Canada Proposes Phasing Out PFAS

The Canadian government announced plans this month to phase out PFAS chemicals from the Canadian economy. Environment and Climate Change Canada (“ECCC”) and Health Canada proposed, first, to list PFAS chemicals — as a class — as toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (“CEPA”).[1] The agencies further proposed phasing out PFAS use wherever feasible: first in firefighting foams and then across a range of industries where PFAS can be replaced, including in textiles, food packaging, cosmetics, and medical devices. In the final phase of regulation, Canada will evaluate prohibiting PFAS use in industries where alternatives are not available.

ECCC and Health Canada announced the plan in the final State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Report (“State of PFAS Report”)[2] and an accompanying proposed Risk Management Approach.[3] The agencies have not yet proposed binding regulations to implement their plans, but have announced that implementing regulations will be developed beginning in 2027. The agencies are accepting comments on the regulatory framework outlined in the Risk Management Approach until May 7, 2025, and they specifically encourage companies to comment on the feasibility and required timeline for transitioning PFAS out of their supply chains.

Adding PFAS, as a Class, as Toxic Substance under CEPA

ECCC and Health Canada propose listing PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, as toxic substances under Schedule 1 of CEPA. Listing chemicals as toxic substances under CEPA does not have independent regulatory consequences, but it authorizes Canada to issue broad regulations governing the use of listed chemicals. When the listing is finalized, Canada may then issue the types of regulations contemplated in the Risk Management Approach.

In the State of PFAS Report, PFAS are given the OECD 2021 definition: “fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), that is, with a few noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (–CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (–CF2–).”[4] This is one of many competing structural definitions for PFAS that have been adopted internationally. Any chemical meeting this definition will be added to CEPA’s toxic substances list, except for those categorized as fluoropolymers. Canada has determined that it will not list fluoropolymers as toxic substances under CEPA because of the differences in how people are exposed to fluoropolymers and the hazards these chemicals pose, when compared to other PFAS.[5] As a result, for readability, the term “PFAS” used in this article does not include fluoropolymers.

This is the first time that Canada has listed a class of chemicals as toxic substances under CEPA. By designating the chemicals for regulation as a class, Canada seeks to minimize “regrettable substitution,” wherein restrictions placed on a well-studied chemical lead to increased use of a similar chemical that may possess similar hazardous properties.[6]

The Proposed Risk Management Framework for PFAS Uses

The Risk Management Framework proposes three phases for the contemplated regulations.[7] Exceptions will be considered during each regulatory phase, based on the availability of feasible alternatives and other potential costs to society.

In Phase 1, Canada will prohibit the use of PFAS not currently regulated in firefighting foams. PFAS in firefighting foam is already regulated, with phase outs underway and time-limited exemptions available for critical applications. Consultation on Phase 1 risk management actions will occur by Fall 2025, with a proposed regulation to be issued by Spring 2027.

In Phase 2, Canada will prohibit the use of PFAS not needed for the protection of health, safety, or the environment. In other words, in Phase 2, Canada will prioritize reducing PFAS in consumer product applications where PFAS can be replaced or removed with minimal adverse consequences. Canada expects to regulate the following PFAS uses during Phase 2, but will consider costs and benefits, the availability of suitable alternatives, and other socioeconomic considerations when prioritizing uses for prohibition:

• Cosmetics;
• Natural health products and non-prescription drugs; 
• Food packaging materials, food additives, and non-industrial food contact products;
• Paint and coating, adhesive and sealant and other building materials available to consumers;
• Consumer mixtures such as cleaning products, waxes and polishes;
• Textile uses, including in personal protective equipment; and 
• Ski waxes.

Canada expects consultation on Phase 2 to begin after the proposed Phase 1 Regulations are published in 2027. Canada has not proposed a timeline for potential phaseouts.

In Phase 3, Canada will prohibit PFAS uses, taking into consideration socioeconomic factors, for which there currently may not be feasible alternatives. The following uses are expected to be prohibited during this final phase:

• Fluorinated gas applications;
• Prescription drugs (human and veterinary);
• Medical devices;
• Industrial food contact materials;
• Industrial sectors such as mining and petroleum; and
• Transport and military applications.

The government has not provided an estimate for when consultation on Phase 3 is expected to begin.

For each phase, an initial consultation document will be published, and stakeholders will have at least 60 days to provide comments that will inform the regulatory development. Once a regulation is proposed, stakeholders will have another 60 days to comment, and then publication of the final regulation will occur within 18 months of the proposed regulation’s publication.

Comments and Further Information Requested by May 7, 2025

ECCC and Health Canada are seeking further information to guide the details of its forthcoming regulatory decisions. The deadline for commenting on the proposed Risk Management Approach is May 7, 2025, and the agencies specifically request companies provide information regarding:[8]

1. Availability of alternatives to PFAS, or the lack thereof, in the products and applications in which they are currently used;
2. Estimate of the timeframe required to transition to alternatives to PFAS, including information regarding any challenges to achieving that timeframe;
3. The socio-economic impacts of replacing PFAS, including the costs and feasibility of elimination or replacement; and
4. The quantities and concentrations of PFAS in products manufactured in, imported into, and sold into Canada, if not already provided through Canada’s PFAS Reporting Rule. 

Companies are not required to provide the information requested above, but commenting will help regulators understand how prohibiting PFAS uses will impact different industry groups. Stakeholders are also welcome to comment on any other topics relevant to the proposed Risk Management Approach, including suggestions for voluntary risk management actions like new disclosure regimes or industry-led phaseouts.[9]

Next Steps

Like Europe[10] and many U.S. states,[11] Canada is preparing to restrict PFAS use across a broad swath of product categories. To prepare, companies need to evaluate where PFAS exist in their supply chains, to understand what alternative chemistries are available, and to evaluate how, and on what timeline, a phaseout of PFAS in their product lines could be achieved. If a PFAS chemical cannot be substituted, companies need to clearly communicate to regulators why removing PFAS is not possible in a specific product line. Canada’s proposals underscore that non-essential PFAS use will continue to be targeted by regulators across the globe.

Please contact members of Marten’s Consumer Products Practice, including James Pollack and Isabel Carey if you have any questions about complying with federal, state, or Canadian PFAS regulations.

[1] SC 1999, c 33, s 46; Dep’t of the Environment, Dep’t of Health, Publication of the State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report (section 77 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999), 159 Can. Gazette (Mar. 8, 2025), https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2025/2025-03-08/html/notice-avis-eng.html#nl3.

[2] Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada, State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (“PFAS”) Report (Mar. 2025), https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2025/eccc/En84-395-2025-eng.pdf [“State of PFAS Report”].

[3] Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada, Risk Management Approach for Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), excluding fluoropolymers (Mar. 2025), https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/documents/pdf/pded/pfas/Risk%20management%20approach%20for%20per-%20and%20polyfluoroalkyl%20substances.pdf [“Risk Management Approach”]

[4] State of PFAS Report at 1.

[5] State of PFAS Report at 5, 12; Risk Management Approach at 5. The State of PFAS Report defines fluoropolymers as “polymers made by polymerization or copolymerization of olefinic monomers (at least 1 of which contains fluorine bonded to 1 or both of the olefinic carbon atoms) to form a carbon-only polymer backbone with fluorine atoms directly bonded to it.” State of PFAS Report at 12.

[6] Risk Management Approach at 4.

[7] Risk Management Approach at 1-2, 27.

[8] Risk Management Approach at 12.

[9] Risk Management Approach at 10-11.

[10] See James Pollack & Bryce Brown, E.U., Canada Consider Broad PFAS Consumer Product Bans (Sept. 25, 2023), https://martenlaw.com/news/eu_canada_consider_broad_pfas_consumer_product_bans.

[11] See James Pollack & Zach Zahner, State Action on PFAS Expands with Bans, Labeling, and Reporting Requirements (June 14, 2024), https://martenlaw.com/news/state-action-on-pfas-expands-with-bans-labeling-and-reporting-requirements.