Britain is failing to match the EU in the fight against ‘forever chemicals’, scientists say

Leading scientists have criticized the UK government for failing to take stronger action to tackle ‘forever chemical’ pollution and refusing to join EU moves to ban non-essential uses of ban the substances.

Last year, 59 experts on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) sent a letter to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asking it to follow the science, which has established that PFAS are not biodegradable and that despite variations in Due to the toxicity, this persistence is itself of sufficient concern that all PFAS should be regulated as one class.

PFAS pollution is so widespread that the chemicals are thought to be in the blood of almost every human on the planet. Of the more than 10,000 known to exist, two have been widely banned after decades of scientific research ultimately found them to be toxic and linked to cancer and a range of other serious diseases.

Given the time needed to determine the toxicity of just two substances, five EU Member States have proposed a group ban, with exceptions for critical uses. Industry lobby groups are fighting the proposal.

Defra responded to the scientists in a letter, seen by Watershed Investigations and the Guardian, outlining their plans for monitoring the perennial chemicals. These plans do not meet the scientists’ demands.

“Defra has suggested time and time again… that ‘not all PFAS are harmful’ – which I believe is incorrect,” said Prof Ian Cousins, who drafted the letter. “I agree that PFAS have a diversity of properties and toxicities, but their extremely high persistence in the environment makes all PFAS problematic.”

Fluoropolymers are high-performance plastics and the industry has fought to be excluded from regulation alongside other PFAS. The UK government has decided not to adopt the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) definition of PFAS, which includes fluoropolymers, and has said it will set up its own smaller groups.

“Reading between the lines, I believe Defra wants to exclude fluoropolymers from their action against PFAS,” says Cousins, who thinks “the industry likes the UK approach because it favors a risk-based approach as opposed to the hazard-based approach. of the EU, where they regulated based on problematic intrinsic properties such as high persistence”.

He added: “My view is that a risk-based approach does not work for such extremely persistent chemicals. If extremely persistent chemicals are continuously released, environmental levels will increase over time… If we exceed a known or unknown threshold for impacts in the future, there is little we can do to remove (certain types of PFAS) from our drinking water.

Prof Crispin Halsall from Lancaster University wanted to know on what basis Defra created their own PFAS groupings. “Is that scientifically based or is it politically based? According to their letter it is one of pragmatism and I can understand it… but I think they should align themselves more closely with the EU and instead of creating a new sub-list of PFAS, just opt ​​for the OECD.”

skip the newsletter promotion

Professor Patrick Byrne, from Liverpool John Moores University, said: “The lack of evidence (on the toxicology of most PFAS) does not mean there is no risk.” He also disputed the government’s claim that there were only a “few hundred” PFAS in Britain, when “the emerging evidence is that there are many more and that (Defra is making that assumption) is probably only because we are only monitoring a few”.

In its letter, Defra said it would assess more evidence before making a judgment on whether limits for PFAS in drinking water should be lowered to move closer to the much lower limits used in Europe and the US.

But Dr David Megson of Manchester Metropolitan University said this was “Defra sidestepping the issue, while now the problem is hitting you around the head”. He added: “We need something more than the government saying, ‘We’re just assessing it.’”

Halsall said finding alternatives to PFAS would “drive innovation within the chemical industry… pushing the buttons on the growth agenda”.

“I applaud the government’s response, but there is a pushback here and if it’s such a big deal that they want to leave it alone for a while because they’re not sure how to deal with it, then that’s not so. good enough,” he added.

Dr. Shubhi Sharma of the charity Chem described the “lack of urgency” at Defra as astonishing. “Every day of delay adds to this toxic time bomb. The UK government has all the evidence it needs to take immediate action to protect people and nature from the harmful effects of these perennial chemicals.”

A spokesperson for Defra said the Government is committed to protecting the environment from the risks of chemicals. “We are rapidly revising the Environmental Improvement Plan to achieve our legally binding goals to save nature, including how best to manage the risks of PFAS,” they said.