Chemical firms are lobbying MPs not to ban “forever chemicals” in the same way as proposed in the EU, using arguments disputed by scientists and described as “big tobacco playbook” tactics, it can be revealed.
Pfas, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and commonly known as forever chemicals owing to their persistence in the environment, are a family of about 10,000 chemicals, some of which have been linked to a wide range of serious illnesses, including certain cancers. They are used across a range of industries, from cosmetics to firefighting.
In May, MPs on the environmental audit committee (EAC) launched an inquiry into Pfas, with a call for evidence on the uses and risks of the substances, and options for how to regulate them.
Exclusive analysis by the Ends Report and the Guardian of the responses submitted to the parliamentary committee has revealed major chemical producers, from UK-based companies to large US corporations, urging parliamentarians that any incoming UK Pfas regulation should be more limited than that currently proposed in the EU, which targets the whole family of chemicals.
Specifically, many of the responses from chemicals firms analysed by the Ends Report call for a commonly used type of Pfas called fluoropolymers – used across a broad range of industries including domestic cookware production, such as non-stick frying pans, and pharmaceuticals – to be spared the same kind of regulation as other types of forever chemicals, on the basis that they are not as harmful.
The validity of this argument, being made on record to UK politicians for the first time, has been disputed by scientists, with one stating that the chemicals industry is “copying the big tobacco playbook”.
In 2021, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) agreed that the way Pfas chemicals do not break down in the environment – their “persistence” – was a key, and defining, characteristic.
In the EU, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is evaluating a proposed restriction of Pfas using this OECD definition, which if implemented would set a global precedent.
Dr Rainer Lohmann, a professor at the University of Rhode Island’s Graduate School of Oceanography, said that when the OECD was developing its revised Pfas definition in 2021, “chemical industry experts were involved and saw no problem with [the ultimate definition]”, adding that “for the time being, most of my colleagues and I would say, yes, that’s the chemical definition we should stick with, those are Pfas”.
AGC Chemicals Europe, one the UK’s major producers, based near Blackpool, wrote in its evidence submission to the EAC that “not all Pfas have identical hazards and risk profiles and shouldn’t be treated as a single group.”
It continued: “Although fluoropolymers fit the Pfas structural definition, they are fundamentally different and should not be grouped together with other Pfas, which may be of concern since sources demonstrate that fluoropolymers have a low hazard profile, are non-toxic, not bioavailable, non-water-soluble, non-mobile, do not bioaccumulate, and have not demonstrated negative human health impacts.”
A representative from DuPont de Nemours, the US multinational chemical company that became the subject of a Pfas legal battle dramatised in the film Dark Waters, wrote that the EU’s proposal “has created significant chaos, lack of interest in investment in [the] EU, and may lead to slower economic growth and innovation in the EU”.
The Fluoropolymers Product Group (FPG) of Plastics Europe, a trade association, sought to cast doubt on the motivations behind ECHA’s proposals, writing in its evidence submission: “The main concerns driving regulators to include fluoropolymers in the proposed Pfas restriction under [the EU’s chemicals regulations] stem from their environmental persistence, despite fluoropolymers’ distinct safety profile compared to other Pfas.”
However, experts said the idea that fluoropolymers wre of little health or environmental concern was far off the mark.
Lohmann said: “The production of fluoropolymers, and the use of fluoropolymers, by and large, has resulted in massive contamination of the areas where those plants are located.”
“This magic claim that fluoropolymers are benign, and there’s no problem, just ignores the fact that wherever they are made and wherever they’re used, by and large, you have a major problem,” said Lohmann.
after newsletter promotion
Dr Shubhi Sharma, a scientific researcher at the chemicals charity Chem Trust, said “fluoropolymers are far more concerning chemicals than the industry claims”.
She added that the OECD had clarified that there was no agreement that fluoropolymers were of “low concern”. “Yet the industry has continued to build on this myth and portray fluoropolymers as of ‘low concern’,” Sharma said.
She continued that although the industry “complains about economic impacts of regulation, what they do not talk about is the enormous health costs associated with the Pfas pollution crisis”.
In 2019, a European Environment Agency briefing stated that the “costs to society” arising from Pfas exposure were high, “with the annual health-related costs estimated to be €52-84bn across Europe” annually.
What allows industry groups to say that fluoropolymers are non-toxic is that once they are made, they are stable chemicals. However, problems begin to emerge in their creation and disposal.
According to the environmental charity Fidra, between 1950 and 2004, 72% of global emissions of PFOA and PFOS – two Pfas chemicals that are known and suspected carcinogens respectively – were linked to fluoropolymer production.
However, this nuance appears to be lost in the industry responses analysed by the Ends Report. The Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Appliances, for example, told MPs in its evidence that it is “important to note that emissions of fluoropolymers can be effectively controlled across their entire life cycle”.
Sharma said this was not the case, and that the disposal of fluoropolymer-containing wastes and products was “extremely difficult, if not impossible” because fluoropolymers are so persistent.
“For example, landfilling of fluoropolymer-containing waste has been shown to result in emissions of further Pfas, which can then leach into surface and groundwater”, she said, adding that “the science is clear that fluoropolymers are highly problematic Pfas and to ensure effective protection from Pfas pollution, they should come under the remit of a group restriction in the UK”.
For Dr Alex Ford, a biology professor at the University of Portsmouth, “there’s a lot of scaremongering at the moment” over the implications of an EU-style Pfas restriction.
He said the responses submitted to the EAC are “copying the big tobacco playbook”, adding that Pfas compounds are “on a conveyor belt at different stages of deny, play down, claim it might not be as much of a problem”.
Sharma said it was “a misconception” that the EU’s universal Pfas restriction was “a blanket ban and that it will automatically have adverse impacts on the economy”, adding that it “gives up to 13.5 years to sectors such as medicine, pharmaceuticals and green technologies like batteries and hydrogen to phase out Pfas”.
The Chemical Industries Association was approached to respond to the claims that the industry was using “scaremongering” tactics from the Big Tobacco playbook. In response, the trade association pointed to its own EAC evidence submission, in which it stated that it “encourages policymakers not to treat all Pfas as a single group”.
Its submission added: “Assuming they all have identical persistence, hazards, uses and therefore risk profiles – in our view is not a scientific approach, nor is it the reality for managing chemicals.”