Today, Fidra, alongside other UK NGOs (CHEM Trust, Marine Conservation Society, Wildlife and Countryside Link and Breast Cancer UK), have released their proposal for regulating PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ in the UK. PFAS pollution in the UK is extensive – with over 10,000 high risk sites identified across the country [1], [2], and widespread contamination from water sources[3] to wildlife[4], the urgency to act has never been greater. The proposal highlights a way forward for a future free from forever chemicals – by the UK committing to align with the EU’s proposed universal PFAS restriction to safeguard our environment, wildlife and health.
The PFAS problem in the UK
PFAS pollution is widespread across the country, with over 10,000 high risk sites identified[1], [2], as well as extensive and globally significant pollution of water sources throughout the UK. For example, the River Mersey has some of the highest concentrations of PFOS and PFOA on record[5], and the River Kelvin has the second highest recorded concentration of TFA globally[3]. Furthermore, 77% of English river sites where PFAS have been detected would not meet the EU safety standards that have been proposed for surface waters[6].
Cleaning up the 10,000 high risk sites identified by the Environment Agency could cost the UK between £31bn and £121bn[1]
And the problem doesn’t just stop with our rivers, these persistent chemicals are building up in our wildlife[7], food[8], drinking water[9] and even in us[10]. For example, freshwater fish in England have PFAS concentrations on average over 300 times higher than the level deemed safe for aquatic life[11]. Additionally, PFAS pesticides have been detected in a wide range of UK supermarket fruit and vegetables such as, grapes, spinach and tomatoes[8]. Almost 200 untreated drinking water samples in England were found to be above the Drinking Water Inspectorate’s PFAS threshold guidance[9], and research has found PFAS to be ‘near ubiquitous’ in the blood of pregnant women in the UK[10].
As long as the UK is still allowing PFAS use, the levels of these persistent chemicals are only going to build up, threatening the integrity of our environment, ecosystems and our health. But there is still time for the UK to act and safeguard our future.
The need for a universal PFAS restriction in the UK
In response to the growing health and environmental concerns related to these chemicals, the EU is currently progressing towards a universal restriction of PFAS[12]. This restriction proposal uses the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) definition of PFAS[13], which encompasses all 10,000+ PFAS and is the most scientifically robust definition supported widely by academics around the world[14]. With so many known PFAS, addressing them one by one is impractical and has fueled a cycle of regrettable substitution, where banned PFAS are replaced by structurally similar, unregulated substances from the same family, with comparable potential for harm[15]. This piecemeal approach not only undermines health and environmental protections, it also burdens regulators by requiring individual assessments and creates uncertainty for UK businesses.
With PFAS already widespread across the UK, the government must adopt the comprehensive OECD definition, and implement a universal restriction to safeguard public health and the environment now and for future generations.
The UK is falling behind on protections against PFAS
Since leaving the EU four years ago, the UK has not restricted a single chemical, whereas the EU has restricted 13 and has identified a further 38 substances as Substances of Very High Concern[16], [17]. This is on top of progressing with the universal restriction on PFAS.
In addition to this, other countries like Denmark[18] and France[19] have implemented sector specific bans on PFAS in order to support an immediate reduction in PFAS emissions whilst the broader EU-wide PFAS restriction progresses. Whilst this offers a great way to begin reducing emissions, it is worth noting that sector specific restrictions alone are not enough. For example, it has been estimated that, should the French ban on PFAS in cosmetics, clothing and ski waxes be implemented on an EU scale, this would still only account for 20% of PFAS emissions[20].
A way forward
A PFAS-free future in the UK is already underway, with numerous PFAS-free alternatives in development or already implemented across a wide range of sectors. For example, over 100 companies have signed up to the ‘No to PFAS’ corporate movement organised by ChemSec[21].
Now the UK must support businesses and safeguard our future by providing regulatory clarity through committing to:
- Group-based source control: We ask that the UK government commits to aligning with EU chemical regulation, including the proposed universal restriction on the use and manufacture of all PFAS, in the revised 2025 Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP). The UK Government should also include biocides, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and veterinary products within scope.
- Immediate reduction of PFAS emissions: We ask that the Government acts immediately to begin reducing PFAS exposure through sector-specific restrictions whilst the EU’s universal restriction progresses, following the examples of Denmark and France.
- Wider action: The Government should implement a wider action plan to address monitoring, remediation and disposal of PFAS. However, this should not distract from the priority action of preventing PFAS pollution at source.
Access the NGO proposal here.
References
[1] Jacobs for the Environment Agency, “PFAS-Evaluating the economic burden of remediating high-risk sites,” 2023, Accessed: Jul. 02, 2025. [Online]. Available: www.jacobs.com
[2] Le Monde et al, “‘Forever pollution’: Explore the map of Europe’s PFAS contamination.” Accessed: Jun. 11, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2023/02/23/forever-pollution-explore-the-map-of-europe-s-pfas-contamination_6016905_8.html
[3] J. Li et al., “Concentrations of Trifluoroacetic Acid (TFA) in UK Surface Waters.” [Online]. Available: www.fidra.org.uk|info@fidra.org.uk
[4] E. O’rourke et al., “Persistence of PFOA Pollution at a PTFE Production Site and Occurrence of Replacement PFASs in English Freshwaters Revealed by Sentinel Species, the Eurasian Otter (Lutra lutra),” Cite This: Environ. Sci. Technol, vol. 58, pp. 10195–10206, 2024, doi: 10.1021/acs.est.3c09405.
[5] P. Byrne et al., “PFAS River Export Analysis Highlights the Urgent Need for Catchment-Scale Mass Loading Data,” Environ Sci Technol Lett, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 266–272, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1021/ACS.ESTLETT.4C00017/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/EZ4C00017_0002.JPEG.
[6] “The UK: The ‘dirty man of Europe’ once again? | The Rivers Trust.” Accessed: Jul. 03, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://theriverstrust.org/about-us/news/uk-dirty-man-of-europe-again
[7] Environment Working Group, “Interactive map: PFAS contamination in wildlife.” Accessed: Jun. 11, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_in_wildlife2/map/
[8] PAN UK, “‘Forever chemicals’ found in UK food – Pesticide Action Network UK.” Accessed: Jun. 12, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.pan-uk.org/pfas-forever-chemicals/
[9] “Revealed: drinking water sources in England polluted with forever chemicals | Pfas | The Guardian.” Accessed: Jul. 07, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/16/the-forever-chemical-hotspots-polluting-england-drinking-water-sources
[10] K. Y. Christensen et al., “Exposure to polyfluoroalkyl chemicals during pregnancy is not associated with offspring age at menarche in a contemporary British cohort,” Environ Int, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 129–135, Jan. 2011, doi: 10.1016/J.ENVINT.2010.08.007.
[11] “Forever Chemicals: PFAS Contamination of… | The Rivers Trust.” Accessed: Jul. 07, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://theriverstrust.org/about-us/news/forever-chemicals-pfas-contamination-of-freshwater-fish
[12] ECHA, “Substances perfluoroalkylées (PFAS) – ECHA.” Accessed: Jun. 12, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://echa.europa.eu/fr/hot-topics/perfluoroalkyl-chemicals-pfas
[13] OECD, “Reconciling Terminology of the Universe of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: Recommendations and Practical Guidance Series on Risk Management No.61 JT03479350 OFDE,” 2021.
[14] “Letter to UK Ministers from PFAS Experts on need for Regulation”.
[15] S. H. Brandsma, J. C. Koekkoek, M. J. M. van Velzen, and J. de Boer, “The PFOA substitute GenX detected in the environment near a fluoropolymer manufacturing plant in the Netherlands,” Chemosphere, vol. 220, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.135.
[16] “Divergence between UK and EU chemical protections (table) – Fidra.” Accessed: Jul. 07, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.fidra.org.uk/download/uk-eu-reach-divergence/
[17] CHEM Trust, “UK/EU differences in environmental/health protections from harmful substances since 1/1/2021”.
[18] “The Executive Order on Food Contact Materials.” Accessed: Jul. 07, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/681
[19] “PFAS ban passed in France.” Accessed: Jul. 07, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://chemtrust.org/news/pfas-ban-passed-in-france/
[20] “Why the French PFAS ban isn’t the victory it seems.” Accessed: May 19, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://chemsec.org/why-the-french-pfas-ban-isnt-the-victory-it-seems/
[21] “PFAS Movement.” Accessed: Jul. 07, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://chemsec.org/pfas/#members-of-pfas-movement