PFAS labelling fails – the information gap remains
The Council of States rejects a general declaration requirement. A gap remains between legitimate objections to a blanket label and the need for information at the point of purchase.
On 15 September 2026, the Council of States rejected a motion by FDP National Councillor Susanne Vincenz-Stauffacher calling for a PFAS declaration requirement. The National Council had approved it; with the upper chamber's no, the initiative is off the table. What was under debate was not a finished label, but a mandate to create a legal basis for more transparency.
PFAS are a group of several thousand synthetic compounds. Many are water-, grease- or dirt-repellent and are therefore used in outdoor textiles, cookware, electronics and specialised industrial applications. What numerous compounds share is their extreme persistence. Some accumulate in the environment and in organisms and are toxicologically problematic; others have been studied far less. “Contains PFAS” would therefore be an ingredient statement, but not yet a complete risk assessment.
What already has to be declared today
The market is not entirely unregulated. Article 71 of the Chemicals Ordinance applies to articles: if they contain certain substances of very high concern, suppliers must inform commercial buyers. Private individuals can request corresponding information. That is technically more nuanced than a general PFAS label – but hardly visible in the shop. The Federal Council itself notes that only individual PFAS have so far been identified as substances of very high concern and that the list is being expanded step by step.
The strongest argument against the label
Federal Councillor Elisabeth Baume-Schneider warned in the chamber of high administrative costs, more difficult imports and restricted availability of individual products. This risk is plausible: a Swiss solo effort would force companies to obtain information about complex international supply chains specifically for a small market. Particularly for recycled materials, it can also be unclear whether PFAS are present unintentionally.
A mere yes-no label would also be crude in technical terms. It would place a coated pan, a sealing ring and a component for a heat pump in the same category, without explaining quantity, release or substitution options. Environmental chemist Martin Scheringer of ETH Zurich told SRF that the more important goal was to replace as many PFAS as possible in as many applications as possible. Declaration and substitution are therefore not the same thing.
Not knowing also generates costs
The counter-argument runs: without comparable information, freedom of choice remains theoretical. Anyone who wants to avoid PFAS today depends on voluntary manufacturer information, safety data sheets or individual enquiries. Even experts cannot tell from a product which fluorine compound it contains. But a market for credibly PFAS-free alternatives only emerges if information is standardised and verifiable.
The costs do not disappear because of the parliamentary decision either. If persistent substances are detected in soils, food or water, assessment, remediation and treatment costs arise. Who ultimately bears them is politically disputed. The declaration question therefore concerns not only consumer protection, but also the distribution of future follow-up costs.
A more sensible middle path does not yet exist
A targeted requirement for particularly relevant product groups, a digital product passport or a solution coordinated with the EU could deliver more information without treating every application the same. The federal government is working on a PFAS action plan. Whether and when comprehensible product information will emerge from it, however, is open.
The no vote leaves the existing legal situation in place. That leaves the practical question: how does knowledge from the supply chain reliably reach the people who buy a product? As long as no practical answer exists, transparency remains a right that one must know, actively demand and verify case by case.
Why a label alone is not enough
Labelling would only be robust if measurement methods, thresholds and the treatment of unintentional traces were clearly defined. Otherwise “PFAS-free” claims could suggest products with differing testing standards. Transparency therefore requires, alongside the label, a common definition of substances, verifiable supply chain data and effective market supervision. The rejected motion would first have created the basis for this; the concrete design would have had to be clarified afterwards in political and technical terms.
