Nations worldwide rush to tackle forever chemicals, but critics question whether the UK and EU crackdowns truly make a difference. The UK recently unveiled a plan, calling these substances one of the “most pressing environmental challenges of our time.”
On 3 February, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) published its first framework to protect public health and the environment from pervasive chemicals. The plan promises a consultation later this year to set statutory PFAS limits in England’s public water supply. The government insists water currently remains below “safe levels” and argues the framework will make it easier to hold polluting companies accountable if they exceed allowed levels.
The announcement followed the EU’s recent tightening of drinking water rules, introducing mandatory PFAS monitoring. Experts, however, criticize both efforts, calling them a “half-baked roadmap” rather than decisive action.
What are forever chemicals and why are they used?
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) include over 10,000 synthetic chemicals that appear almost everywhere on Earth, particularly in water sources. Known as forever chemicals for their persistence over a thousand years, PFAS have been found from Mount Everest to human bloodstreams.
These chemicals gained popularity in the 1940s for their water- and grease-resistant properties. Industries primarily use them in non-stick cookware, water-repellent fabrics, and food packaging. Long-term exposure links to health issues, including certain cancers and reduced fertility. In Europe, about 12.5 million people live in communities with PFAS-contaminated drinking water.
How the UK plans to tackle forever chemicals
DEFRA builds its UK plan on three pillars: understanding PFAS sources, preventing their spread, and reducing exposure. Officials say the plan will assess PFAS levels in England’s estuaries and coastal waters for the first time, offering a “clearer picture” of environmental risks.
The framework also includes testing everyday items, such as food packaging, to track PFAS and encourage safer alternatives. DEFRA suggests the transition could bring “billions of pounds” in business opportunities but provides no details on financial support for phasing out the chemicals.
The plan stops short of banning PFAS production, unlike France. It mentions only a potential restriction on PFAS in firefighting foams, pending scientific analysis and public consultation. Part of the strategy includes a new government webpage to raise public awareness and increase transparency.
A half-baked roadmap
Sian Sutherland, co-founder of A Plastic Planet and Plastic Health Council, has campaigned for stronger chemical regulations for over a decade. She calls the UK’s crackdown “less a shield and more a postponed reckoning.”
“After decades of letting PFAS seep into water, soil, and bodies, ministers released a plan that fumbles a half-baked roadmap after the damage,” Sutherland says. She adds that failing to commit to a full PFAS ban or firm deadlines prioritizes “bureaucracy over health” and “consultation over protection.”
Is the EU’s approach any stronger?
On 12 January, the European Union tightened PFAS protections, requiring all member states to test drinking water contamination levels for the first time. The Commission claims the reporting system is “simpler” than previous rules and reduces the volume of required data.
Member states must act if PFAS limits are exceeded, including closing contaminated wells, improving water treatment, or restricting water usage until levels drop. The Commission says the rules aim to protect public health and inform citizens.
Sutherland points out that EU measures alert citizens to contamination but fail to prevent PFAS production, marketing, or release. “Thousands of forever chemicals remain in circulation under a regulatory system that chases contamination instead of stopping it,” she says. She emphasizes that monitoring alone cannot replace strict enforcement and penalties for producers.
What both UK and EU policies miss
Environmentalists criticize both UK and EU approaches for failing to implement a comprehensive, class-wide phaseout of non-essential PFAS. The EU reviews a “universal restriction” proposal covering all PFAS products, submitted in 2022 by Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Norway, and the Netherlands.
“Regulation moves chemical by chemical while thousands of equally persistent substances remain in circulation,” Sutherland notes. She adds that persistence itself poses the hazard, yet policies treat PFAS as individual cases instead of a single family of pollutants.
Sutherland also highlights accountability gaps. She calls for stronger polluter-pays enforcement so PFAS producers cover monitoring, cleanup, and health costs rather than burdening the public and overstretched health services.
DEFRA did not respond to requests for comment. The European Commission has also been approached but has not yet replied.
