AAs the public wakes up to the risk of “forever chemicals,” or PFAS, the industry is fighting back with a campaign that researchers have likened to the big tobacco companies’ fight against smoking restrictions. New findings about the intensive lobbying efforts are very worrying and require a response from Environment Minister Steve Reed. A recent consultation by the European Chemicals Agency on proposals for comprehensive regulation of the substances, which take extremely long time to break down, was flooded with responses from industry.
Varieties of these chemicals have been used in manufacturing and consumer goods since the 1950s. They protect equipment, remove grease and smooth the skin – hence their appearance in kitchenware and cosmetics. But they can also leach into soil and water and accumulate in human tissues. Some have been linked to health problems, including cancer and high cholesterol.
Two of the most toxic PFAS are restricted by a treaty known as the Stockholm Convention. But there are many more chemicals in the fluorosurfactants group. And while the two other major types of PFAS – fluoropolymers and fluorocarbons – have not been proven to directly harm people, they can do so during production and once they start to break down.
The Eternal lobbying researchinvolving the Guardian and relevant journalists from 16 countries, concluded that while the UK government has no plans to follow the EU in regulating all PFAS, it has joined the bloc in lobbying. Evidence about the rising costs of cleanups, as well as the growing number of contamination hotspots, points to the urgent need to reconsider this. As in other areas of environmental regulation, including pesticides and water, ministers should reject the previous government’s policy of relaxing the rules and instead tightening them.
The Conservative policy of replacing green EU legislation with lower standards was wrong in principle. The environmental crisis is not limited to CO2 emissions. Protecting nature is crucial to combat global warming. The EU’s shift to the ‘polluter pays’ principle, in relation to water and other industries, should be copied globally and certainly not undermined by a Labor government in Britain. The US’s lax approach to PFAS and other regulations is cause for concern.
Specific human health hazards also need to be addressed. Non-stick frying pans are useful. But Emil Damgaard-Møller, a plastics scientist at the Danish Technological Institute, is right when he says that “many products are over-engineered.” When laws are changed due to safety concerns, companies will adapt to new circumstances. Last year, 59 British PFAS scientists wrote a letter to the government expressing their support for adapting to the EU’s proposals.
The UK Environment Agency already knows of around 10,000 contaminated sites and has said it does not have the resources to tackle them. In the seriously polluted town of Bentham, North Yorkshire, residents are considering a lawsuit against the firefighting foam manufacturer Angus Fire. The US has seen thousands of similar cases.
Intensive lobbying is the playbook companies around the world follow when they fear regulations will make it harder to make profits. But ministers cannot bury their heads in the sand when they are warned that the cost of cleaning up PFAS could reach almost £10 billion a year in Britain alone. People don’t want their health to be damaged by invisible toxins. Ministers must act accordingly.