Latest news with #NatalieSims
North Wales Chronicle
19-05-2025
- Health
- North Wales Chronicle
Government ‘could miss chance to tackle chemical pollutants from wastewater'
The organisation said the cost of cleaning up chemicals from the environment could be left to taxpayers in future unless the UK follows the EU and France to introduce a 'polluter pays' principle. This requires industries responsible for producing or using harmful contaminants to contribute to the cost of their removal or remediation. Wastewater treatment plants in the UK are currently not equipped to remove contaminants of emerging concern (CCs) – pollutants that may harm human health and nature but for which there is little restriction, legislation or monitoring data. CCs include pharmaceuticals, pesticides, illicit drugs and PFAs – known as 'forever chemicals' because they take centuries to break down – that can enter the environment in many ways, including through effluent streams. It comes amid ongoing public outrage at the state of England's waterways, where no river has reported a 'good' status for chemical pollution under current the current monitoring programme. The Government's planned water sector reforms focus on measures to tackle sewage pollution, after utilities have been increasingly dumping untreated wastewater into seas, lakes and rivers during periods of wet or stormy weather. The RSC argued that ministers should use the opportunity of upcoming reforms to introduce measures that help to remove CCs from wastewater as well. Natalie Sims, policy adviser at the RSC, said: 'With so much attention right now on tackling sewage overflows and upgrading wastewater treatment plants, this is a crucial opportunity to address chemical pollutants at the same time. 'If we're already making major changes, we should be ambitious – focusing solely on sewage risks missing the chance to protect our waters more fully and for the long term.' As the UK and EU Summit takes place in London on Monday, the RSC also said the Government should align more closely with Europe on wastewater rules. The EU recently revised its laws to introduce a 'polluter pays' principle, which levies money from industries such as cosmetics or pharmaceuticals that cause chemical pollution to fund their removal at wastewater treatment plants. France also passed a bill to tax firms that emit PFAs to the environment. Ms Sims said: 'Unlike recent French and EU initiatives that apply a 'polluter pays' levy to fund the removal of these hazardous substances, UK industry faces no such requirement. 'As a result, taxpayers may ultimately shoulder the costs of tackling contaminants, which we believe is unfair.' An RSC survey of more than 4,000 UK adults, carried out by YouGov in August, found that nine in 10 think it is 'very important' to effectively control levels of the group of chemicals in food, drinking water and the environment. When asked to rank who should be held most responsible for reducing PFAs levels, 74% and 73% of respondents said manufacturers of chemicals and products respectively. This was followed by 58% saying the UK Government was next highest ranked as bearing significant responsibility. However, overall trust that action would to be taken was found to be low, with the UK Government being trusted by 29% of respondents while just 14% said they trusted product or chemical manufacturers to change. Stephanie Metzger, RSC policy adviser, said: 'People were overwhelmingly supportive of stronger controls on PFAs use, making sure that it doesn't get into our water, food or the environment.' She argued that without investing in treatment technology and infrastructure now, the cost to clean up these chemicals later will be a lot higher. 'Once they're in the environment – they're diffuse, they're dispersed throughout water, land, air in all these different areas – it's so much harder to put them back in the jar once you've let them out. 'So from a cost-benefit analysis perspective, you're going to be avoiding a lot more costs by investing in treatment now.' PA has contacted the Environment Department (Defra) for comment.
South Wales Guardian
19-05-2025
- Health
- South Wales Guardian
Government ‘could miss chance to tackle chemical pollutants from wastewater'
The organisation said the cost of cleaning up chemicals from the environment could be left to taxpayers in future unless the UK follows the EU and France to introduce a 'polluter pays' principle. This requires industries responsible for producing or using harmful contaminants to contribute to the cost of their removal or remediation. Wastewater treatment plants in the UK are currently not equipped to remove contaminants of emerging concern (CCs) – pollutants that may harm human health and nature but for which there is little restriction, legislation or monitoring data. CCs include pharmaceuticals, pesticides, illicit drugs and PFAs – known as 'forever chemicals' because they take centuries to break down – that can enter the environment in many ways, including through effluent streams. It comes amid ongoing public outrage at the state of England's waterways, where no river has reported a 'good' status for chemical pollution under current the current monitoring programme. The Government's planned water sector reforms focus on measures to tackle sewage pollution, after utilities have been increasingly dumping untreated wastewater into seas, lakes and rivers during periods of wet or stormy weather. The RSC argued that ministers should use the opportunity of upcoming reforms to introduce measures that help to remove CCs from wastewater as well. Natalie Sims, policy adviser at the RSC, said: 'With so much attention right now on tackling sewage overflows and upgrading wastewater treatment plants, this is a crucial opportunity to address chemical pollutants at the same time. 'If we're already making major changes, we should be ambitious – focusing solely on sewage risks missing the chance to protect our waters more fully and for the long term.' As the UK and EU Summit takes place in London on Monday, the RSC also said the Government should align more closely with Europe on wastewater rules. The EU recently revised its laws to introduce a 'polluter pays' principle, which levies money from industries such as cosmetics or pharmaceuticals that cause chemical pollution to fund their removal at wastewater treatment plants. France also passed a bill to tax firms that emit PFAs to the environment. Ms Sims said: 'Unlike recent French and EU initiatives that apply a 'polluter pays' levy to fund the removal of these hazardous substances, UK industry faces no such requirement. 'As a result, taxpayers may ultimately shoulder the costs of tackling contaminants, which we believe is unfair.' An RSC survey of more than 4,000 UK adults, carried out by YouGov in August, found that nine in 10 think it is 'very important' to effectively control levels of the group of chemicals in food, drinking water and the environment. When asked to rank who should be held most responsible for reducing PFAs levels, 74% and 73% of respondents said manufacturers of chemicals and products respectively. This was followed by 58% saying the UK Government was next highest ranked as bearing significant responsibility. However, overall trust that action would to be taken was found to be low, with the UK Government being trusted by 29% of respondents while just 14% said they trusted product or chemical manufacturers to change. Stephanie Metzger, RSC policy adviser, said: 'People were overwhelmingly supportive of stronger controls on PFAs use, making sure that it doesn't get into our water, food or the environment.' She argued that without investing in treatment technology and infrastructure now, the cost to clean up these chemicals later will be a lot higher. 'Once they're in the environment – they're diffuse, they're dispersed throughout water, land, air in all these different areas – it's so much harder to put them back in the jar once you've let them out. 'So from a cost-benefit analysis perspective, you're going to be avoiding a lot more costs by investing in treatment now.' PA has contacted the Environment Department (Defra) for comment.
Powys County Times
19-05-2025
- Health
- Powys County Times
Government ‘could miss chance to tackle chemical pollutants from wastewater'
The Government could miss the chance to ensure chemical pollutants are removed from wastewater as part of its major reforms to the industry, the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) has warned. The organisation said the cost of cleaning up chemicals from the environment could be left to taxpayers in future unless the UK follows the EU and France to introduce a 'polluter pays' principle. This requires industries responsible for producing or using harmful contaminants to contribute to the cost of their removal or remediation. Wastewater treatment plants in the UK are currently not equipped to remove contaminants of emerging concern (CCs) – pollutants that may harm human health and nature but for which there is little restriction, legislation or monitoring data. CCs include pharmaceuticals, pesticides, illicit drugs and PFAs – known as 'forever chemicals' because they take centuries to break down – that can enter the environment in many ways, including through effluent streams. It comes amid ongoing public outrage at the state of England's waterways, where no river has reported a 'good' status for chemical pollution under current the current monitoring programme. The Government's planned water sector reforms focus on measures to tackle sewage pollution, after utilities have been increasingly dumping untreated wastewater into seas, lakes and rivers during periods of wet or stormy weather. The RSC argued that ministers should use the opportunity of upcoming reforms to introduce measures that help to remove CCs from wastewater as well. Natalie Sims, policy adviser at the RSC, said: 'With so much attention right now on tackling sewage overflows and upgrading wastewater treatment plants, this is a crucial opportunity to address chemical pollutants at the same time. 'If we're already making major changes, we should be ambitious – focusing solely on sewage risks missing the chance to protect our waters more fully and for the long term.' As the UK and EU Summit takes place in London on Monday, the RSC also said the Government should align more closely with Europe on wastewater rules. The EU recently revised its laws to introduce a 'polluter pays' principle, which levies money from industries such as cosmetics or pharmaceuticals that cause chemical pollution to fund their removal at wastewater treatment plants. France also passed a bill to tax firms that emit PFAs to the environment. Ms Sims said: 'Unlike recent French and EU initiatives that apply a 'polluter pays' levy to fund the removal of these hazardous substances, UK industry faces no such requirement. 'As a result, taxpayers may ultimately shoulder the costs of tackling contaminants, which we believe is unfair.' An RSC survey of more than 4,000 UK adults, carried out by YouGov in August, found that nine in 10 think it is 'very important' to effectively control levels of the group of chemicals in food, drinking water and the environment. When asked to rank who should be held most responsible for reducing PFAs levels, 74% and 73% of respondents said manufacturers of chemicals and products respectively. This was followed by 58% saying the UK Government was next highest ranked as bearing significant responsibility. However, overall trust that action would to be taken was found to be low, with the UK Government being trusted by 29% of respondents while just 14% said they trusted product or chemical manufacturers to change. Stephanie Metzger, RSC policy adviser, said: 'People were overwhelmingly supportive of stronger controls on PFAs use, making sure that it doesn't get into our water, food or the environment.' She argued that without investing in treatment technology and infrastructure now, the cost to clean up these chemicals later will be a lot higher. 'Once they're in the environment – they're diffuse, they're dispersed throughout water, land, air in all these different areas – it's so much harder to put them back in the jar once you've let them out. 'So from a cost-benefit analysis perspective, you're going to be avoiding a lot more costs by investing in treatment now.'
Rhyl Journal
19-05-2025
- Health
- Rhyl Journal
Government ‘could miss chance to tackle chemical pollutants from wastewater'
The organisation said the cost of cleaning up chemicals from the environment could be left to taxpayers in future unless the UK follows the EU and France to introduce a 'polluter pays' principle. This requires industries responsible for producing or using harmful contaminants to contribute to the cost of their removal or remediation. Wastewater treatment plants in the UK are currently not equipped to remove contaminants of emerging concern (CCs) – pollutants that may harm human health and nature but for which there is little restriction, legislation or monitoring data. CCs include pharmaceuticals, pesticides, illicit drugs and PFAs – known as 'forever chemicals' because they take centuries to break down – that can enter the environment in many ways, including through effluent streams. It comes amid ongoing public outrage at the state of England's waterways, where no river has reported a 'good' status for chemical pollution under current the current monitoring programme. The Government's planned water sector reforms focus on measures to tackle sewage pollution, after utilities have been increasingly dumping untreated wastewater into seas, lakes and rivers during periods of wet or stormy weather. The RSC argued that ministers should use the opportunity of upcoming reforms to introduce measures that help to remove CCs from wastewater as well. Natalie Sims, policy adviser at the RSC, said: 'With so much attention right now on tackling sewage overflows and upgrading wastewater treatment plants, this is a crucial opportunity to address chemical pollutants at the same time. 'If we're already making major changes, we should be ambitious – focusing solely on sewage risks missing the chance to protect our waters more fully and for the long term.' As the UK and EU Summit takes place in London on Monday, the RSC also said the Government should align more closely with Europe on wastewater rules. The EU recently revised its laws to introduce a 'polluter pays' principle, which levies money from industries such as cosmetics or pharmaceuticals that cause chemical pollution to fund their removal at wastewater treatment plants. France also passed a bill to tax firms that emit PFAs to the environment. Ms Sims said: 'Unlike recent French and EU initiatives that apply a 'polluter pays' levy to fund the removal of these hazardous substances, UK industry faces no such requirement. 'As a result, taxpayers may ultimately shoulder the costs of tackling contaminants, which we believe is unfair.' An RSC survey of more than 4,000 UK adults, carried out by YouGov in August, found that nine in 10 think it is 'very important' to effectively control levels of the group of chemicals in food, drinking water and the environment. When asked to rank who should be held most responsible for reducing PFAs levels, 74% and 73% of respondents said manufacturers of chemicals and products respectively. This was followed by 58% saying the UK Government was next highest ranked as bearing significant responsibility. However, overall trust that action would to be taken was found to be low, with the UK Government being trusted by 29% of respondents while just 14% said they trusted product or chemical manufacturers to change. Stephanie Metzger, RSC policy adviser, said: 'People were overwhelmingly supportive of stronger controls on PFAs use, making sure that it doesn't get into our water, food or the environment.' She argued that without investing in treatment technology and infrastructure now, the cost to clean up these chemicals later will be a lot higher. 'Once they're in the environment – they're diffuse, they're dispersed throughout water, land, air in all these different areas – it's so much harder to put them back in the jar once you've let them out. 'So from a cost-benefit analysis perspective, you're going to be avoiding a lot more costs by investing in treatment now.' PA has contacted the Environment Department (Defra) for comment.
Glasgow Times
19-05-2025
- Health
- Glasgow Times
Government ‘could miss chance to tackle chemical pollutants from wastewater'
The organisation said the cost of cleaning up chemicals from the environment could be left to taxpayers in future unless the UK follows the EU and France to introduce a 'polluter pays' principle. This requires industries responsible for producing or using harmful contaminants to contribute to the cost of their removal or remediation. Wastewater treatment plants in the UK are currently not equipped to remove contaminants of emerging concern (CCs) – pollutants that may harm human health and nature but for which there is little restriction, legislation or monitoring data. CCs include pharmaceuticals, pesticides, illicit drugs and PFAs – known as 'forever chemicals' because they take centuries to break down – that can enter the environment in many ways, including through effluent streams. It comes amid ongoing public outrage at the state of England's waterways, where no river has reported a 'good' status for chemical pollution under current the current monitoring programme. The Government's planned water sector reforms focus on measures to tackle sewage pollution, after utilities have been increasingly dumping untreated wastewater into seas, lakes and rivers during periods of wet or stormy weather. The RSC argued that ministers should use the opportunity of upcoming reforms to introduce measures that help to remove CCs from wastewater as well. Natalie Sims, policy adviser at the RSC, said: 'With so much attention right now on tackling sewage overflows and upgrading wastewater treatment plants, this is a crucial opportunity to address chemical pollutants at the same time. 'If we're already making major changes, we should be ambitious – focusing solely on sewage risks missing the chance to protect our waters more fully and for the long term.' As the UK and EU Summit takes place in London on Monday, the RSC also said the Government should align more closely with Europe on wastewater rules. The EU recently revised its laws to introduce a 'polluter pays' principle, which levies money from industries such as cosmetics or pharmaceuticals that cause chemical pollution to fund their removal at wastewater treatment plants. France also passed a bill to tax firms that emit PFAs to the environment. Ms Sims said: 'Unlike recent French and EU initiatives that apply a 'polluter pays' levy to fund the removal of these hazardous substances, UK industry faces no such requirement. 'As a result, taxpayers may ultimately shoulder the costs of tackling contaminants, which we believe is unfair.' An RSC survey of more than 4,000 UK adults, carried out by YouGov in August, found that nine in 10 think it is 'very important' to effectively control levels of the group of chemicals in food, drinking water and the environment. When asked to rank who should be held most responsible for reducing PFAs levels, 74% and 73% of respondents said manufacturers of chemicals and products respectively. This was followed by 58% saying the UK Government was next highest ranked as bearing significant responsibility. However, overall trust that action would to be taken was found to be low, with the UK Government being trusted by 29% of respondents while just 14% said they trusted product or chemical manufacturers to change. Stephanie Metzger, RSC policy adviser, said: 'People were overwhelmingly supportive of stronger controls on PFAs use, making sure that it doesn't get into our water, food or the environment.' She argued that without investing in treatment technology and infrastructure now, the cost to clean up these chemicals later will be a lot higher. 'Once they're in the environment – they're diffuse, they're dispersed throughout water, land, air in all these different areas – it's so much harder to put them back in the jar once you've let them out. 'So from a cost-benefit analysis perspective, you're going to be avoiding a lot more costs by investing in treatment now.' PA has contacted the Environment Department (Defra) for comment.
