How the UK government plans to limit ‘forever chemical’ pollution – and what’s missing
The UK government has published its first national plan to deal with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, better known as Pfas or “forever chemicals”. These chemicals have been used for decades in products such as firefighting foams, non-stick cookware, clothing, electronics and many industrial processes. Because many Pfas do not break down easily, they are now widely detected in the environment and in human blood and tissues.
The policy document, Pfas Plan: Building a Safer Future Together, follows growing public concern, media investigations and years of pressure from scientists calling for stronger controls. This marks an important moment for UK chemicals policy. The plan represents a step forward, but it avoids many of the hardest regulatory choices associated with Pfas.
In practical terms, this could include restricting Pfas-treated finishes from school uniforms and children’s clothing. In parts of the US, including California, state-level rules have already restricted or banned Pfas in textiles, effectively eliminating their use in everyday clothing, including school uniforms.
Unlike many pollutants, Pfas are not a single substance. There are several thousand Pfas in use or in circulation, each with different properties and behaviours. Some have been linked to health effects, such as liver toxicity, developmental problems and negative effects on the immune system. For many others, evidence remains sparse or uncertain.
Pfas are also highly mobile. They can be transported through air, deposited onto land or water, and then re-enter the atmosphere or food chain. Contamination measured in one location may originate from industrial activity, waste handling, consumer products or historic uses far away. This transboundary behaviour is well known in environmental science, but Pfas amplify the challenge because of their persistence.
In the UK, regulation has so far focused on a small number (fewer than a dozen) of well-studied Pfas, mainly through drinking water standards. This has left the wider group of Pfas, and their long-term accumulation in air and soil, largely outside the scope of formal regulation.
The new Pfas plan is intended to provide that framework. Rather than introducing sweeping new bans, it sets out how Pfas risks should be assessed and managed over time, with a strong emphasis on coordination across government, regulators, researchers and industry.
A central element of the plan is its focus on evidence. It recognises that Pfas pollution is not limited to water and soil, but also includes air emissions from manufacturing, industrial processes and waste treatment. Expanding monitoring across air, land and water is intended to improve understanding of sources, pathways and exposure, and to support more targeted controls in future.
The plan also commits to reviewing existing regulatory tools. This includes consultation on limits for Pfas in drinking water, closer scrutiny of industrial emissions and assessment of how current chemicals legislation could be applied more effectively to Pfas as a group. Research into the toxicity of Pfas in food and food packaging, plus more effective detection methods and safer alternatives forms part of this longer-term approach. Some Pfas uses such as medical devices are acknowledged as difficult to replace in the short term.
A starting point
At the same time, the new plan leaves many hard decisions for later. It does not ban Pfas as a class, set timelines for phase-outs or define which uses should ultimately be considered essential. Much depends on future consultations and how quickly new evidence emerges.
This caution has attracted criticism, but it reflects a real constraint. New Pfas continue to enter the market, sometimes as replacements for substances that have already been restricted. Others occur as impurities or degradation products that are not routinely monitored. Regulating a group of chemicals that continues to evolve is inherently difficult, particularly when emissions are diffuse and exposure pathways complex.
In July 2025, the EU adopted a new Chemicals Industry Action Plan to support a transition away from Pfas through measures such as innovation, substitution, and improved data generation. In parallel, the European Chemicals Agency is assessing a proposed Pfas group restriction – its opinion is expected to be announced by the end of 2026 to inform a subsequent European Commission proposal to phase out Pfas.
The UK’s new plan acknowledges that historic Pfas contamination already exists and commits to developing guidance and technical tools to support its management. What remains unclear is how large-scale remediation would be prioritised or funded. Experience from heavily contaminated areas in Belgium, particularly around industrial hotspots near Antwerp, shows that cleaning up legacy Pfas pollution can take decades and involve very high costs.
Taken together, the UK’s Pfas plan is best seen as a starting point rather than a solution. It brings air, water and land into a single policy debate and recognises that Pfas pose a long-term challenge rather than a short-term compliance issue.
Whether it leads to meaningful reductions in exposure will depend on what follows: how quickly methods capable of addressing the many thousands of Pfas in commerce and the environment are developed and validated; how monitoring data is used; how rapidly regulatory reviews translate into enforceable standards; and whether future decisions prevent new Pfas problems from emerging.
For now, the plan does not solve the Pfas problem. But it makes clear that Pfas are no longer a peripheral issue, and that dealing with them will require sustained scientific effort and difficult policy choices over many years.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.
Ivan Kourtchev does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.