Germany has warned that the proposed universal PFAS restriction with time-limited exemptions risks imposing disproportionate burdens and administrative complexity across EU supply chains, particularly for downstream users relying on specialised applications.
In its submission to ECHA’s consultation on the socio-economic impacts of the measure, Germany’s economy ministry called for greater consideration of supply chain dynamics and downstream industry needs, alongside targeted relief for low-risk PFAS uses across their lifecycle.
The consultation attracted more than 3,500 responses from 44 countries, primarily from industry stakeholders. The final opinion of the agency’s Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC), due by the end of the year, will mark a decisive step in the EU’s years-long effort to restrict PFAS.
Germany's Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA) was among the five EU authorities that submitted the original Annex XV restriction dossier.
But recently, the German industry has been particularly vocal in calling for a softer approach to PFAS restrictions, with the country’s automotive sector urging the Commission to significantly scale back the scope, adding to pressure from industry groups that have increasingly shaped the bloc’s chemicals policy agenda in recent years.
German chemicals industry association VCI has called for the restriction to be split, proposing stricter controls for high-exposure uses such as consumer applications, while subjecting industrial uses to more targeted assessment.
In its comments on the consultation, Germany highlighted fluoropolymers as a particular concern. These materials are often used in small quantities but play critical roles in industrial equipment, including seals, hoses, coatings and insulation.
Their production involves intricate, multi-stage supply chains, the ministry said, meaning compliance with derogation conditions could require extensive traceability across numerous actors over long periods – potentially beyond the practical reach of enforcement authorities.
The requirement would impose disproportionate administrative costs on sectors where PFAS are used in controlled systems and may pose limited risks in subsequent processing or use, including parts of the medical technology and manufacturing value chains, it said.
To address these concerns, Germany called for a more proportionate approach to risk management. It questioned the feasibility of emission monitoring in some contexts and suggested simpler, site-specific accounting measures for certain fluoropolymer uses.
The response also raised the possibility of broader regulatory relief for key technical fluoropolymers, particularly in solid forms.
Among other member states responding to the SEAC consultation, Slovakia echoed some of Germany’s concerns, calling for an "economically sustainable approach" prioritising restrictions on consumer uses and readily substitutable applications.
Enforcement issues
Germany said the proposed blanket PFAS restriction, combined with numerous time-limited derogations, would be difficult to monitor in practice – particularly in sectors such as machinery – and could result in enforcement issues.
It urged SEAC to consider the substantial increase in staffing needed to enforce the dossier in its current form, as well as the need to equip authorities with fast, reliable analytical techniques. Without this, Germany warned, manufacturers in the EU could be put at a competitive disadvantage compared with importers.
Belgian authorities also highlighted enforcement challenges, saying that the effectiveness of the restriction depends heavily on the ability to measure PFAS across different matrices, from emissions to products. This, they said, is already costly and resource-intensive, requiring significant investment in developing and maintaining analytical methods over several years.
In a coordinated comment from multiple authorities, Belgium added that exempting fluoropolymers could further complicate enforcement, as distinguishing them analytically from other PFAS remains difficult.
Czechia raised similar concerns, warning that regulatory approaches that rely on information not readily available to downstream users risk creating enforcement difficulties, inconsistent implementation and uneven compliance outcomes across the EU.
Slovakia raised concerns over insufficient derogation periods, particularly for critical applications such as semiconductors, green hydrogen production, renewable energy technologies, medical devices and sealing applications. Czechia, meanwhile, called for periodic review mechanisms for uses where substitution pathways remain limited.
ECHA said many member states are already involved in the restriction process – including in their role as dossier submitters – and therefore may not have seen a need to respond during the consultation. It noted that a number of other governmental organisations did take part.
However, in comments to Chemical Watch News & Insight, a senior official at the Austrian environment ministry (BMLUK) said the country strongly backs a broad restriction covering all uses, with exemptions only where technically justified. The official added that many member states share this position.
This article was updated on 15 June to clarify that Germany's BAuA was among the five EU dossier submitters.