#1
Why is persistence, on its own, such a powerful reason to regulate PFAS?
01:31
#2
RAC supports using the OECD definition when grouping PFAS. What does using such a broad definition actually mean in practice?
03:11
#3
What does 'non-threshold' mean in practice when we talk about acceptable exposure levels of PFAS?
04:13
#4
What exactly are fluoropolymers and what made the Committee conclude that they are part of the broader PFAS concern?
06:14
#5
How well understood are the environmental and health impacts of rising TFA levels - and what are the biggest knowledge gaps?
08:13
#6
On PFAS volumes and emissions. What were its main conclusions, and do these cover the eight new sectors not assessed in detail by RAC?
09:53
#7
How effective could this restriction be, and what does the Committee say about possible derogations?
11:23
#8
How does the Committee see the enforcement of this restriction across the EU?
13:04
#9
If a full PFAS ban would work so well, what’s holding us back?
14:12
#10
What is the Socio-Economic Analysis Committee’s role in the PFAS evaluation process?
15:24
#11
Can you talk us through the key points of the SEAC draft opinion?
18:27
#12
In which sectors are PFAS alternatives already available, and where do we see the toughest challenges in finding substitutes?
24:33
#13
How does SEAC decide which transition periods are realistic and proportionate?
26:22
#14
Where does SEAC see biggest uncertainties in its draft opinion?
29:12
#15
When does the 60 day consultation on the SEAC draft opinion begin?
30:28
#16
What does the SEAC consultation focus on and what type of input does ECHA expect?
31:49
#17
What happens after the SEAC draft opinion consultation?
32:58
#18
Harmonised classification and labelling of cannabidiol (CBD)
34:07
#19
Chromium VI restriction proposal - update from SEAC
35:55
PFAS restriction proposal: Closer look at ECHA committees' latest opinions
In this episode of the safer chemicals podcast, we take a more detailed look at the committees’ opinions on the proposed restriction of PFAS in Europe. Host Adam Elwan speaks with Roberto Scazzola, Chair of the Committee for Risk Assessment, about the committee’s adopted opinion on PFAS, what it concludes and why persistence remains such a central concern. He is also joined by Maria Ottati, Chair of the Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis, to discuss the committee’s draft opinion, including the key socio-economic considerations, the role of derogations and the questions that will now be explored further through consultation.
The discussion covers how the committees approached issues such as grouping, fluoropolymers, volatile PFAS and fluorinated gases, as well as what is known about emissions across sectors in Europe. It also explains where the biggest uncertainties remain, what information the committees are still seeking, and what happens next as the process moves forward.
The episode also briefly covers two additional topics discussed by the committees in March: the harmonised classification proposal for cannabidiol and the latest progress on the restriction proposal for chromium(VI) substances.
Useful links
ECHA supports PFAS restriction with targeted derogations - ECHA news, 26 March 2026
Consultation on SEAC PFAS draft opinion - guidance for respondents - ECHA webinar, 30 October 2025
**************
Follow us on:
Disclaimer: Views expressed by interviewees do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Chemicals Agency. All content is up to date at the time of publication.
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Powered by Ausha 🚀