Government should “urgently restrict” non-essential uses of ‘forever chemicals’

In the pages of ‘Addressing the Risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)’, the EAC also calls for the Government to adopt a stronger approach towards regulating PFAS to ensure that those who pollute waterways and soil pay for it to be cleaned up, establish a national fund for remediation and invest in technologies designed to destroy such chemicals safely.

PFAS are a family of more than 10,000 man-made substances. Due to their highly resistant qualities, they’re often used by the military and the Emergency Services, as well as in household products including frying pans. However, those same qualities mean that PFAS can accumulate in the environment and in people’s bodies for decades. Some research suggests they could be linked to serious health issues such as decreased fertility, developmental delays and certain cancers.

Restricting PFAS

The EAC warns that the risk of new PFAS substances emerging faster than they can be assessed leaves regulators “struggling to keep pace” with industry and can lead to banned substances being replaced by harmful alternatives.

Without group-based restrictions, the Government risks taking a “whack-a-mole” approach towards PFAS regulation, the Committee warns.

MPs state that the Government should adopt an essential-use approach towards regulating PFAS and prioritise rapidly restricting the use of PFAS in non-essential applications. It should bring forward restrictions on PFAS in non-essential consumer products such as food packaging, cookware and school uniforms, with a phased restriction from 2027.

They also warn that voluntary action on PFAS or self-regulation by industry are not sufficient to reduce PFAS emissions. They recommend the Government takes “preventative and precautionary action” to reduce PFAS exposure.

The EAC welcomes the Government’s action to set limits for PFAS in drinking water, but warns that “significant gaps” remain in terms of limiting exposure to PFAS through food and agriculture.

The Committee is calling for the Government to set limits on the levels and types of PFAS permitted in food. While consumer products containing PFAS remain on the market, the Government should introduce interim limits and standardised labelling to inform consumers.

Remediation method

The Committee recommends that the Government applies the ‘polluter pays principle’, which sees those who cause pollution bearing the cost of cleaning it up to prevent ongoing and historic PFAS contamination. It should consult by March 2027 on establishing a national PFAS Remediation Fund.

As part of this Fund, the EAC recommends that the Government explores the implications of an emissions levy for PFAS to hold polluters responsible and also considers options for extending the polluter pays principle to products manufactured overseas and imported to the UK. Where no responsible party can be identified, it should provide dedicated central Government funding for local authorities to remediate.

Once remediated or removed from the environment, PFAS must still be destroyed. However, the UK’s current capacity to destroy PFAS is reliant on high-temperature incineration and only two hazardous waste incinerators in the UK are permitted to destroy PFAS.

The Committee therefore warns that the UK’s current incineration capacity is “insufficient”. It says that the Government should assess how much PFAS-containing waste it expects from future restrictions and whether the UK’s high-temperature incineration capacity is sufficient. It should also commit (within six months) to fund the R&D of destruction technologies that use alternatives to incineration.

Cost to the environment

Toby Perkins MP, chair of the EAC, commented: “From frying pans to fire extinguishers, PFAS are now central to everyday and some life-saving products. Nearly all of us will have some level of PFAS in our bodies. Evidence we heard throughout our inquiry process suggests that our dependence on PFAS has come with a cost to the environment and, perhaps, to human health as well.”

Perkins added: “The Government has already published a PFAS Action Plan. That’s an important step that the Committee welcomes, but it doesn’t go far enough. It appears to be a plan to eventually have a plan rather than a concrete set of commitments designed to reduce and remediate PFAS. We don’t need to panic, but we do need to take sensible precautions.”

The EAC report calls for the Government to phase out PFAS uses that are clearly non-essential, such as in kitchen equipment and school uniforms, and to take a precautionary approach to approving new PFAS. Rather than waiting for proof that a chemical is harmful before banning it, companies should need approval before they introduce a new PFAS substance.  

“The Government must also ensure that those who pollute with PFAS pay for the damage they cause,” explained Perkins. “It must consult on establishing a national PFAS Remediation Fund and explore options to truly hold polluters to account. Where no-one can be held accountable, local authorities must be given the funds they need to clean up.”

Perkins continued: “Other nations in Europe have already taken stronger steps to ban PFAS than we have here in the UK. We risk our citizens and environment continuing to have greater exposure than our European counterparts if we fail to catch up. The Government has all the information it needs to eradicate PFAS from the environment and deter future pollution. Waiting will only make the problem worse. Now is the time to act.”

Focused approach

Andy Spence, managing director of Britannia Fire, has responded to the EAC’s report. “I welcome the report,” urged Spence, “which reflects the thorough and focused approach taken by the EAC.”

Spence continued: “In June last year, I was invited to address the EAC in the House of Commons and provide an industry viewpoint on the challenges facing the fire safety industry in achieving a smooth transition away from PFAS firefighting foams. The MPs listened carefully to my concerns and have highlighted them within the report, in particular the issue of impending bottlenecks and rising costs for the disposal of PFAS foam waste, with only two approved PFAS incinerating facilities currently operational in the UK.”

Further, Spence noted: “I agree wholeheartedly with the findings that urgent action needs to be taken. The UK is lagging behind Europe in terms of restricting the use of PFAS. We haven’t kept pace and need to catch up.”

Continuing that them, Spence said: “We eagerly await the recommendations from the Health and Safety Executive following a six-month consultation process on proposed restrictions of PFAS in firefighting foam and hope that swift action to phase them out follows soon after.”

Although the phasing out of PFAS for some essential applications may be challenging, banning PFAS foams in fire extinguishers is, according to Spence, “an easy win”. There are PFAS-free foam alternatives already available as effective and affordable replacements. Responsible customers are already beginning to make the switch, which is bringing the issue of safe disposal of PFAS foams to the foreground.

Spence concluded: “The industry now needs firm commitment from Government and investment in innovations and technologies so that a swift PFAS phase-out and adequate, safe and economical disposal of foam can be achieved to help minimise the impact of these harmful chemicals on the environment and human health.”