The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has finally published the opinions of its scientific expert committees on the proposed universal restriction of PFAS – the group of more than 10,000 extremely persistent substances commonly known as “forever chemicals.”
The restriction proposal was prepared by authorities in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden and submitted to ECHA on 13 January 2023. Its objective is to reduce PFAS emissions into the environment and make products and industrial processes safer for people. A six-month public consultation on the proposal ran from 22 March to 25 September 2023.
After three years of scientific assessment, the public can finally see what the experts advise on how to regulate this vast group of man-made chemicals. Their evaluation will inform the work of the European Commission Directorate-General for Environment (DG ENV) and the European Commission Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW), which will draft the EU’s final restriction proposal and put for member states’ vote under the chemicals legislation REACH Regulation.
Before diving into the details, the key takeaway is clear: both expert committees agree that the risk of PFAS is not currently controlled well enough. This conclusion supports restricting PFAS under REACH as the most appropriate EU-wide action to address the risks these chemicals pose to human health and the environment.
The committees also consider the proposed restriction implementable, manageable and enforceable, although some details may require further guidance.
Let’s unveil the main conclusions from ECHA’s Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) and Socio-Economic Analysis Committee (SEAC).
RAC opinion: PFAS risks are not adequately controlled
The Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) adopted its final opinion following an evaluation covering 15 sector-specific uses, including PFAS production, as well as the overall conditions of the restriction.
The committee assessed the hazards of PFAS (i.e. the intrinsic properties), their uses and volumes, and the expected emissions linked to these uses.
Key conclusions by RAC:
- Grouping PFAS is scientifically justified, based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s(OECD) definition. This approach allows PFAS to be assessed as a group (rather than one by one) and includes substances such as fluoropolymers and fluorinated gases.
- All PFAS are hazardous because they are very persistent and they have other hazardous properties (such as mobility, bioaccumulation and/or toxicity) that vary among individual substances.
- There are no safe levels of emissions for substances like PFAS. Every emission contributes to the risks for human health and the environment.
- Risks from PFAS are currently not adequately controlled, meaning emissions must be minimised as much as possible. This applies as well for active substances in biocidal products, pesticides and medicines, that are currently not proposed to be restricted.
For this reason, RAC supports restricting the manufacture, use and sale of PFAS, ideally with as few time-limited derogations as possible. A restriction without derogations would be even more effective at reducing emissions.
If policymakers decide to allow derogations, RAC recommends additional measures such as monitoring emissions and collecting data on PFAS uses and volumes.
NGO perspective: limit derogations and phase out PFAS production
The EEB largely supports RAC’s opinion with a few limitations:
EEB find the proposed derogations for PFAS in recycled materials incompatible with the long-term goal of toxic-free material cycles and clean recycling. However, RAC considers it potentially justified from a practicality perspective and expects low emissions from this activity.
EEB further disagrees with the support for continued production of PFAS in the EU under emission limits. This is a very wrong signal as the aim of the restriction should be the phase out of all non-essential uses. Local communities would continue to be exposed to emissions and the incentive to phase out PFAS is weakened. Closures that took already place, like the PFAS production stop of 3M had partially this impact, leading to companies considering focussing on alternatives rather than continuing PFAS use.
SEAC draft opinion: EU-wide PFAS restriction is the most appropriate regulatory measure.
The Socio-Economic Analysis Committee (SEAC), which evaluates the socio-economic impacts of restrictions, agrees with RAC that an EU-wide PFAS restriction under REACH is the most appropriate regulatory measure.
However, SEAC concludes that more information is needed before determining appropriate transition periods for different sectors to ensure proportionality.
Specifically, the committee needs better data on:
- the availability of alternatives to PFAS,
- the costs of phasing out PFAS across different sectors,
- the broader economic impacts of the restriction.
Key conclusions by SEAC:
SEAC notes that limited data provided by industry creates significant uncertainty in its analysis. As a result, it cannot yet conclude whether the proposed derogations are sufficient or appropriate.
The committee therefore hopes that the upcoming 60-day consultation on its draft opinion will help fill these data gaps.
SEAC also recommends assessing eight additional sectors that were added later to the restriction dossier as soon as possible. Until this analysis is completed, these sectors may receive time-limited derogations.
NGO perspective: data gaps should not delay action
Environmental NGOs are calling on the European Commission to prioritise the protection of citizens and the environment.
The scientific evidence clearly shows that Europe is facing an uncontrolled PFAS pollution problem. EEB warns that withholding information or delaying data collection should not be rewarded with broad derogations.
Wide or unjustified exemptions risk penalising companies that have already invested in safer alternatives while benefiting those that have delayed action.
For this reason, NGOs urge policymakers to adopt a strong PFAS restriction with few and strictly time-limited derogations and apply the precautionary principle to address remaining uncertainties.
What happens next?
SEAC’s draft opinion will now be subject to a 60-day public consultation, during which stakeholders can submit additional evidence on the availability of alternatives and the costs of phasing out PFAS.
This information will help policymakers determine when and how PFAS can be phased out across sectors.
SEAC is expected to adopt its final opinion by the end of 2026. Together with RAC’s final opinion, this will conclude ECHA’s scientific evaluation of the PFAS restriction proposal.
The opinions will then be submitted to the European Commission, which will prepare a legislative proposal for discussion and vote by EU Member States in the REACH Committee.
