February 3, 2026

expert reaction to UK plan to tackle forever chemicals

Scientists comment on DEFRA’s (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) plan to tackle forever chemicals (PFAS). 

Prof Mohamed Abdallah, Chair in Environmental Chemistry at the University of Birmingham, said:

“Given the significant risks posed by PFAS (colloquially known as “forever chemicals”) to human health and the environment, it is encouraging to see the UK is taking an active, holistic approach to regulating them and minimise the harmful effects before it’s too late. A recent EU-commissioned report published last week evaluated that the cost of PFAS pollution in Europe could reach €1.7 trillion.

“Due to their large number (up to 15000 chemicals) and extensive diversity, it’s important that DEFRA adopts a grouping approach in their plan to tackle forever chemicals. This approach adopts the OECD definition of PFAS, which aligns with the EU, and is essential to assess and manage the risk of PFAS. 

“Recent evidence suggests that some PFAS can be carcinogenic – IARC classifies PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic to humans, both of which are now banned in the UK – as well as causing immunosuppression in young children. It’s crucial that DEFRA plan should consider a holistic approach for assessing UK population exposure to PFAS from different pathways, including the less studied routes of skin contact with PFAS-treated consumer products and migration to food through food contact materials.

“While the Plan refers to PFAS use “in clean energy technologies that power our industries and safety equipment that protects us from harm”, It is important to note that safer, and economically sound, non-fluorinated alternatives have been identified. It’s also important to consider the potential profits of manufacturers of products without intentionally added PFASs.”

Prof Colin Berry, Emeritus Professor of Pathology, Queen Mary University of London, said:

“This seems a sensible response; it is important to note that the word “proportionate” is included in the response to the perceived problem. It is worth remembering that these chemicals are persistent because they are not reactive – at the likely exposure levels for any human population harm is unlikely.”

Dr Costas Velis, Associate Professor of Waste and Resource Engineering at Imperial College London, said:

“DEFRA’s focus of PFAS is a long-awaited and much needed initiative for the health of people and the environment.  Vitally, this initiative would also be one step towards eliminating one aspect of plastic pollution.

“PFAS are in widespread everyday use: a major potential exposure source is from polymers that makeup multi-layered plastics used in food and consumer packaging. Another core application is during the manufacturing of many plastics to improve their extrusion behaviour.  One warning from history would be to avoid substituting PFAS with other harmful chemicals that could continue to leach poison over the next decades.”

Prof Tony Gutierrez, Professor of Environmental Microbiology and Biotechnology at Heriot-Watt University, said:

“The DEFRA Plan is timely as last month the EU revised the Drinking Water Directive¹ which now includes enforced mandatory and harmonised monitoring for PFAS in drinking water (0.5 µg/L for total PFAS and 0.1 µg/L for a sum of 20 specific PFAS), the aim of which is to promote compliance with new limit standards for Member States.

“The Plan provides an excellent framework to understand ‘cause and effect’ with a key aim to derive formal and regulatory standards for concentrations of PFAS species in drinking waters, as well as aquatic and soil environments. However, research and data gathering can be slow, so how long will this take is an open question, considering the urgent need to reduce the release of these chemicals into the environment and sources to human exposure.”

¹ Directive (EU) 2024/2184

Dr Patrick Byrne, Reader in Hydrology and Environmental Pollution at Liverpool John Moores University, said:

“A major blind spot in the plan is that we don’t actually know how much of these chemicals are entering the environment, or where they are coming from. Simply measuring PFAS concentrations, or increasing monitoring as the plan suggests, won’t solve this problem. What we need instead is to measure PFAS loads — the total amount released from different industries and contaminated sites. This allows us to identify the biggest polluters and target clean-up efforts where they will have the greatest impact. Without this information, government and environmental regulators cannot prioritise action or reliably assess whether policies and interventions are actually working. Getting this right would lead to real, measurable improvements in environmental and ecosystem health.

“The plan focusses mainly on restricting today’s PFAS sources, such as industrial emissions, with only limited attention to older, contaminated sites like landfills. But even if all new PFAS emissions stopped tomorrow, PFAS would continue to leak into the environment from thousands of legacy sites across the UK. Our research¹, which measures how much PFAS actually enters rivers from different sources, shows that these legacy sources may release more PFAS overall than modern industrial activities.”

¹ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969725021424

Prof Oliver Jones, Professor of Chemistry, RMIT University in Melbourne, said:

“The idea of introducing a statutory limit for PFAS in England’s public supply regulations is not a bad one per se, but there are several important points to keep in mind.

1. “There is no universal classification of what is and what is not a PFAS. Depending on which definition you use, this group can contain from 4730 to 14,735 to over 7 million potential substances. Even the anti-depressant Prozac counts as a PFAS under some definitions.
2. “Not all the chemicals in a group of several thousand will have the same properties or the same risk profile. The PFAS used in waterproof clothes are quite different in terms of chemical properties and risk from those used in some firefighting foams and different again from those used in food packaging.  
3. “Calling PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ is a misnomer. If they really were forever, then what would be the point of trying to do anything about them? While some PFAS are quite persistent in the environment, none of them last forever, and indeed some degrade quite quickly.

“Some PFAS could have some negative health effects if they are present in sufficient concentrations (though this exposure scenario is rare) but other PFAS are inert, they do not interact with biological systems at all, and so are very low risk. Treating all chemicals that meet a certain broad definition in the same way is not helpful. We do not ban all mushrooms simply because some are poisonous. We just ban the poisonous ones.

“It is also important to assess not just the route by which people are exposed to PFAS. 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.

“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, such as smoking and alcohol consumption, to get the best outcomes for the public.”

Declared interests

Oliver Jones: “I conduct research on PFAS. I have received funds from the Environment Protection Authority Victoria and various Australian Water utilities for research into environmental pollution, including PFAS.”

Patrick Byrne: “None”

Colin Berry: “None”

Mohamed Abdallah: “No competing interests.”

For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.