A report from St. Gallen recently caused a stir. PFAS levels had been found to exceed the limit in some foodstuffs. This suddenly led to a surge in public interest in per- or polyfluorinated alkyl substances, or PFAS for short, which are sometimes referred to as ‘eternal chemicals’. This is understandable: where people and the environment are potentially affected, it is important to take a close look and, where appropriate, to take decisive action.

PFAS are extremely stable and only break down very slowly in the environment. However, PFAS are also a blessing for society. They are used in a wide range of commercial and industrial applications. They are needed for the production of chips in laptops and mobile phones, as well as for electricity generation in solar cells or wind turbines. PFAS seal building envelopes and are indispensable in diagnostics and scientific research and development. Without PFAS, engines are less efficient, which is bad for the environment. Without PFAS, seals last less long and pumps in precision machines break earlier, which is also not in the interest of sustainability. Furthermore, a large number of human and veterinary medicines contain active ingredients that fall under the definition of PFAS.

But what exactly are PFAS? The abbreviation suggests that they are a chemically uniform group of substances. However, this is not the case – which is why it is wrong to lump all PFAS together. According to an OECD report from 2018, 4,730 PFAS are known; if the EU definition is used, there are around 10,000 substances. According to a 2021 study, 256 of these substances are used commercially in the EU in quantities of over one tonne per year, and around 1,400 PFAS are on the market at all. It is also a fact – and one that is often forgotten – that certain PFAS have been classified as highly critical for over ten years and their use has rightly been severely restricted or even banned.

The key question surrounding PFAS is: how and where do we use these highly stable molecules to provide optimal benefits for people and the environment while minimising associated problems?

Or to put it another way: what is a targeted approach to regulating PFAS? I would like to offer three thoughts on this. Firstly, instead of PFAS collective punishment, we should look at the individual cases and focus on the problematic ones. Secondly, we should prioritise based on risk considerations. What is clear is that the relevant PFAS are those that enter the environment.

And thirdly, we have to consider whether the existing PFAS-free alternatives are better or worse for people and the environment than the current situation. No one wants the situation to get worse – not even through well-intentioned regulation. However, a few open questions need to be answered first. For example, we know very little about the pathways of PFAS. Although certain PFAS can be found in many places, it is largely unclear which quantities of PFAS have entered the environment in which ways or are still entering the environment today. Was it the sewage sludge in St. Gallen, which has not been allowed to be spread on fields for eighteen years? Or is it the water-repellent outdoor jackets that end up in the waste incinerators? Reliable answers and robust information are missing on important points.

An indiscriminate ban on PFAS would do more harm than good to the environment and the economy. The federal government is therefore called upon to examine the facts comprehensively and precisely. Industry and trade see themselves as partners in getting to the bottom of the PFAS issue with the scientific community and the authorities. Switzerland can look to Belgium as an example of how a targeted dialogue between authorities and industry can be structured.

A careful collection of the facts would also help Switzerland to get to the bottom of the PFAS issue in all its facets and to create the database without which intelligent regulation cannot succeed. The groundwork for risk-based regulation, which the Federal Council must develop in the coming months in response to a parliamentary initiative, is therefore extremely important and requires the utmost care. It is essential that the relevant expertise from industrial and commercial companies is incorporated into this work. Only in this way can the federal administration take measures to reduce the actual risks while at the same time preserving safe and irreplaceable technical applications in industry and commerce.