They are in your frying pan, your waterproof jacket, the foam used by firefighters at airports, the grease-proof wrapper of your last takeaway… and in the blood of almost every human on the planet. Over the past decade, PFAS have moved from obscure lab acronyms to a central topic for regulators, investors and corporate boards worldwide.
What exactly are PFAS?
PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a large family of more than 10,000 synthetic chemicals. Their common denominator: chains of carbon atoms fully or partially bonded to fluorine.
This carbon–fluorine bond is one of the strongest in organic chemistry. It gives PFAS unique properties:
From an industrial standpoint, PFAS are a dream material: durable, versatile, efficient in tiny quantities. From an environmental and public health standpoint, this same durability is the problem.
Among PFAS, some molecules are particularly well studied:
These “legacy” compounds (PFOA, PFOS) have been phased out in many countries, but thousands of other PFAS remain in widespread use, often with very limited toxicological data.
Why are PFAS called “forever chemicals”?
PFAS are nicknamed “forever chemicals” for one simple reason: they barely break down in the environment. The carbon-fluorine bond can withstand heat, sunlight, bacteria and most natural degradation processes.
Two key characteristics explain the concern:
The result is long-term, global contamination. Studies have found PFAS in:
Once released, PFAS accumulate in ecosystems and, crucially, in living organisms. Some PFAS are bioaccumulative, building up in fish, animals and humans over time.
Where do PFAS come from in everyday life?
Because of their performance characteristics, PFAS are embedded in a wide range of products and industrial processes. Typical uses include:
For businesses, the challenge is that PFAS are often present not only as primary ingredients, but also as processing aids, surface treatments or impurities along the supply chain. In other words: many companies use PFAS without fully realizing it.
What are the health risks associated with PFAS?
The toxicity profile of PFAS varies widely between molecules. However, a growing body of epidemiological and toxicological studies links exposure to several adverse health effects, especially for well-studied compounds like PFOA and PFOS.
Major public health agencies, including the US EPA and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), highlight associations between PFAS exposure and:
In 2023, a review published in The Lancet classified certain PFAS exposures as a significant contributor to global disease burden, particularly via high cholesterol, kidney disease and low birth weight. While causality and dose–response relationships are still being refined, the direction of travel is clear: authorities are increasingly framing PFAS as systemic, chronic risk factors rather than isolated industrial pollutants.
The complicating factor is low-dose, long-term exposure. PFAS do not cause acute poisoning in the way some solvents or pesticides might. Instead, they slowly accumulate in the body, with half-lives measured in years for some compounds. The risk is therefore cumulative and largely invisible, which makes regulatory and public health management more complex.
How widespread is human exposure?
In practical terms, exposure is almost universal in industrialized countries.
US biomonitoring data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) have repeatedly shown that more than 95% of Americans have detectable levels of several PFAS in their blood. European data point in the same direction, with population studies in Germany, Sweden, France and the Nordic countries finding widespread exposure, although levels may vary depending on local industrial history and water sources.
Main exposure pathways include:
Highly exposed communities – for example, those living near PFAS production plants, military bases or airports – may face water contamination levels hundreds or thousands of times above health-based guidelines. This has triggered waves of litigation in the US, Australia and parts of Europe, with settlements reaching several billions of dollars.
Why regulators are ramping up pressure
For decades, PFAS regulation focused on a handful of molecules. That approach is now seen as inadequate given the size of the chemical family and the similarity of many compounds. The policy shift can be summarized in three trends:
A quick overview by region illustrates the scale of change.
United States
The US has become a key theatre for PFAS regulation and litigation:
European Union
The EU is moving towards one of the most ambitious PFAS strategies globally:
Asia-Pacific and beyond
Regulation is uneven but accelerating:
For multinational companies, this means navigating a patchwork of emerging rules, bans and reporting requirements, with a clear trend: the space for PFAS in non-essential, consumer-facing applications is shrinking fast.
Legal, financial and reputational risks for businesses
PFAS are not just an environmental health issue; they are turning into a material business risk. Several dimensions are worth highlighting for boards and executives.
Litigation and liability
In the US, PFAS-related lawsuits have already produced settlements in the multi-billion dollar range for water contamination and health claims. While chemical manufacturers are the primary defendants, other actors are increasingly targeted:
As scientific evidence and regulatory definitions evolve, more cases are likely, including in Europe and other regions.
Compliance and remediation costs
New drinking water standards and soil/sediment thresholds will require:
These costs can be significant, especially for sectors such as chemicals, electronics, automotive, aerospace, textiles, food & beverage packaging, and waste management.
Investor and customer pressure
PFAS are now appearing in ESG questionnaires, green bond frameworks and sustainability audits. Large buyers, particularly in the retail, apparel and electronics sectors, are already pushing suppliers to:
For B2C brands, the reputational risk of being publicly associated with “forever chemicals” is growing, as media coverage and consumer awareness rise. This is especially true in categories such as children’s products, food contact materials and cosmetics.
Real-world examples of the PFAS pivot
Several high-profile cases illustrate how rapidly the landscape is shifting.
3M’s exit from PFAS
In late 2022, chemical giant 3M announced it would stop manufacturing PFAS by 2025 and “work to discontinue use of PFAS across our product portfolio.” This landmark decision followed years of litigation, regulatory scrutiny and growing market pressure. The company reported that PFAS-related liability and remediation could cost several billions of dollars over time.
Airport firefighting foam transitions
Across Europe, Australia and parts of the US, airports are phasing out PFAS-based firefighting foams in favour of fluorine-free alternatives. This change entails not only new foam procurement but also decontamination of storage tanks, pipelines and training sites – a complex and costly process, yet increasingly non-negotiable for regulators and communities.
Retailers banning PFAS in products
Global brands and retailers in sectors such as outdoor apparel, fast food and supermarket chains have started to adopt PFAS-free policies for certain product categories. Some large clothing brands, for instance, now publicly commit to eliminating PFAS from water-repellent treatments, relying instead on alternative chemistries or design changes.
What can companies do now?
For many organizations, PFAS have been a “hidden” issue. Waiting for definitive, harmonized regulation is risky given the speed of change and the potential for retroactive liability. A pragmatic, step-by-step approach can help.
1. Map exposure and dependencies
Start with a structured assessment:
Cross-functional collaboration between procurement, R&D, EHS, legal and sustainability teams is essential here.
2. Prioritize high-risk applications and sites
Not all PFAS uses carry the same level of risk. Criteria to prioritize include:
Focus early efforts on the intersection of high exposure potential and high regulatory or reputational sensitivity.
3. Engage suppliers and customers
PFAS management is a supply chain issue. Companies should:
Transparency is often limited; it may take several iterations and, in some cases, analytical testing to get reliable data.
4. Invest in R&D and substitution
Where PFAS provide genuinely critical performance, substitution is not necessarily straightforward. Options include:
Collaboration with industry consortia, universities and specialty chemical suppliers can accelerate the search for robust, scalable solutions.
5. Develop a PFAS governance and disclosure strategy
Given stakeholder attention, companies benefit from a clear internal policy and external narrative:
An explicit strategy helps avoid reactive, crisis-driven decisions later.
The road ahead: from legacy burden to innovation opportunity
PFAS encapsulate many of the challenges at the intersection of chemistry, industry and public policy: a class of highly useful compounds that, once dispersed at global scale, reveal long-term costs far exceeding short-term benefits.
For regulators, the task is to reconcile scientific uncertainty, economic interests and health protection, often under intense political and legal pressure. For businesses, the message is increasingly clear: treating PFAS as a niche environmental compliance issue is no longer tenable.
Companies that anticipate the shift – by mapping their exposure, investing in substitution, and engaging transparently with stakeholders – will be better positioned to manage risk and capture new markets for safer materials and technologies.
And for citizens and consumers, PFAS are a reminder that “forever” is a very long time in chemistry, but not in public tolerance. The question is no longer whether these substances will be regulated more strictly, but how quickly, how broadly, and at whose cost. Businesses that start preparing now retain more control over the answer.
