Il Regno Unito non riesce a eguagliare l’UE nella lotta contro le “sostanze chimiche per sempre”, affermano gli scienziati | PFAS

The UK can’t stop losing.

Experts criticise Defra’s decision not to use OECD definition of PFAS, with one asking if move is ‘politically based’

Leading scientists have criticised the UK government for failing to take stronger action to tackle “forever chemical” pollution and refusing to match moves in the EU to ban non-essential uses of the substances.

Last year, 59 experts in per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) sent a letter to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asking it to follow the science, which has established that [PFAS](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/pfas) do not biodegrade and that despite variations in toxicity, this persistence itself is sufficiently worrying that all PFAS should be regulated as one class.

PFAS pollution is so widespread that the chemicals are thought to be in the blood of almost every human on the planet. Of the more than 10,000 known to be in existence, two are widely banned after decades of scientific study that eventually proved them to be toxic and linked to cancers as well as a range of other serious diseases.

Given the time taken to establish toxicity for just two substances, five EU member states have proposed a group ban, with exemptions for critical uses. Industry lobbying groups are fighting the proposal.

Defra responded to the scientists in a letter, seen by Watershed Investigations and the Guardian, setting out their plans for controlling the forever chemicals. These plans fall short of the scientists’ demands.

“Defra has implied time and again … that ‘not all PFAS are harmful’ – which is incorrect in my opinion,” said Prof Ian Cousins, who organised the letter. “I agree that PFAS have a diversity of properties and toxicities, but their extremely high environmental persistence makes all PFAS problematic.”

Fluoropolymers are high-performance plastics and the industry has been fighting to be excluded from regulation alongside other PFAS. The UK government has decided not to take on the definition of PFAS used by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which includes fluoropolymers, and has said it will create its own smaller groups.

“Reading between the lines, I believe that Defra wants to exclude fluoropolymers from their action on PFAS,” said Cousins, who thinks “industry likes [the UK’s approach] because it favours a risk-based approach as opposed to the hazard-based approach of the EU, where they regulated based on problematic intrinsic properties such as high persistence”.

He added: “My view is that a risk-based approach does not work for such extremely persistent chemicals. If extremely persistent chemicals are continually released, environmental levels will increase over time … If we do cross some known or unknown threshold for effects in the future there is little we can do to remove [certain types of PFAS] from our drinking water.”

Prof Crispin Halsall from Lancaster University wanted to know the basis for Defra creating their own PFAS groupings. “Is that scientifically based or is it politically based? According to their letter, it’s one of pragmatism and I can understand it … but I think they should align more closely with the EU and instead of creating a new sublist of PFAS, just go with the OECD.”