UK government sets out plan to tackle PFAS threat

A new UK government report describes the threat posed by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as ‘one of the most pressing chemical challenges of our time’. Acknowledging that PFAS contamination threatens public health, wildlife and the environment, the report lays out a plan for responding to the risks.

The report, by the government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, accepts the need for regulation but warns that the transition from PFAS will take time. Its plan sets out actions under three categories: sources, pathways and exposure.

For sources, these actions include continuing to monitor freshwater by taking 2400 PFAS samples annually in England, with Scotland and Wales expanding sampling networks; improving monitoring of PFAS in soils; and to have assessed PFAS contamination in England’s estuarine and coastal environments by February 2028.

For pathways, actions include working to tighten UK Reach regulations on PFAS, including a potential restriction on their use in fire-fighting foams; consulting on how sewage sludge use in agriculture is regulated; and collaborating with industry to research wastewater treatment options to reduce contaminants in sludge.

Under exposure, actions include reviewing the evidence linking PFAS to human health risks; undertaking PFAS testing in food contact materials; developing tests for PFAS in foods; collecting data on the risk of PFAS in bottled water; and considering potential restrictions or regulatory measures on PFAS use in specific consumer items, such as period products.

However, some researchers have raised concerns about the plan’s approach. Patrick Byrne, a hydrologist at Liverpool John Moores University in the UK, says simply measuring PFAS concentrations, or increasing monitoring, won’t establish how much of these chemicals are entering the environment, or where they are coming from. ‘What we need instead is to measure PFAS loads – the total amount released from different industries and contaminated sites,’ he notes. ‘This allows us to identify the biggest polluters and target clean-up efforts. Without this information, government and environmental regulators cannot prioritise action or reliably assess whether policies and interventions are working.’

Byrne adds that the plan focuses mainly on restricting today’s PFAS sources with only limited attention to older, contaminated sites like landfills from which PFAS would continue to leak into the environment.

Oliver Jones, a chemist at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, also has some concerns. ‘There is no universal classification of a PFAS. Depending on definitions, this group can contain from 4730 to 14,735 to over 7 million potential substances [and] not all the chemicals in a group of several thousand will have the same properties or risk profile,’ he explains. ‘While some PFAS are persistent in the environment, some degrade quite quickly. Some PFAS could have some negative health effects if they are present in sufficient concentrations … but other PFAS are inert. Treating all chemicals that meet a certain broad definition in the same way is not helpful.’

He also stresses the importance of assessing exposure routes. ‘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,’ he says. ‘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.’