Home / Sources / Select Committees / Environmental Audit Committee / Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalky…
Select committee: Environmental Audit Committee

Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Closed Opened 10 Apr 2025 Closed 31 Jul 2026 22 recommendations 16 conclusions

Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

Inquiry scope (the committee's words)
Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) are a large, complex group of about 14,000 synthetic chemicals used in a wide variety of everyday products. For example, PFAS are used to keep food from sticking to packaging or cookware, make clothes and carpets resistant to stains, and create firefighting foam that is more effective. PFAS chemicals do not degrade easily in the environment and for this reason they have often been referred to as ‘forever’ chemicals. Research has indicated that PFAS can lead to a range of health issues, such as decreased fertility, developmental delays in children, a higher risk of certain cancers and immune system suppression. Our inquiry will consider whether enough is being done to address the risks of PFAS in the UK and whether research institutions and the Environment Agency are equipped to detect and monitor their impact. It will also explore what regulatory mechanisms are in place across the UK and how they compare to other jurisdictions around the world, such as the European Union and the United States of America. Read the call for evidence for more information about this inquiry, and to find out how to submit written evidence through the Committee's online evidence submission portal.

Where it stands

The inquiry is closed, opened 10 April 2025.

The committee has published 1 report, most recently 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) on 23 April 2026.

The government's response

Published 6 July 2026. The deadline was 23 June 2026.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government's response draws on the PFAS Plan published on 3 February 2026 and, on most recommendations, says it is working across government or awaiting the final EU REACH PFAS restriction rather than adopting the Committee's specific proposals.

  • On UK REACH reform (recommendation 3), the government shares the Committee's ambition but describes a different approach, drawing from EU decisions "unless there are compelling reasons to diverge", with reforms, "including any necessary legislation, by December 2028".
  • On restricting PFAS (recommendations 4 and 5), it says it "await[s] to see" how the final EU REACH universal PFAS restriction applies, and will "consider (if applicable)" essential-use approaches.
  • On food limits (recommendation 10), the Food Standards Agency will consider risk management options, "including setting maximum levels for PFAS in food", following publication of the Committee on Toxicity's review.
  • On polluter pays and remediation (recommendation 16), it "agree[s]" the proposals "warrant serious consideration" and will "continue to explore" them. On UKRI research (recommendations 17 and 20), it is "committed to exploring further opportunities", with funding "to be granted from 2027/28".

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error

Recommendations and conclusions

All 38 recommendations and conclusions

Reports

All reports

Evidence

  • 4 oral evidence sessionsLatest 4 February 2026
  • 23 witnesses
All evidence

Recent activity

Recommendations and conclusions 38 shown

Conclusion 1

Conclusion · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Concluded (the committee's words)
PFAS are highly persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals with the potential for long-term environmental and human harm, despite ongoing scientific uncertainties around the toxicity of different PFAS. (Conclusion, Paragraph 22)

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 2

Conclusion · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Concluded (the committee's words)
The Government’s PFAS Plan disproportionately focuses on expanding PFAS monitoring rather than preventing or remediating contamination. Applying the Government’s own environmental principles demands decisive action now to limit further release and exposure. (Conclusion, Paragraph 23)

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 3

Conclusion · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Concluded (the committee's words)
Voluntary action on PFAS and self-regulation by industry are not sufficient to ensure transparency, accountability or reduce PFAS emissions. (Conclusion, Paragraph 24)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 4

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government must act in line with the environmental principles, taking preventative and precautionary action to reduce cumulative PFAS exposure to both people and the environment. We expect the Government to set out in its response how its approach to PFAS has been developed with due regard to precautionary principle within the environmental principles policy statement. (Recommendation, Paragraph 25)

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 5

Conclusion · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Concluded (the committee's words)
UK REACH, in its current lagging and slow-moving form, risks leaving the UK behind international best practice and limits the Government’s ability to respond swiftly to emerging scientific evidence on PFAS. This increases the likelihood of further regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, creating trade barriers both ways, and detrimental consequences for UK goods in the EU market. (Conclusion, Paragraph 35)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 6

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should make use of existing EU-UK dialogue mechanisms to support UK alignment with EU REACH to avoid unnecessary regulatory divergence. Whilst UK Government may choose a different approach in some areas, without such alignment, UK manufacturers risk accidentally being placed at a competitive disadvantage, and the UK public may face greater exposure to PFAS due to the absence of the more precautionary approach being pursued in the EU. (Recommendation, Paragraph 36) 43

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 7

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
UK REACH must be reformed to enable swifter restrictions on PFAS to ensure the UK can align with emerging evidence to act more quickly on substances of concern. (Conclusion, Paragraph 37)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 8

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should reform UK REACH by March 2027 to avoid further delay in restricting PFAS. The Government should set targets at half the statutory maximum timescales and ensure that the Health and Safety Executive has the resources to meet these accelerated timelines. (Recommendation, Paragraph 38)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 9

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should adopt an essential-use approach to regulating PFAS, prioritising the rapid restriction of PFAS in non-essential applications. Clearly defined exemptions should be set for essential uses, with time-limited derogations where substitutes are still being developed. (Recommendation, Paragraph 46)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 10

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should commission the Health and Safety Executive under UK REACH to bring forward restrictions on PFAS in non-essential consumer products (e.g. food packaging, cookware and school uniforms) without delay and begin a phased restriction from 2027. (Recommendation, Paragraph 47)

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 11

Conclusion · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Concluded (the committee's words)
Replacing one PFAS with another can perpetuate long-term environmental and health risks and can lead to regrettable substitutions, whereby banned substances are rapidly replaced by chemically similar and potentially harmful alternatives. (Conclusion, Paragraph 54)

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 12

Conclusion · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Concluded (the committee's words)
Due to the impracticality of assessing thousands of PFAS one by one, and the risk that new substances emerge faster than they can be evaluated, the UK’s current approach leaves regulators struggling to keep pace with industry innovation. While the burden of proof currently rests with Government before substances are banned, it is likely that without adopting a more ambitious approach the UK will continue to suffer significant PFAS contamination for many more decades. (Conclusion, Paragraph 55)

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 13

Conclusion · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Concluded (the committee's words)
Without a broad, group-based restriction on PFAS, the Government risks a “whack-a-mole” approach. (Conclusion, Paragraph 56)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 14

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should draw on independent scientific and regulatory expertise in taking a group-based approach for PFAS regulation within three months of the EU’s forthcoming assessment. This should include assessing options for grouping PFAS with similar structures, so that future restrictions can be applied more swiftly, and effectively as new evidence emerges. (Recommendation, Paragraph 57)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 15

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should consult on the establishment of an industry-funded mechanism to rapidly assess the properties and risks of newly developed PFAS before they are permitted for use, and invest in the development of 44 safer alternatives. This mechanism should prevent regrettable substitutions, incentivise safer alternatives and enable faster, more effective regulatory decisions, with proposals published within 12 months of the publication of this report. (Recommendation, Paragraph 58) Human exposure and risk management

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 16

Conclusion · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Concluded (the committee's words)
While gaps remain in understanding the toxicity of every individual PFAS, the evidence indicates that several PFAS are associated with a wide range of adverse health effects. Studies of highly exposed groups show clearer and more immediate risks, underscoring the need for precautionary action, given the extreme persistence and bioaccumulation of PFAS in the body, to protect the public. (Conclusion, Paragraph 64)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 17

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should invest in long-term research on the health effects of PFAS exposure in the UK population. Within 12 months, it should publish a delivery plan setting out epidemiological studies to assess the cumulative impact of multiple PFAS and the establishment of biomonitoring programmes for groups with higher exposure. For communities and occupations with known or suspected elevated PFAS exposure, the Government should also provide enhanced health screening, enabling early detection of health impacts, identification of trends, and reduced anxiety for affected individuals. (Recommendation, Paragraph 65)

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 18

Conclusion · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Concluded (the committee's words)
The challenges of managing the risks of PFAS and associated health impacts are not issues faced by the UK alone. Many of the lessons relevant to the UK are already emerging from studies and regulatory processes across the European Union and beyond. (Conclusion, Paragraph 66)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 19

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should draw on international best practice and collaborate with established PFAS research programmes to ensure that the UK is fully aligned with and contributing to this global evidence base. This will enable the Government to make evidence-based decisions more quickly and reduce the cost to the UK taxpayer. A synthesis report summarising the UK’s international engagement, findings and planned actions should be published within six months of this Committee’s report. (Recommendation, Paragraph 67)

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 20

Conclusion · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Concluded (the committee's words)
Although the Government has begun setting statutory limits for PFAS in drinking water, which is a welcome step, significant gaps remain in managing and limiting human exposure to PFAS through food and agricultural pathways. (Conclusion, Paragraph 76)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 21

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should set limits on the levels and types of PFAS permitted in food, giving producers, retailers, and regulators a consistent basis for protecting public health. This should include establishing and monitoring 45 limits on PFAS entering the food chain through agricultural processes. The Government should publish these limits within three months of the publication of the Committee on Toxicity’s review to draw on the expertise. (Recommendation, Paragraph 77)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 22

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
Whilst PFAS-containing consumer products remain on the market, the Government should introduce interim limits on PFAS levels and require standardised labelling to ensure consumers are fully informed. Implementation should be led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, working with the Food Standards Agency and the Office for Product Safety and Standards. This should take effect within six months and remain in place until PFAS are restricted in non-essential consumer goods. (Recommendation, Paragraph 78)

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 23

Conclusion · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Concluded (the committee's words)
Whilst the PFAS Plan sets out monitoring commitments, it lacks the specificity needed to inform and deliver action. Without clear requirements on what to monitor, the methods to use, and the thresholds for concern, and without adequate funding and laboratory capacity, the Environment Agency cannot enforce limits or identify risks in time to act. (Conclusion, Paragraph 83)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 24

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should provide full detail, in its response, on how its PFAS monitoring strategy will support enforcement and remediation. This should include a clear explanation of how monitoring results will be used to identify risks, guide remediation activity, and underpin regulatory enforcement. (Recommendation, Paragraph 84)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 25

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should accompany this with an assessment of the resources required for the Environment Agency to deliver their responsibilities outlined in the PFAS Plan and commit to providing the associated funding in its response. (Recommendation, Paragraph 85) Addressing pollution

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 26

Conclusion · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Concluded (the committee's words)
Lack of supply chain transparency fundamentally undermines the UK’s ability to manage PFAS at end-of-life, leaving councils, waste operators and regulators unable to prevent products with PFAS entering landfill, and leading to further pollution of waterways, soil and the wider environment. (Conclusion, Paragraph 93)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 27

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should consult on mandatory PFAS disclosures across supply chains within six months, requiring manufacturers and importers to report the presence and purpose of PFAS in products placed on the UK market to support safe handling and disposal. (Recommendation, Paragraph 94) 46

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 28

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government must set out in its response a timeline to divert PFAS waste from landfill towards safer treatment or destruction technologies to manage increasing volumes of PFAS waste without causing further environmental contamination. (Recommendation, Paragraph 95)

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 29

Conclusion · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Concluded (the committee's words)
Remediating PFAS contamination in the environment is expensive and technically complex. The current regulatory approach that permits continued use of PFAS until harm is proven means that these substances can legally continue to accumulate in the environment, steadily increasing the long term environmental and financial burden. (Conclusion, Paragraph 106)

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 30

Conclusion · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Concluded (the committee's words)
The Government has not applied the polluter pays principle adequately to deter future PFAS emissions nor has it allocated sufficient government funding to tackle the remediation of PFAS in the environment where liable parties cannot be identified. (Conclusion, Paragraph 107)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 31

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should apply the polluter pays principle to prevent ongoing and historic PFAS contamination and consult by March 2027 on establishing a national PFAS Remediation Fund. The Government should: • explore the implications of an emissions levy for PFAS on the UK REACH candidate list, to deter ongoing environmental contamination and hold polluters responsible; • consider options for extending the polluter pays principle to products manufactured overseas and imported into the UK; • ensure that when the Government extends the polluter pays principle that UK manufacturers are not at a disadvantage to overseas manufacturers of products; • increase dedicated central government funding for local authorities to remediate where no responsible party can be identified; and • ensure that the Remediation Fund and associated enforcement are overseen by the Environment Agency, and ensure that the Environment Agency has the necessary resources and skills required to implement any monitoring and enforcement responsibilities. (Recommendation, Paragraph 108)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 32

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
Existing PFAS contamination in the environment must be addressed alongside prevention. Even with strong restrictions on future PFAS use, the UK already faces significant legacy contamination. Without action now, this legacy burden will pose long-term risks to public health and the environment, and mounting costs will continue to fall on government (and taxpayers) and water companies (and water bill payers). (Conclusion, Paragraph 113) 47

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 33

Conclusion · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Concluded (the committee's words)
Industry urgently needs clear direction and Government approval on viable remediation methods so that contaminated materials can be treated safely and at scale. (Conclusion, Paragraph 114)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 34

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should support the development and deployment of scalable, cost-effective PFAS remediation technologies by directing investment through UK Research and Innovation into research, innovation and practical support. (Recommendation, Paragraph 115)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 35

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government must publish formally approved guidance for PFAS remediation to provide businesses, local authorities and regulators with the certainty needed to deliver timely, safe and effective remediation. (Recommendation, Paragraph 116)

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 36

Conclusion · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Concluded (the committee's words)
PFAS contamination cannot be addressed without reliable destruction capacity. Current UK incineration capacity is insufficient to treat the increasing volume of PFAS containing waste diverted from landfill, and significant gaps remain in the availability, scalability, and verification of other destruction technologies. (Conclusion, Paragraph 123)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 37

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should assess the volume of PFAS containing waste expected from forthcoming restrictions and determine whether UK high- temperature incineration capacity is sufficient. The Government should write to the Committee with its findings and proposed actions within six months. (Recommendation, Paragraph 124)

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 38

Recommendation · 9th Report - Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government must commit, within six months, to funding the research and development of non-incineration PFAS destruction technologies through UK Research and Innovation and Innovate UK. (Recommendation, Paragraph 125) 48

Link to this item · Read this item

Reports

1 report

Oral evidence sessions

4 sessions

On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.

Date Session and witnesses Source
4 Feb 2026
Oral evidence session
Emma Hardy MP · Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Liz Parkes MBE · Environment Agency, Marc Casale · Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Matt Womersley · Environment Agency, Richard Daniels · Health and Safety Executive 		View ↗
10 Dec 2025
Environmental Audit Committee
David Henderson · Water UK, Dr David Megson · Manchester Metropolitan University, Professor Alan Boobis OBE · Imperial College London, Professor Elsie Sunderland · Harvard University, Professor Martyn Kirk · Australian National University, Vicky Robinson · The Agricultural Industries Confederation 		View ↗
10 Sep 2025
Oral evidence session
Dr Andrew Schwarz · Fluorok, Dr Andy Joel · F2 Chemicals Ltd, Duncan Sanders · ATG Group, Professor Luisa Orsini · University of Birmingham, Stephanie Metzger · Royal Society of Chemistry, Stuart Ede · AGC Chemicals Europe, Ltd. 		View ↗
25 Jun 2025
Panel 1; Panel 2
Andrew Spence · Britannia Fire Ltd, Dr Joanna Cloy · Fidra, Dr Nissanka Rajapakse · Johnson Matthey, Linsey Cottrell · The Conflict and Environment Observatory, Mark Hirlam · Delipac, Professor Michael Depledge CBE · European Centre for Environment and Human Health 		View ↗

Who gave evidence

23 witnesses

On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.

WitnessOrganisationSessions
Andrew Spence · Joint Managing Director Britannia Fire Ltd 1
David Henderson · CEO Water UK 1
Dr Andrew Schwarz · Chief Business Officer Fluorok 1
Dr Andy Joel · Technical Support Chemist F2 Chemicals Ltd 1
Dr David Megson · Reader in Chemistry and Environmental Forensics Manchester Metropolitan University 1
Dr Joanna Cloy · Senior Project Manager Fidra 1
Dr Nissanka Rajapakse · Group Head of Product Stewardship Johnson Matthey 1
Duncan Sanders · Director for England ATG Group 1
Emma Hardy MP · Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Water and Flooding) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 1
Linsey Cottrell · Environmental Policy Officer The Conflict and Environment Observatory 1
Liz Parkes MBE · Deputy Director for Climate Change, Chemicals & Markets Environment Agency 1
Marc Casale · Deputy Director, Chemicals & International Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 1
Mark Hirlam · Global Sales Director Delipac 1
Matt Womersley · Environment and Business Manager – Chemicals Regulatory Development Environment Agency 1
Professor Alan Boobis OBE · Professor of Toxicology Imperial College London 1
Professor Elsie Sunderland · Fred Kavli Professor of Environmental Chemistry and Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences Harvard University 1
Professor Luisa Orsini · Professor of Evolutionary Systems Biology and Environmental Omics University of Birmingham 1
Professor Martyn Kirk · Professor of Applied Epidemiology Australian National University 1
Professor Michael Depledge CBE · Emeritus Professor European Centre for Environment and Human Health 1
Richard Daniels · Divisional Director of Chemicals Regulation Division Health and Safety Executive 1
Stephanie Metzger · Policy Advisor - Sustainable Chemicals Royal Society of Chemistry 1
Stuart Ede · Head of sustainability AGC Chemicals Europe, Ltd. 1
Vicky Robinson · Head of Sustainability The Agricultural Industries Confederation 1