Climate Thoughts with Brian

Does the UK’s plan to tackle PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ go far enough to protect people and the environment?

The UK Government has published its first-ever plan to tackle PFAS pollution in the last few days, with a lukewarm response from experts and environmental charities describing the plans as being nothing more than ‘shutting the door after the PFAS horse has bolted’ and not going far enough to identify and isolate the sources of pollution.

The Government’s promise, published on the 3rd February, set out the mission to mitigate against the risks from PFAS.

‘The government’s new PFAS Plan sets out, for the first time, a collaborative approach to understanding, managing and reducing these risks – while allowing continued use where no safe alternatives exist, such as in medical devices and clean energy technology.’

The policy paper acknowledged the importance and prevalence of forever chemicals stating, ‘Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often called ‘forever chemicals’, represent one of the most pressing chemical challenges of our time. They are used throughout our everyday lives as their unique properties have brought significant benefits to society… Yet their persistence and widespread presence in our environment pose risks we cannot ignore. 

This is an important issue for the government to address.’

‘Forever chemicals shouldn’t be a forever problem.’

The Department for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs claimed that their new plan would better protect people and the environment stating ‘Forever chemicals shouldn’t be a forever problem.’

The plan aimed to better understand PFAS sources, to tackle the spread of PFAS chemicals and then to reduce exposure with comprehensive monitoring of PFAS in rivers, lakes and seas. Consulting on a statutory limit for the amount of PFAS in UK drinking water in order to increase regulatory enforcement powers was also one of the measures revealed from Defra.

‘Our vision is to reduce and minimise the harmful effects of PFAS while transitioning to safer alternative substances. There is growing evidence that their widespread use and past management have generated risks of harm to people and to the environment, including wildlife. Their persistence means that some PFAS will remain in our environment for hundreds of years.’

The UK Plan acknowledged the levels of exposure from PFAS pollution in England, Scotland and Wales, stating, ‘PFAS have been found in approximately 80% of surface water samples, approximately 50% of groundwater samples, and all fish samples.’

Falling short on meaningful action

The environmental charity FIDRA responded to the UK plan, arguing that the plan fell short on significant action points.

Despite some vivid acknowledgements of the ‘irreversible harm’ PFAS can present, the plan falls short on meaningful action to prevent further PFAS pollution at source. 

Fidra argued that PFAS chemicals ‘present one of the most challenging pollution crises of our generation, which is why urgent and decisive action is paramount.’ They stated that the Government’s PFAS plan did not go far enough on restriction opportunities and that prevention of PFAS pollution did not appear to be a priority. They described the plan as being little more than, ‘Shutting the stable door after the PFAS horse has bolted.’

Chloe Alexander, chemicals policy lead at Wildlife and Countryside Link,echoed this criticism of the Government plan, when she was quoted in The Guardian as describing the Government as a “crushingly disappointing framework that ducks the hard decisions”.

Lukewarm response from experts

Emma Hardy MP, Minister for Water and Flooding, appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee (4th February) and was asked whether she was surprised by the negative response and whether she understood why PFAS experts expected more.

Hardy commented that she ‘was proud of the plan’, claiming that ‘this has never been done before’ and that these plans were ‘a foundation to build and develop on’ and that she ‘wanted to get something out which demonstrated this Government’s commitment and seriousness to this issue.’ However, the Chair’s response was critical, suggesting that the initial reading of the Government plan fell ‘A long way short of the coordinated action that the EU is taking collectively’, citing that other countries have acted faster on PFAS pollution. He also argued that this policy appeared to be nothing more than, ‘A plan to consult on whether to have a plan’.

Government timeline for action

The UK Government’s PFAS plan does indeed appear to focus more on a long-term vision rather than the short term action urged by experts.

It called for action to: ‘Commission research to better understand the consequences of environmental contamination by PFAS on ecosystem health and wildlife.’ In addition, it called for more monitoring of possible PFAS sources, when it stated its indicative commitment to: ‘Deliver a comprehensive, multi-year assessment of PFAS contamination in estuarine and coastal environments in England…’ 

Even in terms of tackling PFAS pathways, the UK plan seemed weak, in its indication to go no further than simply considering restrictions on PFAS: ‘Complete work to consider a UK REACH restriction on PFAS in fire-fighting foams.’

‘Acting now is essential’

This position to continue to monitor the situation, or the ‘Sit tight and assess’ option favoured in the satirical ‘Don’t Look Up’ film, seems to directly contradict the urgency from Emma Hardy MP in the foreword to the UK’s PFAS Plan when she makes it abundantly clear that action is needed now to avoid irreversible harm.

‘PFAS contamination threatens public health, wildlife and the quality of our natural environment. Acting now is essential to prevent irreversible harm and to ensure that our regulatory frameworks keep pace with scientific evidence.’

How long it takes for Government action to match Government rhetoric remains to be seen.