In a written answer on 31 July 2026, Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné signalled that the European Commission is prepared to allow continued use of PFAS chemicals in critical industrial applications, including food processing, where no adequate alternatives exist. Responding to a parliamentary question from four MEPs, Séjourné stressed that the Commission is committed to tackling PFAS pollution but acknowledged that the sweeping restriction proposed under the REACH regulation could have significant impacts on the food processing industry, which relies on fluoropolymers for hygiene and biofilm control. He indicated that exemptions could be granted for critical uses, accompanied by emission-reduction requirements and incentives to innovate, until acceptable substitutes are available.
The answer came in response to a question submitted by Stefan Köhler (PPE), Christine Singer (Renew), Angelika Niebler (PPE), and Christian Doleschal (PPE), who warned that a blanket ban could lower EU food safety standards and harm sectors such as chemical, pharmaceutical, and food production. The MEPs noted that the European Chemicals Agency's scientific committees had, at the end of March 2026, supported restricting the PFAS group, which contains more than 10,000 substances, with targeted exemptions.
Séjourné's reply does not set out specific exemption criteria or numerical targets, but it points to the European Chemicals Industry Action Plan, published in 2025, which already foresaw allowing continued PFAS use for critical applications when alternatives are lacking. The Commission expects to receive ECHA's final opinions by the end of 2026 and has committed to presenting its proposal to amend Annex XVII of REACH as soon as possible thereafter.
The answer reflects a balancing act between environmental and public health protection on one hand and industrial competitiveness and food safety on the other. For the food processing industry, the prospect of exemptions offers relief, but the accompanying emission-reduction requirements could impose new compliance costs. For chemical producers, the lack of clear criteria for what counts as 'critical' leaves uncertainty about future investment. Environmental groups may see the exemptions as a weakening of the restriction's ambition, while EU citizens stand to benefit from continued high hygiene standards in food production, provided the emission controls are effective. The Commission's next step will be to translate ECHA's opinions into a concrete legislative proposal, which will then be scrutinised by the European Parliament and the Council.