Applying Pressure: Report on PFAS from the Environmental Audit Committee

The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) of the House of Commons published its report on the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) on 23 April 2026, available here. The report is highly critical of the UK Government’s PFAS Plan released in February, which we covered here, arguing it does not take necessary decisive action and focuses disproportionately on research. By contrast, the EAC report recommends a series of actions which, if adopted by the Government, would mark a major shift towards proactive and precautionary regulation of PFAS under the UK’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (“UK REACH”) regime.

What are PFAS, and what are the issues?

PFAS are a very large group of around 14,000 synthetic chemicals used in many industries and products for their ability to repel water, oil and stains and resist heat. Indeed, as part of their work linked to the potential restriction of PFAS in the EU, the European Chemicals Industry produced a useful PFAS Use-mapping document, which identified that most (if not all) industrial sectors use PFAS, if not in their products, then in their equipment, machinery and production processes. 

PFAS are often referred to as "forever chemicals" because they typically persist in the environment for a long time. This, coupled with their widespread use and the known toxicity of some PFAS, have raised concerns about potential health effects and environmental impacts, leading to calls for their restriction and the clean-up of legacy PFAS contamination.

What action has been taken on PFAS so far?

Before the PFAS Plan, several Government agencies produced research and guidance. The Drinking Water Inspectorate published thresholds of concern for PFAS in drinking water in March 2025, available here. The Environment Agency conducted a study on PFAS in water in January 2026, available here, and in July 2023 commissioned a screening report estimating the total cost of remediating PFAS in England to be between £31 billion and £121 billion, available here. These sit alongside recent declarations of support for a ban on PFAS by the EU, which we covered here. While any action by the EU would only directly affect Northern Ireland, it would place pressure on the UK Government to follow suit for Great Britain. The quick release of research and policy indicates there is a widespread sense of urgency to tackle PFAS contamination across both jurisdictions, which is echoed in the EAC’s report.

What does the EAC report say?

The report advocates for a proactive and precautionary approach to PFAS regulation to be implemented quickly – a significant divergence from the approach outlined in the PFAS Plan which was, in sum, to establish a robust scientific evidence base before taking regulatory action. The core recommendations of the report are to:

• Implement restrictions on non-essential PFAS uses in 2027;
• Arrive at earlier alignment with the EU position via UK REACH reform;
• Regulate PFAS by groups, rather than individually;
• Introduce standardised consumer labelling requirements and interim legal limits for consumer products; 
• Set legal limits on the levels and types of PFAS in food;
• Publish formally approved guidance for PFAS remediation; and
• Impose a levy on the chemicals industry to fund remediation efforts.

Restrictions on non-essential uses

The headline recommendation of the report is to begin a phased restriction of non-essential PFAS use in consumer products in 2027, working up to a full ban. The EAC proposes that essentiality in all products should be strictly assessed, requiring: 

• any use to be necessary for health, safety, or the functioning of society; and  
• no technically and economically feasible alternatives to be available.

This would mean that businesses could not justify using PFAS for quality reasons in isolation (for example, making a non-stick frying pan or a stain-resistant school uniform). Even where use is necessary, businesses would need to prove the product cannot be produced to achieve the same effects using a different or less effective substance, and using more expensive alternatives would not be commercially viable – a narrowed margin would not be enough. This is a very narrow and contextual test; industry should pay close attention to its application if implemented, as a wide range of products may need to be adapted.

REACH alignment and reform

The PFAS Plan suggests the UK intends to align its regulatory position with the EU by December 2028. The EAC views this as far too late and risking a period where non-EU compliant products can circulate in the UK before a ban, risking a “dumping” of such products in the UK market. British businesses exporting chemical products to the EU would also face competitive disadvantages with divergent regimes. To speed up alignment, the report advises the Government to reduce consultation periods under UK REACH and fund the Health and Safety Executive (“HSE”) to carry out the necessary work, aiming to reach parity by March 2027.

Group and approval-based approach

The report highlights the preferred approach to regulation by both industry and the EAC would be to ban categories of PFAS, instead of individual ones. This could cover, for example, all PFAS with similar structures and similar toxicity. Such an approach would prevent the Government playing “whack-a-mole” as new but similar chemical substitutes are introduced. 

Additionally, the PFAS Plan promotes self-regulation by industry, with reference to the HSE candidate list of potentially hazardous substances and information-sharing fora. However, the report argues the harms PFAS have been proven to cause require an industry-funded proactive approval of substances before they go to the market. If this approach was implemented, businesses could face major disruption to product development and release timelines due to this additional regulatory step.

Supply chain communication and consumer labelling

It is difficult for businesses to trace PFAS through the supply chain as there is no requirement to disclose their use and purpose to buyers, or for suppliers to register under REACH. The EAC recommends the Government consults on mandatory PFAS disclosures in the supply chain to support safe handling and disposal of products.

There are also currently no requirements to label PFAS in consumer products such as food and pesticides. While the EAC seeks a ban on PFAS in non-essential consumer products, they believe interim standardised labelling requirements would help protect consumers from excessive exposure and allow consumer choice. Achieving transparency in the supply chain would be an essential step in making labelling requirements achievable, and businesses should be aware they may need to begin tracking PFAS in their products should the EAC’s recommendations be accepted.

PFAS in food

The agricultural sector is heavily exposed to PFAS due to the use of sewage sludge as a fertiliser, as well as PFAS-containing pesticides and contaminated water sources. As significant leaching into soil has already occurred, a ban on PFAS in food would not be practicable. Instead, the report calls for statutory limits on PFAS levels in food to be set and monitored, providing a basis for targeted action. 

A DEFRA consultation on sewage sludge concluded in March, available here, highlighted PFAS as a potential contaminant that could be subject to regulation.

Remediation levy

The costs of cleaning up PFAS contamination are estimated to be billions. Regulation should seek to ensure that environmental remediation costs are borne by polluters under the “polluter pays” principle. However, many historic PFAS emitters no longer exist and because of the wide use of PFAS, identifying specific polluters to meet remediation costs could be very complex, if it is even possible. The EAC suggests imposing a tax on chemical companies producing PFAS to fund cleanup operations where no polluters can be pursued. They cite a forthcoming French tax of 100 Euros for every 100 grams of PFAS discharged into water and the US’s “Superfund” approach as examples demonstrating that “polluter pays” mechanisms can be used at a large scale. The report highlights opposition to such a tax from industry and academics. It also notes that consideration needs to be given to the risks of such mechanisms putting UK manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage. In its evidence to the EAC, the Government highlighted an existing fund under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, signalling resistance to the suggestion.

Businesses concerned by the prospect of such a levy should watch developments in this space closely and ensure that they input to relevant calls for evidence and consultations. Those exporting to the EU may also wish to follow responses to the French tax, as they may signal further moves across the continent.

Conclusion

The EAC report advocates for a significant diversion from the reactive and procrastinating PFAS Plan towards a proactive and interventionist approach. Though the Government has stated that the PFAS Plan was a “first step”, it is hard to predict if the Government will take action to radically revise the PFAS Plan, given it was released only a couple of months ago. However, as PFAS have become an emotive subject receiving widespread media attention, the EAC report could prompt a pivot. 

In any case, businesses are likely to be scrutinised by consumers and stakeholders following the report. Companies could benefit from getting ahead of the curve on PFAS, understanding their exposure to PFAS risks and exploring alternative materials or voluntary arrangements within supply chains to affirm existing commitments to ESG. 

For further information, please email the authors or your usual CMS contact.

Prepared with assistance from Jack Bell, Trainee Solicitor in our Environment, Health and Safety team.