In mid-January, the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag submitted a motion opposing the planned EU ban on PFAS. Representatives of the FDP and SPD are also against the planned restrictions in their current form.
“Continue to utilise the benefits of perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl substances, maintain added value, protect health and the environment” is the title of the motion submitted. The motion is now before the Committee for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection, which is the lead committee, for further discussion.
In its motion, the CDU/CSU parliamentary group calls on the German government to lobby the EU against a ban on PFAS and instead “support a differentiated, risk-based regulatory approach at European level”. This is seen as being in the interests of the functionality and competitiveness of the European economy and consumers.
A differentiated regulatory approach should also be agreed at European level. This would create planning security for producers and consumers. The German government should lobby the EU to ensure that the use of PFAS is only restricted where technically suitable and economically feasible alternatives are available and it cannot be proven that proper handling over the entire life cycle can be ensured.
Encouragement from the VDMA
In the preliminary remarks to the motion, the CDU/CSU parliamentary group writes that the chemical group of perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl substances is a group of chemicals that is not comparable with other substances due to its water and grease-repellent properties as well as its chemical and thermal stability.
They are often used where products or industrial processes are either exposed to extreme conditions or where special requirements are placed on the product. Examples include protective clothing for firefighters, in medical applications or in semiconductor production.
“Politicians are finally responding to the justified concerns and warnings of the industry. Instead of a blanket ban, we need differentiated regulation. PFAS that are categorised as non-hazardous must be exempt from the ban. Each of the parties now has a duty to use their influence to really avert the damage to the economy”, says VDMA Managing Director Thilo Brodtmann.
