Environmental Law News Update

The UK’s PFAS Dilemma

How should the UK regulate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), so-called “forever chemicals”? These chemicals are widely used across modern society yet there is increasing concern over their persistence in the environment and potential impacts on human health. Should it impose a broad restriction with targeted derogations or take a substance-by-substance approach? That seems to be a key question and it has been the subject of recent Parliamentary scrutiny.

Four documents are particularly important: (1) the Government’s policy paper, ‘PFAS Plan: building a safer future together’ (published 3 February 2026 under the Starmer government) (“the Policy Paper”); (2) the Environmental Audit Committee’s report ‘Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)’ (published 23 April 2026) (“the Committee’s Report”); and (3) the Government’s response to the same (published 6 July 2026) (“the Government’s Response”). These are to be considered against (4) the Environmental Principles Policy Statement (dated 31 January 2023) (“the EPPS”).

The Policy Paper introduced the ‘PFAS Plan’, the UK’s first dedicated strategy for dealing with PFAS. The Plan adopts a framework based on three pillars: understanding PFAS sources, tackling PFAS pathways, and reducing ongoing exposure. It can be described as a long-term strategy for understanding, monitoring and managing PFAS risks rather than a plan to swiftly impose a wide-ranging programme of restrictions.

The Committee’s Report criticised the apparent lack of urgency. It stated that the Government’s own environmental principles as contained in the EPPS (particularly, it seems, the prevention and precautionary principles) pointed towards decisive action now with regard to PFAS: “The UK’s approach enables continued use of PFAS until each individual chemical is assessed and restricted, rather than preventing foreseeable harm upfront.” (para.19). It drew an interesting contrast between the proposed regulatory approaches of the EU and UK in this regard.

The Government’s Response did not accept this criticism. It said that the EPPS stands at the heart of the Government’s approach but that whilst, due to the persistence of PFAS, there is plausible evidence of a risk of serious or irreversible pollution if PFAS emissions continued there remains uncertainty over the scale of potential harm. It said that the PFAS Plan outlined a coordinated set of interventions which, when taken identified the key sources of harmful PFAS and how they move through the environment, allowing the UK to take action to stop them.

The Government’s position, therefore, seems to be that precaution does not necessarily require immediate broad restrictions; the principle can instead be applied through a coordinated programme of monitoring, research, targeted interventions and regulatory reform.