As people increasingly become aware of the dangers posed by “forever chemicals,” or PFAS, the industry is mounting a robust defense, reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s own fight against regulatory limitations. Recent revelations highlight their aggressive lobbying efforts, raising red flags and demanding a prompt response from Environment Secretary, Steve Reed. A consultation conducted by the European Chemicals Agency, which proposed sweeping regulations for these long-lasting substances, received a deluge of business responses.
These chemicals have been integral to manufacturing and consumer products since the 1950s, used to protect equipment, repel grease, and enhance cosmetics. However, their resilience comes at a cost—seeping into soil and water, and accumulating in our bodies. Some of these chemicals have been associated with health concerns such as cancer and high cholesterol.
While two of the most hazardous PFAS are curbed by the Stockholm Convention, many other chemicals in the fluorosurfactant group remain. The primary PFAS types—fluoropolymers and fluorocarbons—haven’t been conclusively proven to harm us directly, but they pose risks during manufacturing and as they degrade.
The “Forever Lobbying” investigation, involving the Guardian and journalists from 16 countries, revealed that despite the UK government’s lack of plans to regulate all PFAS like the EU, these substances are being lobbied alongside the European bloc. The escalating costs of environmental clean-ups and growing contamination sites highlight the urgent need for action. Ministers should ditch the former government’s laissez-faire attitude towards environmental regulations, opting instead to tighten controls.
The Conservative push to replace EU environmental laws with lower standards was a misstep. The environmental crisis extends beyond carbon emissions. The conservation of nature is essential in combating global warming. The EU’s adoption of the “polluter pays” approach for water and other sectors should be a global standard, and certainly not compromised by the UK’s Labour government. The US’s lax stance towards PFAS and broader regulations is troubling.
Health risks must be tackled head-on. Non-stick frying pans are practical, but Emil Damgaard-Møller, a plastics expert at the Danish Technological Institute, aptly notes that “many products are overengineered.” When safety concerns prompt legal changes, businesses will innovate and adjust. Last year, 59 UK scientists specializing in PFAS advocated for aligning with the EU’s proposals in a letter to the government.
The UK Environment Agency is already aware of around 10,000 contaminated sites but lacks the resources to address them. In Bentham, North Yorkshire, plagued by pollution, locals are contemplating legal action against the firefighting foam producer, Angus Fire, reflecting similar cases across the US.
Lobbying is a common tactic for businesses worldwide when faced with regulatory threats. However, ministers cannot ignore warnings that PFAS clean-up costs in the UK might soar to nearly £10 billion annually. People deserve protection from these unseen toxins, and the government must act decisively.
