European Chemicals Agency responds to scrutiny over new PFAS phase-out plan

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has updated its PFAS restriction process by leaving out eight sectors, partially related to packaging. The international non-profit organization ChemSec says ECHA’s decision could disturb the EU’s Chemicals Industry Action Plan’s efforts to ban PFAS.

The eight excluded sectors are: printing, sealing, machinery, explosives, military, technical textiles, broader industrial uses, and medical applications. Due to time constraints, scientific committees for Risk Assessment (RAC) and Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) will not conduct sector-specific evaluations for the eight additional sectors.

“ECHA’s committees will provide opinions covering both general aspects and approaches of the restriction as well as sector-specific evaluations on the 14 sectors that were included in the original restriction proposal, plus PFAS manufacturing,” an ECHA spokesperson tells Packaging Insights.

These 14 sectors are: ski wax, consumer mixtures and miscellaneous consumer articles, cosmetics, metal plating and manufacture of metal products, food contact materials and packaging, TULAC (textiles, upholstery, leather, apparel and carpets), petroleum and mining, construction products, applications of fluorinated gases, transport, energy, medical devices, lubricants, electronics, and semi-conductors.

“At this stage, the committees will not conduct separate evaluations for the additional eight sectors. However, their assessments of cross-cutting issues — such as concentration limits above which PFAS will be restricted, hazard assessments, and general risk management measures to monitor and reduce environmental emissions — will apply to all sectors and uses,” the spokesperson adds.

Additional sector assessment

ECHA denies ChemSec’s assertion that the eight sectors not included in its new restriction process represent a “split” from the EU’s established plan to tackle PFAS pollution. 

ECHA’s proposal is likely to impact EU packagers’ involved with printing, sealing, machinery, among other sectors.“ECHA has not split the restriction proposal. The scope of the restriction is based on the proposal prepared by national authorities, and it includes the original 14 sectors, PFAS manufacturing, and eight additional sectors that were assessed by them, based on the information received during the six-month consultation on the proposal.”

Theresa Kjell, head of policy at ChemSec, responds: “The eight sectors are not new. They are modifications of the original proposal. Deciding to ignore the background information on these sectors, giving an opinion only on parts of the PFAS uses is in fact splitting. We are hopeful the European Commission (EC) is not satisfied with this deviation from the assignment.”

ECHA’s RAC and SEAC aim to conclude the evaluations on the 14 sectors by the end of this year. Their final opinions will be delivered to the EC in 2026.

ECHA says that while the options of scientific committees will not include sector-specific evaluations of the eight sectors, it is expected that the final opinion and background document will give the EC the possibility to consider the additional eight sectors, alongside PFAS manufacturing and horizontal issues.

Kjell tells Packaging Insights: “To properly address the PFAS crisis, it is necessary to consider alternatives available and grant time-limited derogations only for very specific uses. The approach suggested by ECHA would, in fact, make the final decision less efficient when it comes to tackling the contamination we see on water, soil, and human health.”

Blaming time constrains

ECHA argues that its decision to not perform a full sector-specific evaluation of all sectors is based on the “urgent need for action to protect human health and the environment,” as outlined in the EC’s Chemicals Industry Action Plan.

“The committees have been working on the original proposal since 2023, and the updated restriction proposal (including the eight sectors) was only recently received by ECHA (in June 2025). Expanding the committees’ evaluations to include an additional eight sectors at this stage would significantly delay the process, pushing completion of the opinions well beyond 2026. It is also essential that the scientific assessments remain current and relevant to ensure their effectiveness.”

ChemSec agrees that restriction is the highest priority, according to Kjell. “Therefore, we find it unacceptable to blame time constraints for not getting it right. ECHA refers to a precious statement regarding its predicted schedule.”

“Considering how EU institutions tend to revise their schedules for far less important issues, this should not be a major issue. The EC has an understanding that sometimes important files take longer than expected.”

Consultation process questions

ChemSec says that industry information was withheld during the public consultation.ChemSec says the decision rewards industries for “withholding” information during the public consultation.

At the same time, ECHA maintains that during the six-month consultation on the originally submitted restriction proposal, it received over 5,600 responses from more than 4,400 stakeholders, “including from academia, NGOs, and individual people.”

“The participation was higher than for any previous EU chemical restriction. The information that allowed the additional eight sectors to be fully assessed by the dossier submitter and included in the updated proposal was received through the consultation process.” 

Kjell questions ECHA’s explanation, stating: “Much of the information for the eight sectors in question has indeed been submitted at this late stage. It is impressive to see how the dossier submitters have been able to incorporate this information, and we think ECHA should include it in its opinion.”

Ensuring PFAS regulation 

ECHA asserts that the EU has a long track record in regulating PFAS.Multiple subgroups of PFAS are already restricted within the EU/EEA or banned globally under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. 

“This proposal is the most comprehensive in EU history, both in terms of the number of substances and the range of uses addressed. Together with previous measures, it demonstrates Europe’s leading role in PFAS regulation worldwide,” the spokesperson adds. 

“All PFAS substances and their uses remain covered by the proposed restriction. The final decision will be taken by the EC, in consultation with EU member states.”

Kjell responds: ”That is why we need to give the EC all the information necessary to make a decision, which is not the case if ECHA moves on with these plans.”