PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, often referred to as “forever chemicals”, have been the subject of extensive media reporting, a blockbuster Hollywood movie and, closer to home, a recent ITV documentary. Despite growing public awareness of the environmental and health impacts of these ubiquitous chemicals, the UK Government appears to be on the back foot in terms of substantive regulation. News of recent legal cases on behalf of residents in Bentham and Thornton Cleveleys affected by PFAS provides a new touchstone for public awareness and may increase pressure on polluters and the government to rethink their PFAS strategies.
What are PFAS?
PFAS are a large group of synthetic chemicals used in a vast range of everyday products, from non-stick frying pans to water-repellent raincoats. They are highly mobile in air, water and soil and are often referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence.
Concerningly, there is growing evidence that PFAS exposure is associated with a range of adverse environmental and health effects, including an increased risk of certain cancers. Yet, to date, at least in the UK, regulations and legislation to control PFAS seem to have fallen significantly behind the science. The stakes could not be higher, with evidence suggesting that PFAS have been detected everywhere from the blood of newborn babies to polar bears in the Arctic.
The Regulatory Gap
Since the UK’s formal departure from the EU, regulatory divergence between the UK and EU in relation to PFAS has continued to widen. A comparison of regulatory approaches to drinking water and foodstuffs provides a clear example. In the EU, since January 2023, maximum concentration limits for four PFAS compounds, and their sums, were introduced for specific foodstuffs and are now set out in Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915. Earlier this year, new EU regulations entered into force requiring the monitoring of PFAS concentrations in drinking water and, crucially, requiring member states to take remedial action when limit values are exceeded.
By contrast, PFAS regulation in the UK remains limited and is governed principally by UK REACH, a successor to EU REACH. Unlike the EU, there are no binding statutory limits for PFAS in drinking water or foodstuffs, with the UK relying instead on non-binding guidance issued by the Drinking Water Inspectorate. It is true that existing legislation can be used, at least to some extent, to regulate PFAS. The Contaminated Land Regime under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides a mechanism by which local authorities can invite the Environment Agency to investigate pollution locally and advise on whether the land should be deemed “contaminated”. This process is currently underway in the Lancashire town of Thornton Cleveleys. However, the designation of land as “contaminated” can be a lengthy process, with concerns regarding who pays for remedial action being a central concern for local authorities, particularly where alleged polluters are often major contributors to the local economy, especially in terms of employment.
These regulatory gaps persist despite mounting evidence of the risks PFAS may pose to human health. Earlier this year, the UK Government published its PFAS Plan, which focuses primarily on improving monitoring, data collection and scientific understanding of PFAS. While these are important objectives, the plan stops short of introducing the more interventionist regulatory measures that have been adopted across the EU.
In its report on PFAS published in April this year, the Environmental Audit Committee criticised the Government’s lack of “decisive actions” to prevent the build-up of PFAS. It noted that UK REACH had fallen behind the EU and called on the Government to introduce restrictions on PFAS in non-essential applications, such as clothing and food packaging, from 2027.
The committee also restated the “polluter pays” principle and urged the government to hold polluters to account for the release of PFAS, making them pay for clean-up and ensuring they are effectively deterred from future emissions. However, there remains a gap between this policy aspiration and the delivery of substantive regulation.
The “call to arms” is clearly sounded but, as yet, no responsive legislative package has been tabled by the government.
Can PFAS litigation force the regulatory agenda?
The EU’s more developed PFAS regulatory framework, together with its updated product liability framework and stricter member-state legislation, has contributed to an increasingly active PFAS litigation landscape. PFAS-related claims have been brought in several EU member states. In France, 192 citizens have filed a complaint seeking more than €36 million in compensation for health, environmental and economic damage. In Sweden, the courts have held that elevated PFAS concentrations in an individual’s blood can itself constitute a personal injury and that drinking water containing PFAS concentrations above prescribed limits may be regarded as a defective product.
PFAS litigation in the UK remains at a relatively early stage. Although widespread claims have yet to materialise, the UK has seen its first settlement arising from allegations of PFAS contamination in Bentham, North Yorkshire, with no admission of liability. Subsequent investigations in Bentham have revealed PFAS blood concentrations that substantially exceed US risk thresholds, in the absence of equivalent UK benchmarks. The highest recorded PFAS blood level was 405 ng/mL, more than 200 times higher than the US risk level of 2 ng/mL.
Concerns have also emerged in Thornton Cleveleys, where a formal inspection of land began in 2024 following evidence obtained by the Environment Agency indicating historic emissions of PFOA from an AGC site. More than a year later, in March 2026, an allotment site was determined to be contaminated under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and a further site was similarly designated recently. Local eggs were also found to contain PFAS at concentrations such that consumption of a single egg could exceed the European Food Safety Authority’s safe weekly limit.
The above demonstrates how significant gaps have emerged in the UK’s regulation of PFAS. The situation in Thornton Cleveleys could provide an important test of whether existing legal mechanisms are capable of addressing PFAS-related harms. The outcome may also intensify calls for legislative reform. Whether the UK will ultimately adopt a more interventionist regulatory approach and align itself more closely with the EU, however, remains uncertain.
Leigh Day has previously acted for claimants in Bentham and, at the time of writing, was instructed by claimants in Thornton-Cleveleys.
Copyright & permissions
.jpg&w=3840&q=60)
