23.06.2025 • Topics • Interview • ECHA • Climate protection

The Discussions are Constructive

The official meetings on the PFAS restriction proposal in the EU are making progress.

Two and a half years ago, five EU countries proposed to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to regulate all per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in the EU, including fluoropolymers. Juliane Glüge says that it is not yet clear when and in what form the restriction can be expected. As a representative of the European Chemical Society, she has been an observer in the ECHA committees discussing the restriction proposal and derogations from the outset.
She has now stepped down from this position for professional reasons. In the CHEManager interview with Uta Neubauer, she draws a positive interim conclusion.

Interview with Juliane Glüge, formerly ETH Zürich

CHEManager: The process initiated in the EU to regulate the entire PFAS class is running slowly. Are you frustrated that the process is taking so long?

Juliane Glüge: I am rather positive, because the way the proposal has been discussed so far is going in the right direction. The two ECHA committees [see infobox, page 9] are looking at the problem rationally, both in terms of the impact on the environment and the consequences for European competitiveness. The complexity of the problem and the amount of data require a certain amount of time.

For some use sectors - including cosmetics, ski wax and textiles - there are already preliminary opinions from the ECHA committees. What derogations are on the horizon?

J. Glüge: Unfortunately, I am not allowed to comment on specific derogations. What I can say, however, is that a third restriction option is currently being evaluated for some sectors. The first option is a total ban on all PFASs. The second option, which has been favoured so far, proposes derogations for certain uses, mostly limited in time. The third option, which is now also being examined in some cases, is about preventing emissions instead of banning PFASs completely in certain uses.

Is this new option an alternative to a ban?

J. Glüge: Yes, at least in some cases. This third option could be used if the socio-economic impact of banning a particular PFAS use is disproportionate, for example because there will be no technical alternative in the foreseeable future. Certain conditions would then have to be met in order to avoid emissions.