Introduction
If you followed PFAS regulation last year, your attention would have naturally fallen on Europe and the United States—the EU pushing for a broad restriction, the US setting drinking water standards. Those were the two main storylines. But in the first half of this year, the picture has changed. The density of actions in the Asia?Pacific region has increased—from monitoring capacity building to substance bans, from emissions reporting to litigation. Several things have happened almost simultaneously, and at a faster pace than in Europe or the US.
Another change is in the regulatory logic itself. For more than a decade, the global approach to PFAS control has been piecemeal: first rein in PFOA and PFOS, then PFHxS, then alternatives. But the restriction proposal submitted by the EU in 2023 targets the entire PFAS family—over 10,000 substances (and in the first half of 2026, that proposal completed its most critical scientific assessment and public consultation phases). If a class?wide restriction is adopted, companies will no longer face a list of a few substances to replace, but an access barrier for an entire chemical family.
Part 1 – Asia?Pacific: An Emerging New Variable
China
On 12 June, the fourth meeting of the Inter?Ministerial Coordination Group on New Pollutants was held in Beijing, chaired by Minister of Ecology and Environment Huang Runqiu. The core message was that 2026, as the first year of the “15th Five?Year Plan”, requires improving the regulatory and standards system and strengthening source control.
On 15 June, the China National Environmental Monitoring Centre launched a laboratory capability assessment for PFOS and PFOA in water—moving PFAS monitoring from the policy level to operational implementation.
More notably, the Ecological Environment Code, which takes effect on 15 August, includes Article 645 establishing a system for the prevention, monitoring and control of new pollutants including persistent organic pollutants, with PFAS explicitly covered. This is the first time that China has provided a legal basis for systematic PFAS control at the statutory level.
Japan
On 17 June, PFHxS?related compounds were officially designated as Class I Specified Chemical Substances, banning their manufacture, import and use, as well as the import of waterproof textiles, semiconductor preparations and firefighting foams containing PFHxS—a step in fulfilling Japan’s commitments under the Stockholm Convention.
Since April, PFOS and PFOA in tap water have been upgraded to water quality standards, and an import ban on long?chain perfluorocarboxylic acids will take effect on 22 November.
Canada
On 30 June, the Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2025
came into force, replacing the 2012 version. The scope has been expanded from a few key substances to a class?based approach, most existing exemptions have been eliminated, and bans on two flame retardants have been added.
Australia
In June, New South Wales issued a chemical control order requiring about 140 landfills and 260 wastewater treatment plants to monitor and report PFAS emissions from 1 October. In the same month, the federal government filed a lawsuit against 3M in the Federal Court, claiming more than A$2 billion in damages, on the grounds that 3M concealed environmental hazard data on PFAS in firefighting foams. The Department of Defence has already spent over A$1.3 billion on PFAS responses.
Part 2 – Europe: The Push for a Broad Restriction Enters the Final Sprint
25 May The public consultation on the EU’s broad PFAS restriction proposal closed. Of the 3,511 comments received by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), nearly 90% came from companies and industry associations. The sector with the highest share of comments was electronics and semiconductors (over 12%), far exceeding consumer?facing products like cosmetics and ski wax. The real anxiety of industry lies not in end?user products, but in industrial uses for which no alternatives have yet been found.
10 June Less than three weeks after the consultation closed, ECHA formally classified trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) as a reproductive toxicant Category 1B. TFA is an ultra?short?chain PFAS that, unlike long?chain PFAS, is more mobile and can rapidly penetrate soil into groundwater. ECHA’s assessment concluded that it can cause widespread, long?term contamination of water sources. TFA is widely used in pesticides and pharmaceuticals, and this classification will directly raise the threshold for its use.
15 June EU Environment Commissioner Roswall convened a meeting with more than 20 stakeholders. Her message was clear: support the transition away from permanent chemicals, and seek PFAS bans in both consumer products and industrial uses. At the EU level, three parallel tracks are advancing: the Innovation and Substitution Centre was launched in March, a public?private remediation initiative is being prepared, and an EU?wide PFAS monitoring framework is being developed.
United Kingdom In February, the UK published its first national PFAS plan, covering drinking water monitoring, environmental regulation and consumer exposure—broadly aligned with the direction of continental Europe. A proposal to amend the Persistent Organic Pollutants Regulations is expected to be adopted by 14 October.
Europe’s direction is clear, but the pace is slower than anticipated. The final opinion of the Socio?Economic Analysis Committee (SEAC) is expected by the end of 2026, the European Commission’s formal restriction proposal would come no earlier than 2027, and final legislation may not be in place until after 2029.
Part 3 – United States: Federal Brakes, State Accelerators
18 May The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published two proposed rules. One would revoke drinking water standards for PFHxS, PFNA, GenX and PFBS mixtures; the other would extend the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS from 2029 to 2031. The 4 ppt limit for PFOA and PFOS remains unchanged, but the timeline has been significantly lengthened. The EPA’s rationale is that procedural deficiencies existed when the 2024 standards were set—regulatory decisions and standard?setting were conducted simultaneously, which did not comply with legal requirements. The EPA has also delayed PFAS reporting requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act. No major new federal actions are expected in 2026.
But states have not stopped. In the first five months of 2026, 23 states introduced 82 PFAS?related bills. Minnesota’s reporting requirements start in September; New Mexico’s reporting and product restrictions take effect in January 2027. State criteria are also converging, generally using total organic fluorine content as the basis for determining whether a product contains PFAS. The tension between federal and state levels will not be resolved in the short term.
Part 4 – Three Directions
Putting together the developments of the first half of the year, several ongoing changes become clear.
Regulation is moving from controlling a few substances to controlling a whole family – The EU proposal is the apex of this trajectory, but Canada’s class?based approach and China’s systematic push point in the same direction. Class?wide control is no longer just a European proposal; it is being implemented in practice by multiple economies.
The geographic centre of gravity is shifting eastward – The density of new developments in the Asia?Pacific region has markedly increased in the first half of the year. China is building systems, Japan is implementing bans, and Canada and Australia are enforcing regulations and pursuing litigation. PFAS governance is evolving from a trans?Atlantic conversation into a truly global issue.
Substitution has moved from a long?term goal to a near?term constraint – The EU’s Innovation and Substitution Centre is already operating, and Commissioner Roswall emphasised the role of innovation in the transition at her June meeting. Regulation is moving from restricting harmful substances to driving technological substitution.
Closing Remarks
Global PFAS governance is entering a multipolar, parallel phase. There is no single unified rhythm, but every track is moving forward. For companies, compliance is no longer about watching one market—it is about simultaneously responding to multiple frameworks that are taking shape. The EU’s broad restriction, China’s code framework, US state?level bans—they differ in path and timeline, but they converge in direction.
Before 2026, PFAS regulation was in a phase of building momentum. Six months on, that build?up is ending. Regulations are entering into force, bans are being implemented, monitoring is rolling out, and litigation is advancing.
