
New studies find threat of “forever chemicals” has reached a critical point
New analysis from The Forever Pollution Project has exposed the dire environmental, health and financial implications posed by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or “forever chemicals”. The research also exposes the extensive lobbying efforts by the industry to prevent regulation.
The project is a cross-border interdisciplinary investigation involving 46 journalists, including SRT grantee partner Watershed Investigations, 29 media partners, and an expert group of 18 international academics and lawyers. SRT grantee partners ChemTrust and Corporate Europe Observatory worked in collaboration with the Forever Pollution Project, having uncovered information about corporate lobbying, and health and environmental risks.
PFAS are synthetic chemicals used in countless consumer products such as non-stick cookware, firefighting foams, food packaging and waterproof clothing. Their unique properties include resistance to heat, water, and grease. They are also highly resistant to breakdown, and contaminate all ecosystems. They have been linked to serious health issues, including cancers, infertility, and immune disruptions.
Rachel Salvidge, co-founder of Watershed Investigations and part of the Forever Pollution Project noted that; “PFAS are called forever chemicals because they don’t break down and so every molecule manufactured since the 1950s is still with us — in our water, air, soils, wildlife and even in human blood and organs — and the load is increasing every day. Experts say we have breached a planetary boundary for chemical pollution, with PFAS playing a major role, so we must restrict production as soon as possible.”
For example, in 2023, 278 untreated drinking water samples in the UK were found to be above 100 nanograms per litre for individual PFAS, the Drinking Water Inspectorate’s maximum acceptable threshold.
The report also reveals the significant cleanup cost across Europe and the UK, mounting to £1.6 trillion over 20 years, with the UK alone facing annual costs of £9.9 billion if emissions remain uncontrolled.
“These figures show that the cost of regulatory inaction on PFAS pollution is staggering,” said a spokesperson for ChemTrust. “The UK government has inherited a toxic legacy and must act now to urgently ban these chemicals to protect people and wildlife from the adverse impacts of these toxic, forever chemicals.”
The report also found that despite the clear risks, the regulatory progress has been stymied by an aggressive industry lobby. The Forever Pollution Project exposed coordinated efforts by PFAS manufacturers to downplay the risks to health and the need for restrictions, while exaggerating economic costs like job losses and supply chain disruption. According to Corporate Europe Observatory, in the past year, collectively some of the biggest PFAS producers and lobbies have increased their EU lobby spending by one-third. Meanwhile independent experts note that many applications of PFAS have viable alternatives, challenging the industry’s narrative of irreplaceability.
“The scale of the industry lobby campaign is staggering,” explained Vicky Cann of Corporate Europe Observatory. “This is corporate interest trumping public health.”
Public sentiment strongly supports action. A YouGov poll for the Royal Society of Chemistry found that over 75% of respondents favoured stricter controls or outright bans on toxic PFAS.
The UK government’s approach to PFAS regulation has been criticised as inadequate and slow, especially when compared to more proactive measures in Europe. The European Commission intends to propose a ban on the use of PFAS in consumer products, with exemptions for essential industrial uses, according to EU’s Environment Commissioner.
In light of the Forever Lobbying Project’s most recent investigations, and in an unprecedented move, the industry body Water UK has said it “wants to see PFAS banned and the development of a national plan to remove [them] from the environment which should be paid for by manufacturers.”
Return to grantee stories