Controversy over chemicals: How Bayer, BASF & Co lobby for PFAS

For the first time, the EU could ban an entire group of substances with more than 10,000 chemicals. The resistance is correspondingly massive: Loud NDR, WDR and SZ, more than 100 industrial organizations are fighting against it – with partly questionable arguments.

A good two weeks ago, five countries – including Germany – proposed a ban on the so-called PFAS. These water, grease and dirt-repellent alkyl substances have already spread all over the world and are becoming more and more common because they are practically indestructible. It is not for nothing that they are also referred to as “eternal chemicals”. They have even been found in Antarctica, in rainwater, breast milk and in worryingly high doses in the blood of children.

Some PFAS substances are toxic, for the vast majority there is a lack of meaningful data on toxicity. Testing each substance individually would simply take too long, argue many physicians, environmentalists and authorities. The planned ban on chemicals is therefore also based on the precautionary principle. And it threatens the multi-billion dollar business of the chemical industry.

Industry wants restrictions on bans

Like research by NDR, WDR and “Süddeutsche Zeitung” (SZ) show together with partner media in 13 European countries, around 100 organizations in Europe are currently lobbying against the proposal, including 43 industry associations and 30 companies including the German chemical groups BASF and Bayer. The associations want to prevent the entire group of substances from being banned. Instead, the substances should be evaluated individually. If this does not succeed, they want to enforce the broadest possible exceptions.

This is shown by more than 1200 confidential documents from the European Commission and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which evaluated the research cooperation in the “Forever Pollution Project”. When asked, BASF and Bayer wrote that a possible ban should not prevent the use of PFAS in key sectors. BASF mentions batteries, semiconductors, electric vehicles and renewable energies. Almost two dozen associations have signed the most recent appeal against the impending group ban, which is addressed personally to the EU Commissioners for Economic Affairs and the Environment.

According to the research, the most strongly represented lobby groups in Brussels are the European Chemical Industry Confederation (CEFIC), led by BASF CEO Martin Brudermüller, and Plastics Europe, which have set up various expert groups specifically to fight the impending PFAS ban .

Above all, they want to prevent the ban on two specific groups of substances, fluorinated gases and fluoroplastics, which experts call “fluoropolymers”. For the latter alone, the association has bundled the power of persuasion of more than 70 companies and industry associations. From the German side, the Federation of German Industries (BDI) and the Association of the Chemical Industry (VCI) were among those present. Meetings were held weekly, and representatives of the authorities were welcome.

“Innovative power and competitiveness” at risk?

On request, the VCI writes that the companies are continuously working to further increase safety when handling chemicals. “Regardless of this, Europe has the world’s highest standards in chemical safety and environmental protection.” The BDI writes, among other things, that if there is a ban, “there is a risk that we will end up in undesirable conflicts of interest when it comes to key technological issues in the European transformation to climate neutrality.” Plastics Europe also writes that there are currently no alternatives with equivalent properties, especially for fluoropolymers. CEFIC did not comment when asked.

In order to prevent the PFAS ban, the association Plastics Europe warned in a brochure in 2017 that numerous industries with millions of jobs would be affected. According to many documents, the innovative power and competitiveness and the Green Deal are also at risk if there is a corresponding regulation. After all, PFAS are not only found in frying pans, burger paper or weather jackets, but also in lithium-ion batteries and membranes for fuel cells, according to the industry representatives.

Despite warnings from industry, the European Chemicals Agency ECHA presented a first proposal for a comprehensive PFAS ban on February 7, 2023, after preliminary work by five EU countries – Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. There should be a multi-year transitional period for certain groups of substances.

“Say goodbye to the cellphone”

Michael Schlipf, chairman of the fluoropolymer group of the German industry association pro-K, warns: “The EU proposal is a ‘worst-case scenario. It will have drastic effects on Europe as a business location if it is implemented. You can say goodbye to your mobile phone.”

Schlipf’s maxim is: save the fluoropolymers. Banning the entire PFAS group, including fluoroplastics, is simply unscientific, he says. “In application, fluoropolymers are ‘products of low concern’ according to OECD criteria. This means they are safe substances that do not require any additional regulation.”

The substances are non-toxic and so robust that they cannot decompose into toxic substances, unlike those PFAS that are used to impregnate carpets, sofa fabrics or leather. In addition, the fluoropolymers are precisely those compounds that are needed, for example, for a functional mobile phone and for the “green” technologies required for the energy transition.

Industry funds studies

The pro-K association has compiled facts, written reports and submitted them to the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health BauA, which is the German authority involved in EU regulation. In addition, like other industry associations, it relies on studies on fluoropolymers that have been published in scientific journals – albeit funded by companies in the PFAS industry such as Chemours, WL Gore and Japan’s AGC, among others.

The proclaimed harmlessness of fluoroplastics is “a myth”, says Martin Scheringer, environmental chemist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and who has been dealing with the PFAS topic for more than 15 years. Mainly because of the “huge problems in production and disposal”.

The industry counters this: Most fluoroplastics can now be produced with fluorine-free additives, reports Schlipf, for example. Unavoidable PFAS emissions could be kept completely in the factories and waste could be fed back into the processes via take-back systems or broken down in incinerators.

Possible backdoor

However, PFAS expert Scheringer would rather not rely on it. “Up to now it has very often gone like this: Even if a real ban was threatened, the industry did not switch to substances that have been proven to be harmless, but to similar, unregulated representatives of the same class of substances, which are not necessarily less harmful.”

The chemist also rejects another argument from the PFAS industry that the substances are irreplaceable. In “the vast majority of consumer products”, the fluorochemicals can be dispensed with or replaced immediately. In industrial applications, for example in medicine or in semiconductor production, there are gray areas where a changeover can be difficult.

The European association Plastics Europe is also fighting against a ban on the entire group of substances. A webinar for stakeholders took place recently. The goal: to collect case studies to illustrate the social and economic importance of fluoroplastics.

A second virtual meeting in March 2023 is already planned. Then the public consultation will start, in which citizens, organizations and industry representatives can comment on the regulation of PFAS. It remains to be seen how PFAS will be restricted in the end.