem-solving and willingness to accept a diversity of different solutions.”[18]
That is why the EU Restriction on PFAS must be adopted. It is a thoughtful and critical tool to level the playing field, bring certainty to financial markets and hasten more innovation for PFAS-free manufacturing and products in Europe.
[1] ECHA. ANNEX XV RESTRICTION REPORT. VERSION NUMBER: 2. DATE: 22.03.2023. Table 9. RO2 – Summary table of derogations (‘proposed’ or ‘for reconsideration’) for PFAS manufacture and major PFAS use sectors, with substantiation for the derogation period (5 or 12 years) and with cost impacts for the 5 and 12 year derogation periods.
[2] Scheringer et at. (2024) Is a Seismic Shift in the Landscape of PFAS Uses Occurring?; Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 58, 16, 6843–6845 ; https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c01947
[3] Study on the Impacts of REACH Authorisation. Final Report Nov 2017. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/26847
[4] Why investors should support the transition to safe and sustainable chemicals. BNP Paribas Asset Management. Feb 27, 2024. https://viewpoint.bnpparibas-am.com/why-investors-should-support-the-transition-to-safe-and-sustainable-chemicals/
[5] Apple’s commitment to phasing out per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) November 2022. https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_PFAS_Commitment_November-2022.pdf
[6] Safer Chemistry Impact Fund launches to eliminate the use of hazardous chemicals. Feb 28, 2024. https://www.saferchemistryimpactfund.org/news/safer-chemistry-impact-fund-launches
[7] Natural Refrigerants: State of the Industry. Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration in Europe, North America and Japan. 2022 Edition. Atmosphere. https://atmosphere.cool/marketreport-2022/
[8] PFAS-free Central. Green Science Policy Institute. https://pfascentral.org/pfas-free-products/
[9] GreenScreen Certified. https://www.greenscreenchemicals.org/certified
[10] Sharma et al (2023) Safer and effective alternatives to perfluoroalkyl-based surfactants in etching solutions for the semiconductor industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 415, 137879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137879
[11] (Hydrogen production) Fraunhofer IAP, July 2023. Novel anion-conducting membranes for electrolysis. https://www.iap.fraunhofer.de/en/press_releases/2023/novel-anion-conducting-membranes-for-electrolysis.html
[12] The GM-Backed Company Ridding EV Batteries of Harmful ‘Forever Chemicals’ – Nanoramic Laboratories’ CEO Eric Kish. Aug 21 2023. https://www.autofutures.tv/topics/the-gm-backed-company-ridding-ev-batteries-of-harmful–forever-chemicals—-nanoramic-laboratories–/s/89553c6d-b997-4bc5-9db9-08c2cbd09689
[13] Implementation of bio-material as sustainable binder system for PFAS free lithium-ion battery industry. Vinnova. https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/implementation-of-bio-material-as-sustainable-binder-system-for-pfas-free-lithium-ion-battery-industry/
[14] Leclanché ready for PFAS restrictions in Europe thanks to its water-based cell production. 20.10.2023. https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/leclanche-ready-for-pfas-restrictions-in-europe-thanks-to-its-water-based-cell-production/
[15] Investors with $8 trillion call for phase-out of dangerous “forever chemicals”. 20 Nov 2022. Chemsec. https://chemsec.org/investors-with-8-trillion-call-for-phase-out-of-dangerous-forever-chemicals/
[16] Investors pressure top firms to halt production of toxic ‘forever chemicals’. The Guardian. 6 Jan 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/06/pfas-toxic-forever-chemicals-manufacturers
[17] 3M to Exit PFAS Manufacturing by the End of 2025. 3M News Center. Dec 20, 2022. https://news.3m.com/2022-12-20-3M-to-Exit-PFAS-Manufacturing-by-the-End-of-2025
[18] Ateia & Scheringer (2024) From “forever chemicals”to fluorine-free. ScienceVolume 385, Issue 6706. https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.ado5019
