Per‑ and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): Global Action, Scientific Evidence, and the UK’s Regulatory Failure
- Marina Moore
- Jan 23
- 5 min read
Per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been in production and widespread use since the 1940s. Their chemical and thermal stability, combined with hydrophobic and lipophobic properties, have made them attractive for use in a broad range of consumer and industrial products, including food containers, textiles, and personal care items (EFSA, 2020). These same properties, however, underpin their persistence in the environment and their accumulation in human and animal bodies, earning them the name “forever chemicals.”
PFAS exposure is now linked to a growing list of serious health impacts. These include cancer, immune suppression, elevated cholesterol, endocrine disruption, and multiple developmental harms. Decades of production and unregulated use have resulted in widespread contamination of drinking water, homes, people, fish, and wildlife. Studies have repeatedly demonstrated the presence of PFAS in breast milk: Serrano et al. (2021) detected PFAS in 24–100% of breast milk samples, with PFHpA present in 100% of samples, followed by PFOA (84%), PFNA (71%), PFHxA (66%), and PFTrDA (62%). PFOS was detected in 34% of donors. Abdallah et al. (2020) found ten PFAS compounds in pooled human milk samples from Ireland. PFAS exposure has been associated with decreased birth weight (Meng et al., 2018) and impaired liver function (Salihovic et al., 2018).
Today, PFAS are ubiquitous — including in cosmetic products. In cosmetics, PFAS serve as emulsifiers, antistatic agents, surfactants, viscosity regulators, solvents, and film‑formers in products such as foundation, shaving foam, eye shadow, powder, lipstick, shampoos, and moisturizers. Their hydrophobic and film‑forming properties increase wear, durability, and spreadability. For decades, PFAS use in cosmetics has been largely unregulated, with limited transparency on labels. Many products contain PFAS that are not listed as ingredients, and PFAS may also be present as impurities or degradation products of larger fluorinated compounds. Given the direct exposure pathways — ingestion from lipstick, absorption via tear ducts from mascara, and dermal absorption from foundation and powders — the potential for harm is significant.
Multiple studies across Europe, the United States, and Canada have confirmed PFAS contamination in cosmetics. Couteau et al. (2024) examined 765 cosmetic products and identified 11 PFAS, with PTFE present in 25.9% of products and perfluorodecalin in 22.2%. Whitehead et al. (2021) analysed 231 cosmetic products from the USA and Canada, detecting 6:2 and 8:2 fluorotelomer compounds at concentrations ranging from 22 to 10,500 ng/g. In Sweden, Schultes (2018) analysed 31 cosmetic products across five categories — cream, foundation, pencil, powder, and shaving foam — and found 25 different PFAS in foundations and powders. A 2021 follow‑up by KEMI found the highest PFAS levels in a scrub cream and face mask, followed by a face powder. Additional European studies include the Danish Environmental Protection Agency (2018).
In response to this mounting evidence, several jurisdictions have begun taking decisive action. The Swedish Chemicals Agency has called for a general EU‑wide ban on all PFAS uses. In the United States, the Modernisation of Cosmetics Regulation Act (2022) represents the most significant expansion of the FDA’s authority over cosmetics in decades, though it still falls short of a comprehensive PFAS ban. Several states have moved further: Washington State’s HB 1047 bans toxic chemicals in cosmetics, and California’s AB‑2771 prohibits the manufacture and sale of cosmetic products containing intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2025.
By contrast, the United Kingdom’s response remains slow, fragmented, and inadequate. In November 2024, Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson introduced a Private Members’ Bill — the “Poly and Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (Guidance) Bill” — requiring the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water to issue guidance to water companies on PFAS in drinking water. Crucially, the Bill contains no ban, no restrictions, and no binding limits. Its second reading is scheduled for 29 May 2026, a timeline that underscores the lack of urgency. Meanwhile, the Environmental Audit Committee launched an inquiry in April to assess PFAS risks within the UK’s regulatory framework, but publication is still pending.
This stands in stark contrast to the EU’s proposed universal PFAS restriction, which treats PFAS as a class and aims to eliminate thousands of substances across multiple sectors. The UK, by comparison, continues to pursue a case‑by‑case approach that is scientifically outdated and structurally incapable of addressing the scale of contamination. Investigations have identified more than 10,000 potential PFAS contamination sites across the UK, yet there is still no enforceable drinking water standard for PFAS as a class, no mandatory industry disclosure, and no comprehensive remediation strategy. UK REACH has deprioritised PFAS restrictions, citing “resource constraints,” effectively delaying meaningful action for years.
The result is a regulatory environment that allows the chemical, cosmetic, and textile industries to continue externalising the costs of PFAS pollution onto communities, ecosystems, and future generations. Every year of delay increases the toxic burden in our bodies and our environment. PFAS are not a hypothetical risk; they are already in our blood, our breast milk, our rivers, our soils, and our food. The science is clear. International momentum is clear. The moral imperative is clear. What remains absent is political will.
We are allowing the chemical, cosmetic, and textile industries to slowly poison us.
Reference:
Abdallah, M.A. Wemken, N. Drage, D.S. Tlustos, C. Cellarius, C. Cleere, K. Morrison, J.J. Daly, S. Coggins, M.A. Harrad, S. (2020) “Concentrations of perfluoroalkyl substances in human milk from Ireland: Implications for adult and nursing infant exposure”.Chemosphere, Volume 246. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653519329650
California’s Governor approved Assembly Bill (California Legislative) (PFAS). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2771)
Couteau, C. Brunet, C. Clarke, R. Coiffard, L. (2024) “Per- and polyfluoroalkyls used as cosmetic ingredients - Qualitative study of 765 cosmetic products”. Food and Chemical Toxicilogy, Volume 187. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691524001911
Danish Environmental Protection Agency (2018). “Risk assessment of fluorinated substances in cosmetic products”. https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/10/978-87-93710-94-8.pdf
EFSA (2020) “Risk to human health related to the presence of perfluoroalkyl substances in food”. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (EFSA CONTAM). EFSA Volume 18, Issue 9. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6223
KEMI (2021) “Swedish Chemicals Agency 2021. PFASs in cosmetics”. https://www.kemi.se/en/publications/pms/2021/pm-9-21-pfass-in-cosmetics
Serrano, L. Iribarne-Durán, L.M. Suárez, B. Artacho-Cordón, F. Vela-Soria, F. Peña-Caballero, M. Hurtado, J.A. Olea, N. Fernández, M.F. C. Freire, C. (2021)
“Concentrations of perfluoroalkyl substances in donor breast milk in Southern Spain and their potential determinants”. International Journal Hygiene and Environmental Health, Volume 236 (2021), Article 113796. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34192647/
Meng, Q. Inoue, K. Ritz, B. Olsen, J. Liew, Z. (2018) “Prenatal exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances and birth outcomes; an updated analysis from the Danish national birth cohort” . International Journal Of Environ Research & Public Health, Volume 15, Issue 9,1832. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30149566/
Salihovic, S. Stubleski, J. Kärrman, A. Larsson, A. Fall, T. Lind, L. Lind, P. M. (2018) “Changes in markers of liver function in relation to changes in perfluoroalkyl substances - A longitudinal study” Environment International, Volume 117, Pages 196-203. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160412018300291
Schultes, L. Vestergren, R. Volkova, K. Westberg, E. Jacobson, T. Benskin, J.P. (2018) “Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and fluorine mass balance in cosmetic products from the Swedish market: implications for environmental emissions and human exposure”.
Environmental Science Processes & Impacts., Volume 20, Issue 12, pp. 1680-1690,
Whitehead, H. D. Venier, M. Wu, Y. Eastman, E. Shannon Urbanik, S. Miriam L. Diamond, M. L. Shalin, A. Schwartz-Narbonne, H. Bruton, T.A. Blum, A. Wang, Z. Green, M. Tighe, M. Wilkinson, J. T. McGuinness, S. Peaslee G.F. (2021) “Fluorinated Compounds in North American Cosmetics”.
Environmental Science & Technology Letters, Volume 8, Issue 7, Pages 487-603
Comments