April 3 Policy Watch: EU moves a key step closer to widespread PFAS restrictions

ECHA science committees back European Union–wide PFAS restriction

The European Chemicals Agency’s scientific committees released their opinions on how to tackle per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on March 26, supporting a restriction on the persistent chemicals under the European Union’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) legislation.

Three years in the making, the opinions mark a decisive step in the process toward EU action on PFAS. They considered a Reach restriction covering more than 10,000 substances and their uses in 15 specific sectors. The committees did not consider PFAS use restrictions for eight industrial fields—including printing, medical, and explosives—because of time constraints.

While both committees support a restriction, they have different views on exemptions. The Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) wants a full ban on PFAS, saying any continued use could result in emissions up to “hundreds of thousands of tonnes.”

But the Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) backed a ban with “targeted derogations” for PFAS uses “where costs to society outweigh the benefits” and there are no suitable alternatives available. SEAC chairperson María Ottati said an immediate blanket ban would “on balance, lead to more negative than positive impacts.”

Both committees said a ban should be subject to an 18-month transition period, with time-limited derogations for certain applications. Charles Bressant, a senior associate at law firm Pinsent Masons, said in a statement that this time frame could prove “challenging for certain industrial applications, requiring profound adjustments to supply chains and production processes.”

The RAC’s opinion is in its final form, while the SEAC opinion is a draft. The latter is open for comments until May 25. SEAC will adopt its final opinion by the end of 2026. At that point, the opinions will be formally submitted to the European Commission, which will propose a restriction for discussion and vote among EU member states.

NGO ClientEarth called on the SEAC to “remain vigilant” when deciding on exemptions in its final opinion. “The restriction should be designed in a way that incentivises proactive PFAS phase-out and safe substitutions,” ClientEarth lawyer Hélène Duguy said in a statement.

—Vanessa Zainznger, special to C&EN

States, advocacy groups sue EPA over air toxics rule rollback

States, local governments, and health and environmental advocacy groups filed lawsuits this week challenging the US Environmental Protection Agency’s rollback of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for coal-fired power plants.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans last year to undo the changes made by the Joe Biden administration in its 2024 update to the standards, originally finalized in 2012. The Biden EPA had cut the allowable amount of filterable particulate matter and Hg that power plants could emit by about one-third each. The current EPA finalized the repeal of the rule on Feb. 24; it’s set to go into effect on April 27.

The coalition of 23 advocacy groups (PDF) and the group of 21 state and local governments filed two separate lawsuits on March 30 and 31 in the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The court has since combined them into one case.

In a joint statement, the health and environmental advocacy groups called the repeal a betrayal of the EPA’s core mission. “This administration is not just rolling back rules, it is eliminating the monitoring infrastructure needed to know what is coming out of these smokestacks in the first place,” the group says.

The group includes the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Lung Association, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Sierra Club. The coalition of states and local governments includes Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, Oregon, the District of Columbia, Chicago, New York City, and Harris County, Texas.

—Leigh Krietsch Boerner

Trump extends effort to rid colleges, other federal contractors, of DEI

President Donald J. Trump, on March 26, signed an executive order that would require federal contractors and subcontractors, including colleges and universities, to agree to refrain from engaging in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. If a contractor or subcontractor violates this order, they will not only risk the cancellation of their contracts, but could also be “declared ineligible” for contracts in the future.

Federal departments and agencies have until April 24 to insert specific language into their contracts outlining the new requirements and until July 24 to ensure that all contractors are in compliance.

“Some entities, including government contractors, have attempted to conceal ongoing DEI activities even as the Administration has worked to end them,” a fact sheet provided alongside the executive order says. “This Order establishes strong accountability mechanisms to ensure compliance is genuine and verifiable.”

The most recent order appears to build upon a previous one, signed in January 2025, that requires federal contractors to certify that they are not running “any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.” However, the new executive order goes a step further by directing agencies to insert a specific clause into their contracts.

In addition, unlike the previous executive order, which didn’t specify what constitutes an “unlawful” DEI program, the administration now defines it as an activity “in which employees, applicants, or contracting parties are treated differently, separated, or singled out based on their race or ethnicity, rather than treated equally and objectively based on their merit.”

The March executive order came just days before the comment period closed for a General Services Administration (GSA) proposal that would require all federal funding recipients to ensure that their programs, including any DEI efforts, are complying with federal antidiscrimination laws.

—Krystal Vasquez

After analyzing pesticide registrations, NGOs say EPA fails to warn of cancer risks

The US Environmental Protection Agency is approving pesticides with cancer risks higher than the agency is supposed to allow, and failing to warn the public of those risks, according to a pair of analyses published March 30 by the Center for Food Safety and the Center for Biological Diversity, two nonprofit advocacy groups.

The analysis by the Center for Food Safety (PDF) found that at least six currently used pesticides registered by the EPA can cause cancer in more than one person among every 1 million people exposed, which is a “benchmark of concern” the agency has used in the past. The analysis by the Center for Biological Diversity (PDF) found that the EPA has required cancer warnings on 69 out of 4,919 approved labels for pesticides with active ingredients the agency has designated “likely” human carcinogens, and on 242 out of 22,147 labels for products with active ingredients designated “possible” carcinogens.

When asked for comment, the EPA press office referred C&EN to the amicus brief (PDF) filed Dec. 1, 2025, by the US government in the Monsanto v. Durnell case before the Supreme Court. The case centers on whether federal law preempts claims made under state law that pesticide manufacturers failed to warn of their products’ risks, when the EPA has not required such warnings. The US brief states that when determining whether a pesticide poses “unreasonable adverse effects” on the environment and human health, the EPA takes into account the economic, social, and environmental benefits of that pesticide as well as the costs.

When asked whether the EPA is required to keep the cancer risks of approved pesticides below 1 additional cancer among 1 million people exposed, agency spokesperson Jeffrey Landis told C&EN that the EPA does not comment on current or pending litigation. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell on April 27.

—Delger Erdenesanaa