Promoted content: Good regulation means trade-offs

It’s widely accepted that Europe’s desire for increased sustainability, alongside an ecologically and socially more responsible economy will, politically, require much compromise.

In democratic societies and systems, there will always be conflicts of interest. Whether it’s transport or energy, any change with good and meaningful intentions, will be extremely complex.

Things get especially complicated when it comes to the application of technologies, materials or production processes. Most tough regulatory interventions will have both positive and negative consequences. Anyone who demands major change must be prepared to accept the disadvantages… even if these impact Europe being a vital hub for much industry and innovation.

When it comes to the potential regulation of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS, the UK must watch and learn from what is happening in the EU.

The European Union's proposals to regulate 10,000+ PFAS substances - of which several thousand are used in everyday products such as textiles, cosmetics, packaging and cookware – could have serious repercussions for European industry. Environmental associations are calling for a full, 100% ban, meaning the complete phase-out of the production and use of PFAS by 2030.

The ban is being proposed due to concerns that some PFAS are associated with health and environmental concerns. Much has been written about how PFAS materials are found in cosmetics, school uniforms and food packaging, and how it finds its way into our environment.

But not all PFAS is the same and many of its chemicals can be used safely with the right measures in place to control emissions during its production, use and end-of-life phases. The fluoropolymers that Gore uses, for instance, are safe for their intended use and do not have the same properties as those PFAS found widespread in the environment.

The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) supports balanced regulatory measures on PFAS. It does however highlight: “Our concern is that the new restriction proposal leads to disruptions of value chains and will eliminate key applications in batteries, semi-conductors, electric vehicles and renewable energy production. Manufacturers will not invest in the EU if they know they will miss key components in their value chains in the near future.”

PFAS is also on the radar for the UK regulatory bodies and it’s expected that our government will soon announce plans on how it intends to regulate the substance. Depending on the outcome, there’s the potential for it to have a huge impact on manufacturers, supply chains, end users and the economy to name but a few.

Regulation, of course, is a good thing. Manufacturers have a responsibility to protect people and our planet, but those making decisions will need to balance the impact regulation has upon industry and jobs. In my eyes, a wholehearted ban of PFAS is unnecessary.

No one who has, for example, a pair of trainers with a water-repellent GORE-TEX membrane, has to worry that wearing them would be harmful to their health. And, in fact, hundreds of thousands of people have had their lives saved through the insertion of a vascular patch with fluoropolymers.

Would it not be more purposeful to change the conversation a little and ask … In which areas are there suitable alternatives to the use of fluoropolymers? For which applications is there currently no viable alternative available without leading to a loss of product quality and performance? And what would be the risks and dangers posed by such losses in quality and performance - both for the individual consumer and for society as a whole with regard to the innovative strength of the economy?

Science can always be relied upon to find solutions to our challenges, and materials science engineers have been pioneering new innovative materials that meet our new requirements.  For example, after more than 10 years of development, Gore recently launched a new membrane made of expanded polyethylene (ePE). This new membrane retains all its benefits of breathability and protection against water and dirt, whilst hitting best practice sustainability standards.

In contrast, alternatives are not available for the use of fluoropolymers in key industries such as the automotive industry in substances like traction batteries, fuel cells, seals and vehicle electronics. The UK car industry is already taking a pounding and industry bodies are asking for red tape to be slashed to rescue the shrinking production. A ban on fluoropolymers would undoubtedly make for an even bleaker future.

Likewise in satellites. Since the 1960s, the use of flouromaterials has ensured that cable systems in the earth's satellites function faultlessly despite the extreme environmental conditions of temperature, mechanics and radiation. With a loss of material properties there will be possible consequences for global data exchange. Navigation for cars, trains and ships, mobile communication, the internet and weather data that is vital for climate research all require error-free measurements by reliable satellite systems.

The UK must patiently watch what is happening in the EU and hope the ongoing debate on the future use of the very large and heterogeneous group of PFAS will be moderate and appropriate. The societal benefits of fluoropolymers should be included in this debate, as should justified questions to industry about product alternatives. Let’s acknowledge conflicting goals instead of avoiding them.

Carole Anne Wilkinson, Product and Chemical Stewardship at W.L. Gore & Associates