Climate Thoughts with Brian

A report, published today, by a cross-party Environmental Audit Committee, called for the phase-out of ‘forever chemicals’ in non-essential uses, as well as recommending a group- based approach in tackling PFAS chemicals, rather than an individual approach of separate PFAS.

The report argued that current UK Government action is lagging behind standards in Europe and outlined a raft of recommendations to help the Government move faster in closing the regulatory gap following Brexit. ‘The UK Government recently published its first PFAS Plan, a welcome step. However, the Government’s plan is short on decisive actions to prevent the harmful build-up of these chemicals in the environment. Our inquiry found that the UK faces a growing legacy of PFAS pollution, alongside continued emissions.

It urged, ‘The Government must introduce restrictions on PFAS in non-essential applications, such as clothing and food packaging, from 2027.’ As well as these restrictions, the report called strongly for the need to hold polluters to account for PFAS pollution by making them pay for clean-up costs. The EAC also strongly advocated for the Government to act in line with environmental principles by following a preventative and precautionary approach to PFAS chemicals with the aim to reduce exposure to both people and the environment.

What are PFAS chemicals?

PFAS chemicals are a class of over 10,000 chemicals which are used in a range of everyday objects and products, from cosmetics, to outdoor wear, to household cookware products, to schoolwear and have historically been used in the fire-fighting industry. They are often referred to as “forever chemicals” because they do not easily break down. More and more research indicates that PFAS chemicals affect multiple organ systems, with reported links to some cancers, thyroid and liver dysfunction, developmental impacts and fertility impacts.

The regulatory gap

The report repeatedly highlighted the growing gap between chemicals standards in Europe and those in the UK, and criticised the UK’s current approach, which enables the continued use of PFAS until each individual chemical is assessed and restricted. It stated, ‘UK REACH, the domestic chemicals regulatory framework, has fallen behind the European Union in restricting PFAS and is too slow to respond to emerging evidence.’ By adopting this singular approach, the EAC argued that this delay would significantly increase the future burden of cleanup and did not act in a way which followed environmental principles to protect the public health. ‘Due to the impracticality of assessing thousands of PFAS one by one, and 

the risk that new substances emerge faster than they can be evaluated, the UK’s current approach leaves regulators struggling to keep pace with industry innovation.’

PFAS pollution has come at a cost

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.’

Perking urged that following the precautionary principle was vital- a principle which requires approval before coming to the market, rather than waiting for proof of harm of a product.

‘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. 

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.’

The cost to communities 

One of the places focused on in the report was the Yorkshire town of Bentham. PFAS pollution in Bentham has come under sharp scrutiny over the past few years, with journalist Pippa Neill’s investigative work on PFAS levels on the Angus Fire site. Some residents in Bentham then became the focus of a recent ITV documentary, ‘In Our Blood: The Forever Chemicals Scandal’, where high levels of PFAS were discovered in their blood. An environmental report was also released that indicated possible pathways for PFAS exposure to residents. A spokesperson for Palatine Media, the PR company used by Angus Fire told me that ‘Angus are still in the process of obtaining legal advice in relation to this matter.’

 On 15 January 2026, the Environmental Audit Committee visited Bentham, North Yorkshire and held three roundtables near Bentham as part of its inquiry on ‘Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)’. From those conversations, the report notes that an absence of regulatory guidelines was one of the main barriers in developing comprehensive awareness of the extent of PFAS pollution.A ‘Participant said that not knowing the impact of PFAS was the worst aspect of the issue. The absence of agreed safe thresholds was highlighted as a major barrier to understanding risk to health. Participants noted significant barriers to obtaining testing, including limited UK capability and high personal costs for private testing (around £750 per test)’.

Mat Young, from the Cleaner Bentham campaign group told me, ‘Cleaner Bentham welcomes the Parliamentary Committee’s advice to the UK Government and hopes it will now act on the report’s findings.

Over the past two years, residents, regulators and local councils have worked to bring evidence forward, and we are grateful that the Environmental Audit Committee engaged directly with those affected.

He urged for positive action to support communities, ‘The next step is strengthening the evidence base. Cleaner Bentham is launching the 20p Challenge — a national campaign to support independent epidemiology studies in Bentham and across the UK.

If enough people give just 20p, we can begin building the scientific evidence needed to protect communities.’

Can PFAS be destroyed at scale?

Once remediated or removed from the environment, PFAS must still be destroyed. However, the UK’s current capacity to destroy PFAS is reliant on high-temperature incineration and only two hazardous waste incinerators in the UK are permitted to destroy PFAS.

The Committee therefore warns that the UK’s current incineration capacity is “insufficient”. It says that the Government should assess how much PFAS-containing waste it expects from future restrictions, and assess whether the UK’s high-temperature incineration capacity is sufficient. It should also commit within six months to fund the research and development of destruction technologies that use alternatives to incineration.

In bold language, there was a clear warning that industry could not be relied upon to take sufficient action and that Government intervention was needed for preventative and Precautionary action to reduce PFAS exposure.

‘They also warn 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.’

Whether this bold and challenging report from UK MPs will be enough to bring the UK closer to higher environmental and chemical standards remains to be seen. Public awareness has grown over the dangers posed by PFAS chemicals and continues to do so. Public anger at companies who have profited from using toxic PFAS chemicals in their products is also growing in momentum. 

The days of playing ‘whack-a-mole’ with individual PFAS, need to now be over. Public health must trump PFAS profits.