LONDON — A cross-party group of lawmakers urged the government Tuesday to impose a sweeping ban on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS or “forever chemicals,” in a wide range of consumer products including school uniforms, non-stick cookware, and food packaging, warning that current regulatory frameworks leave millions of people exposed to compounds linked to cancer, hormonal disruption, and immune suppression.
The parliamentary committee, which spent six months reviewing scientific literature and hearing testimony from toxicologists, industry representatives, and environmental advocates, found that PFAS compounds persist indefinitely in both the environment and human tissue, with no known natural mechanism for breakdown. The report estimates that more than 94 percent of adults in the country now carry detectable levels of at least one PFAS compound in their bloodstream, a figure that has risen steadily over the past two decades despite the phase-out of some of the most studied compounds in the class.
“We are essentially conducting an uncontrolled experiment on the entire population,” said Dr. Miriam Callaghan, a toxicologist at the University of Harwick who contributed expert testimony to the inquiry. “These substances were introduced into commerce on the assumption that they were inert and safe. Decades of evidence now tells a very different story.” Callaghan’s own research, published last year in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, found associations between elevated PFAS blood serum levels and a 38 percent increased risk of thyroid dysfunction in women aged 40 to 60.
The committee’s report identified more than 200 distinct PFAS compounds currently in commercial use domestically, with the largest concentrations found in waterproof textiles used for children’s school uniforms, polytetrafluoroethylene-coated frying pans and bakeware, food packaging materials including microwave popcorn bags and pizza boxes, and certain cosmetics and personal care products. Industry groups have historically resisted broad restrictions, arguing that different PFAS compounds carry different risk profiles and that blanket bans would eliminate products with legitimate safety applications such as firefighting foam used at airports.
The chemical industry’s main trade body disputed the committee’s framing, releasing a statement arguing that regulatory decisions should be based on individual compound risk assessments rather than class-wide prohibitions. “A one-size-fits-all approach risks removing materials that have genuine public safety functions while providing only marginal health benefits,” the statement read. However, the committee countered that compound-by-compound assessment has historically allowed manufacturers to simply substitute one PFAS variant for another, a practice regulators have labeled “regrettable substitution” that allows cumulative population exposure to continue unchecked.
Several countries have moved ahead of domestic policy in recent years. A coalition of Nordic nations enacted restrictions on PFAS in food contact materials in 2023, and similar measures have advanced in several Canadian provinces. Domestic environmental groups welcomed Tuesday’s parliamentary report as a watershed moment. “This is the clearest signal yet that the political will exists to finally act,” said Joanna Whitfield, director of the Clean Water Alliance. “The science has been clear for years. What has lagged is the legislative response, and every year of delay means further accumulation in water supplies and human bodies.”
Water utilities have added a further dimension to the debate, with several operators reporting that PFAS contamination in source water has required costly additional treatment steps not anticipated in existing regulatory frameworks. One utility serving approximately 800,000 households disclosed in a recent annual report that PFAS remediation had added an estimated 6.4 million pounds annually to operating costs, expenses it expects to pass on to consumers through future tariff reviews. A separate analysis by the Drinking Water Quality Council estimated total industry-wide compliance costs could reach 480 million pounds nationally if standards are tightened to reflect emerging scientific consensus on safe exposure thresholds. The committee cited such data as evidence that the costs of inaction extend well beyond public health and into infrastructure and household budgets.
The government indicated it would review the committee’s recommendations but stopped short of committing to a timeline for legislation. A spokesperson for the Environment Ministry said officials would consult further with industry and scientific bodies before determining a regulatory pathway, a response the committee chair described as “disappointingly cautious given the urgency of the evidence.” The committee has called for a full legislative proposal to be introduced within 18 months, with phase-out periods of three to five years for most affected product categories and immediate restrictions on the highest-risk uses in children’s products.