Leading scientists have criticised the UK government for failing to take stronger action to tackle “forever chemical” pollution and refusing to match moves in the EU to ban non-essential uses of the substances.
Last year, 59 experts in per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) sent a letter to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asking it to follow the science, which has established that PFAS do not biodegrade and that despite variations in toxicity, this persistence itself is sufficiently worrying 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 be in existence, two are widely banned after decades of scientific study that eventually proved them to be toxic and linked to cancers as well as a range of other serious diseases.
Given the time taken to establish toxicity for just two substances, five EU member states have proposed a group ban, with exemptions for critical uses. Industry lobbying groups are fighting the proposal.
Defra responded to the scientists in a letter, seen by Watershed Investigations and the Guardian, setting out their plans for controlling the forever chemicals. These plans fall short of the scientists’ demands.
“Defra has implied time and again … that ‘not all PFAS are harmful’ – which is incorrect in my opinion,” said Prof Ian Cousins, who organised the letter. “I agree that PFAS have a diversity of properties and toxicities, but their extremely high environmental persistence makes all PFAS problematic.”
Fluoropolymers are high-performance plastics and the industry has been fighting to be excluded from regulation alongside other PFAS. The UK government has decided not to take on the definition of PFAS used by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which includes fluoropolymers, and has said it will create its own smaller groups.
“Reading between the lines, I believe that Defra wants to exclude fluoropolymers from their action on PFAS,” said Cousins, who thinks “industry likes [the UK’s approach] because it favours 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 continually released, environmental levels will increase over time … If we do cross some known or unknown threshold for effects 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 the basis for Defra creating their own PFAS groupings. “Is that scientifically based or is it politically based? According to their letter, it’s one of pragmatism and I can understand it … but I think they should align more closely with the EU and instead of creating a new sublist of PFAS, just go with the OECD.”
after newsletter promotion
Prof Patrick Byrne, from Liverpool John Moores University, said: “The absence of evidence [on the toxicology of most PFAS] doesn’t mean there’s no risk.” He also took issue with the government’s claim that there were only a “few hundred” PFAS across the UK, when “the emerging evidence is that there’s a lot more and that [Defra is making that assumption] probably only because we’re only monitoring a few”.
In its letter, Defra said it would review more evidence before making a judgment on whether to reduce limits for PFAS in drinking water to get closer to the much lower limits used in Europe and the US.
But Dr David Megson from Manchester Metropolitan University said this “was Defra skirting the issue when the problem’s smacking you around the face now”. He added: “We need a bit more than government saying: ‘We’re just assessing it.’”
Halsall said finding substitutes for PFAS would “drive innovation within the chemicals industry … pressing the buttons for the growth agenda”.
“I applaud the government for responding but there is some kicking of the can down the road here and if it’s just such a big problem that they want to leave it for a while because they’re not sure how to deal with it then that’s not good enough,” he added.
Dr Shubhi Sharma at the charity Chem described the “lack of urgency” at Defra as astounding. “Every day of delay adds to this toxic timebomb. The UK government has all the evidence it needs to take immediate action to protect people and nature from the harmful impacts of these forever chemicals.”
A Defra spokesperson said the government was committed to protecting the environment from the risks posed by chemicals. “We are rapidly reviewing the environmental improvement plan to deliver on our legally binding targets to save nature, which includes how best to manage the risks posed by PFAS,” they said.
