CHEM Trust Calls for Immediate UK Action
CHEM Trust Calls for Immediate UK Action on PFAS Following Parliamentary Report
CHEM Trust
6/1/20263 min read
Overview
The report welcomes the Environmental Audit Committee's conclusions but argues that the committee's recommendations should be implemented quickly rather than becoming another consultation exercise.
According to CHEM Trust:
PFAS contamination is already widespread.
Current regulatory systems remain too fragmented.
The UK risks falling behind developments in Europe.
Delayed action will increase future clean-up costs.
The organisation argues that PFAS should be viewed as a systemic environmental challenge rather than a collection of individual chemical problems.
Support for regulating PFAS as a class
One of CHEM Trust's strongest messages is support for class-based regulation.
The organisation argues that regulating PFAS individually creates several problems:
Thousands of PFAS compounds exist.
Scientific review takes many years.
Manufacturers can replace one restricted PFAS with another.
Regulators struggle to keep pace.
CHEM Trust therefore supports treating PFAS as a group wherever possible.
This closely mirrors the recommendations made by the Environmental Audit Committee and aligns with proposals being discussed across the European Union.
Criticism of the UK's current approach
A recurring theme throughout the report is concern that the UK remains heavily focused on research and evidence gathering.
CHEM Trust acknowledges that better data are valuable but argues that:
Sufficient evidence already exists to justify stronger controls.
Waiting for complete scientific certainty is unrealistic.
Continued emissions create long-term liabilities.
The organisation argues that precautionary action should occur alongside ongoing research rather than after all research questions have been resolved.
This is effectively the same criticism that Parliament directed at the Government's PFAS Plan.
Essential-use principle
The report strongly endorses the "essential use" concept.
Under this approach, PFAS would only continue to be used when:
The function is necessary for health or safety.
No suitable alternative exists.
The societal benefit clearly outweighs environmental risks.
CHEM Trust argues that many consumer applications fail this test.
Examples commonly cited include:
Stain-resistant treatments.
Water-repellent consumer textiles.
Certain food-packaging applications.
Non-essential surface coatings.
The organisation argues that reducing these uses would significantly reduce future contamination.
Drinking water concerns
The report places particular emphasis on drinking water.
CHEM Trust notes that:
PFAS contamination has been detected in UK waters.
Monitoring programmes remain incomplete.
The UK still lacks EU-style statutory drinking-water limits for PFAS.
The organisation argues that stronger monitoring and legally enforceable standards will eventually be required.
A key concern is that contamination may become more expensive to address if regulatory intervention is delayed.
Polluter pays
The report supports stronger application of the polluter-pays principle.
CHEM Trust argues that:
Companies responsible for PFAS releases should contribute to remediation.
Taxpayers should not bear the majority of clean-up costs.
Historic contamination should be investigated more systematically.
The organisation notes that PFAS contamination often remains present decades after the original release.
Because of this persistence, the financial consequences of contamination can continue long after the original activity has ended.
Concerns about legacy contamination
One of the most important sections focuses on historical PFAS pollution.
Potential high-risk sites identified include:
Airports.
Fire-training facilities.
Industrial sites.
Landfills.
Military installations.
CHEM Trust argues that many contamination sources remain poorly understood and that comprehensive investigation programmes are needed.
This issue is becoming increasingly important as regulators begin to focus not only on future PFAS use but also on contamination already present in the environment.
Relationship with European developments
The report repeatedly references developments within the EU.
CHEM Trust argues that Europe is moving toward:
Broader PFAS restrictions.
Class-based regulation.
Stronger consumer protections.
More precautionary chemicals policy.
The organisation warns that divergence between UK and EU policy could create regulatory uncertainty and leave the UK lagging behind emerging international standards.
What CHEM Trust Wants Next
The report calls for:
Short-term actions
Faster implementation of parliamentary recommendations.
Expanded environmental monitoring.
Better public transparency.
Stronger oversight of PFAS uses.
Medium-term actions
Essential-use restrictions.
Expanded UK REACH controls.
Stronger drinking-water standards.
Greater accountability for contamination.
Long-term actions
Progressive phase-out of non-essential PFAS uses.
Improved remediation frameworks.
International coordination on PFAS regulation.
Key Takeaway
The central message of this report is that the Environmental Audit Committee's inquiry should mark the beginning of stronger PFAS regulation rather than another period of study and consultation. CHEM Trust argues that the scientific evidence is already sufficient to justify precautionary action and that the UK should move more quickly toward class-based regulation, essential-use restrictions, stronger drinking-water protections and polluter-pays remediation policies. The report highlights a growing divide between those who favour immediate preventive action and those who believe further evidence gathering should remain the priority.
Address
London, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2026 PFAS UK. All rights reserved.
Policies
Useful Links
