Nations across the world are scrambling to tackle forever chemicals - but do the UK and EU crackdowns even scratch the surface?
The UK has become the latest nation to unveil a plan to tackle forever chemicals, describing them as one of the “most pressing environmental challenges of our time”.
Earlier this week (3 February) the country’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) published its first ever framework to protect public health and the environment from the ubiquitous chemicals.
Under the plan, a consultation will be launched later this year to introduce a statutory limit for PFAS in England’s public supply regulations. The government, which insists that there is no evidence of forever chemicals above “safe levels” in its water supplies, says this will make it easier for polluting companies to be held accountable for “breaking the rules” if permitted levels are ever exceeded.
It comes just weeks after the EU tightened rules on forever chemicals in drinking water by introducing mandatory monitoring. However, both crackdowns have been heavily criticised, described by one expert as a “half-baked roadmap”.
What are forever chemicals and why are they used?
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of more than 10,000 synthetic chemicals that have been detected virtually everywhere on Earth, particularly in our waters.
Commonly referred to as forever chemicals due to taking more than 1,000 years to degrade naturally, PFAS have been found everywhere from the summit of Mount Everest to inside human blood.
These chemicals boomed in popularity during the 1940s due to their water- and grease-resistant qualities and are mainly used to make non-stick cookware, water-repellant fabrics, and food packaging.
However, chronic exposure to PFAS has been linked to a slew of health issues, including the promotion of certain cancers and reduced fertility. In Europe, around 12.5 million people live in communities that have PFAS-contaminated drinking water.
How is the UK cracking down on forever chemicals?
The UK’s action plan is built around three pillars: understanding PFAS sources, tackling their spread, and reducing exposure.
In an online statement, DEFRA says this will include assessing the full extent of forever chemicals in England’s estuaries and coastal waters for the first time to provide a “clearer picture” of the risks these habitats face.
While DEFRA says this could act as evidence for further regulatory action, it gave no details on what this could look like.
The framework also includes plans to carry out tests on everyday items such as food packaging to trace the presence of PFAS and support innovation in “safer alternatives”. It says the transition away from PFAS could be worth “billions of pounds to UK businesses” but fails to mention whether any investment will be given to this phaseout.
The action plan also falls short of actually banning PFAS production, like nearby France has done. The only restriction it says it will discuss is on PFAS in firefighting foams, following scientific analysis and public consultation.
Part of its plan also includes a new government webpage on PFAS to “improve public awareness and transparency”.
A ‘half-baked roadmap’
Sian Sutherland, co-founder of A Plastic Planet and Plastic Health Council has been campaigning for stronger regulations on plastic chemicals for over a decade.
She tells Euronews Green that the UK’s so-called crackdown is “less a shield and more a postponed reckoning”.
“After decades of letting PFAS seep into water, soil and bodies, ministers have announced a plan that feels like fumbling for a half-baked roadmap after the crash has already happened,” Sutherland adds.
The expert argues that failing to commit to an outright PFAS ban or deliverable deadlines is putting "bureaucracy before health” and “consultation before protection”.
Is the EU’s stance on forever chemicals any better?
Last month (12 January) the European Union tightened protections on PFAS, marking the first time all member states are required to test contamination levels in drinking water.
The Commission states this reporting system is “simpler” than under the previous Drinking Water Directive and reduces the amount of data that needs to be collected.
If the limit values are exceeded, member states must “take action” to reduce the level of PFAS and protect public health – while also informing the public.
“These measures may include closing contaminated wells, adding treatment steps to remove PFAS, or restricting the use of drinking water supplies for as long as the exceedance continues,” the Commission states.
Sutherland argues that these standards tell Europeans when poison has arrived in their taps, but don’t stop it from being made, marketed or released.
"Thousands of forever chemicals remain in circulation, protected by a regulatory system that chases contamination rather than preventing it," she says. "Harmonised monitoring matters, but without robust, independent enforcement and real penalties for producers, member states can report data without effective action."
What’s missing from both UK and EU policies
Environmentalists have decried both UK and EU policies on forever chemicals, mainly because they fail to deliver a “comprehensive, class-wide” phaseout of non-essential PFAS use.
The EU is currently examining a proposal for a “universal restriction” covering all products containing PFAS, submitted in 2022 by five countries: Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Norway and the Netherlands.
“Regulation continues to move chemical by chemical while thousands of equally persistent substances remain in circulation,” Sutherland says.
“Persistence is the hazard, yet policy still treats these chemicals as separate cases instead of one family for ‘forever’ pollutants.”
Sutherland also argues that there is a gap in accountability in both crackdowns, adding: “Stronger application of the polluter-pays principle is needed so that the industries responsible for PFAS production bear the costs of monitoring, cleanup and health protection – instead of shifting the burden onto the public and already overstretched health services.”
DEFRA did not respond to the criticism when contacted by Euronews Green. The European Commission has been approached for comment.
