Skip to main content
BoF Logo

The Business of Fashion

Agenda-setting intelligence, analysis and advice for the global fashion community.

EU Considers Ban on ‘Forever Chemicals’, Urges Search for Alternatives

The five countries — Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and non-EU state Norway — which have been collaborating on the proposal said in a joint statement that, if passed, it would become “one of the largest bans on chemical substances ever in Europe”.
The European Union flags.
The European Union have started to consider a proposal to ban widely used substances known as “forever chemicals” in what could become the bloc’s most extensive piece of regulation of the chemical industry. (Shutterstock)

The European Union on Tuesday started to consider a proposal to ban widely used substances known as PFAS or “forever chemicals” in what could become the bloc’s most extensive piece of regulation of the chemical industry.

The substances have been used in tens of thousands of products, including aircraft, cars, textiles, medical gear and wind mills due to their long-term resistance to extreme temperatures and corrosion, but PFAS have also been linked to health risks like cancer, hormonal dysfunction and a weakened immune system as well as environmental damage.

The five countries — Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and non-EU state Norway — which have been collaborating on the proposal said in a joint statement that, if passed, it would become “one of the largest bans on chemical substances ever in Europe”.

“A ban on PFAS would reduce quantities of PFAS in the environment over the long term. It would also make products and processes safer for humans,” they added.

ADVERTISEMENT

Companies will be given between 18 months to 12 years to introduce alternatives substances, depending on the application and availability of alternatives, according to the draft proposal.

Makers and users of PFAS, which have formed a lobby subgroup under the European chemical makers’ association CEFIC, include BASF, 3M, Bayer, Solvay, Merck KGaA and Synthomer.

“In many cases, no such alternatives currently exist, and in some they possibly never will,” the five countries said in their statement, adding that companies now need to start to find substitutes.

The moniker “forever chemicals” stems from their ability to accumulate in water and soils because they do not decompose as a result of an extremely strong bond between carbon and fluorine atoms that characterise them.

It will likely take years before the ban takes effect.

Within the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), two scientific committees for Risk Assessment (RAC) and for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) will now review whether the proposal conforms with wider EU regulation of chemicals known as REACH, followed by a scientific evaluation and consultation with the industry.

ECHA has said that the two committees may need longer than the usual 12 months to conclude their evaluation. Afterwards, the European Commission and EU member states will decide on potential restrictions.

In other regions, initiatives to restrict PFAS are also underway. US industrial conglomerate 3M Co in December set itself a 2025 deadline to stop producing them.

ADVERTISEMENT

In November, 3M and DuPont de Nemours Inc were among several companies sued by California’s attorney general to recover clean-up costs.

Shareholders have also called for production of the chemicals to stop. Investors managing $8 trillion in assets earlier this year wrote to 54 companies urging them to phase out their use.

In August, the United States government said it will propose designating certain forever chemicals as hazardous substances under the US Superfund programme.

DuPont has said it was limiting the use of PFAS to “essential industrial applications” and working with customers to pursue alternatives.

Between 140,000 and 310,000 tonnes of PFASs were sold in European markets in 2020, and the overall annual health costs from exposure to PFAS in Europe has been estimated to be 52 billion-€84 billion ($55.72 billion-$90.01 billion), according to the draft.

By Ludwig Burger; Editor: Susan Fenton

Learn more:

The Multi-Billion-Dollar Question for Sustainable Fashion

How to best spend the large sums it will take to cut the fashion industry’s carbon emissions? The Apparel Impact Institute is launching a pre-vetted portfolio of climate solutions in an effort to better direct investment.

In This Article

© 2024 The Business of Fashion. All rights reserved. For more information read our Terms & Conditions

More from Sustainability
How fashion can do better for people and the planet.

Fashion’s Virgin Plastic Problem

The industry needs to ditch its reliance on fossil-fuel-based materials like polyester in order to meet climate targets, according to a new report from Textile Exchange.


Are H&M and Zara Harming Forests in Brazil?

Cotton linked to environmental and human rights abuses in Brazil is leaking into the supply chains of major fashion brands, a new investigation has found, prompting Zara-owner Inditex to send a scathing rebuke to the industry’s biggest sustainable cotton certifier.


Is April Still the Greenwashiest Month?

Over the last few years, the run-up to Earth Day has become a marketing frenzy. But a crackdown on greenwashing may be changing the way brands approach their communications strategies.


view more

Subscribe to the BoF Daily Digest

The essential daily round-up of fashion news, analysis, and breaking news alerts.

The Business of Fashion

Agenda-setting intelligence, analysis and advice for the global fashion community.
CONNECT WITH US ON
The Business of Beauty Global Awards - Deadline 30 April 2024
© 2024 The Business of Fashion. All rights reserved. For more information read our Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Cookie Policy and Accessibility Statement.
The Business of Beauty Global Awards - Deadline 30 April 2024