The cost of clearing toxic chemical pollution that will persist forever could reach more than £1.6 trillion across the UK and Europe over a 20-year period, an annual bill of £84 billion, research has found.
An investigation spanning international borders, involving 46 journalists and 18 specialists across 16 countries.
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), commonly known as "forever chemicals", comprise a group of more than 10,000 artificially produced substances. Produced by a small number of companies, they are extensively used in consumer products and industrial processes.
They can be found in non-stick pans, pizza boxes, cosmetics, waterproof clothing, firefighting foam, and pharmaceuticals, among other areas. The characteristics that make them so beneficial – heat-resistant, oil-resistant, and waterproof – also have distinct drawbacks. Almost impossible to destroy without human intervention, and persistent in living organisms, PFAS have been associated with infertility, cancers, immune and hormone disruptions, and other illnesses.
PFAS are widespread and have been found in drinking water and surface waters throughout the UK, which makes the job of cleaning them up enormous and complicated. Hotspots of pollution include landfills, airports, military bases, sewage outlets, sewage sludge, manufacturers and industrial users of PFAS, and areas where large quantities of firefighting foam have been used.
The Drinking Water Inspectorate's latest investigation found 278 instances where tap water exceeded recommended safe levels, and a further 255,610 samples at levels where action should be taken to reduce PFAS levels.
Just to tidy up existing legacy pollution in the UK, an analysis has found it will cost an estimated £428 million every year for the next 20 years, based on existing cost information. This provision would cover treatments to remove contaminants from soil, stop pollutants leaking from landfill sites, and treat 5% of the drinking water in large water supply areas for just the two regulated PFAS chemicals, PFOS and PFOA. These costs are on the cautious side, as they solely account for remediation costs and exclude potential healthcare costs or socioeconomic impacts. It also assumes that PFAS emissions would cease entirely straight away.
"The 'legacy' costs scenario we've developed represents the minimum costs required to deal with environmental health risks linked to historic practices of PFAS that are currently regulated," said Ali Ling of the St Thomas School of Engineering.
Ran well beyond its forecast.
Remediation of PFAS-contaminated samples is predominantly carried out through high temperature incineration at present, which is very costly," said Dave Megson, a PFAS expert from Manchester Metropolitan University. "Our research on landfill wastewater treatment plants has shown that some facilities actually produce banned PFAS, rather than eliminating them. More funding to help develop cost-effective remediation options is urgently needed to tackle this issue.
According to Ling, the solution lies in limited use of the chemical. "As we move ahead, it will be more cost-effective to stop PFAS entering the environment through use controls and emissions cuts than to pay to clean up PFAS from the environment."
This could prove popular: a YouGov survey commissioned by the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) has found that more than three-quarters of respondents believe that the use of PFAS known to be hazardous should be stopped immediately or subject to tighter controls. The most widely accepted control measure proposed by the UK public is stricter regulations on industries using PFAS, compelling them to lower and rectify the contamination caused by their operations.
The Royal Society of Chemistry is urging that public protections from toxic PFAS be enshrined in the recent water special measures bill, which is now at the committee stage.
"No one selects what comes out of their tap. This bill is a critical first step and we also encourage the government and industry to build on this change by creating a national inventory of PFAS and enforcing stricter limits on industrial discharges," said Stephanie Metzger, the RSC's chemistry policy adviser.
Environmental groups have criticised the government for what they describe as a lacklustre chemicals regulatory system.
“These statistics demonstrate the devastating cost of inaction on PFAS pollution,” said a spokesperson for environmental charity ChemTrust. “The UK Government has inherited a toxic legacy and must take urgent action now to ban these chemicals and safeguard the health of both people and wildlife from the harm caused by these toxic, enduring pollutants.”
What are PFAS? Everything you need to know about the 'perpetual chemicals' around us all the time
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has confirmed it is taking steps to address the issue and is currently investigating the possibility of imposing restrictions on the use of PFAS in firefighting foams. They also drew attention to the 2024 review by water regulator Ofwat, which enables up to £2 billion of spending to enhance water quality, including work to tackle PFAS contamination.
“As stated, our government remains firmly committed to safeguarding the environment from potential risks associated with hazardous chemicals,” it notes in a statement. “We're speedily assessing our environmental improvement plan to ensure we meet our legal obligations to preserve the natural world, including exploring the most effective ways to mitigate the dangers posed by PFAS.”
