PFAS Regulations Take Different Paths in EU and US
As the EU moves toward broad PFAS restrictions, the United States is taking a different approach shaped by federal policy changes and widely varying state regulations.
Need to Know
- The EU is considering broad restrictions covering PFAS across industries, with time-limited derogations expected for applications without available PFAS-free alternatives.
- Federal PFAS regulation in the United States is primarily focused on drinking water limits, removal, and destruction rather than broad restrictions on PFAS use.
- U.S. states have adopted significantly different approaches, with states such as Maine, Vermont, and Minnesota implementing some of the strongest restrictions.
- PFAS provide chemical and thermal stability for many critical applications, making the availability and scalability of alternatives an important consideration as regulations evolve.
The EU is in the process of drawing a red line through PFAS. In the United States, that line is red, blue, and constantly shifting. By the end of 2026, the final opinion of the European Chemical Agency’s Socio-Economic Analysis Committee will be submitted. The European Commission will then propose laws to restrict the use of all PFAS across all industries, with certain applications receiving time-limited derogations if PFAS-free alternatives are not available. Across the Atlantic, the EPA, under the Trump administration, has committed to rolling back Biden-era maximum contaminant levels for some PFAS in drinking water, focusing instead on PFAS removal and destruction technology. This article outlines the differing approaches to the PFAS problem across the United States and EU.
Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS or forever chemicals, have revolutionized modern industry since the mid-20th century. Strong, highly polar carbon-fluorine bonds lend PFAS unique chemical properties. Specifically, their exceptionally high chemical and thermal stability, as well as their ability to repel both water and oil, has resulted in their almost ubiquitous use across a wide range of consumer products and industrial applications. From non-stick coatings in cookware, to waterproofing for jackets and boots, to vehicle AC refrigerants, to chemical etching in advanced semiconductor manufacture, PFAS is everywhere, including the water, our food, and even our blood. A downside to PFAS's exceptional stability is that it is a highly persistent molecule in the environment, lasting up to hundreds, or even thousands, of years. They are often not broken down by the human body and accumulate over time. Some of the most prevalent PFAS, such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), have been classified as "carcinogenic to humans" and "possibly carcinogenic to humans" respectively.
The PFAS umbrella covers thousands of molecules, and long-term testing of each presents a gargantuan task. Some consider their dangers validated on the grounds simply of their persistence in the body, while others argue a more nuanced approach should be taken, given their importance in so many critical industries. IDTechEx's report, PFAS Regulations, Alternatives, Removal, and Destruction 2027-2037: Technologies, Players, Market Outlook, provides deep analysis of the PFAS regulatory landscape across the EU, the United States, and APAC, providing clarity on the key differences facing PFAS in each region.
EU Restrictions on PFAS
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is the EU's key technical and scientific body, whose role is to prepare and offer evidence-led opinions to the European Commission to direct regulations and restrictions on harmful chemicals. The EU already regulates some PFAS, such as PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS, under persistent organic pollutants, or POPs, regulations and further restricts certain long-chain PFAS and the use of PFAS in firefighting foams (this latter restriction was enacted in October 2026).
However, in 2023 a restriction dossier was submitted, proposing a blanket ban on all PFAS across all industries. A public consultation followed, in which a record-breaking 5,642 comments were received. The document was updated in light of these comments and passed to ECHA's Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) and Socio-Economic Assessment Committee (SEAC). As of July 2026, RAC's final opinion, and SEAC's draft opinion, have been published. While these do not themselves constitute regulation, it enables some conclusions to be speculatively drawn.
A restriction on all PFAS, including polymers (used in applications such as coatings for non-stick pans), and PFAS some consider "less persistent" is likely to go ahead. It appears unlikely that any individual PFAS molecule is to be exempted from these restrictions. For applications where PFAS-free alternatives do not yet exist, time-limited derogations (exemptions) are likely to be put in place. Depending on how quickly alternatives can be manufactured at scale, derogations will last either five or 12 years, which committees agree are reasonable, albeit somewhat arbitrary, timescales. The above-referenced report identifies key application areas and assesses the state-of-play for PFAS-free alternatives.
These moves in the EU represent some of the strongest PFAS legislation worldwide and is predicted to be highly effective at reducing the amount of PFAS emitted in the EU by millions of tons over the coming decades. However, critics argue these restrictions would be highly detrimental to the EU economy, with a risk of erasing key EU industries, such as semiconductor manufacturing, if alternatives cannot be found, at a time when developing sovereignty in these industries is considered by some to be critical.
EPA Rolls Back PFAS Water Limits
On the other side of the Atlantic, the regulatory landscape looks very different. The closest legislation to a restriction is the Department of Defense's ban on the use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam. The United States’ strongest legislation on PFAS revolves around limits of certain PFAS in drinking water, mandating removal and destruction if PFAS levels are found to be above the maximum contaminant level. The IDTechEx report includes detailed analysis of incumbent and emerging removal and destruction technologies, including activated carbon, ion exchange resins, foam fractionation, as well as incineration, landfilling, and supercritical water oxidation.
Figure 1. Number of adopted and introduced PFAS legislations by state (blue, swing, and red). Source: IDTechEx, using data acquired from Safer States.
Under the Biden administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established limits on six common PFAS molecules at 4.0ppt or 10ppt, depending on the PFAS. These remain the strictest limits on individual PFAS molecules and were to be enforced from 2029. However, under the Trump administration, the EPA proposes to decrease the number of PFAS restricted from six to two (PFOA and PFOS) and to extend the enforcement date from 2029 to 2031. These proposed changes are currently working through the American court system. There is a noticeable lack of PFAS restriction at a federal level in the United States and, given the polarized nature of American politics and the partisan nature of PFAS restriction, it is unlikely that federal-level restrictions resembling anything close to those proposed in the EU will be passed in the foreseeable future.
The partisan nature of PFAS restrictions is reflected in the states, where blue states average over 15 introduced or adopted legislations, while red states average under Two. Maine and Vermont offer some of the strongest PFAS restrictions, including for food packaging, cleaning products, textiles, cosmetics, and more, as well as for firefighting foam and pesticides. Minnesota's ban on "intentionally added PFAS" for all products unless exceptions are made by the commissioner, is the most reminiscent of the EU's proposed legislation.
For more information about IDTechEx and its PFAS report, visit www.IDTechEx.com/PFAS.
Looking for a reprint of this article?
From high-res PDFs to custom plaques, order your copy today!
