The PFAS Controversy (1): Navigating a Global Call for Ban Amidst Complex Challenges

Thanks to their unique properties and unmatched performance, fluoropolymers are used across all sectors of the global economy, including numerous cutting-edge applications. Driven by global megatrends such as the energy transition and digitalisation, they are key enablers of major innovations across a wide range of critical industries. All of this notwithstanding, in mid-2023, PFAS are a problem – and they are a problem for two reasons:

1. There is a significant body of evidence that suggests that a small number of chemical compounds in the PFAS family are both bioaccumulative and hazardous to the human body.
2. As a result, there is a distressingly diverse call from many different interest groups, including regulators, NGOs, manufacturers, the media, and the public, to ban all PFAS. This “call to ban” is not dissimilar to the call initiated by Greenpeace in 1992 to ban the use of chlorine worldwide because of a small number of toxic and/or problematic chemicals that contained chlorine.

Not that certain substances classified as being PFAS have not been studied and discussed in the past, because such discussions go back to at least the year 2000 with the most studied members of the PFAS family, such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). Nonetheless, it appears that such discussions and studies were merely serving to initiate an induction period to help prepare us for the assault now being conducted on PFAS from all sides.

Regulatory bodies all over the world are busy discussing PFAS, and—because they are focusing on this topic—they are forcing all producers of PFAS-containing chemical products, as well as manufacturers of articles that incorporate these chemical products, to not only discuss PFAS but to give serious thought to either how to rid their products of PFAS or to why their PFAS-containing products must be protected at all costs. This is not a trivial task, because this is not a trivial topic—it is a topic of huge import that has potential impact upon some of the industries that the global community is counting upon for future growth and advancement of technology and living standards.

According to the most frequently cited sources, there are anywhere between 3,700-10,000 members in the PFAS family of fluorine-containing chemical compounds, depending upon which study one consults. (The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], for example, had counted “about 12,000 different kinds of PFAS” as of February 2022, but this is at the extreme end of the estimates.) It is important to recognise that the major issue is not the total number of family members that are contained within the definition of PFAS, but rather:

• How many of them are potentially harmful, and
• How producers, users, and regulatory bodies are going to determine which chemicals included in the term “PFAS” must be eliminated from use and which may continue to be used, possibly with additional safety measures and safeguards to prevent escape to the environment.

The great English essayist, historian, philosopher, and translator, Thomas Carlyle, placed a striking metaphor firmly into the English vernacular when he translated the German proverb, “Das Kind mit dem Bade ausschütten,” as “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” This is precisely what would be accomplished by banning all PFAS – and this is why the current clamour to do so is a problem of global scientific, technological, industrial, governmental, and social magnitude.

PFAS Fundamentals

Virtually everywhere we look, we find PFAS fulfilling critical roles in a broad variety of industrial- and consumer-facing applications. Examples range from nonstick cookware; firefighting foams; stain-resistant fabric and carpets; water-, stain-, and grease-resistant consumer goods food packaging; dental floss; and waterproof clothing to propellants; refrigerants; pharmaceuticals (both packaging and contents); blowing agents; highly durable building products for exterior cladding; and myriad other applications (Figures 1–3).

Certain PFAS are absolutely critical in the production of microchips by companies such as Intel, Infineon, BASF, and others. “Without some PFAS, semiconductor manufacturing is simply not possible,” says a leading European chip executive. “There are no alternatives in the market yet.” Some types of PFAS are found nearly everywhere and are virtually indestructible, hence the term “forever chemicals,” and they “are impossible to avoid. They are found in our homes, our offices, our supermarkets – practically everywhere.” Many public officials, NGOs, and private citizens believe that certain PFAS are “extremely toxic” at extraordinarily low levels – parts per quadrillion.

Do you want to know more about PFAS? Read more.