Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) have been used for decades in a wide variety of consumer products and in numerous industrial processes and in components of a broad range of devices and machinery. Many of these uses were in open applications leading to direct releases of PFASs to the environment; in addition, large amounts of PFASs have been released with waste streams to water, air and soil. All of this has led to a widespread contamination of the environment and human food and drinking water by a set of approximately 50 to 100 PFASs, mostly perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs), perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFSAs), and perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids (PFECAs), and precursors of these substances. In response to this concerning situation, regulatory action has been taken or initiated in many countries or regions, ranging from bans of individual PFASs to bans of PFASs in all consumer products and to the EU’s proposal of a restriction of PFASs as a class, and also including setting (or adjusting) limit values for PFASs in food, drinking water, surface water, and soil. Also in Switzerland, there is currently a lot of regulatory and political activity around PFASs, including the development of new limit values and several parliamentary motions submitted recently. PFAS manufacturers are facing numerous lawsuits in several countries, mostly by water providers and affected communities, and may have to pay billions of USD for compensation or settlement.

The fluorochemical industry and many industry branches using PFASs currently seem to be in a process of abandoning PFAS uses in consumer products [1], which is an important, but long overdue development. The main group of PFASs that will continue to be used, at least in certain, highly demanding applications, is fluoropolymers (FPs). PFAS emissions from FP production processes have been reduced, but are still substantial [2], which constitutes an important environmental footprint of FPs. FP manufacturers and users claim that emissions from FP production can and will be further reduced, whereas government authorities in many European countries support the EU’s restriction proposal, which includes FPs. For FP uses without sufficient alternatives, the proposal foresees transition times of more than 12 years. Importantly, innovation processes leading to alternatives to PFASs, also FPs, are underway [3].

In this situation, many societal actors (regulators, industry, policy makers, scientists, civil society groups, the media, public health institutions, and more) have to find responses to a range of challenging questions, including: what are preferable regulatory approaches to the PFAS problem, and what are their pros and cons? How was it possible that the PFAS problem has escalated into such a serious situation? What are the alternatives to PFASs in all the many PFAS uses that need to be ceased now? To what extent is remediation and clean-up possible, and what does it cost? Who will be responsible in the long-term for national action on PFASs? How can all societal actors contribute to an open process that facilitates the transition to alternatives wherever possible?