BRUSSELS — How far should Brussels go in restricting dangerous PFAS chemicals?

Not too far, says the European Union’s chemical watchdog.

On Thursday, the European Chemicals Agency’s socioeconomic committee issued draft advice that so-called forever chemicals should continue to be permitted in a range of processes until viable alternatives are found.

Medical devices such as pacemakers and catheters, heat pumps, air conditioners and car parts would all be allowed to contain forever chemicals under time-limited exemptions, the committee said.

The advice will inform the European Commission’s coming decision on how far to go in its plan to restrict the use of the manmade chemicals, which have been linked to cancer, fertility problems, liver damage and thyroid disease. Its proposed restrictions are expected as early as 2027.

Overall, the ECHA’s socioeconomic committee said, forever chemicals should be banned unless there are no alternatives, adding that more information is needed to decide exactly which uses are needed. In practice that means PFAS will remain in use for well over a decade — and possibly a lot longer.

Industries now have 60 days to argue that their sectors should be granted so-called derogations.

Division in Helsinki

The advice exposes a division within the Helsinki-based ECHA. The agency’s risk assessment committee, which focuses only on the health and environmental impacts of forever chemicals, recommended a “full ban” with exceptions limited to personal protective equipment.

But the socioeconomic committee, which looks at the impact a PFAS ban would have on industry, was far more lenient, proposing a wider range of derogations. It argued a full ban was “likely not proportionate” given the impact it will have on industry and could lead to “health and safety implications, e.g., in sectors such as medical devices, transport, energy, and others.”

PFAS, while damaging to human health, are extremely useful in a wide range of industrial uses from non-stick pans to hydrogen electrolyzers, and are difficult to replace.

Which applications are considered “essential use” and should receive more leniency from the Commission is at the heart of the PFAS debate. The ECHA is expected to send its final report to Brussels by the year’s end.

Greens MEP Jutta Paulus called Thursday’s proposal a “step forward,” but told POLITICO: “The lobbying battle is far from over as the [socioeconomic committee] opinion is now open for consultation.”

“I hope the European Commission will move swiftly with a science-based proposal,” she said.

NGOs urged the ECHA to conduct a thorough investigation into whether certain sectors or uses really need exemptions, as it would relieve pressure from the industry to find alternatives.

“Data gaps should never be rewarded with a free pass, and the protection of public health should remain the priority,” said PFAS expert Helene Duguy from ClientEarth. “The restriction should be designed in a way that incentivises proactive PFAS phase-out and safe substitutions.”

But industry was also unhappy.

The pharmaceutical sector, which relies on PFAS in medicine manufacturing and packaging, is “deeply concerned” by the opinions of the ECHA committees, lobby group EFPIA said in a statement, adding that the opinions “fail to reflect the reality of how medicines are developed, and the current availability of PFAS alternatives.”

EU environment chief Jessika Roswall welcomed the ECHA’s opinion and set her sights on receiving their final report by the end of 2026. “We support the transition away from forever chemicals. As always, any new rules need to be simple by design and give certainty, clarity, and predictability for consumers as well as businesses,” she said.

Giedrė Peseckytė contributed reporting.