PFAS: Why the Pharmaceutical Industry Is Not Giving Up “Forever Chemicals”
Laura Chrobok 27.07.2026
PFAS are among the most controversial groups of chemicals, as you may already have learned from our previous article. We have explored PFAS scandals and their background(s). But while the use of PFAS is increasingly being restricted in many areas, the pharmaceutical industry of all sectors continues to use them in a variety of applications.
Why has an industry whose primary purpose is to protect human health not abandoned PFAS long ago? Are they simply avoidable industry habits, or are there applications for which no equivalent alternatives currently exist? How and why are PFAS used in medicines, pharmaceutical manufacturing and medical devices?
Irresistibly Resistant — PFAS in the Pharmaceutical Industry
The short answer is this: because certain PFAS and other fluorinated materials possess properties that are still difficult to replace. They are exceptionally resistant to heat and chemicals, react only minimally with other substances and meet demanding requirements regarding hygiene, sterility and durability. These are characteristics that play an important role in the development, manufacture and use of numerous medicines and medical devices. For this reason, the European PFAS restriction proposal currently under discussion provides transitional periods or exemptions for certain applications while suitable alternatives continue to be actively developed (European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), 2023).
However, this simple explanation does not tell the whole story. While PFOA and PFOS, in particular, have come under global criticism because of the risks they pose to human health and the environment, the discussion within the pharmaceutical industry often concerns other fluorinated materials or fluorinated active pharmaceutical ingredients. Understanding these differences is essential for correctly interpreting the current debate (OECD, 2021; Buck et al., 2011).
Medicines and Medical Devices — Why Pharmaceutical Companies Still Use PFAS
PFAS and other fluorinated materials play a role both in the development of certain medicines and in pharmaceutical manufacturing, as well as in a variety of medical devices. Depending on the application, they fulfil different functions — from improving the properties of an active ingredient to ensuring safe and sterile manufacturing processes (ECHA, 2023; OECD, 2021).
PFAS in the Manufacture of Medical Devices
Fluorinated materials are used, for example, in tubing, seals, valves, pumps, filters and specialised coatings. Because of their exceptional resistance to heat and chemicals, together with their high material stability, they are particularly well suited for manufacturing facilities where the highest standards of purity and sterility must be maintained.
Numerous medical devices contain fluorinated materials. These include certain catheters, vascular grafts, surgical implants and specialised membranes. Their high chemical resistance, smooth surface and excellent biocompatibility are the key reasons for their use. According to current knowledge, some of these applications are still regarded as difficult to replace, although intensive research into suitable alternatives is ongoing. According to the European Chemicals Agency, these are among the applications for which equivalent alternatives are often not yet available. Consequently, transitional periods or exemptions are currently being discussed for certain pharmaceutical applications within the proposed PFAS restriction (ECHA, 2023).
PFAS in Medicines
The best-known use of fluorinated compounds is in the development of new medicines. It is estimated that around 20–25% of newly approved medicines now contain at least one fluorine atom. This can help make an active ingredient more stable, improve its absorption within the body or prolong its duration of action. For this reason, fluorine has played an important role in modern pharmaceutical research for decades (Purser et al., 2008; Inoue et al., 2020).
A distinction must be made, however. Not every fluorinated medicine automatically qualifies as a PFAS in the context of the current environmental debate. At the same time, there are active pharmaceutical ingredients that may indeed be classified as PFAS according to certain definitions. Which substances ultimately qualify as PFAS therefore depends on the definition used — a matter that remains the subject of considerable debate within the scientific community (OECD, 2021; Cousins et al., 2020).
The Use of PFAS Is a Matter of Controversy
This is where the real debate begins. On the one hand, there is broad agreement that human and environmental exposure to persistent PFAS should be reduced as far as possible. On the other hand, representatives of the pharmaceutical industry and manufacturers of medical devices warn against abandoning certain fluorinated materials as long as no equivalent alternatives are available.
Critics argue that any continued use of PFAS increases the risk of additional emissions — whether during manufacturing, through production waste or during the disposal of the corresponding products. In their view, pharmaceutical companies should therefore also gradually reduce their use of fluorinated materials and invest more heavily in the development of suitable alternatives (Cousins et al., 2020; ECHA, 2023).
The pharmaceutical industry takes a different view. It argues that, while PFAS used in many consumer products can increasingly be replaced, fluorinated substances remain difficult to replace in parts of drug development, pharmaceutical manufacturing, pharmaceutical packaging and medical technology. According to the industry, a premature phase-out could make the production of important medicines more difficult, disrupt supply chains and delay innovation. Consequently, the industry is calling for exemptions or lengthy transitional periods for certain medical applications within the proposed PFAS restrictions (European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) & AnimalhealthEurope, 2023).
Ultimately, the question is not whether PFAS should be replaced, but whether the industry is able and willing to adopt alternatives that already exist and to adapt to new ones. This is likely to play a decisive role in determining how this group of substances will be regulated in the future.
Disposal: PFAS Remain Problematic Even at the End of Their Life Cycle
The challenges associated with PFAS do not end with their manufacture or use. Their disposal is also considered technically demanding. In conventional municipal wastewater treatment plants, many PFAS are therefore removed only incompletely. Instead of being broken down, they may pass through the treated wastewater or accumulate in sewage sludge and other residual materials.
To remove PFAS from industrial wastewater, technologies such as activated carbon filters, ion-exchange resins and membrane processes such as reverse osmosis are used. However, these methods generally do not destroy PFAS; rather, they merely separate them from the water. As a result, highly concentrated residues are produced — for example, spent activated carbon, exhausted ion-exchange resins or concentrates from membrane filtration — which must then be treated or disposed of separately.
For these PFAS-containing wastes, high-temperature incineration in specially designed hazardous waste incineration facilities is currently regarded as one of the most important technical treatment options. How effectively individual PFAS are destroyed depends on various factors, including the specific PFAS compound, the incineration temperature, the residence time, as well as the design of the facility and its flue gas cleaning system. Experts point out that the complete destruction of all PFAS under real operating conditions remains the subject of ongoing research and that potential emissions of fluorinated degradation products, as well as residues in ash and flue gases, must be carefully monitored.
For industry, this means that PFAS-containing production waste, contaminated cleaning fluids, used filter materials and fluoropolymer-containing production components often cannot be disposed of via conventional waste management routes. Instead, multi-stage processes are required. First, PFAS are separated from wastewater or process streams and concentrated into the smallest possible waste stream. These residues must then be further treated under controlled conditions or disposed of at suitable facilities. As a result, both the technical effort and the costs of disposal increase considerably.
PFAS and the Pharmaceutical Industry: An Uncertain Future
Political and scientific pressure to reduce the use of persistent PFAS continues to increase. At the same time, companies and research institutions are investing ever more heavily in alternative materials that offer similar technical properties without the well-known disadvantages associated with highly persistent PFAS.
It is likely that, in the future, the use of PFAS will be examined far more carefully and restricted to applications for which no equivalent alternatives have yet been demonstrated to exist. As a result, the development of new materials and manufacturing processes is likely to become considerably more important over the coming years (ECHA, 2023; OECD, 2021).
Conclusion: The Use of PFAS Will Change — But Not End
The industrial use of PFAS demonstrates that complex scientific and technical questions can rarely be reduced to simple answers. While some PFAS are increasingly being restricted because of their persistence and the risks they pose to human health and the environment, other fluorinated materials are currently still regarded as difficult to replace in certain pharmaceutical applications.
What is already clear, however, is that efforts are underway to reduce the use of PFAS. When will this happen? How will it happen? Will it happen at all? These are questions that — for the time being — remain unanswered.
Just as a reminder, although this does not apply to all fluorinated substances: PFAS can be carcinogenic and are also dangerous in other ways.
FAQ — (Further) Frequently Asked Questions About PFAS in the Pharmaceutical Industry
1. Are fluorinated medicines the same as PFAS?
No, fluorinated active pharmaceutical ingredients and PFAS are often confused. Although certain active ingredients may be classified as PFAS depending on the definition used, many fluorinated medicines do not automatically fall within the group of PFAS that are of particular concern because of their environmental and health risks. For this reason, each substance must be assessed individually (Greinke et al., 2026; OECD, 2021; Cousins et al., 2020).
2. Can PFAS used by the pharmaceutical industry enter the environment?
Yes, PFAS can enter the environment throughout their entire life cycle — for example during manufacturing, processing or disposal. However, the extent to which pharmaceutical applications contribute compared with other sources depends on the specific application and the substances involved, and is currently the subject of intensive research (Mashima, 2025; ECHA, 2023).
3. What alternatives to PFAS are available?
There is no universal alternative to PFAS. Which substitute materials are suitable depends on the function PFAS perform in the respective application. In some areas, fluorinated materials can already be replaced by other high-performance polymers, silicones, elastomers or specialised coatings. In other cases, alternative manufacturing processes or fluorine-free active ingredients may be appropriate. For certain medical devices and highly specialised manufacturing processes, however, experts currently see no equivalent alternatives. For this reason, under the proposed European PFAS restrictions, each application is assessed individually rather than imposing a blanket ban on all PFAS (ECHA, 2023).
4. Why are PFAS not being phased out gradually?
A gradual phase-out is, in fact, currently under discussion. However, regulatory authorities distinguish between applications for which suitable alternatives already exist and those for which, according to current knowledge, replacement would still involve considerable technical or medical challenges. For this reason, the PFAS restriction process proposed by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) includes transitional periods or exemptions for certain applications. The aim is to reduce environmental contamination by PFAS without at the same time jeopardising the supply of important medicines or medical devices (ECHA, 2023).
Further information (also on many other topics) can be found on our blog. In our next article, we will take a look, among other things, at how you can protect yourself against PFAS exposure. You can also find our “Medizinskandale” book series and the “Codex Humanus” — the fifth volume of which was recently published — in our online shop. We look forward to your visit.
Sources:
· European Chemicals Agency (2023): “Annex XV Restriction Report – Proposal for a Restriction of PFAS.”
· OECD (2021): “Reconciling Terminology of the Universe of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: Recommendations and Practical Guidance.”
· Buck et al. (2011): “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Environment: Terminology, Classification, and Origins,” Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management.
· Purser et al. (2008): “Fluorine in Medicinal Chemistry,” Chemical Society Reviews.
· Inoue et al. (2020): “Contribution of Organofluorine Compounds to Pharmaceuticals,” ACS Omega.
· Cousins et al. (2020): “The High Persistence of PFAS Is Sufficient for Their Management as a Chemical Class,” Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts.
· European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) & AnimalhealthEurope (2023): “Position of the European Human Pharmaceutical and Animal Health Industry on the Use of ‘Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances’ (PFAS) in Europe, in the Light of a Proposed Restriction under REACH.”
· OECD (2025): “Synthesis Report on Understanding Fluoropolymers and Their Life Cycle,” OECD Series on Risk Management of Chemicals.
· Greinke et al. (2026): “Per- and Polyfluorinated Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients: Overview and Alternatives,” Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy.
· Mashima (2025): “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): History, Current Concerns, and Future Outlook,” Molecules.