Will your insulation spray foams face a ban?

Many builders rely on one-component polyurethane foams to seal windows and insulate roofs. However, a common chemical inside these popular spray cans is about to be banned. Global and European regulators are targeting a specific group of plasticisers and flame retardants. If you sell these foams, your stock could soon become unsellable. Here is what you need to know about the upcoming rules and how to prepare your business.

Chemical regulations are hitting the building materials sector with new force. The focus has turned to medium-chain chlorinated paraffins, commonly known as MCCPs. These substances are widely used as plasticisers and flame retardants in moisture-cure, one-component polyurethane foams [4]. Builders use these foams daily for quick, effective insulation and sealing. However, international bodies have classified these chemicals as highly persistent and toxic. For merchants, this means the products on your shelves today may not be legal to sell in the near future, and the phase-out of these high-volume products is a planning problem, not just a compliance one.

The regulatory momentum began at a global level. In May 2025, the Conference of the Parties agreed to list MCCPs as a Persistent Organic Pollutant under Annex A of the Stockholm Convention [3]. This international treaty aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of persistent organic pollutants. The agreement specifically targets chlorinated paraffins with carbon chain lengths in the range of C14 to C17, and chlorination levels at or exceeding 45 percent chlorine by weight [1]. Because these chemicals do not break down easily in the environment, global authorities decided that a coordinated phase-out is necessary [3].

European authorities are moving quickly to translate this global agreement into regional law. On 18 February 2025, the European Commission submitted a proposal for a Council Decision regarding amendments to Annex A of the Stockholm Convention [1]. This official document, published on 19 February 2025, outlines the European Union’s position on the ban [1].

The proposal supports the listing of MCCPs but includes specific, narrow exemptions. These exemptions cover certain defence and aerospace applications, such as coatings, lubricants, ammunition, and ammunition packaging, with extended expiry dates until 2041 [1]. Spare parts for these sectors are also exempted until 2046 [1]. Outside of these highly specialized industries, the ban will apply broadly to commercial construction products.

In the United Kingdom, parallel measures are already underway. The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, known as Defra, published an official consultation on 18 March 2026 [2]. This consultation, which closed on 13 May 2026, focused on potential amendments to the assimilated Persistent Organic Pollutants Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 [6]. The UK government proposed adding MCCPs to Annex I of this regulation, which lists substances prohibited from manufacture, use, and placing on the market in Great Britain [6]. This move aligns British environmental standards with the global Stockholm Convention decisions.

None of these processes has yet produced a fixed, EU-wide ban date for general commercial sale. Only the exemption end-dates for defence and aerospace uses (2041 and 2046) are fixed on the calendar [1]. For everything else, the compliance clock starts once the EU Council Decision and any UK restriction are formally adopted, and neither had happened at the time of writing.

Alongside the POPs regulations, chemical safety frameworks are tightening. In July 2026, the UK Health and Safety Executive published an Annex XV restriction proposal under UK REACH [3]. This proposal identifies MCCPs as substances of very high concern [3]. The classification is based on evidence that these chemicals meet the persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic, as well as very persistent and very bioaccumulative, criteria outlined in Annex 13 of UK REACH [3].

Crucially, regulators assume this toxic classification applies to all products containing MCCPs above a strict threshold of 0.1 percent by weight [3]. If a manufacturer or importer cannot prove their product is below this limit, the product faces immediate regulatory scrutiny [3].

Under the REACH framework, the classification of a chemical as a substance of very high concern triggers immediate legal duties [3]. If a product contains an SVHC above the 0.1 percent threshold, suppliers must provide sufficient information to allow safe use of the product [3]. This information must be passed down the supply chain to professional users and consumers within 45 days of a request.

For merchants, this means you cannot simply rely on the manufacturer to handle compliance. Your procurement teams must actively collect these safety data sheets and ensure they are accessible to your trade customers. If a contractor asks whether a specific spray foam contains MCCPs, your sales staff must be able to provide a clear, documented answer. Failing to provide this information violates chemical safety laws and can damage your reputation with professional builders [3].

The most recent industry-wide data on this comes from a 2020 FEICA submission, six years old and the only comprehensive market view on alternatives available. Treat the volume figures below as indicative of the scale of the challenge, not as a current snapshot. According to that data, published on 15 December 2020, alternative technologies to one-component foams were not expanding quickly enough to fill the market gap [4]. FEICA represents major chemical and adhesive manufacturers, including Bostik, Henkel, and Soudal [4]. The association noted in its 2020 report that one-component foams offer superior long-term performance and better insulation values than many of the alternative products currently available on the market [4].

The logistics of switching to alternative technologies also present a significant environmental and financial hurdle. FEICA’s 2020 data reveals that the volume of alternative technologies transported to construction sites can be up to 40 times higher than that of one-component foams [4]. This massive difference exists because one-component foams expand dramatically upon application, meaning the transported volume of the liquid chemical is only up to one-fortieth of the final applied volume [4]. Replacing these efficient spray cans with pre-expanded or alternative materials would require vastly more delivery trucks, increasing transport costs and road emissions.

The scale of the challenge is evident when looking at the manufacturers affected. FEICA’s membership includes the largest players in the European adhesive and foam market, such as Aerosol-Services, Bostik, DuPont, Hanno-Werk, Henkel, Krimelte, Polypag, Selena, Soudal, TKK Srpenica, and Tremco CPG Netherlands BV [4]. These companies produce the vast majority of the one-component foams sold in European merchant yards.

Because MCCPs have been the standard plasticiser and flame retardant for decades, reformulating these products without losing performance is a complex task [4]. Manufacturers must find alternative chemicals that provide the same expansion ratio, curing speed, and fire resistance. This research and development process takes time and capital, which is likely to put upward pressure on product prices. Merchants should prepare for potential price increases in premium PU foam lines as these reformulated products enter the market.

The UK’s independent regulatory path adds another layer of complexity for merchants operating across borders. The Defra consultation on the assimilated Persistent Organic Pollutants Regulation (EU) 2019/1021, which ran from 18 March 2026 to 13 May 2026, shows that Great Britain is moving swiftly to implement the Stockholm Convention decisions [6]. While the European Union’s proposal from 18 February 2025 supports the global ban with specific exemptions for defence, aerospace, and spare parts [1], the exact implementation dates and transition periods may differ between the UK and the EU. This regulatory divergence means that a PU foam legal to sell in France or Germany might face restrictions in Great Britain, or vice versa. Merchants with cross-border operations must maintain separate compliance checklists for their UK and EU inventories to avoid costly border delays or product seizures.

For merchants, these overlapping regulations create immediate procurement risks. You must begin auditing your current inventory of polyurethane foams, sealants, and adhesives. Ask your suppliers for detailed chemical declarations. Specifically, demand to know if their products contain chlorinated paraffins with carbon chain lengths of C14 to C17 above the 0.1 percent threshold [1, 3]. If they do, you must work with your suppliers to establish transition timelines.

This transition also offers a commercial opportunity. Builders and contractors are increasingly looking for safer, compliant materials to meet green building standards. By stocking certified chemical-free or low-emission alternatives early, you can position your business as a forward-thinking partner. Procurement directors who act now can secure supply lines for compliant products before the market faces a sudden squeeze.

[1] data.consilium.europa.eu — https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6358-2025-INIT/en/pdf [2] consult.defra.gov.uk — https://consult.defra.gov.uk/pops-and-chemicals-in-waste-team/pops-consultation-2026/supporting_documents/pops-2026-consultation-documentpdf [3] consultations.hse.gov.uk — https://consultations.hse.gov.uk/crd-reach/svhc-017/supporting_documents/annex-15-mccpspdf [4] feica.eu — https://www.feica.eu/wp-content/uploads/FEICA-input-to-the-ECHA-call-for-evidence-on-MCCP.pdf [5] soudal.com — https://www.soudal.com/nl-nl/pro/soudafoam-pure-veilig-werken-zonder-pu-opleiding [6] consult.defra.gov.uk — https://consult.defra.gov.uk/pops-and-chemicals-in-waste-team/pops-consultation-2026/