PFAS regulation in Switzerland: Not faster, but better

Some call PFAS ‘forever chemicals’. Their use must be regulated as wisely as possible. To do this, the federal government first needs to do precise groundwork. Read the joint "NZZ am Sonntag" guest article (in German, English translation below) by Stefan Brupbacher, Director of Swissmem, Urs Furrer, Director of the Swiss Trade Association, and Stephan Mumenthaler, Director of scienceindustries.

A report from St. Gallen recently caused a stir. Excessive levels of PFAS were detected in some food products. This triggered a sudden surge in public interest in per- or polyfluorinated alkyl substances, or PFAS for short, which are sometimes referred to as ‘eternal chemicals’. This is understandable: where people and the environment are potentially affected, it is important to take a close look and, where appropriate, to take decisive action.

PFAS are extremely stable and only break down very slowly in the environment. However, PFAS are also a blessing for society. This is because PFAS are found in a wide range of commercial and industrial applications. They are needed to produce chips in laptops and mobile phones, as well as for the generation of electricity in solar cells or wind turbines. PFAS seal building envelopes and are irreplaceable in diagnostics as well as scientific research and development. Without PFAS, engines are less efficient, which is bad for the environment. Without PFAS, seals last less long and pumps in precision machines break earlier, which is also not in the interest of sustainability. In addition, many human and veterinary medicines contain active ingredients that fall under the definition of PFAS.

But what exactly are PFAS? The abbreviation suggests that they are a chemically uniform group of substances. However, this is not the case – which is why it is wrong to lump all PFAS together. According to an OECD report from 2018, 4,730 PFAS are known; if the EU definition is used, there are around 10,000 substances. According to a 2021 study, 256 of these substances are used commercially in the EU in quantities of over one tonne per year, and around 1,400 PFAS are on the market at all. It is also a fact – and one that is often forgotten – that certain PFAS have been classified as highly critical for over ten years and their use has rightly been severely restricted or even banned.

The key question surrounding PFAS is: how and where do we use these highly stable molecules to provide optimal benefits for people and the environment while minimising associated problems?

Or to put it another way: what is a targeted approach to the regulation of PFAS? I would like to offer three thoughts on this. Firstly, instead of PFAS collective liability, we should look at the individual cases and focus on the problematic ones. Secondly, we should prioritise based on risk considerations. What is clear is that the relevant PFAS are those that end up in the environment. And thirdly, we must consider whether the available PFAS-free alternatives are better or worse for people and the environment than the current situation. No one wants the situation to get worse – not even through well-intentioned regulation.

First, however, several open questions need to be addressed. For example, we know very little about the pathways of PFAS. Although certain PFAS can be found in many places, it is largely unclear what quantities of PFAS have entered the environment by which routes or are still entering it today. In St. Gallen, was it the sewage sludge that has not been allowed to be spread on fields for eighteen years? Or is it water-repellent outdoor jackets that end up in the waste incinerators? There are no reliable answers or conclusive information on key points.

A sweeping, across-the-board ban on PFAS would do more harm than good to the environment and the economy. The federal government is therefore called upon to evaluate the facts comprehensively and as precisely as possible. Industry and trade see themselves as partners, working together with science and the authorities to get to the bottom of the PFAS issue. Switzerland can look to Belgium for an example of how a constructive dialogue between authorities and industry can be structured. Meanwhile, Denmark has shown how PFAS data can be collected.

Such an investigation would also help Switzerland to get to the bottom of the PFAS issue in all its facets and to create the database without which intelligent regulation cannot succeed. The groundwork for risk-based regulation, which the Federal Council must develop in the coming months in response to a parliamentary initiative, is therefore extremely important and requires the utmost care. It is essential that the relevant expertise from industrial and commercial companies is incorporated into this work. Only in this way can the federal administration take measures to reduce the actual risks while at the same time preserving safe and irreplaceable technical applications in industry and trade.

Stefan Brupbacher is Director of Swissmem, the association of Swiss tech industries. Urs Furrer heads the Swiss Trade Association, and Stephan Mumenthaler is Director of scienceindustries, the association of chemical, pharmaceutical and life sciences companies.