The Government has been urged to take urgent action to restrict non-essential uses of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly referred to as ‘forever chemicals’, including those used in certain firefighting foams. This recommendation forms part of a comprehensive 70-page report published by Parliament’s cross-party Environmental Audit Committee (EAC).

In its report, Addressing the Risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), the Committee calls for a strengthened regulatory framework. Key recommendations include ensuring that those responsible for environmental contamination bear the cost of remediation, the establishment of a national clean-up fund, and increased investment in technologies capable of safely destroying PFAS.

PFAS comprise a group of more than 10,000 synthetic substances valued for their durability and resistance to heat, water and oil. As such, they have been widely used across sectors including defence, emergency services and a range of consumer products. However, these same properties result in significant environmental persistence, with PFAS accumulating in ecosystems and the human body over long periods. Emerging evidence has linked exposure to potential health risks, including impacts on fertility, development and certain cancers.

Regulatory approach

The EAC highlights the challenge regulators face in keeping pace with the rapid development of new PFAS compounds, noting that individual substance bans risk being ineffective if replaced by similar harmful alternatives. Without a broader, group-based approach, regulation may become reactive and fragmented.

The Committee therefore recommends the adoption of an ‘essential use’ framework, prioritising the restriction of PFAS in applications where their use is not critical. This includes proposals to phase out PFAS in non-essential consumer products, such as food packaging, cookware and textiles, potentially from 2027.

The report also concludes that voluntary industry action alone is unlikely to deliver the necessary reductions in PFAS emissions. Instead, it calls for a more precautionary and preventative regulatory stance.

While acknowledging recent Government steps to introduce limits for PFAS in drinking water, the EAC identifies ongoing gaps in managing exposure through food systems and agriculture. It recommends the introduction of clear limits on PFAS levels in food, alongside interim measures such as standardised product labelling to support informed consumer choice.

Remediation and disposal

A central recommendation of the report is the application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle, ensuring that organisations responsible for PFAS contamination contribute to the costs of remediation. The Committee proposes consultation by March 2027 on the creation of a national PFAS Remediation Fund.

This fund could include mechanisms such as emissions levies to strengthen accountability, as well as consideration of how the principle might apply to imported goods. In cases where no responsible party can be identified, the report suggests that central Government funding should be made available to support local authority-led remediation efforts.

The Committee also draws attention to the technical challenges associated with the disposal of PFAS. Current UK capacity is limited, relying primarily on high-temperature incineration, with only two facilities authorised to process such waste. The EAC warns that this capacity is unlikely to meet future demand.

Accordingly, it recommends that the Government assess projected volumes of PFAS waste arising from future restrictions and evaluate whether existing infrastructure is sufficient. In parallel, it calls for a commitment within six months to fund research and development into alternative destruction technologies that reduce reliance on incineration.

Cost to the environment

Toby Perkins MP, chair of the EAC, commented: “From frying pans to fire extinguishers, PFAS are now central to everyday and some life-saving products. Nearly all of us will have some level of PFAS in our bodies. Evidence we heard throughout our inquiry process suggests that our dependence on PFAS has come with a cost to the environment and, perhaps, to human health as well.”

Perkins added: “The Government has already published a PFAS Action Plan. That’s an important step that the Committee welcomes, but it doesn’t go far enough. It appears to be a plan to eventually have a plan rather than a concrete set of commitments designed to reduce and remediate PFAS. We don’t need to panic, but we do need to take sensible precautions.”

The EAC report calls for the Government to phase out PFAS uses that are clearly non-essential, such as in kitchen equipment and school uniforms, and to take a precautionary approach to approving new PFAS. Rather than waiting for proof that a chemical is harmful before banning it, companies should need approval before they introduce a new PFAS substance.  

“The Government must also ensure that those who pollute with PFAS pay for the damage they cause,” explained Perkins. “It must consult on establishing a national PFAS Remediation Fund and explore options to truly hold polluters to account. Where no-one can be held accountable, local authorities must be given the funds they need to clean up.”

Perkins continued: “Other nations in Europe have already taken stronger steps to ban PFAS than we have here in the UK. We risk our citizens and environment continuing to have greater exposure than our European counterparts if we fail to catch up. The Government has all the information it needs to eradicate PFAS from the environment and deter future pollution. Waiting will only make the problem worse. Now is the time to act.”

Focused approach

Andy Spence, managing director of Britannia Fire, has responded to the EAC’s report. “I welcome the report,” urged Spence, “which reflects the thorough and focused approach taken by the EAC.”

Spence continued: “In June last year, I was invited to address the EAC in the House of Commons and provide an industry viewpoint on the challenges facing the fire safety industry in achieving a smooth transition away from PFAS firefighting foams. The MPs listened carefully to my concerns and have highlighted them within the report, in particular the issue of impending bottlenecks and rising costs for the disposal of PFAS foam waste, with only two approved PFAS incinerating facilities currently operational in the UK.”

Further, Spence noted: “I agree wholeheartedly with the findings that urgent action needs to be taken. The UK is lagging behind Europe in terms of restricting the use of PFAS. We haven’t kept pace and need to catch up.”

Continuing that them, Spence said: “We eagerly await the recommendations from the Health and Safety Executive following a six-month consultation process on proposed restrictions of PFAS in firefighting foam and hope that swift action to phase them out follows soon after.”

Although the phasing out of PFAS for some essential applications may be challenging, banning PFAS foams in fire extinguishers is, according to Spence, “an easy win”. There are PFAS-free foam alternatives already available as effective and affordable replacements. Responsible customers are already beginning to make the switch, which is bringing the issue of safe disposal of PFAS foams to the foreground.

Spence concluded: “The industry now needs firm commitment from Government and investment in innovations and technologies so that a swift PFAS phase-out and adequate, safe and economical disposal of foam can be achieved to help minimise the impact of these harmful chemicals on the environment and human health.”

View the source
Our eNews provides regular insight into industry trends, news headlines, and product and service information. For more articles like this Subscribe to our enews.