PFAS and emerging chemicals management concerns 

NN: It is at the moment. Everyone is talking about PFAS because it is a focus everywhere – in increasing regulatory developments, NGO and consumer advocacy campaigns, and it draws attention from the general press. For many companies, it is quite a challenge to solve since some of them are just “waking up” to these chemical issues, as PFAS are in so many products. However, for me and my team, PFAS is quite old news. We have been flagging this issue since 2017. My team and I are also looking ahead, beyond PFAS, to predict the next chemical or regulatory issue that the industry will face.   

We are looking and assisting our members to craft indicators that companies should consider, predicting what may be coming in the next three to five years. What we don’t want to do is to play the game of “whack-a-mole” where we are constantly “putting out fires” when we can be strategic.    

NN: We are following the developments – both on the scientific side as well as regulatory indicators. And we can identify four potential “problematic” chemicals or classes of chemicals. Specifically, from the chemical groups – endocrine disrupting chemicals and flame-retardant chemicals. Both of these are not distinct groups as some of the flame retardants are starting to be regulated because of endocrine disrupting concerns. That’s where we see the focus of regulatory actions and chemical assessments will be.   

As for specific individual chemicals, polyvinyl chloride or PVC might be the next PFAS or asbestos. PVC is used pervasively in a lot of different applications such as water pipes, textiles, packaging, and everyday articles which are made from PVC plastics (e.g. furniture, medical devices, personal care items, auto parts, etc.). Both the US EPA and ECHA, the chemical agency in the EU, are evaluating the risk of these chemicals and depending on the outcomes of these evaluations, the ramifications could widely affect what products can be placed on the market.  

The second chemical group we are monitoring is HFC, and more specifically the substitution of HFC.  Under the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, many of the 160 signatory countries have started to phase out the import of HFCs and use of it in products. 

The third class of chemicals is phthalates. Like PFAS, phthalates are used in various applications, including plastic and plastic products. Like PFAS, the risk with phthalates is that there might be exposure beyond just every day of the product’s use, with the chemical in it. Phthalates are used in different products and as these products are degraded in landfill, there are risks that the chemicals will leach into the soil and waterways. 

Additionally, given the talk about circular economy and plastic, some of the phthalates – being used as plasticizer could potentially contaminate and impede the recycling of some plastic. So even if there is no regulatory prohibition on the use of the chemical, companies must still phase out some of the phthalates if they want to meet their recyclability, sustainability or circular economy objectives, with the inherent risk that lack of action might also push governments to scrutinize this class of chemicals even more. 

Finally, we are starting to see some scrutiny on bisphenols. Bisphenol A or BPA was a big issue a few years ago. However, as companies start to substitute other bisphenols for BPA, the focus is starting to shift towards the substitutes, so Bisphenol S, Bisphenol F.  ECHA and 27 EU member states have assessed and recommended 30 bisphenols be restricted in a wide variety of products. California recently expanded the scope of the ban on bisphenols beyond just BPA for juvenile products. It will be a matter of time before you will start to see more BPA or other restrictions on bisphenols in general.  

NN: Chemical manufacturers are highly regulated and any substance they incorporate into a product can have implications, so those companies are aware. Other manufacturers are not quite as ready because they don’t see themselves as chemical manufacturers, even if the product contains chemicals, but within the context of regulations many companies are treated like a chemical manufacturer. In a sense, they have to fulfil the same obligations as the chemical companies and for some manufacturers, they are just waking up to that hard reality. Some lack the staff, resources and understanding of the regulatory requirements relating to chemical issues. But lack of resources or ignorance of the law isn’t a good defense and could potentially end up costing companies even more in fines or loss of reputation for the brand.  

NN: I would not characterize it as misconceptions. However, people often think that something is only hazardous if a human is directly touching or ingesting it, but it can be more complicated than that. For example, people may not be directly eating a substance, it’s because substances from products degrade into the ground and go into the water system, so the environment becomes a delivery system for it. So, the packaging itself may not be directly bad, and you may need the wrapping for your food to preserve and protect it, but when it gets into the water systems or for example there is degraded plastic in there, that’s when we end up ingesting it. The point I am getting at is you can have direct contact with a product, and it will be safe, but later when its properties have found a way into the water we drink, then it’s a different story. Most of the regulations and product safety discussions put the emphasis on human health from direct contact and less on the overall exposure, but cases like PFAS show that regulators and NGOs are coming at it from a different angle. And that’s why some of industry objections on PFAS have not gained much traction with regulators.   

NN: Products can get regulated because the chemicals in them can eventually seep into the environment and we can even consume them down the line – as I mentioned with the drinking water example. Making products that are safe for people to use is only half the story, the environmental implications are the other side of it. There are areas where people demand environmental justice and there are developing countries where rubbish is being dumped and people are angry about it. They find their communities getting indirectly impacted. Regulators take close notice of these concerns.  It’s a shame that in the past, chemicals management for some in industry may have included simply dumping chemicals, whether intentionally or unintentionally, in the ocean. The assumption is the sea is vast and can dilute the contaminants or carry them away, but we know that this is not a good strategy. Fortunately, that attitude is changing, and some companies have become champions of environmental stewardship. It’s important to think of sustainability today and how your products will degrade in time. The sustainability push offers companies an opportunity to rethink implications and redesign the processes and materials. These actions could potentially benefit companies by reducing costs through using less materials, better materials or even better sourced materials. It is also an opportunity for companies to improve their brand reputation. All of these efforts would ultimately benefit the public and the environment and boost the bottom line for companies willing to be on the frontline of this. This trio effect is the rationale that many regulators are using to further their regulatory agenda. And whether one may like them or not, these issues are not going away anytime soon.