Scientists have backed calls  for the UK to urgently restrict non-essential uses of forever chemicals.

The warning comes in a new report by the cross-party parliamentary  Environmental Audit Committee, on ‘Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)’.

The Committee called for the Government to take a stronger approach to 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 to destroy these chemicals safely.

Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, are a family of more than 10,000 man-made substances. Due to their highly resistant qualities, they are often used by the military and emergency services, as well as in household products such as cosmetics and frying pans.

But those same qualities mean PFAS can accumulate in the environment and in people’s bodies for decades, and some research suggests they could be linked to serious health issues such as decreased fertility, developmental delays and certain cancers.

Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee Toby Perkins MP said: “From frying pans to fire extinguishers, PFAS are now central to every day and some lifesaving products, and nearly all of us will have some level of PFAS in our bodies. But evidence we heard throughout our inquiry suggests that our dependence on PFAS has come with a cost to the environment, and perhaps to human health too.

“The Government has already published a PFAS Action Plan, an important step that the Committee welcomes. But it does not go far enough. It appears to be a plan to eventually have a plan, rather than a concrete set of commitments to reduce and remediate PFAS.

“We do not need to panic, but we do need to take sensible precautions.

“Our 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.”

He added: “The Government must also ensure that those who pollute with PFAS pay for the damage they cause. 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.

“Other nations in Europe have already taken stronger steps to ban PFAS than we have 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 get PFAS out of the environment and deter future pollution. Waiting will only make the problem worse. Now is the time to act.”

The Committee warned that the risk of new PFAS substances are 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 to PFAS regulation.

MPs say the Government should adopt an essential-use approach to 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 added that voluntary action on PFAS or self-regulation by industry are not sufficient to reduce PFAS emissions. They recommend the Government take preventative and precautionary action to reduce PFAS exposure.

Dr David Megson, reader in Chemistry and Environmental Forensics, Manchester Metropolitan University, said: “Contaminated drinking water is one of the few areas that is well monitored and regulated to make sure our exposure is low. There are many other sources that can contain PFAS but are not well regulated (e.g. food, clothing, personal care products, packaging). We don’t know the true scale of PFAS pollution in the UK public as we don’t have extensive biomonitoring projects, but if we assume it’s similar to exposure in the US then approximately 90% of our population would be over NASEM’s 2ng/mL threshold which places them at an increased risk from PFAS.

“At this level clinicians would advise patents to reduce PFAS exposure and undergo screening for dyslipidemia, hypertension in pregnancy and breast cancer, as they are at an increased risk level. The risk to an individual is low, but with millions of people in the UK being at this level, then some adverse effects would be expected across our country. This is why immediate action is needed.

“We can definitely have some quick wins by banning non-essential uses of PFAS. PFAS is a broad term which includes over 7 million chemicals, more than 360 of these are drugs (e.g. Prozac) whose use is improving the quality of lives for many people.

“I don’t think we should rashly exclude all PFAS as with some the benefits are likely to outweigh the risks. But there are many PFAS that we know are persistent and toxic and they are used from a purely convenience point of view, water and stain replants in food packaging, makeup and clothing, waterproof jackets, school uniforms, baby clothes and under garments. So many of the products we interact with contain PFAS, we are exposed through using them, but we also contaminate the dust in our homes and get exposed that way. We get low level exposure from a wide range of sources; we need to start reducing this with stronger legislation and make it clearer to consumers if products they buy contain PFAS. I believe the majority of us in the UK contain PFAS concentrations that put us at an increased health risk, we need to reduce our exposure.”

Professor Oliver Jones, professor of chemistry, RMIT University, added: “There is a lot to like in this report. Is it ‘perfect’? No. Is it possible to write a perfect report? Also no. The committee is trying to balance many different factors and viewpoints (many of which are contradictory). They have to try to balance what scientists recommend with what international jurisdictions like the EU and the US are doing about PFAS and with what the British public wants. They won’t be able to please everyone, but I think they have made a pretty good effort.

“As the report notes, PFAS are a diverse class of thousands of chemicals, although they are often treated as if they were all the same, not all PFAS have the same properties or risks. Some, like PFOS and PFOA, can bioaccumulate and so are of concern. In contrast, some PFAS, such as fluoropolymers like PTFE (found in non-stick pans and waterproof clothes), are inert; they don’t react with biological systems, and don’t bioaccumulate and thus are of less concern. It’s also not true that all PFAS don’t break down. Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) is a degradation product of a number of larger PFAS, for example.

“Community concern and anger over PFAS are often not proportional to their concentration or risk. However, it is not helpful to treat/regulate all PFAS as if they were the worst in the group. As an analogy, imagine if the police knew there was a gang of violent criminals somewhere in Wembley Stadium during the FA Cup. They could either seal the exits and spend time looking through the crowd for the people who caused the problem, or they could arrest everybody ‘just to be on the safe side’. The latter would be far quicker and would guarantee that all criminals were arrested, but few would argue that it would be a good use of resources.

“Under the OECD definition, some medicines are PFAS, including Prozac. If Prozac were banned as a PFAS, what would the effect on mental health be for the millions of people taking it? Other PFAS are essential to several important industrial processes, such as refrigeration. The committee’s recommendation of an essential use approach to regulating PFAS is therefore very sensible. The recommendation that the government provide details about how its PFAS monitoring plan will work and how any remediation will be funded is also welcome.

“Broadly speaking, I think this is a sensible and balanced report which I hope will drive useful and proportional action on PFAS in the UK”.