PFASs-restriction proposal commentary on ECHA's Annex XV restriction report, proposal for a restriction, March 2023

PFASs are defined as substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl (CF₃-) or methylene (-CF₂-) carbon atom. The excellent technical properties of members of the PFAS group have led to their use in a wide range of applications. The substance group comprises more than 10,000 individual compounds. A variety of adverse effects has been described for single substances. For the majority of the PFASs, neither toxicokinetic data nor effect data is available. Hence, because of the small number of PFASs for which a full toxicological profile is available, grouping based on the existing data is not feasible. A critical problem of PFASs and their degradation products is the very high persistence, which clearly fulfils the criterion for the substance property Very Persistent (vP) according to Annex XIII of the REACH Regulation. Because of this property the European Commission is planning to take action. Defining suitable subgroups appears to be a scientifically based approach. However, to reach this goal, large data gaps would have to be closed which would take up to centuries, a time-frame, which is not defendable with respect to potential irreversible harm. Because of the time pressure resulting from the potential irreversible harm, the precautionary principle has been selected as an appropriate tool to handle PFASs and in the restriction proposal PFASs are treated as one group. This approach is justified in the view of the advisory committee of the German Society for Toxicology. ECHA's proposal received a lot of attention in the public. However, communication so far has obviously led to the misunderstanding of a proven health hazard for all PFASs. Communication should explain the justification of the broad inclusion of substances as being based on the precautionary principle. Data gaps versus current knowledge need to be clearly communicated; communication should also include the possibility for derogation of essential use. It should address the issue of suitable substitutes to avoid unintended health consequences; and it should mention that existing persistent environmental contamination calls for developing innovation in remediation techniques.