The UK government has come under fire from leading experts for failing to address the pollution caused by “forever chemicals,” also known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The UK government has avoided enacting equivalent legislation, despite growing evidence and EU efforts to outlaw these chemicals’ non-essential uses. Given the ongoing PFAS pollution disaster, scientists contend that the government is not adhering to the scientific consensus that these chemicals pose extensive, long-term hazards to human health and the environment.
Why Do Scientists Demand Immediate Action Against PFAS Pollution?
In a letter to the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra) last year, 59 eminent experts in the field of PFAS research urged the government to take action. The researchers cautioned that PFAS can be harmful to varied degrees, are extremely persistent in the environment, and do not biodegrade. Researchers are gravely concerned about Defra’s tardiness in responding to the mounting evidence.
“Defra has repeatedly implied that ‘not all PFAS are harmful,’ which is incorrect in my opinion,” said one of the scientists who coordinated the letter. Although I acknowledge that PFAS have a variety of characteristics and toxicities, all PFAS are worrisome due to their incredibly high environmental persistence.
It is thought that almost every human on the planet has PFAS in their blood due to their widespread presence. Two of the more than 10,000 PFAS kinds that have been found have already been outlawed because of their shown toxicity, which has been connected to cancer and a number of other severe illnesses. The UK government has not yet taken comprehensive measures to address the rising levels of PFAS pollution, despite these established concerns.
Why Is the EU Adopting a More Firm Position Regarding PFAS?
Five EU member states have suggested a group-wide ban on PFAS, with exceptions for vital usage, in response to mounting concerns. Industry lobbying organisations are presently contesting the initiative. According to the scientists, the UK is lagging behind the EU in its attempts to regulate these dangerous substances and successfully address the problem of PFAS pollution.
One researcher stated, “Defra is making assumptions based on the limited substances we are currently monitoring, and the emerging evidence is that there’s a lot more [PFAS] than we realise.” He underlined that the lack of complete proof does not negate the danger of these substances. In order to fight PFAS pollution, the UK government must take a proactive approach.
What Makes Defra's Plans Unsatisfactory to Scientists?
While outlining its efforts to prevent PFAS pollution, Defra failed to meet the scientists’ demands for more stringent rules in its answer. The government’s response highlighted the intricacy of the problem and proposed that a risk-based strategy could be more suitable than the EU’s hazard-based strategy, which emphasises the inherent characteristics of the substances, such as their environmental persistence.
The government’s justification for developing its own PFAS categorisation was questioned by one expert. He questioned, “Is that politically or scientifically based?” It’s pragmatic, based on their letter, and I can understand that. However, I believe they ought to be more in line with the EU and use the OECD rather than coming up with a new sublist of PFAS.
Before determining whether to reduce drinking water PFAS levels to match the higher regulations in the US and Europe, Defra has also suggested reviewing the available data. However, considering how urgent it is to combat PFAS poisoning, many experts feel that this approach is insufficient.
What Effect Does Industry Influence Have on Policy Choices?
The impact of the chemical industry on public policy is one of the main areas of disagreement. Notably, some of the proposed regulations do not apply to fluoropolymers, a subgroup of PFAS used in high-performance plastics. The chemical industry has been battling to keep these chemicals out of the regulatory purview. The UK government has chosen to create its own smaller chemical groups rather than adopt the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) more expansive definition of PFAS, which includes fluoropolymers.
Reading between the lines, I think Defra intends to keep fluoropolymers out of their action on PFAS, one researcher contended. Because it prefers a risk-based strategy to the EU’s hazard-based strategy, industry supports [the UK’s approach].
Additionally, he outlined the drawbacks of a risk-based strategy for handling very persistent substances. “Over time, environmental levels will rise if highly persistent substances are continuously discharged. There is not much we can do to eliminate specific PFAS from our drinking water if we surpass some threshold for consequences in the future, whether known or unknown. If PFAS pollution is not addressed in this manner, the environment may suffer irreparable harm.
Why Are Experts Angry about Defra's Slow Reaction?
A number of scientists have expressed their dissatisfaction with the government’s slow response to the PFAS situation. The government’s tardiness in tackling the issue was criticised by one expert, who called it “smacking you around the face now.” “We need a little more than the government saying, ‘We’re just assessing it,'” he continued.
A researcher from the nonprofit organisation Chem, Dr. Shubhi Sharma, also voiced her worries about the government’s seeming apathy. “Every day of delay adds to this toxic timebomb,” she stated. “The UK government has all the evidence it needs to act right now to safeguard people and the environment from the damaging effects of these permanent chemicals.”
Is Innovation Able to Help Solve the PFAS Issue?
Some experts are nonetheless optimistic that the problem will eventually spur innovation in the chemicals business, despite the government’s tardy response. According to one researcher, the chemical sector may expand as a result of the hunt for PFAS alternatives. But he also emphasised that urgent action was required. He came to the conclusion that “it’s not good enough if it’s just such a big problem that they want to leave it for a while because they’re not sure how to deal with it.”
A Defra representative reaffirmed in a statement the government’s dedication to tackling chemical hazards and safeguarding the environment. “To meet our legally mandated goals to protect the environment, we are quickly evaluating the environmental improvement plan, which includes the best way to handle the hazards posed by PFAS,” they stated.
Scientists and environmentalists continue to demand a more forceful and prompt response to address the threats presented by PFAS pollution, even though the UK government has committed to taking action.
Add a Comment