Es is the most extensive application for the re-evaluation of chemicals since the European chemicals regulation REACH came into force 15 years ago. The focus is on the so-called per- and polyfluorinated alkyl compounds (PFAS for short), which can be found in countless everyday products – from paper, packaging, cleaning agents, creams, cosmetics, wall paints to ski wax, functional clothing and frying pans. This group of substances, which includes around ten thousand compounds, is also of great importance in industry, where many of these substances are used as lubricants, oils, non-stick coatings or coolants. PFAS are also required for the production of lithium-ion batteries and computer chips. An estimated 300,000 tonnes of these chemicals are produced and processed in the EU each year. But PFAS have long been on the red lists of many toxicologists and environmental chemists. Because the long-lived and persistent perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl compounds can accumulate in the environment and in the human body and are suspected of damaging the hormone and immune systems in certain concentrations.
But now the manufacture, distribution, use and import of PFAS, often referred to as “forever chemicals”, could be completely banned in Europe. Specialist authorities in several EU countries, including Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BFR), the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) and the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), have drawn up a comprehensive dossier and submitted a corresponding application to the EU chemicals agency ECHA placed in Helsinki. By March, the ECHA now wants to examine whether the general ban on PFAS is compatible with the applicable EU chemicals legislation. If so, the application will be scientifically examined. This usually takes about a year. Then the EU Commission and the EU states decide on possible restrictions. This could happen in 2025.
The motion, if accepted, would ban the entire class of substances – so far, only individual substances that have been shown to have negative effects have been regulated and banned in the REACH approval and evaluation process. The use of perflurooctanoic acid (PFOA) is now banned and the use of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) is only permitted in a few areas. For most of the PFAS, however, the risks from production and use have not been controlled so far. A general ban would also affect Teflon and Goretex. Some PFAS have been in use for 70 years.
Bans do not necessarily take effect immediately
If the applicants have their way, there should be a graduated ban. First of all, PFAS are to be banned immediately, for which alternatives already exist today. The manufacturers should be given 18 months to make the changeover. If there are no substitutes yet, the industry should be given five years to make the changeover. And even twelve years in cases where lengthy approval and certification processes are common.
The German “Science Media Center” has now asked some scientists for their assessment. The marine researcher Rainer Lohmann from the University of Rhode Island in Kingston welcomes the proposal “because it actually gets to the root of the problem and would ensure a total end to PFAS, albeit up to twelve years late.” There, where alternatives are available or the use is not essential, a ban would take effect quickly and ensure a noticeable reduction in the burden of household goods. “However, a ban comes too late to reduce European exposure to PFAS in the food chain. That will only happen through natural, slower processes.”
A foam of alkyl compounds discovered at Van Etten Creek in Michigan
:
Image: AP
In his opinion, it is of course possible that the replacement of PFAS could lead to the use of other, similarly harmful chemicals. In general, however, there are few chemicals that are as persistent as PFAS. “Here it is important that the manufacturers also consider non-chemical solutions – a Teflon pan can also be replaced by one with a ceramic coating.” Some manufacturers are already advertising PFAS-free water-repellent outdoor clothing. However, the materials used can hardly compete with Goretex. On the other hand, water- and grease-repellent boxes and disposable cups for food could quickly be dispensed with.