PFAS explained: what “forever chemicals” are and why testing them matters

Few groups of chemicals have moved from industrial obscurity to front-page news as quickly as PFAS. Once prized for making products non-stick, waterproof, and grease-resistant, they are now at the centre of one of the most far-reaching regulatory efforts in the history of European chemicals law. If you make, formulate, or sell consumer products, the questions are no longer abstract: what exactly are these substances? Are they really harmful? And what happens when they can no longer be used?

This article walks through the essentials — clearly, without jargon — and explains why the real challenge ahead is not just removing PFAS, but proving that whatever replaces them is genuinely safe.

What are PFAS?

PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. They are a large family of synthetic chemicals built around chains of carbon atoms bonded to fluorine. That carbon–fluorine bond is one of the strongest in organic chemistry, which is precisely what makes PFAS so useful — and so problematic.

This is not a niche category. PFAS is estimated to include more than 10,000 distinct substances, used across a remarkable range of everyday products. You’ll find them associated with:

• Non-stick cookware and food-contact coatings
• Waterproof and stain-resistant textiles and clothing
• Grease-resistant food packaging
• Firefighting foams
• Certain cosmetics, particularly long-wear and waterproof formulations
• Industrial and electronics manufacturing

A useful rule of thumb: keywords like non-stick, waterproof, stain-resistant, and grease-proof often signal PFAS chemistry at work. For decades, these substances rarely appeared on ingredient labels, and many manufacturers were not even aware they were using them.

Why are PFAS called “forever chemicals”?

The nickname is more than a headline. It reflects a genuine scientific property: PFAS are extraordinarily persistent.

That same strong carbon–fluorine bond that makes them resistant to heat, water, and oil also makes them resistant to natural breakdown. They do not degrade easily in the environment, and — unlike many other contaminants — they are not readily metabolised and eliminated by the body. Instead, they can accumulate over time, both in ecosystems and in living organisms.

The practical consequence is that PFAS released today can remain in water, soil, and bloodstreams for years or even decades. This persistence is the root of the concern: it turns a question of present-day exposure into one of long-term, cumulative burden.

What are the health concerns linked to PFAS?

Research into PFAS health effects is active and evolving. Epidemiological studies and laboratory research have pointed to a number of possible associations between exposure to certain PFAS and adverse health outcomes.

This combination — thousands of substances, but reliable toxicity data for only a few — is one of the defining challenges of the entire PFAS debate.

How are PFAS being regulated? (2026 update)

Europe is moving decisively, and 2026 is a pivotal year.

The headline development is a proposed broad, class-based restriction under REACH, the EU’s framework regulation for chemicals. Rather than banning PFAS one substance at a time, the proposal — originally submitted in January 2023 by Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden — would address PFAS as an entire class.

Key milestones to be aware of:

• March 2026 — ECHA’s Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) adopted its final opinion supporting an EU-wide restriction. At the same time, the Socio-Economic Analysis Committee (SEAC) agreed its draft opinion, opening a 60-day public consultation.
• 25 May 2026 — closing date of the public consultation on SEAC’s draft opinion, through which industry, NGOs, researchers and the public can submit evidence-based comments.
• End of 2026 — SEAC’s final opinion is expected to be adopted, completing ECHA’s scientific evaluation. The opinions then pass to the European Commission, which will draft an amendment to REACH for Member States to consider.
• 12 August 2026 — separately, under the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), the use of PFAS in food-contact packaging above defined thresholds will be prohibited once the relevant provisions apply.

The direction of travel is unmistakable. Final scope, transition periods, and any exemptions are still being defined — with restrictions potentially applying to many consumer and life-sciences products from around 2029 — but the regulatory pressure to reduce and replace PFAS is only increasing.

The hidden challenge: substitution and re-testing

Here is the part of the story that gets far less attention than the bans themselves.

Restricting PFAS does not simply mean removing an ingredient. For thousands of products, it means reformulating — finding alternative materials that deliver the same performance without the same chemistry. And every alternative raises the same fundamental question that PFAS themselves now face: is it actually safe?

Substitution is not automatically a solution. History is full of cases where one substance was replaced by another that later proved equally or more concerning. The only way to avoid repeating that pattern is to evaluate the toxicity of replacement substances before they reach the market at scale — not years afterwards.

In other words, the PFAS transition is, at its core, a vast safety-assessment challenge. The regulation defines what must go; science must determine what can responsibly take its place.

How is PFAS toxicity actually assessed?

Evaluating the safety of a substance — whether a legacy PFAS or a candidate replacement — relies on a toolbox of laboratory methods designed to characterise hazard without waiting for harm to appear in the real world.

Increasingly, this work draws on New Approach Methodologies (NAMs): modern techniques that include in vitro cell-based assays and high-throughput screening, capable of evaluating many substances efficiently and with reduced reliance on animal testing. These methods feed into Next-Generation Risk Assessment (NGRA), a framework that integrates multiple lines of evidence to reach a safety conclusion.

For a class as large as PFAS — and for the wave of substitutes now under development — these approaches are not a luxury. They are the only realistic way to assess thousands of substances within meaningful timeframes. The credibility of the entire substitution effort depends on the quality and rigour of the safety data behind it.

How GenEvolutioN supports safer chemistry

GenEvolutioN is a GLP-accredited contract research organisation specialising in regulatory safety assessment — including genotoxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitisation, and dermal permeation. As industries navigate the shift away from PFAS, our role is straightforward: to help establish, with scientific rigour, whether the substances entering products can be used safely.

Whether you are reformulating ahead of upcoming restrictions or evaluating new ingredients, robust safety data is what turns a regulatory obligation into a confident decision. Talk to our team →