The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has reached a significant milestone in the regulatory process for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), with the publication of the final opinion of the Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) and the draft opinion of the Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC). These opinions represent a critical step toward a potential EU-wide restriction under the REACH Regulation.
Both committees support the need for harmonised action at EU level to address the risks posed by PFAS, highlighting the importance of preventing market fragmentation and ensuring a level playing field across Member States. However, their positions diverge on the proportionality of a full ban and the role of derogations.
RAC concludes that a full restriction without derogations constitutes the most effective option to minimise emissions and reduce risks to human health and the environment. The committee expresses strong concerns regarding continued uses under derogations, warning that they could lead to substantial and, in some cases, uncontrolled emissions of PFAS. RAC notably does not support several proposed derogations across key sectors, including metal plating, energy applications (such as batteries and fuel cells), transport (including mobile air conditioning), and certain uses in food contact materials and packaging.
To mitigate risks where derogations may be granted, RAC recommends the implementation of strict risk management measures. These include site-specific emission control plans, enhanced supply chain communication, mandatory reporting of emissions to ECHA, and clear labelling requirements for PFAS-containing substances, mixtures, and articles.
In contrast, SEAC considers that a full ban with a short transition period is unlikely to be proportionate, given the current lack of viable alternatives for several uses and the potentially significant socio-economic impacts. The committee therefore supports a restriction approach that includes targeted, time-limited derogations, provided these are justified by robust evidence and a balanced assessment of costs and benefits.
SEAC also highlights important data gaps and uncertainties, particularly regarding emissions, availability of alternatives, and overall compliance costs. As a result, it calls for further assessment in several sectors not yet fully evaluated and recommends interim derogations where necessary.
A 60-day public consultation on the draft SEAC opinion is currently open, allowing stakeholders to submit additional evidence. Following this phase, SEAC is expected to adopt its final opinion by the end of the year. The European Commission will then consider both committees’ opinions when preparing a legislative proposal for discussion and vote by the REACH Committee.
This development underscores the EU’s continued commitment to addressing PFAS as a group of persistent and hazardous substances, while balancing environmental objectives with socio-economic considerations.
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has reached a significant milestone in the regulatory process for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), with the publication of the final opinion of the Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) and the draft opinion of the Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC). These opinions represent a critical step toward a potential EU-wide restriction under the REACH Regulation.
Both committees support the need for harmonised action at EU level to address the risks posed by PFAS, highlighting the importance of preventing market fragmentation and ensuring a level playing field across Member States. However, their positions diverge on the proportionality of a full ban and the role of derogations.
RAC concludes that a full restriction without derogations constitutes the most effective option to minimise emissions and reduce risks to human health and the environment. The committee expresses strong concerns regarding continued uses under derogations, warning that they could lead to substantial and, in some cases, uncontrolled emissions of PFAS. RAC notably does not support several proposed derogations across key sectors, including metal plating, energy applications (such as batteries and fuel cells), transport (including mobile air conditioning), and certain uses in food contact materials and packaging.
To mitigate risks where derogations may be granted, RAC recommends the implementation of strict risk management measures. These include site-specific emission control plans, enhanced supply chain communication, mandatory reporting of emissions to ECHA, and clear labelling requirements for PFAS-containing substances, mixtures, and articles.
In contrast, SEAC considers that a full ban with a short transition period is unlikely to be proportionate, given the current lack of viable alternatives for several uses and the potentially significant socio-economic impacts. The committee therefore supports a restriction approach that includes targeted, time-limited derogations, provided these are justified by robust evidence and a balanced assessment of costs and benefits.
SEAC also highlights important data gaps and uncertainties, particularly regarding emissions, availability of alternatives, and overall compliance costs. As a result, it calls for further assessment in several sectors not yet fully evaluated and recommends interim derogations where necessary.
A 60-day public consultation on the draft SEAC opinion is currently open, allowing stakeholders to submit additional evidence. Following this phase, SEAC is expected to adopt its final opinion by the end of the year. The European Commission will then consider both committees’ opinions when preparing a legislative proposal for discussion and vote by the REACH Committee.
This development underscores the EU’s continued commitment to addressing PFAS as a group of persistent and hazardous substances, while balancing environmental objectives with socio-economic considerations.
