select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
Scientists comment on a Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) Report that addresses the possible risks of PFAS.
Dr David Megson, Reader in Chemistry and Environmental Forensics, Manchester Metropolitan University, said:
“Contaminated drinking water is one of the few areas that is well monitored and regulated to make sure our exposure is low. There are many other sources that can contain PFAS but are not well regulated (e.g. food, clothing, personal care products, packaging). We don’t know the true scale of PFAS pollution in the UK public as we don’t have extensive biomonitoring projects, but if we assume it’s similar to exposure in the US then approximately 90% of our population would be over NASEM’s 2ng/mL threshold which places them at an increased risk from PFAS. At this level clinicians would advise patents to reduce PFAS exposure and undergo screening for dyslipidemia, hypertension in pregnancy and breast cancer, as they are at an increased risk level. The risk to an individual is low, but with millions of people in the UK being at this level, then some adverse effects would be expected across our country. This is why immediate action is needed.
“We can definitely have some quick wins by banning non-essential uses of PFAS. PFAS is a broad term which includes over 7 million chemicals, more than 360 of these are drugs (e.g. Prozac) whose use is improving the quality of lives for many people. I don’t think we should rashly exclude all PFAS as with some the benefits are likely to outweigh the risks. But there are many PFAS that we know are persistent and toxic and they are used from a purely convenience point of view, water and stain replants in food packaging, makeup and clothing, waterproof jackets, school uniforms, baby clothes and under garments. So many of the products we interact with contain PFAS, we are exposed through using them, but we also contaminate the dust in our homes and get exposed that way. We get low level exposure from a wide range of sources; we need to start reducing this with stronger legislation and make it clearer to consumers if products they buy contain PFAS. I believe the majority of us in the UK contain PFAS concentrations that put us at an increased health risk, we need to reduce our exposure.
“The importance of food as an exposure pathway in the report was largely a result of my own expert testimony, this is the reference cited. The evidence base I have for this is from reviewing the scientific literature e.g. (1), (2), and CEFAS data on PFAS in UK fish (3). In addition, we have seen extremely elevated levels of PFAS in eggs from chickens living near PFAS sources, so we know it gets into our food chain. PFAS can also be applied directly to crops so water runs off easier, which keeps pesticides on for longer. We have also seen very high concentrations of the emerging PFAS trifluroro acetic acid (TFA) in some beverages like wine (4). We don’t know the true scale of PFAS pollution in our food as it is not widely tested, in this country we only have the budget/resources to perform minimal testing for a handful of PFAS. From comparing PFAS levels in drinking water against PFAS reported in the literature in fish, eggs and wine I think we have a bigger issue with food and drink, than we do with our tap water. We have done a great job to understand PFAS in drinking water and minimise exposure from it. I think we need the same level of effort for food. If we want to reduce our populations exposure to PFAS it’s important to target regulations in the places that give us the highest exposure. To do this we need to do the detailed science to find out what those routes are.”
1 – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749125018895
Dr Tony Fletcher, PFAS Environmental Epidemiologist, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LHSTM), said:
“The EAC report has done an excellent job summarising a complex set of issues on the large class of forever compounds or PFAS. They have synthesised a wide range of stakeholders and come up with some useful suggestions. This is timely as government departments are preparing their plans. PFAS are so persistent that acting now to stop further emissions into the environment is a priority. Setting strict limits in food and drinking water is important, but the problem needs to be tackled upstream, so I welcome them calling for immediate bans on the clearest non-essential uses. On health effects, the recommendation for more epidemiology of exposed populations is welcome but several PFAS already have well established toxicity so there is sufficient evidence to act now to restrict further exposure to people.
“I agree that evaluating the risks of thousands of PFAS one by one, is too slow and their recommendation on regulating and restricting large groups of similar PFAS is welcome.
“The EU is already well down this route. The UK lagging behind Europe can lead to products containing PFAS being dumped on the UK market over longer time periods while we catch up, as reported by the HSE to the Committee.”
Prof Oliver Jones, Professor of Chemistry, RMIT University, said:
“There is a lot to like in this report. Is it ‘perfect’? No. Is it possible to write a perfect report? Also no. The committee is trying to balance many different factors and viewpoints (many of which are contradictory). They have to try to balance what scientists recommend with what international jurisdictions like the EU and the US are doing about PFAS and with what the British public wants. They won’t be able to please everyone, but I think they have made a pretty good effort.
“As the report notes, PFAS are a diverse class of thousands of chemicals, although they are often treated as if they were all the same, not all PFAS have the same properties or risks. Some, like PFOS and PFOA, can bioaccumulate and so are of concern. In contrast, some PFAS, such as fluoropolymers like PTFE (found in non-stick pans and waterproof clothes), are inert; they don’t react with biological systems, and don’t bioaccumulate and thus are of less concern. It’s also not true that all PFAS don’t break down. Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) is a degradation product of a number of larger PFAS, for example.
“Community concern and anger over PFAS are often not proportional to their concentration or risk. However, it is not helpful to treat/regulate all PFAS as if they were the worst in the group. As an analogy, imagine if the police knew there was a gang of violent criminals somewhere in Wembley Stadium during the FA Cup. They could either seal the exits and spend time looking through the crowd for the people who caused the problem, or they could arrest everybody “just to be on the safe side”. The latter would be far quicker and would guarantee that all criminals were arrested, but few would argue that it would be a good use of resources.
“Under the OECD definition, some medicines are PFAS, including Prozac. If Prozac were banned as a PFAS, what would the effect on mental health be for the millions of people taking it? Other PFAS are essential to several important industrial processes, such as refrigeration. The committee’s recommendation of an essential use approach to regulating PFAS is therefore very sensible. The recommendation that the government provide details about how its PFAS monitoring plan will work and how any remediation will be funded is also welcome.
“Broadly speaking, I think this is a sensible and balanced report which I hope will drive useful and proportional action on PFAS in the UK”.
The report from the Environmental Audit Committee was published at 00:01 UK time on Thursday the 23rd of April 2026.
Declared interests
Dr Tony Fletcher: “I am a member of the PFAS Advisory Panel on the Island of Jersey. I have in the past been funded on epidemiological studies of PFAS in polluted communities in the US, Sweden and Italy.”
Dr David Megson: “I submitted written evidence for this enquiry and delivered an oral testimony. I have received funding from CEFIC (European Chemical Industry Council) to undertake reviews on methods for analysis of PFAS, this involved discussions with representatives from some of the largest global PFAS manufacturers. We have investigated PFAS pollution at PFAS effected areas (e.g. a scientific manuscript & Panorama appearance about Thornton Cleverlys and I was part of the ITV documentary on Bentham (in our blood). I have acted as an expert on a potential PFAS litigation case in the UK (https://www.leighday.co.uk/news/press-releases/2025-news/bentham-pfas-claims-joint-statement/). Alongside my university job I work as a consultant for Chemistry Matters – a consultancy firm providing expert witness support identifying those responsible for chemical pollution
Prof Oliver Jones: “ I conduct research on environmental pollutants, including PFAS. I have previously received research funding from various water utilities and the Environment Protection Authority Victoria for PFAS research.”