EU: New warning signs in the proposed PFAS restriction

In recent weeks, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) released an update to its dossier on the restriction of per- and polyfluoroalkyl compounds (PFAS) in the European Union. While the regulatory effort aims to control one of the most persistent and concerning chemical groups from an environmental and health perspective, the document contains a series of critical points that merit special attention from academics, regulators, and those interested in green chemistry and innovation.

Below, we analyze five problematic aspects (“red flags”) that emerge from the revised text, as well as their implications for regulation, industry, and sustainability.

Table of contents

• 1. Comprehensive restrictions are urgently needed—but is this a practical reality?

• 2. Leaks to export: export as an escape route

• 3. Excessive focus on industrial emissions control

• 4. Too many exceptions and diluted extensions

• 5. Poor promotion of innovation as a driver of transition

• Implications and recommendations for the future

EU: New warning signs in the proposed PFAS restriction

1. Comprehensive restrictions are urgently needed—but is this a practical reality?

The new version of the dossier clearly underscores the "urgent need to minimize" the production and use of PFAS, as their persistence in the environment poses a threat of irreversible damage to future generations. This urgency reinforces the argument that partial measures are not enough.

However, translating this ambitious vision of role into practical and effective regulation presents technical, legal, and operational challenges: how to define the scope, timeframes, and control mechanisms that are operational in the industry without creating interpretative gaps?

2. Leaks to export: export as an escape route

One of the most controversial points of the revised document is the possibility for European producers to continue manufacturing PFAS for countries outside the European Economic Area (EEA), without restrictions on their use. This provision allows the substances to continue being produced for export without any evaluation of their subsequent use.

This type of exemption undermines the restriction's central purpose: to "turn off the tap" on PFAS. If production continues for external markets, the global environmental impact—and the EU's indirect liability—could continue to grow.

3. Excessive focus on industrial emissions control

The recent record continues to favor regulating emissions in the manufacturing process as the preferred mitigation method. However, historical experience shows that this approach is insufficient. Control measures fail to prevent all leakage or the externalities of associated pollution—such as environmental migration, leaching, or atmospheric transport.

Furthermore, this strategy can entail high infrastructure costs (underground walls, capture systems, continuous monitoring) that many companies are not yet prepared to assume.

4. Too many exceptions and diluted extensions

One of the document's most notable weaknesses is the proliferation of long-term exemptions for specific uses of PFAS. With a total of 86 derogations contemplated, some even without a time limit, the regulatory effect is weakened.

For example, the "wire and cable" category could benefit from a 13.5-year exception, which would perpetuate the use of PFAS in a key sector with no clear motivation for rapid substitution. These time gaps are in direct conflict with the urgency declared in the dossier itself.

5. Poor promotion of innovation as a driver of transition

Although multiple less hazardous alternatives to PFAS have emerged in recent years, the revised text lacks clear signals to encourage innovation. Regulation should be aligned with incentives (financial, fiscal, or regulatory) that encourage the gradual substitution of safer technologies.

Without this dual approach—control and incentives for innovation—the restriction risks limiting European competitiveness by penalizing use without facilitating the shift toward viable solutions.

Implications and recommendations for the future

The updated PFAS dossier represents a significant—and necessary—regulatory advance, but its effectiveness will depend largely on the final design of the restriction. To ensure the regulations are not distorted, it is necessary to:

1. Closing export loopholes that allow unlimited production outside the EEA.

2. Reduce the number and scope of exemptions , especially those with long terms.

3. Combine control with incentives for innovation , so that viable alternatives gain ground quickly.

4. Ensure mechanisms for periodic review of available limits and techniques (principle of best available techniques).

5. Articulate a regulatory strategy that not only curbs the use of PFAS but also promotes a more sustainable chemical economy in Europe.

The transition to effective and holistic regulation of PFAS could become a milestone in European chemical policy. But only if the "grand goal" is not diluted by lax clauses, lengthy exemptions, and a lack of real incentives for change.

Contact our team of experts in cosmetic regulation today.