NGO Reports Chemours at Forefront of Lobbying Against EU's PFAS Ban Proposal
Chemours, the manufacturer of Teflon, is lobbying against the EU's proposed phase-out of harmful 'forever chemicals', igniting a debate over industrial competitiveness and environmental preservation.
Chemours, the American chemical producer behind the Teflon brand, has been identified as a leading lobbyist against a proposed EU ban on hazardous PFAS chemicals, as noted in a recent Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) report.
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, often referred to as ‘forever chemicals’ due to their long-lasting presence in the environment, have been associated with numerous health concerns, such as cancer, liver damage, and reduced fertility.
These chemicals are present in a wide range of consumer products, including electronics and sportswear, and are vital for certain industries like semiconductors and climate technologies. Chemours is said to have conducted more high-level meetings with the European Commission on PFAS than any other organization, with its lobbying expenses on this issue more than doubling over the past year.
The company, which was spun off from DuPont, is actively working to dilute the proposed ban that seeks to eliminate at least 10,000 PFAS from the EU market.
Chemours' strategy involves collaborating with other sectors and industries dependent on PFAS, encouraging them to oppose the proposal.
One example is the Dutch semiconductor equipment manufacturer ASML, reportedly enlisted by Chemours to lobby Brussels against the phase-out.
Chemours has also gained meetings with various Commission departments, pushing for exceptions for specific industrial uses of PFAS, especially fluoropolymers, which they argue are essential for Europe’s green industrial future.
The company advocates for a regulatory framework with stringent standards for PFAS rather than a complete ban. Meanwhile, German industrial states like Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria have also opposed the ban.
These regions, with strong chemical industries, worry that the phase-out could negatively impact local businesses, including those in essential fields such as medical devices and digital products. While the European Commission recognizes the environmental dangers of PFAS, it has indicated that exceptions for critical sectors, including those involved in digital and environmental transitions, might be considered.
This situation has heightened tensions within the EU, as industry-heavy regions push for exceptions while environmental groups caution against risking public health for economic gains. The European Commission has yet to make a final decision, but it is evident that the conflict between environmental safeguards and industrial competitiveness will continue to influence the future of EU chemical regulations.
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, often referred to as ‘forever chemicals’ due to their long-lasting presence in the environment, have been associated with numerous health concerns, such as cancer, liver damage, and reduced fertility.
These chemicals are present in a wide range of consumer products, including electronics and sportswear, and are vital for certain industries like semiconductors and climate technologies. Chemours is said to have conducted more high-level meetings with the European Commission on PFAS than any other organization, with its lobbying expenses on this issue more than doubling over the past year.
The company, which was spun off from DuPont, is actively working to dilute the proposed ban that seeks to eliminate at least 10,000 PFAS from the EU market.
Chemours' strategy involves collaborating with other sectors and industries dependent on PFAS, encouraging them to oppose the proposal.
One example is the Dutch semiconductor equipment manufacturer ASML, reportedly enlisted by Chemours to lobby Brussels against the phase-out.
Chemours has also gained meetings with various Commission departments, pushing for exceptions for specific industrial uses of PFAS, especially fluoropolymers, which they argue are essential for Europe’s green industrial future.
The company advocates for a regulatory framework with stringent standards for PFAS rather than a complete ban. Meanwhile, German industrial states like Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria have also opposed the ban.
These regions, with strong chemical industries, worry that the phase-out could negatively impact local businesses, including those in essential fields such as medical devices and digital products. While the European Commission recognizes the environmental dangers of PFAS, it has indicated that exceptions for critical sectors, including those involved in digital and environmental transitions, might be considered.
This situation has heightened tensions within the EU, as industry-heavy regions push for exceptions while environmental groups caution against risking public health for economic gains. The European Commission has yet to make a final decision, but it is evident that the conflict between environmental safeguards and industrial competitiveness will continue to influence the future of EU chemical regulations.
Translation:
Translated by AI
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
