On 10 June, IEEP UK hosted a webinar – ‘PFAS – exceptional regulatory measures for exceptional chemicals’ – which examined the history and current status of the regulation of these ‘forever chemicals’ in the UK and across the EU, and discussed the difficulty in restricting their use effectively.
Chairing the webinar, Dr Colin Church, CEO of the Institute of Materials, Metals and Mining (IOM3) introduced the discussion as an examination of whether PFAS – often referred to as ‘forever chemicals’ – require exceptional regulatory approaches. Drawing on his experience as a former UK civil servant involved in the early development of EU chemicals regulation, Colin highlighted the importance of understanding how regulatory frameworks have evolved in response to emerging evidence about PFAS and their environmental and human health impacts.
Presenting findings from his new timeline of PFAS regulation in the UK and EU, IEEP UK Honorary Fellow Nigel Haigh examined the one-by-one approach that has been taken towards regulating PFAS chemicals in the UK and EU, particularly highlighting the length of time it took, following the first specific ban of a PFAS chemical (PFOS) in 2003, to restrict the next: PFOA. Nigel emphasised the importance of the Persistent, Mobile and Toxic (PMT) concept, explaining that it has helped to create a pathway for regulating PFAS as a group rather than assessing thousands of individual substances separately, overcoming a major obstacle to effective regulation.
Nigel also explained that while the EU has continued to advance restrictions on PFAS under REACH since Brexit, the UK has lagged behind and has not actively engaged with evolving EU proposals. He noted that the UK Government’s recent PFAS Action Plan contains several innovative elements but falls short of supporting a comprehensive restriction. In contrast, the Environmental Audit Committee has called for closer UK-EU alignment and the adoption of an essential-use approach, under which PFAS would be phased out except where their use is considered necessary. Nigel concluded that PFAS are exceptional because there are so many of them, making a ‘one-by-one’ approach unrealistic – and that fortunately the PMT concept has paved the way for PFAS to be restricted as a group, in an unprecedented move.
Dr Michael Neumann from Umweltbundesamt (the German Environment Agency) then provided an overview of the scientific and regulatory development of the PMT concept, which has become an important tool for addressing the risks posed by PFAS and other highly persistent chemicals, noting that concerns about persistent and highly mobile pollutants has been raised by scientists for decades. Dr Neumann outlined how hazard identification under REACH and the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation focuses on physical, human health and environmental hazards, providing the basis for subsequent exposure and risk assessments. Focusing on mobility, Michael explained that PMT criteria were developed to capture a hazard not adequately addressed by existing regulatory frameworks. While persistence and toxicity were already established concepts within chemicals regulation, mobility reflects the ability of substances to travel through soils, groundwater and water treatment systems, potentially contaminating drinking water sources far from the original point of release. He stressed that mobility alone is not sufficient to constitute a hazard classification but rather concern arises when highly mobile substances are also persistent in the environment, making their long-term impacts difficult to predict and manage.
Michael also touched upon recent international efforts to strengthen recognition of PMT hazards, noting that an OECD working group had concluded that existing hazard classifications under the UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS) do not adequately capture the risks posed by persistent and mobile substances and thus recommending the introduction of dedicated PMT and very Persistent, very Mobile (vPvM) criteria. Concluding his remarks, Neumann shared recent developments from the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), including the classification of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) as both a PMT/vPvM substance and a reproductive toxicant which represented an important milestone in the evolution of chemical hazard classification.
Matt Womersley, Environment and Business Manager at the Environment Agency provided an overview of the Environment Agency’s role in regulating PFAS in England and highlighted the challenges posed by managing a large and diverse group of chemicals through regulatory frameworks that were not specifically designed for them. He noted that the UK does not currently have dedicated PFAS legislation and instead relies on existing environmental regulations to manage risks associated with these substances. Womersley outlined the Environment Agency’s role as the statutory environmental adviser under UK REACH, where it works with the Health and Safety Executive to assess environmental risks and support restrictions and authorisations for PFAS, including current proposals relating to PFAS in firefighting foams.
Focusing on implementation, Matt explained that much of the Environment Agency’s work concerns the legacy impacts of historic PFAS use, particularly contamination associated with firefighting foams and industrial activities. He highlighted the role of local authorities in identifying and managing contaminated land, with the Environment Agency regulating higher-risk “special sites” and providing technical support throughout the process. While acknowledging that remediation can be complex and costly, he described contaminated land regulation as an important mechanism for addressing historic pollution and ‘clean up’ efforts. Matt also emphasised the importance of waste management in preventing further PFAS releases. While restrictions are crucial to reducing contamination, he noted that PFAS remain embedded in many products currently in use and will continue entering waste streams for years to come. Understanding where PFAS are present within waste systems is therefore critical to ensuring their safe disposal. He highlighted the increasing role of incineration as an alternative to landfill and explained that some PFAS-containing wastes may require high-temperature destruction.
Next, Andreas Kraemer, Former Senior Fellow at IEEP Bonn, and Founder and Director Emeritus of Ecologic Institute, reflected on the political and institutional drivers behind PFAS regulation in Germany and the wider EU, highlighting the important role played by water suppliers in raising awareness of contamination risks. He explained that most German water utilities are municipally owned and have been directly affected by widespread PFAS pollution and other emerging contaminants and their efforts have largely been responsible for the growing awareness and increasing willingness within Germany to address PFAS more systematically. However, he cautioned that regulatory progress continues to face fierce resistance from parts of the chemical industry.
Drawing a distinction between chemicals regulation and broader industrial policy, Andreas underlined what he described as a missing dimension in current policy debates. While significant attention has been devoted to regulating individual chemicals and managing environmental risks, he argued that less focus has been placed on transforming the chemical industry itself. On the subject of chemicals regulation and industrial policy, Andreas suggested that ambitions for a wider ecological transformation of the chemical industry have largely faded since the 1980s. Without a renewed focus on industrial transformation, he warned that regulators may continue to address problematic substances individually, resulting in the lengthy regulatory timelines that have characterised PFAS regulation to date.
Finally, Shosha Adie, Senior Reporter at ENDS Report, as well as focusing on the health effects of PFAS, provided perspective on the human and environmental effects of PFAS pollution, and how investigations and reporting have helped bring greater public attention to the scale of the issue. Shosha drew attention to the findings of the Forever Pollution Project, which identified almost 23,000 PFAS-contaminated sites across Europe. She also highlighted an Environment Agency study which estimated that England alone could contain more than 10,000 high-risk PFAS sites, with potential clean-up costs ranging from £31 billion to £121 billion. She noted that attaching a financial cost to PFAS pollution appeared to increase political and public interest in the issue and argued that greater transparency around contamination data remains important to inform public debate.
Focusing on investigative reporting undertaken by ENDS Report, the case of Bentham in North Yorkshire was highlighted which has revealed extremely high PFAS concentrations in groundwater associated with a firefighting foam manufacturing facility. She outlined subsequent investigations, including blood testing of local residents conducted in partnership with ITV, which found that a significant proportion of participants had PFAS levels above internationally accepted thresholds to indicate potential health concerns. Shosha wrapped up by questioning why it had taken so long for the public to be made aware of the extent of PFAS in our environment, particularly in the early 2000s.
During the panel discussion, speakers explored why progress on PFAS regulation has been so slow despite growing evidence of environmental contamination and potential health risks. Several participants highlighted the technical complexity of chemicals regulation and suggested that PFAS has often remained a specialist policy issue rather than a political priority, contributing to delays in regulatory action. The discussion also examined the role of transparency and public awareness, with speakers noting that increased reporting and greater visibility of contamination incidents have helped elevate PFAS on the political agenda.
Participants also considered the future direction of PFAS regulation in the UK and EU. Discussions focused on the emerging “essential-use” approach, the prospects for broader restrictions on PFAS as a group rather than on a substance-by-substance basis, and the implications of continued UK-EU divergence in chemicals policy. Speakers highlighted the challenges of balancing environmental protection, public health concerns, and industrial interests as regulatory proposals continue to develop.
You can watch the full recording of the webinar below, or by following this link. Dr Michael Neumann’s slides are also available below.