The proposal by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to ban over 12,000 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has sparked a debate about potential consequences for the economy, industry, and the environment. Although some PFAS are known to be harmful, a blanket ban may lead to significant problems in attempting to replace PFAS-based materials for environmental transition, as well as in medical devices and everyday products. Alternative materials may potentially be less safe, as a rush to replace PFAS would reduce the time needed for toxicological analyses. Studies have shown that PFAS exhibit a diverse range of mechanisms of action, biopersistence, and bioaccumulation potential, and should thus not be treated as a single group. This is particularly true for the class of fluoropolymers. A targeted approach that considers the specific risks and benefits of each chemical may be more effective. Moreover, the proposed ban may also have unintended consequences for the environment as PFAS use is also associated with benefits such as reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and improving energy efficiency. Policymakers must carefully weigh up the potential consequences before making a final decision on the ban.
Keywords: ECHA; PFAS; health; perfluoroalkyl; pollution; polyfluoroalkyl.