Forever chemicals.

The squeeze to get rid of ‘forever chemicals’

EU countries want to phase out the chemicals — but industry is warning against a broad ban.

BY LEONIE CATER

Pressure is growing on the EU to ensure a group of highly persistent substances known as "forever chemicals" — used in everything from cookware to paints and clothes — is forever banned from the bloc.

The timeline is getting tight. On Sunday, a call for evidence as part of the restriction procedure closes at midnight — part of a process that could see the chemicals banned within four years.

"Time is finally running out for 'forever chemicals,'" the nonprofit ChemSec said.

The effort — spearheaded by Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Denmark — would target some 6,000 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) at once, in what the countries described as "the most extensive and complex restriction to date."

But the prospect of a widespread EU ban is worrying the chemicals industry, which insists it would cast too wide a net and target a clutch of chemicals that have not been proven to be harmful and for which there is not yet a viable alternative.

PFAS substances, which don't break down naturally, have been shown to accumulate in the environment and cause a host of health conditions, including cancer, liver damage and decreased fertility. Data from the U.S. Environment Protection Agency also showed that their production releases potent greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

If the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) adopts the restriction proposal, manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers would be banned from using most PFAS, with the exception of some that are seen as essential.

Following the expiry of the call for evidence, the proposal is expected to be submitted in July 2022, after which the EU agency will perform both a social-economic and a risk assessment of the proposal. A final agreement by EU countries could come by 2025.

Bans gain traction

Heightened concern about the substances' toxicity has pushed the topic up the agenda.

In Belgium, an inquiry is underway into whether previous and current top government officials turned a blind eye to PFAS pollution in Flanders. In Italy, the now-bankrupt chemicals company Miteni is on trial for allegedly exposing people to the contaminants and causing one of Europe’s biggest PFAS-related environmental disaster.

A recent study by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment suggested that some population groups in Germany are ingesting too much PFAS — to toxic effect.

There is growing consensus among countries for a bloc-wide ban, according to Audun Heggelund, a senior adviser at the Norwegian Environment Agency.

Earlier this month, a group of 11 countries called on the European Commission to pay "special attention" to eliminating them from the manufacture of clothing in its upcoming EU Textiles Strategy. And at a meeting of environment ministers in Luxembourg, several representatives pushed for "coordinated action" to phase them out.

"These substances do present a real danger for the European population as well as our environment," said Fabrice Dubreuil, France's deputy permanent representative. He said the use of the substances should be limited to “absolutely essential” purposes.

The substances will also be targeted in the Commission's Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability next year. The EU has already announced a ban on 200 PFAS subgroups in September, which will apply from February 2023.

Industry resistance

Manufacturers and producers of PFAS are pushing back against the proposal for a broad ban.

This summer, the European Chemical Industry Council launched its first PFAS-specific sector group — the Fluorinated Products and PFAS for Europe (FPP4EU) — with a warning that it is "not clear how it will be possible to group PFAS adequately for restriction" and that "no alternatives exist yet" for substituting PFAS chemicals in some applications.

"The grouping paradigm should avoid restricting all PFAS simply for being ‘part of the group’ if some of them do not pose any unacceptable risk," it said. "Losing safe and valuable chemicals in useful applications should be avoided."

Now, FPP4EU — which represents the likes of 3M, Bayer, Chemours, Exxonmobil Petroleum, Chemical BV and DuPont — is calling for "a series of technical workshops and dialogues" between EU bodies and the industry to discuss the issue and come up with "a more effective strategy," it told POLITICO via email.

Chemical company Chemours has argued that the restriction proposal "ignores the safety profile, critical uses and existing regulatory frameworks for particular substances" — a sentiment echoed by the Consumer Choice Center, an advocacy group that is backed by British American Tobacco, the Electric Handdryer Association and Japan Tobacco International, in an op-ed published this week.

A Dutch association representing 400 refrigeration and air conditioning companies also warned that a blanket ban could target HFC and HFO fluorocarbons — refrigerants that it says "disintegrate relatively quickly into substances that also occur in nature" and are "much less persistent" than many other PFAS.

The effort could even undermine the EU's Green Deal goals, said Nicolas Robin, director of the Fluoropolymers Product Group at industry lobby PlasticsEurope, as fluoropolymers are commonly used in the construction of electric vehicles, wind turbines and PV panels.

But assessing the various subgroups of PFAS one by one isn't an option, NGOs and experts say.

It's an approach that would be "extremely time-consuming or even impossible," said Heggelund, from the Norwegian Environment Agency.

It also risks creating too many loopholes, he added: "Companies could end up simply substituting one PFAS that is regulated with a different PFAS with almost the same properties and the same harmful effects in the environment as well."

Chemours, for example, has gone to court to argue that its so-called GenX chemicals — which it developed in the wake of a phaseout of another kind of PFAS chemical — should not be classified as a substance of very high concern, in defiance of an EU decision from 2019. The Court of Justice of the EU is expected to hand down a judgment in early 2022.

The consultation closing on Sunday will "help shape the restriction, including derogations," said Anna Lennquist, senior toxicologist at ChemSec, warning that the restriction risks being "watered down with derogations and high limit values."

"The broad restriction is really what is needed," she added.