From ski wax to food wrappers, and nonstick cookware to semiconductors, the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals,” has spread widely thanks to their unique properties, such as the ability to repel water and oil.
These synthetic chemicals however, persist indefinitely in the environment, raising concerns about their ecological and health impacts, with evidence linking them to serious health issues, such as various types of cancer, high cholesterol, obesity, and thyroid disease.
The fast-changing regulatory landscape
Regulators have therefore taken action. The European Union currently has a consultation open for gathering and reviewing evidence on PFAS, which may eventually lead to tighter restrictions on industrial use and a total ban on their use within consumer goods. The US states of California, New York, Maine, and Washington are taking significant steps to address the PFAS problem, while in February 2024 the Biden-Harris administration finalized the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR). Alongside regulation, there have been significant legal challenges to the use of PFAS, with multiple companies found liable for their environmental damage. These successes dramatically increase the risk of future litigation for producers and downstream companies using materials containing PFAS.
The opportunity for innovation
The mounting pressure to regulate and replace PFAS also opens significant opportunities for innovation. Both established companies and new entrants are developing PFAS-free alternatives, pioneering cleaner business models and take-back schemes, and creating end-of-life treatment solutions for existing PFAS products.
The first step for companies that rely on PFAS is to understand whether these chemicals are essential to their operations. Under EU and other legislation, essential use cases, where viable substitutes are harder to find, are likely to be given longer timelines to transition and find new equivalent alternatives. For example, medical applications are more likely to receive a longer derogation than a company using PFAS to produce nonstick pans, which might only get a year after a ban is announced.
However, whether or not a specific application of PFAS is essential is a hot topic of debate and relying on this status is a risky strategy. Use cases considered essential today may not retain that status in the future, as alternatives emerge and become increasingly economically viable. Equally, even companies whose application of PFAS is deemed essential still face significant risk of reputational damage.
All of this means that many companies involved in non-essential PFAS applications are already shifting toward alternatives. Multiple global brands have either announced bans on PFAS or declared that their products are, in fact, PFAS-free. This transition faces a number of challenges:
Clarity on sunset dates. Uncertainty around regulatory timelines complicates effective planning for transitions.
Finding suitable alternatives. Developing alternatives (such as other chemical substances, alternative materials, product redesigns, process changes, and new technologies) that match performance can be technically challenging.
Pacing replacement material developments. The speed of new, safe alternatives may not keep up with regulatory pressures and market demands.
Cost considerations. Alternative materials may be more expensive, impacting product pricing and viability.
In the EU, more than 50% of annual PFAS production is tied to uses within consumer goods, such as apparel and food packaging, where alternatives are already available. Phasing out PFAS in these sectors could also lead to a significant reduction in emissions, highlighting a clear opportunity for companies to adopt safer and more sustainable materials.
How chemical companies can act now
Many companies, whether directly or indirectly through their suppliers, face significant risks related to “forever chemicals” usage, but early action can help turn risks into a competitive advantage.
The issue for many businesses is that PFAS exposure is an invisible threat. They may not always be aware of their own PFAS risks, as these chemicals can be embedded in components they source from third parties, and disclosure requirements are far from universal.
As awareness grows and regulations tighten, the question for businesses is no longer whether they should act, but how quickly can they adapt before getting disrupted by PFAS-free alternative solutions. Five critical questions can help organizations navigate this issue:
1. Do I have a PFAS problem in my portfolio? How big is it now? How big will it be tomorrow?
2. What do I do with existing products and solutions? Can I continue selling current products without incurring risks? How do I deal with the installed assets? Can I replace them profitably, by offering enhancements and an improved customer experience?”
3. Are there suitable and well-performing alternatives or solutions available, such as new safe molecules with similar properties? Is there a risk of disruption by PFAS-free solutions? Can I outsource a breakthrough development, for example, to a consortium?
4. What does PFAS exposure mean for my competitive position? Are there opportunities to improve it?
5. What targets and timelines should I establish? Should I be proactive or reactive? How should the transition be organized?
Making the shift away from PFAS
It is only a matter of time before more stringent PFAS restrictions are implemented globally. Manufacturers and brands must therefore be prepared to adapt their processes to meet new requirements across various applications. Key is to develop a comprehensive PFAS strategy, starting by assessing current exposure, and closely monitoring legislation. Then look for existing and emerging technologies that may help, invest in these alternatives and seize the dual opportunity to mitigate long-term risks and gain competitive advantage.
