The news the UK government is looking to bring in new legislation over the control, of for forever chemicals (PFAS)  has been broadly welcomed by scientific experts, however there is a view that the threat from PFAs needs to be fully understood.

Professor Mohamed Abdallah, chair in Environmental Chemistry at the University of Birmingham, said the news was welcome and there are alternatives for businesses.

“Given the significant risks posed by PFAS (colloquially known as forever chemicals) to human health and the environment, it is encouraging to see the UK is taking an active, holistic approach to regulating them and minimise the harmful effects before it’s too late,” he added. “A recent EU-commissioned report published last week evaluated that the cost of PFAS pollution in Europe could reach €1.7 trillion.

“Due to their large number – up to 15000 chemicals – and extensive diversity, it is important that DEFRA adopts a grouping approach in their plan to tackle forever chemicals. This approach adopts the OECD definition of PFAS, which aligns with the EU, and is essential to assess and manage the risk of PFAS.

“Recent evidence suggests that some PFAS can be carcinogenic – IARC classifies PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic to humans, both of which are now banned in the UK – as well as causing immunosuppression in young children. It is crucial that DEFRA plan should consider a holistic approach for assessing UK population exposure to PFAS from different pathways, including the less studied routes of skin contact with PFAS-treated consumer products and migration to food through food contact materials.

Abdallah  concluded: “While the plan refers to PFAS use ‘in clean energy technologies that power our industries and safety equipment that protects us from harm”’ It is important to note that safer, and economically sound, non-fluorinated alternatives have been identified. It is also important to consider the potential profits of manufacturers of products without intentionally added PFASs.”

Professor Oliver Jones, professor of Chemistry, RMIT University in Melbourne, said  there was still much the scientific community and with it regulators needed to understand about the threat posed by PFAs.

He explained: “The idea of introducing a statutory limit for PFAS in England’s public supply regulations is not a bad one per se, but there are several important points to keep in mind.

1. “There is no universal classification of what is and what is not a PFAS. Depending on which definition you use, this group can contain from 4730 to 14,735 to over 7 million potential substances. Even the anti-depressant Prozac counts as a PFAS under some definitions.
2. “Not all the chemicals in a group of several thousand will have the same properties or the same risk profile. The PFAS used in waterproof clothes are quite different in terms of chemical properties and risk from those used in some firefighting foams and different again from those used in food packaging.
3. “Calling PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ is a misnomer. If they really were forever, then what would be the point of trying to do anything about them? While some PFAS are quite persistent in the environment, none of them last forever, and indeed some degrade quite quickly.

“Some PFAS could have some negative health effects if they are present in sufficient concentrations (though this exposure scenario is rare) but other PFAS are inert, they do not interact with biological systems at all, and so are very low risk. Treating all chemicals that meet a certain broad definition in the same way is not helpful. We do not ban all mushrooms simply because some are poisonous. We just ban the poisonous ones.

“It is also important to assess not just the route by which people are exposed to PFAS. It may not be a good use of public funds to spend millions reducing PFAS in waterproof clothing if the main way people were exposed is via dust.

“So, while more information on PFAS is a good thing, it will be important to assess the risks of different compounds separately, as well as to compare them with the risks of other factors that impact health, such as smoking and alcohol consumption, to get the best outcomes for the public.”

Dr Costas Velis, associate professor of Waste and Resource Engineering at Imperial College London, concluded: “DEFRA’s focus of PFAS is a long-awaited and much needed initiative for the health of people and the environment. Vitally, this initiative would also be one step towards eliminating one aspect of plastic pollution.

“PFAS are in widespread everyday use: a major potential exposure source is from polymers that makeup multi-layered plastics used in food and consumer packaging. Another core application is during the manufacturing of many plastics to improve their extrusion behaviour. One warning from history would be to avoid substituting PFAS with other harmful chemicals that could continue to leach poison over the next decades.”