<\/p>\n
The government published its response<\/a> to the environmental audit committee\u2019s findings into the risks from perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances \u2013 PFAS, known commonly as forever chemicals \u2013 and resisted calls for urgent action on restrictions to non-essential usage.<\/p>\n The environmental audit committee\u2019s report, published in April<\/a>, made 20 recommendations for regulatory change, including reforming the UK REACH regulatory framework for registration, evaluation, authorisation, and restriction of chemicals by March 2027 to avoid further delay in restricting PFAS.<\/p>\n It also recommended the UK adopts an \u201cessential-use approach to regulating PFAS\u201d with priority given to imposing rapid restrictions on non-essential applications.<\/p>\n Despite the recommendations from the committee, however, the government said it was waiting to see how Europe legislated around the chemicals before progressing its own legislation.<\/p>\n The response notes: \u201cWe are already working to reform UK REACH so that restrictions can be applied more quickly, more efficiently and in a way that is more closely aligned with our closest trading partner, the EU.<\/p>\n \u201cThis would represent a different approach from the current process, rather than simply reducing the maximum timescales within the existing statutory model.<\/p>\n \u201cWe intend to draw from EU regulatory decisions unless there are compelling reasons to diverge. In this context, EU regulatory decisions include final EU REACH restrictions. In so doing, we will retain full control over our regulatory decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n Katie Hancock<\/a>, an environmental litigation expert with Pinsent Masons, said the government’s response was unsurprising, and reflected the practical difficulty of developing a proportionate regulatory framework for such a diverse group of substances.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile concerns relating to environmental persistence and potential health impacts continue to drive calls for restrictions, policymakers face the equally important challenge of identifying where viable and safe alternatives actually exist,\u201d she explained.<\/p>\n \u201cMany PFAS applications remain critical to sectors such as healthcare, electronics, energy infrastructure and industrial manufacturing. The decision to monitor and draw upon developments within the EU is therefore understandable.<\/p>\n \u201cGiven the scale and complexity of the proposed European restrictions, businesses would benefit from as much regulatory alignment as possible, reducing the risk of divergent compliance obligations across closely connected markets.\u201d<\/p>\n PFAS refers to a classification of around 10,000 fluorinated chemicals with a variety of purposes, but which can make products resistant to oil, water or heat \u2013 giving them a wide range of applications in fields such as clothing, healthcare, food and drink packaging and cleaning chemicals. However, some PFAS chemicals degrade very slowly, leading to the \u2018forever chemicals\u2019 nickname.<\/p>\n The government confirmed it was looking at both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to managing PFAS in consumer products in response to the recommendations, including a Food Standards Agency review of a maximum level for PFAS traces in food, pending a review by the committee on toxicity.<\/p>\n Earlier this year, the government published its PFAS Plan, which sets out its long-term approach in relation to the chemicals grouping, with a view to taking a science-based and proportionate approach \u201cin partnership\u201d with industry to reduce and minimise the impacts of harmful\u202fPFAS\u202fon public health and the environment.<\/p>\n To meet this vision, the government intends to act under three central \u2018pillars\u2019: understanding more about the sources of PFAS; accounting for their movement around society and the environment; and reducing ongoing exposure to\u202fPFAS\u202ffor people, animals and the environment.<\/p>\n Zoe Betts<\/a>, a health and safety expert with Pinsent Masons, highlighted there were likely to be some restrictions around usage of the chemicals in the near future.<\/p>\n