The release of The Future of European Competitiveness, authored by Mario Draghi on 9th September, has ignited a heated debate over the EU’s chemical regulations and their potential impact on the continent’s industrial future. At the heart of this discussion is the upcoming restriction on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including fluoropolymers, which are critical to clean technologies. The report’s framing of chemical regulations as barriers to competitiveness has drawn both support from industry groups and criticism from environmental advocates, illustrating the complex balance between innovation and safety.
Fluoropolymers: Essential for Europe's Green Transition
In the report, Draghi raised concerns that an EU-wide restriction on fluoropolymers, as part of the broader PFAS regulation, could hinder the development of clean technologies such as batteries, electrolysers, and fuel cells. The Fluoropolymers Product Group, part of Plastics Europe, quickly endorsed this view, arguing that fluoropolymers are indispensable for Europe's green transition.
"The EU needs fluoropolymers for the future of clean technologies," stated the Fluoropolymers Product Group. These materials, they argue, are uniquely suited for high-temperature and corrosive environments, making them essential in key industries that are driving decarbonisation. "A broad ban on fluoropolymers risks stifling innovation and production, putting Europe’s sustainability and technological ambitions at risk." The group emphasised that, without fluoropolymers, technologies critical to the green economy could face significant setbacks, at a time when Europe needs to accelerate its efforts towards carbon neutrality.
Regulatory Concerns and Industry Support
Draghi's report struck a chord with many in the chemical and manufacturing sectors, particularly those worried that overly stringent regulations could hamper competitiveness. The suggestion that restrictions on PFAS might disrupt the production of clean technologies was welcomed by PFAS producers, who have long argued that such materials are vital to many industrial processes.
The Fluoropolymers Product Group echoed Draghi’s warning that a broad ban could undermine Europe’s green technology sectors. They pointed out that alternatives to fluoropolymers are not yet viable at the scale needed for applications like batteries, electrolysers, and hydrogen technologies. The industry group has called for a more measured approach, urging the EU to avoid regulations that could unintentionally slow the green transition by limiting access to these critical materials.
Environmental Health Risks: Calls for Stricter Regulation
While Draghi’s report and the response from Plastics Europe have focused on the industrial risks of PFAS restrictions, environmental and public health organisations have voiced strong opposition. CHEM Trust, an environmental NGO, criticised the report for "scaremongering" about chemical safety regulations, warning that it downplays the health and environmental risks posed by substances like PFAS.
"Draghi’s statement that the EU 'empowers ECHA to adapt limits and impose bans at any moment' is misleading," commented CHEM Trust, pointing out that only the European Commission, following scientific advice from ECHA and support from the Member State Committee, can impose bans on chemicals. This process can take up to ten years, making Draghi’s portrayal of rapid regulatory changes an exaggeration.
CHEM Trust and other environmental groups, including the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), are deeply concerned about the risks posed by PFAS, often referred to as "forever chemicals" due to their persistence in the environment. HEAL has highlighted the serious health implications linked to PFAS exposure, including cancer, liver damage, and developmental issues. For these groups, the push to regulate PFAS is long overdue, and any delay—whether for industrial reasons or otherwise—puts public health at risk.
The Debate Over PFAS and Green Technologies
Draghi’s report suggests that the PFAS restrictions could impede clean technologies, a point embraced by PFAS producers but challenged by environmental advocates. According to HEAL, the long-term health and environmental costs of PFAS far outweigh the short-term benefits to industry. They argue that Draghi’s focus on the potential impact to technologies like batteries and electrolysers ignores the broader need to eliminate harmful chemicals from the production process altogether.
The PFAS restriction, currently under review by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), includes a transition period of up to 13.5 years to allow for the development of alternatives. CHEM Trust argues that this timeline provides sufficient flexibility for industries to adapt without compromising public health or environmental safety. "The narrative that regulations stifle innovation is flawed," said CHEM Trust. "In fact, strong regulations often drive the development of safer and more sustainable alternatives."
Balancing Industrial Needs with Public Safety
The conflicting viewpoints highlighted by the release of The Future of European Competitiveness underscore the delicate balance the EU must strike between fostering innovation and protecting public health. Industry voices, such as the Fluoropolymers Product Group, are calling for caution in implementing broad bans on essential materials, warning that such moves could threaten Europe’s green transition. On the other hand, environmental groups like CHEM Trust and HEAL argue that delaying stricter regulation of hazardous chemicals like PFAS risks exacerbating long-term health and environmental problems.
As the debate continues, policymakers face the challenge of crafting regulations that promote both competitiveness and sustainability. The outcome of the ongoing discussions will shape the future of Europe’s chemical regulations and its broader industrial strategy. Whether the EU can find a compromise that satisfies both industry and environmental advocates remains to be seen, but the stakes for public health, technological innovation, and environmental protection have never been higher.