PFAS Fight Defines New Regulation

A Toxic Debate: The Battle to Define 'Forever Chemicals'

A significant conflict is unfolding in the world of chemical safety. A collective of twenty globally respected experts has sounded a significant alarm regarding moves to alter the classification of what people commonly call ‘forever chemicals’. The experts contend this push is driven by political or financial interests, aiming to dilute the regulatory oversight for these potentially hazardous substances. This clash of opinions places scientific integrity against industrial considerations, with global health hanging in the balance.

A Poisonous Presence

The compounds, known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (Pfas), represent an extensive family of man-made chemicals. Industries have produced them since the 1940s for their useful properties. These compounds repel oil, water, and stains effectively. They appear in a wide array of commercial and household items, from water-resistant clothing and non-stick pans to cosmetics and food packaging. Their use also extends to critical applications such as foams for extinguishing fires and various electronic components.

The Indestructible Chemical

The name 'forever chemicals' is not a casual nickname; it describes a fundamental aspect of their nature. The molecular structure of Pfas is built upon a chain of carbon-fluorine bonds, one of the strongest in organic chemistry. This remarkable stability means they do not degrade easily under natural conditions. Once released into the environment, they persist for an incredibly long time. Their presence contaminates soil, water, and even the air, leading to a legacy of pollution that is difficult and costly to reverse.

A Growing Public Awareness

In recent years, public understanding of the dangers linked to Pfas has significantly increased. Media attention has highlighted widespread contamination, while new research has shed light on the potential health risks. This has fueled calls for much tighter controls and resulted in prohibitions on specific variations of the chemicals. As a result, governments and international bodies have started to take action, with proposals for broader restrictions to curb their use and release into the environment.

Mounting Health Concerns

The persistence of Pfas is not just an environmental issue; it is a direct threat to human health. Because these chemicals do not break down, they accumulate in living organisms, including humans. Studies have found detectable levels of these substances in the blood of nearly every person tested. Mounting evidence links exposure to these substances with a frightening list of health problems. These include an increased risk of kidney and testicular cancers, liver damage, immune system suppression, and developmental issues in children. Even very low concentrations are now considered a risk.

Unseen Environmental Damage

The environmental toll of Pfas is immense and widespread. Contamination is not limited to industrial sites. These chemicals travel far from their source, polluting rivers, lakes, and groundwater globally. In England, for example, official screening detected Pfas in 96% of surface water samples, causing all rivers to fail the standard for 'good chemical status'. The contamination extends to wildlife, with Pfas found in marine birds, fish, and mammals, disrupting ecosystems in a manner that science is only beginning to comprehend.

Image Credit - Freepik

A Regulatory Reckoning

In response to the clear dangers, regulatory bodies in the European Union and the United Kingdom have begun to act. The EU is currently considering a universal restriction on the production, use, and sale of all Pfas, a move proposed by five member states. This comprehensive ban aims to tackle the problem at its source. In the UK, however, the approach has been more fragmented. The nation currently regulates only two of the thousands of existing Pfas chemicals, a situation that many scientists find alarmingly inadequate.

The Definition Dilemma

A project by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUpac) is at the centre of the current controversy. Last year, the organisation initiated an effort it described as providing a strict definition. However, concerned scientists argue that this project is being influenced by certain people and factions who want to restrict the widely accepted definition from an international body, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Such a move could potentially remove whole chemical subsets from regulatory scope, creating dangerous loopholes.

The OECD Standard

The current benchmark for identifying these substances is the classification from the OECD. It identifies Pfas as any chemical containing at least one fully fluorinated methyl (–CF3) or methylene (–CF2–) carbon atom. Many scientists praise this broad, structure-based definition as scientifically solid, clear, and perfectly suited for identifying the entire chemical class. They argue it serves as a crucial foundation for creating consistent and protective international regulations, preventing a piecemeal approach that could be easily exploited.

An Effort to Weaken Rules

In a new article appearing this week in Environmental Science & Technology Letters, the group of concerned academics staunchly supports the existing classification. The authors state that the initiative to revise the classification has political and/or economic motivations, rather than scientific ones. Their paper argues that a new, narrower definition endorsed by an authoritative body like IUpac could grant "undue legitimacy" to weaker policies. This might persuade regulatory agencies and other groups to implement measures that offer less protection.

Confusing Science with Regulation

Professor Ian Cousins of Stockholm's University, an environmental chemist, explained the core of the issue. He stated that proponents of the change are conflating the scientific meaning of Pfas with a framework for regulation. He explained that the classification from the OECD was never meant for regulatory purposes. He suspects that generating confusion is a key objective, adding that the resulting disorder will also be harmful.

The View from IUpac

Professor Pierangelo Metrangolo, who co-chairs the IUpac initiative, spoke in support of the work. He explained that a lively discussion in academic literature, which reflected a range of views, provided the scientific justification. He also noted that different regulatory bodies employ varying definitions, so they felt an IUpac undertaking was appropriate. He clarified that the task group has yet to finalise any conclusions and that no current signs point towards the exclusion of any chemical subgroups. Most importantly, he stressed, IUpac has not given its official approval to anything yet.

Balancing Interests or Delaying Action?

A document written by the project's leader lends support to proposals for a more limited categorization. The paper suggests that establishing effective Pfas governance requires striking a balance between scientific precision, financial factors, and societal viewpoints. Critics argue this language signals a willingness to compromise scientific principles for economic gain. They fear such a balance will inevitably favour industry, leading to weaker rules that fail to adequately protect the public and the environment.

Echoes of Past Deception

From the University of Portsmouth, Professor Alex Ford observes a familiar pattern in these events. He noted that chemical corporations and their advocates have historically employed tactics of denial, distraction, and doubt-creation to postpone or halt chemical regulations. This playbook, previously used by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, aims to create uncertainty and paralyse the regulatory process. Professor Ford's research highlights how polluting industries often misrepresent information and undermine science to protect their profits.

Image Credit - Freepik

The Lobbying Machine

Investigations by journalistic collaborations have exposed an intense, orchestrated campaign by the Pfas industry to weaken the EU's proposed ban. Major chemical companies and their trade associations are actively lobbying decision-makers, promoting voluntary schemes over tough regulations, and funding studies that favour their position. This immense pressure from industry creates a significant risk that the comprehensive ban will be diluted, allowing continued pollution from industrial sources.

The Staggering Cost of Inaction

The financial implications of Pfas pollution are colossal. Research calculated that if emissions continue unchecked, the cost of cleaning up the contamination in Europe could exceed €2 trillion over the next two decades. This would translate to an annual bill of €100 billion in perpetuity just to manage the pollution. These figures do not even include the immense healthcare costs associated with treating Pfas-related illnesses, placing an enormous financial burden on society.

The UK's Uncertain Path

The UK government's position on Pfas remains a cause for concern. Officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) stated that they generally follow the OECD classification. However, the department also acknowledged the potential requirement for more specific definitions in certain situations. A regulatory analysis published in 2023 used a definition that excludes some Pfas, raising fears that the UK is already creating a more permissive environment for these chemicals.

A Critical Gap in British Regulation

This regulatory gap leaves the British public and environment exposed. While Scotland adheres to EU guidelines for drinking water, England and Wales have no statutory limits, only non-binding guidance. This lack of legally enforceable standards is a critical weakness in the UK's approach. Without robust regulation based on a comprehensive definition, monitoring efforts are undermined, and protections against the cocktail of chemicals contaminating the nation's waterways and food chain remain inadequate.

The Global Regulatory Landscape

The debate over Pfas is not confined to Europe. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken steps to set the first federal limits on some Pfas in drinking water and has proposed designating several as hazardous substances. However, these moves face political opposition, highlighting the global nature of the struggle between public health imperatives and powerful industrial interests. International cooperation remains essential to prevent companies from simply moving production to regions with weaker regulations.

The Challenge of 'Essential Use'

One of the complex arguments used to counter a total ban is the concept of "essential use". Proponents argue that Pfas are critical for certain high-tech and safety applications, such as in semiconductors, medical devices, and the green energy transition, where no viable alternatives currently exist. While scientists acknowledge that some uses may be genuinely essential, they propose that authorities should handle these through time-limited, well-founded exceptions from a broad ban, rather than fundamentally altering the overarching classification of a Pfas.

The Difficulty of Destruction

Cleaning up the existing Pfas contamination is a monumental scientific and engineering challenge. Because of their extreme persistence, traditional water and soil treatment methods are often ineffective. Current field-implemented technologies for water include granular activated carbon and ion exchange resins, which capture the chemicals but create hazardous waste that needs disposal. Newer destruction technologies, such as supercritical water oxidation, offer promise by breaking the chemicals down, but they are expensive and complex to operate.

A Path Forward

In their own paper, the academics conclude by strongly advising policymakers to keep using the comprehensive OECD framework as the foundation for regulation. They maintain that this approach provides the clarity and comprehensiveness needed to protect future generations. They write that well-founded exceptions can be handled within this framework without modifying the overall classification of a Pfas. Their warning is clear: revising the classification is a dangerous path that places economic considerations above human and environmental health.