Recently, the ruling coalition in Belgium's Flemish region formally submitted a proposal to the regional government, explicitly requiring the formulation of a comprehensive drinking water resource protection strategy by January 2026. A core focus of this strategy is the phased phase-out of various pesticide products containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). This initiative is not an impromptu idea; rather, it represents a consensus-based policy direction formed by the Flemish Parliament following months of efforts, including organizing multiple high-level expert hearings to fully demonstrate the long-term hazards of PFAS—known as "forever chemicals"—to human health and the ecological environment. It underscores the local determination and scientific approach to addressing persistent pollution.

To understand the underlying logic behind this policy, it is first necessary to clarify why PFAS has triggered high alert across European countries. As a class of synthetic organic chemicals, PFAS was once widely used in thousands of products—such as pesticides, non-stick pan coatings, fire-fighting foams, and waterproof clothing—due to its excellent heat resistance, water repellency, and oil repellency. However, its most critical characteristic is its "permanence": it is almost non-biodegradable in the natural environment and can spread through multiple pathways, including soil infiltration, surface runoff, and atmospheric deposition, eventually entering groundwater, drinking water sources, and the food chain. More concerningly, PFAS accumulates continuously in human tissues such as the liver and blood. Long-term exposure has been scientifically proven to be associated with an increased risk of thyroid diseases, immune system damage, reproductive system abnormalities, and even certain types of cancer. For Flanders, a region renowned for high-quality agriculture and clean water sources, the presence of such chemicals poses a potential threat to its core regional competitiveness.

The phase-out initiative proposed by the Flemish region is, in fact, a phased response to the controversy surrounding PFAS regulation in the area. Earlier this year, based on growing health risks, the local opposition parties put forward a more radical policy proposal: an immediate and comprehensive ban on the production and use of all PFAS-containing pesticides. This proposal sparked intense debate in parliament. Proponents argued that only a "one-size-fits-all" ban could eliminate risks as quickly as possible, while opponents expressed concerns that such a move would deal a devastating blow to local agriculture. As the agricultural heartland of Belgium, Flanders holds a significant position in the European market for vegetable, fruit, and flower cultivation. Some PFAS-containing pesticides have long been essential production tools for local farmers due to their effective pest and disease control capabilities. Currently, the market offers a limited number of products that can fully replace these pesticides, and some alternatives suffer from insufficient control efficacy and high application costs. A hasty ban could lead to crop yield reductions, sharp fluctuations in agricultural product prices, and ultimately harm the interests of both farmers and consumers. It was precisely due to considerations for the stability of the agricultural industry that the opposition's immediate ban proposal ultimately failed to pass in parliament.

Unlike the opposition's radical proposition, the ruling coalition—holding a majority in parliament—has put forward a more pragmatic "phased phase-out" plan. According to the motion drafted by the ruling parties, the regional government must first complete a comprehensive survey within the next six months to accurately identify the specific types, application scopes, usage volumes, and main supply channels of PFAS-containing pesticides currently authorized for use in areas such as home gardening, commercial agriculture, and industrial disinfection. Based on this, the government will collaborate with agricultural departments, environmental protection agencies, and research institutions to develop differentiated phase-out timetables for different types of PFAS-containing pesticides: those with high risk levels and relatively mature alternatives will be prioritized for inclusion in the phase-out list, with shorter transition periods; those with lower risk levels and no effective alternatives available for the time being will be granted longer transition periods, while increasing financial support for the research and development of alternative products. The motion specifically emphasizes that the entire phase-out process must be based on thorough market research to ensure that the supply capacity of alternative products matches the phase-out progress, thereby minimizing the impact on agricultural production.

While emphasizing the pragmatism of the policy, the ruling parties have not overlooked the urgency of PFAS regulation. A relevant representative of the ruling parties clearly stated in a parliamentary speech: "The health risks of PFAS have been scientifically confirmed. We can no longer turn a blind eye to this issue. Delaying regulation will only lead to the further expansion of pollution and a significant increase in governance costs." The representative further pointed out that the phased phase-out is not a "stalling tactic" but a rational choice to balance risk prevention and industrial stability. To ensure the effective implementation of the phase-out strategy, the ruling parties have also proposed a series of supporting measures: on the one hand, strengthening technical training for farmers to help them master the application methods of alternative pesticides and integrated pest and disease management techniques; on the other hand, establishing an agricultural loss compensation mechanism to provide appropriate subsidies to farmers who suffer economic losses due to the phase-out of PFAS-containing pesticides. In addition, the government will enhance monitoring of drinking water sources and agricultural soils, track PFAS pollution in real time, and provide data support for the dynamic adjustment of the phase-out strategy.

From regional governance to global collaboration, PFAS regulation has never been an issue that a single region can solve independently. The formulation of Flanders' strategy has also fully considered coordination and cooperation at the European level. Currently, Belgium no longer produces PFAS-containing chemicals—after 3M closed its production plant in Belgium due to a severe pollution incident, the country's demand for PFAS-containing pesticides mainly relies on imports from neighboring European countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, as well as countries including the United States and China. This supply pattern means that regulatory measures implemented by a single region may face the risk of "regulatory arbitrage," where farmers bypass local bans through cross-border purchases, significantly reducing the effectiveness of regulation. Therefore, the ruling parties have clearly advocated for the establishment of a unified European PFAS regulatory framework, using EU-level legislation to set unified risk assessment standards, phase-out timetables, and regulatory measures, ensuring that farmers in all EU member states can engage in production in a fair competitive environment. This proposition not only aligns with the interests of the Flemish region but also is consistent with the "Green Deal" strategy promoted by the EU in recent years.

Flanders' strategic layout also echoes the overall trend of PFAS regulation in European countries. According to the latest report released by the European Environment Agency, more than 23,000 PFAS-contaminated sites have been identified across Europe, including a large number of drinking water sources and agricultural lands, making the pollution governance situation extremely severe. Although the EU has initiated the formulation of PFAS restriction regulations, progress in legislative negotiations has been slow due to differences in industrial interests among member states. It is generally expected that no final legislative outcome will be achieved before 2026. Against this backdrop, some European countries have taken the lead in taking action: France announced a ban on the sale and use of all PFAS-containing pesticides at the end of 2023, becoming the first EU country to implement a comprehensive ban; Denmark has adopted a phased ban, gradually expanding the scope of prohibited PFAS-containing pesticides. By promoting the formulation of a specialized phase-out strategy at this time, Flanders is not only responding proactively to the trend of European pollution governance but also aiming to gain a first-mover advantage through early planning. This will enable the region to quickly align with the unified EU regulations once they are introduced, while establishing its leading position in European ecological governance through scientific regulatory measures.

For the Flemish region, the process of phasing out PFAS-containing pesticides is not only an environmental governance initiative but also an optimization and upgrading of the regional agricultural development model. By promoting the research and development of alternative products and the application of integrated pest and disease management techniques, local agriculture is expected to break free from its reliance on high-risk chemicals and shift toward a more green and sustainable production model. This will not only improve the quality and safety of agricultural products and enhance their competitiveness in the European market but also safeguard the region's valuable drinking water resources and ecological environment, laying a solid ecological foundation for future development. As the Flemish Regional Minister for the Environment stated: "Phasing out PFAS pesticides may face short-term challenges, but in the long run, it is a responsible choice for the health of our people and the future of our region."