Fears that UK military bases may be leaking toxic ‘forever chemicals' into drinking water
Three UK military bases have been marked for investigation over fears they may be leaking toxic 'forever chemicals' into drinking water sources and important environmental sites.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) will investigate RAF Marham in Norfolk, RM Chivenor in Devon and AAC Middle Wallop in Hampshire after concerns they may be leaching toxic PFAS chemicals into their surroundings. The sites were identified using a new PFAS risk screening tool developed by the Environment Agency (EA) designed to locate and prioritise pollution threats.
RAF Marham and AAC Middle Wallop lie within drinking water safeguard zones. RM Chivenor borders protected shellfish waters, a special area of conservation, and the River Taw – an important salmon river.
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of synthetic chemicals widely used in firefighting foams and industrial processes as well as in aconsumer products including waterproof fabrics, non-stick cookware, cosmetics and food packaging. They are known as forever chemicals because they do not break down easily in the environment, and have been found polluting soil and water across the world. Some PFAS build up in the human body over time and have been linked to a range of serious health problems including cancers, immune system disruption and reproductive disorders.
Military bases with airfields have used firefighting foams laden with PFAS for decades. Certain chemicals in foams including PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS have been linked to diseases and banned, but they remain in the environment.
Prof Hans Peter Arp, from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, said contamination at UK military sites would not be surprising. 'Most, if not all, military bases in Europe and around the world have used vast quantities of firefighting foams that contain PFAS,' he said. 'They now have substantial PFAS concentrations in the soil and groundwater beneath them, as well as soaked into the concrete of their buildings.'
He warned that PFAS pollution will continue for 'decades to centuries' unless immediate local clean-up actions are taken. 'These PFAS that are leaching now likely took several decades to get there. There are more PFAS to come.'
This month the Environmental Audit Committee launched a formal inquiry into PFAS contamination and regulation across the UK. Campaigners and scientists warn that until the full scale of PFAS pollution is understood and addressed, the threat to human health and the environment will continue to grow.
Alex Ford, professor of biology at the University of Portsmouth, said: 'The EA has now identified thousands of high-risk sites around the UK with elevated concentrations of PFAS compounds. These forever chemicals are being detected in our soils, rivers, groundwater, our wildlife – and us.
'It is very worrying to hear PFAS is being detected … close to drinking water sources. The quicker we get this large family of chemicals banned the better, as their legacy will outlive everybody alive today.'
He added that the cost of cleaning up these pollutants could run into the billions – costs that, he argued, should be footed by the chemical industry.
Not all water treatment works can remove PFAS, and upgrades would be costly. A spokesperson for Water UK, which represents the water industry, said: 'PFAS pollution is a huge global challenge. We want to see PFAS banned and the development of a national plan to remove it from the environment, which should be paid for by manufacturers.'
Prof Crispin Halsall, an environmental chemist at Lancaster University, called for greater transparency and collaboration. 'The MoD shouldn't try to hide things. They should come clean and set up monitoring,' he said.
The UK's monitoring of PFAS is trailing behind the US, where contamination on military sites has been the focus of billions of dollars in federal spending on testing and clean-up operations.
In July, the US Environmental Protection Agency and US Army launched a joint project to sample private drinking-water wells near army installations. UK authorities only recently began to investigate the scale of the problem.
Brad Creacey, a former US air force firefighter, spent decades training with firefighting foam on military bases across the US and Europe. During fire exercises, Creacey and his colleagues would ignite contaminated jet fuel and extinguish it with AFFF (aqueous film-forming foams) – often wearing old suits that were soaked and never cleaned. On one occasion he was doused in the foams for fun.
Twenty years after he had stopped working with the foams, a blood test revealed that Creacey still had high PFOS levels in his blood. He has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer and now suffers from Hashimoto's disease, high cholesterol and persistent fatigue.
'We've taken on too much of a lackadaisical attitude about this contamination,' he said. 'Unless this is taken seriously, we're doomed.'
Creacey is pursuing compensation through the US Department of Veterans Affairs and a separate lawsuit against 3M and DuPont.
Pete Thompson is a former Royal Air Force firefighter who served at several UK airbases including RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire. During his service he regularly used firefighting foams in training exercises and equipment tests, and said they usually sprayed them directly on to grass fields with no containment.
'We used the foam in the back of what was called a TACR 1 – basically a Land Rover with a 450-litre tank of premixed foam on the back. Every six months we had to do a production test to prove that the system worked. That production test we just produced on to the grass … there was no way of stopping it going anywhere other than just draining in through the ground.'
The MoD is working with the EA to assess its sites, and work has begun to investigate whether to restrict PFAS in firefighting foams. Military sites are not the only sources of PFAS pollution – commercial airports, firefighting training grounds, manufacturers, landfills, paper mills and metal plating plants can also create contamination problems.
An EA spokesperson said: 'The global science on PFAS is evolving rapidly, and we are undertaking a multi-year programme to better understand sources of PFAS pollution in England. We have developed a risk screening approach to identify potential sources of PFAS pollution and prioritise the sites for further investigation. We have used this tool to assist the MoD in developing its programme of voluntary investigations and risk assessments.'
A government spokesperson said: 'There is no evidence that drinking water from our taps exceeds the safe levels of PFAS, as set out by the Drinking Water Inspectorate.
'Our rapid review of the Environmental Improvement Plan will look at the risks posed by PFAS and how best to tackle them to deliver our legally binding targets to save nature.'
The guidelines for 48 types of PFAS in drinking water is 0.1 micrograms per litre (100 nanograms per litre).
Earlier this year, Watershed Investigations uncovered MoD documents raising concerns that some RAF bases might be hotspots of forever chemical pollution. In 2022, the Guardian reported that Duxford airfield – a former RAF base now owned by the Imperial War Museum – was probably the source of PFOS-contaminated drinking water in South Cambridgeshire. The site is now under investigation by the EA.
Patrick Byrne, professor of water science at Liverpool John Moores University, said current monitoring efforts only scratch the surface. 'We're at the tip of the iceberg. We're only monitoring a handful of PFAS compounds. There are many others we don't yet fully understand or detect.
'There are tests that measure the total PFAS load in water, and we're finding huge discrepancies between those results and the levels of individual compounds. That tells us there's a lot more PFAS in the environment than we know.'
Even where testing is under way, labs are overwhelmed. 'The Environment Agency's lab is inundated. Private labs can't keep up either,' he said. 'Analytical technology is improving fast – but we're racing to keep pace.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
The chemicals in your drinking water that are harming your health (and how to avoid them)
Forever chemicals are part and parcel of modern life. Whether you're pulling on a waterproof jacket, grabbing a coffee in a paper cup, or unwrapping a takeaway, chances are your body's absorbing them. There's more than 10,000 of these synthetic compounds today, which are prized for their resistance to water, oil and stains. That makes them incredibly useful, but nearly impossible to avoid. First developed in the 1930s in both Germany and the United States, PFAS became widely commercialised in the 1950s when US company DuPont used PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) to create Teflon, the world's first non-stick coating. Their chemical structure – bonding carbon with fluorine – makes them nearly impossible to break down. As a result, they can persist in the environment for hundreds or even thousands of years, earning them the nickname 'forever chemicals'. Where are they? This persistence means PFAS are now ubiquitous. They are found in soil, air, drinking water, rainwater, and even the blood of nearly every person on Earth. Why do we need to avoid them? The use of the most dangerous PFAS chemicals, PFOA and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonic acid), were phased out in the United States, the UK and many other countries beginning in the early 2000s, after studies linked them to cancer, immune system suppression, thyroid disease, liver damage, developmental delays in children, and fertility issues. However, although they are not used in the manufacture of new products in the UK, those toxic, banned chemicals will never disappear from our environment. They exist in the water we drink and the soil that grows our food. More worrying is that these banned substances have been replaced by newer, supposedly less harmful, forever chemicals. These haven't been shown to cause health problems yet, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried. Dr Dave Megson, a chemistry and environmental forensics scientist at Manchester Metropolitan University, says: 'I'm still concerned about them. We've banned the two chemicals we know the most about, but the replacement chemicals are very similar. They're just less understood and their toxicity hasn't been fully confirmed. That seems to be the loophole because we haven't proven they're harmful yet, they're still allowed.' He thinks they will be banned in time and 'we're just waiting for the toxicological data to catch up. We need time to prove how harmful these new PFAS are.' Ian Cousins, professor of environmental organic chemistry at Stockholm University, thinks that most uses are unnecessary. 'We should not be using them because they're so persistent, and there are alternatives on the market.' Last month, the UK's Environmental Audit Committee launched a formal inquiry into PFAS contamination and regulation across the UK. They're concerned that the evidence showing they harm human health is not being taken seriously enough. The UK is lagging behind most other developing countries when it comes to regulating forever chemicals. The EU is moving forward with a comprehensive proposal to restrict the manufacture, use and marketing of approximately 10,000 PFAS. Currently, the UK has banned several specific PFAS chemicals found in firefighting foams, such as Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), banned over a decade ago, and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), which will be banned from July this year. It's no surprise, given the UK's lack of regulation that a global study assessing blood serums containing PFAS, found UK concentrations to be amongst some of the highest in the world. But while we are waiting for the UK government to catch up with the rest of the world, there are measures that worried consumers can take to reduce their exposure. Ditch plastic bottles and get a water filter Despite water companies having to dilute contaminated water with purer water or use an alternative source, PFAS are still getting into drinking water. PFAS were found in more than half of samples of Scottish drinking water taken in 2023. PFAS have also been found in both bottled and tap water samples in the UK. The Environment Agency has identified over 10,000 sites across England as high-risk for PFAS contamination, many associated with firefighting foam which contained now banned PFAS. Prof Cousins says that people should be especially concerned if they live near an industrial or military site that may have used firefighting foam in the past. 'That is a particularly nasty PFAS and you don't want to be exposed to it. So if you live in that [kind of] area I would consider getting my water tested and install a water filter.' Several UK sites are under investigation for PFAS contamination from firefighting foam. At AGC Chemicals in Thornton-Cleveleys, Lancashire, over 100 tonnes of PFOA (now a banned chemical) were released between 1950 and 2012, prompting soil and water testing. In Norfolk, RAF Marham is being examined after PFAS were found in local drinking water, with bottled water now being supplied to residents. Duxford's former RAF base, now an Imperial War Museum site, is also being monitored due to potential contamination of nearby aquifers. The most effective water filters for removing PFAS use reverse osmosis, activated carbon, or ion exchange. Reverse osmosis systems can remove up to ninety-nine per cent of PFAS, while activated carbon filters also work well if the filters are changed regularly. Good examples include Berkey Water Filters, which use carbon elements tested for PFAS removal, and the Aquasana OptimH2O, which combines reverse osmosis and carbon filtration. Dr Megson offers some reassurance. 'The UK has some of the most tested and regulated water in the world. In known hotspots water is regularly blended and monitored to stay within guidelines. Get an air filter Carpets might be cosy and warm underfoot but increasingly researchers are raising concerns over them as a hidden source of PFAS. They are often added to carpets to make them stain and water resistant. Walking on them creates dust that can reach breathing height. 'People think of contamination as something outside, but indoor dust is significant. For example, carpets treated with Scotchgard in the 1990s are now breaking down releasing PFAS as the fibres degrade,' says Dr Megson. A recent study led by Dr Scott Bartell at the University of California, Irvine, found that people living with carpets consistently showed higher blood PFAS levels than those with bare floors. His conclusion? Carpets are a significant and underestimated source of exposure. Oliver Jones, professor of chemistry, at RMIT University in Melbourne says that 'if you really want to reduce exposure, you should start by looking at where the largest sources of PFAS to humans are. Evidence suggests it's dust in the air.' He recommends getting an air filter. While a standard mechanical air filter, known as an HEPA filter can trap particulate-bound PFAS (like those stuck to dust), a better choice would be an activated carbon air filter. The critical difference: they can remove gaseous PFAS from the air. For broader protection, a combination of both HEPA and activated carbon filtration is ideal. Activated carbon works by adsorbing chemicals at a molecular level, capturing many volatile PFAS compounds that might otherwise circulate freely in your home. Not all air purifiers are created equal, though. Look for units with large activated carbon beds and a high Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR). Vacuum with a HEPA filter: a high-efficiency vacuum can reduce PFAS-laden dust. Models like Dyson's Gen5outsize (£1,000) or the more affordable Shark Detect and Empty (£350) both offer strong filtration, though only some include activated carbon filters to trap gases. Swap parchment and foil and consider alternatives to your non-stick pan Parchment paper, wax paper and foil are regular fixtures in most kitchens. They are the kind of supplies people use without thinking twice. But research has found that some of these everyday items may be coated with PFAS. When exposed to high temperatures, especially in ovens or on grills, PFAS can break down and potentially seep into the food. That means cooking something as simple as vegetables in foil, or lining a tray with treated paper, could become a source of unwanted chemical exposure over time. 'There are lots of kitchen items with PFAS, including baking paper, non-stick pans and even dishwasher tablets,', says Dr Megson. 'Not all of them transfer large amounts to your food, but some still do. Some parchment paper contains PFAS. But if you're baking a cake once a month, the exposure is minimal compared to what you get from your diet or potentially your water.' 'It's death by a thousand paper cuts. It might be small amounts, but it all adds up in burger wrappers, coffee cups, dishwasher tablets, makeup and workout clothes,' he says. A simple solution that creates a similar non-stick effect is to coat your pan with butter and cover it with flour. The following retailers provide some PFAS-free alternatives: Green Safe Products, Clondakin Group, Nordic Paper. Stop wearing Lycra leggings to the gym PFAS are also found in a lot of athletic clothing including popular Lycra leggings. They are added to fabrics to make them water and stain resistant, or to help wick sweat away from the skin, which is common in performance gear. A 2022 investigation by Toxic Free Future found that more than 70 per cent of sportswear tested contained PFAS, including items from well-known brands. Researchers at Birmingham University also found that sweating makes it easier for the body to absorb these chemicals into the body. There are plenty of PFAS-free options. Look for those made from natural fabrics, such as organic cotton, hemp and bamboo. These selections represent a range of PFAS-free sportswear options from reputable brands: Patagonia has been working to eliminate PFAS from its products, and offers items like the Cap Cool Daily Shirt. Sweaty Betty's Ultimate Studio Twin Strap Bra Vest is designed without PFAS. PFAS can be used to waterproof outdoor clothing. The performance clothing company Rab has been actively working to eliminate PFAS from its products. As of autumn/winter 2024, approximately 95 per cent of Rab's fabrics with durable water repellent (DWR) treatments are PFAS-free. Patagonia Torrentshell 3L rain jacket and North Face's Resolve 2 jacket are PFAS- free. Opt for natural nails 'I think the cosmetics industry has got away [with it] pretty lightly at the moment, whereas the clothing industry has had to do quite a lot,' said Dr Megson. He is worried about gym users applying make-up. 'I'd expect people to get more exposure through make-up than clothes. A lot of people now wear make-up in the gym because they want to look good while exercising. So they go for the really tough 72-hour formulas because they don't want it to run. The reason it stays on so well is because it's packed with PFAS, which resist sweat and water.' Many everyday cosmetics like nail polish, lipstick, mascara, and foundation contain chemicals PFAS, added because they help make products more durable, waterproof, and longer-lasting. Natural and organic beauty products often avoid these synthetic chemicals altogether. Several UK brands now offer PFAS-free nail varnishes and polishes that focus on safer, non-toxic ingredients. Popular options include Zoya, known for formulas free from harmful chemicals like PFAS and Piggy Paint, which provides non-toxic, water-based polishes safe for sensitive skin. Axiology offers clean beauty products with PFAS-free nail polishes. Ditch ready meals and plastic packaging 'Fast food packaging is another unnecessary use of PFAS. It's done purely for convenience. It's there to stop grease from soaking through. We don't want a greasy stain on our shorts or trousers when we're eating a burger. But in warm, moist conditions, like with a wrapped burger, more chemicals can transfer. So it's an extra load we really don't need,' says Dr Megson. 'Pizza boxes are some of the worst and most unnecessary use of PFAS,' says Prof Cousins. 'Instead of using chemicals to stop the fats from the pizza escaping the box, they should make thicker boxes.' Some PFAS-free alternatives include uncoated paper and cardboard, which are suitable for dry foods like sandwiches and pastries and can be recycled or composted. Bioplastic-coated paper, made with plant-based polylactic acid (PLA), offers compostable options. Containers made from sugarcane byproducts, known as bagasse, are naturally grease- and water-resistant, microwave-safe, and home compostable, making them ideal for takeaway plates and containers. However, the raised awareness about PFAS is having an impact on businesses. McDonald's has committed to eliminating them from its food packaging globally by 2025. While US Tex-Mex chain Chipotle committed to eliminating PFAS from all packaging by 2024 and has made significant progress. Stop using throw-away coffee cups To keep hot drinks from soaking through paper cups, they are lined with a thin layer of plastic-like material. 'These cups contain PFAS,' said Prof Cousins. 'Remember though that not all PFAS are the same. They have short chains unlike the older ones that were banned. These substances have not so far been linked to human health effects. However, they are persistent and will accumulate in the environment, which is not a good thing. Toxicity is about dose, so if they continue to accumulate, they are likely to be a problem in the future.' If you're concerned, a simple way to steer clear is to carry a reusable cup made from materials like stainless steel, glass or silicone. What else we should be aware of? Both Dr Megson and Prof Cousins says that we absorb a lot of PFAS through the food chain. 'I wouldn't eat any fish or shellfish from Morecambe Bay. I wouldn't touch the estuary because it is terribly contaminated, says Prof Cousins. I'd be suspicious of eggs reared at home or in these areas, and home-grown vegetables if you live near a hot spot. I would avoid freshwater fish from polluted rivers.' Strawberries sold in the UK have been found to contain high levels of pesticide residues that include PFAS. A 2022 review of government testing data, analysed by Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK), found that nearly all of the strawberry samples, 95 per cent, contained traces of PFAS-related pesticides. Strawberries appear to be particularly vulnerable due to the types of pesticides used, and the fruit's porous surface. Other fruits and vegetables, including grapes, spinach, cherries, and tomatoes were also found to carry PFAS residues. We even ingest PFAS through meat, butter and eggs 'We get a lot of our PFAS in our bodies from our diet,' says Dr Megson. Wastewater sludge or slurry which is used as a fertiliser is packed full of PFAS. Animals grazing on contaminated land or drinking polluted water can accumulate PFAS in their tissues, which then passes up to the food chain to humans. Going organic is the best solution to avoid PFAS. Washing fruit and vegetables thoroughly to try to remove as much of them as possible. Can you remove PFAS from the body? Recent research has shown that donating blood or plasma and taking specific medications can help reduce PFAS levels in the body. A 2022 Australian study found that regular blood donations lowered PFAS concentrations by about 10 per cent, while plasma donations, which remove more of the protein-bound PFAS, reduced levels by up to 30 per cent over a year. Additionally, clinical trials are exploring the use of cholestyramine, used to lower cholesterol. This medication binds to PFAS in the digestive system, helping eliminate them through the liver. While these methods don't eliminate PFAS entirely, they offer promising ways to reduce the body's chemical burden, especially for those with high exposure. How are microplastics and PFAS linked? PFAS and microplastics can be linked. Microplastics are tiny plastic particles (less than 5mm) that result from the breakdown of larger plastic waste or are manufactured at that size, commonly polluting oceans, soil, and even food. PFAS can bind to or coat microplastics in the environment, effectively hitching a ride on these tiny plastic particles. This combination may increase the potential for PFAS to enter the food chain, as microplastics are ingested by marine life and other organisms. So while they are chemically distinct, they can interact and amplify each other's environmental impact.
BBC News
17 hours ago
- BBC News
What is AWE and why does it need emergency alerts?
People in the vicinity of two nuclear sites in Berkshire have been urged to sign up to emergency areas around the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) sites in Aldermaston and Burghfield are covered by Detailed Emergency Planning Zones (DPEZs) - a legal requirement around licenced nuclear part of this, the organisation has introduced an emergency text alert system, where people can be notified in the event of a nuclear emergency. What happens at AWE? AWE is a non-departmental public body, owned by the Ministry of Defence. It is responsible for developing, manufacturing and maintaining the UK's nuclear has two sites in Berkshire - one in Aldermaston and one in part of this, high explosives and radioactive substance are used on the sites under controlled conditions. Ionising radiation We are exposed to ionising radiation all the time - mostly from natural sources, but also from things like X-ray the danger is removed as soon as you are away from the source, and you do not become radioactive as a if radioactive material is in a form where it can be easily spread around - like a gas or a very fine powder - then it can get inside the example through breathing it in or consuming food or drink that has been contaminated by radioactive the radiation is absorbed, it can cause changes to the body at a molecular level. These changes can lead to negative health effects such as cancer. What are the risks at AWE? AWE said there were no nuclear reactors on site, so there was "no risk" of a Fukushima or Chernobyl-type if there was an uncontrolled fire or an explosion in a building where radioactive materials are behind used, that could lead to radiation particles being released into the environment, which could then lead to people being of this risk, AWE and West Berkshire Council (WBC) have rules about what people within the DEPZ should do in the event of a nuclear emergency - and that's where the emergency alerts come in. What will the emergency alert say? According the WBC, the emergency text would inform people there has been an incident at either Aldermaston or would tell them to go indoors, close windows and tune into local media if they are in the affected they are not in the DEPZ at the time, they would not need to follow the instructions in the it would still useful to get the warning, because people may not be able to return to the affected area until after the alert has passed. What are the areas covered by the alerts? The alerts cover the DEPZs surrounding the two in the event of a disaster, the radioactive particles could be carried in a plume and the extent of this would depend on the weather conditions at the a result, while the potential affected area is calculated using estimated wind strength, in the event of an emergency experts would use computer modelling to track and forecast the actual risk, WBC said. How likely is a nuclear emergency? Both WBC and AWE said an emergency alert was "unlikely".But, by law, the local authority has to have a plan about what to do just in case. You can follow BBC Berkshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- The Guardian
Scientists warn against attempts to change definition of ‘forever chemicals'
A group of 20 internationally renowned scientists have issued a strong warning against attempts to narrow the definition of 'forever chemicals' in what they describe as a politically or economically motivated effort to weaken regulation of the potentially harmful chemicals. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (Pfas) are a large group of synthetic chemicals used for their oil-, water- and stain-resistant properties in a range of consumer and industrial products from waterproof clothing and non-stick cookware to firefighting foams and electronics. Their molecular structure makes them resistant to degradation, earning them the nickname 'forever chemicals'. In the last few years there has been growing awareness of the problems associated with Pfas, and a push for more stringent regulation, resulting in the banning of certain forms. A group of scientists are now raising the alarm about efforts, including by some individuals and groups in the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUpac), to narrow the current international definition of Pfas in ways that could exclude certain chemical subgroups. Last year IUpac launched a project aimed at providing 'a rigorous definition … and a harmonised communication on Pfas'. A paper authored by the chair of the project gives credibility to narrower classification proposals and says it is necessary to find 'a balance among scientific rigour, economic considerations, and social perspectives for effective Pfas regulation'. But in a paper published this week in Environmental Science & Technology Letters, the group of scientists defends the current definition, calling it 'scientifically grounded, unambiguous, and well-suited to identify these chemicals'. The effort to change the definition is 'politically and/or economically, rather than scientifically, motivated', the authors write. 'They are mixing up the chemical definition of Pfas with a regulatory definition of Pfas,' said Prof Ian Cousins from the University of Stockholm. 'The OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] definition was not intended to be a regulatory definition … the confusion it causes will also be damaging and I suspect that causing confusion is one of their objectives.' The authors warn: 'An IUpac-endorsed and potentially narrower Pfas definition could confer undue legitimacy … and influence regulatory bodies and others to adopt less protective policies.' If the definition of Pfas were narrowed, it could drastically reduce the scope of regulation regimes currently being worked out in the EU and UK, limiting the number of substances subject to control, undermining monitoring efforts and potentially weakening public health and environmental protections, according to the scientists. Prof Pierangelo Metrangolo, co-chair of the IUpac project, said 'the scientific rationale was the vibrant debate in the literature – reflecting differing opinions – and the fact that various regulatory agencies use different definitions. Therefore, we believed an IUpac project was timely. 'Currently, the TG [task group] has not finalised any conclusion, yet, and there are no indications that certain subgroups of chemicals would be excluded. More importantly, the IUpac has not 'endorsed' anything, yet.' Prof Alex Ford from the University of Portsmouth, said: 'Chemical industries and their lobbyists have used deny, deflect, sow doubt and delay tactics in the past to prevent and slow regulation on chemicals. 'The UK is still in the process of deciding how it will deal with Pfas compounds. Past experience has shown that confusion over the definition of harmful contaminants can cause substantial delays in their scrutiny and regulation.' The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs said it generally followed the OECD definition but that it did not discount the need for narrower definitions in certain contexts. In their paper, the scientists conclude by urging policymakers to continue using the OECD definition as the basis for harmonised regulation. 'Justified exemptions can be made … without changing the general definition of what constitutes a Pfas,' they write.
