They’re in your waterproof jacket, in firefighting foam, medical devices, cosmetics, and food packaging. They’re in our tap water, soil, wildlife — and our bloodstreams. And – maybe as a sign of things to come – they’ve just been added to the Cambridge dictionary.
To quote Colin Macintosh, the dictionary’s programme manager, “… we only add words where we think they’ll have staying power.”
Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — the so-called “forever chemicals” — are at the centre of a growing surge of concern, fear and urgent debate. Their durability verging on permanence has made them indispensable across industries for nearly 75 years. Yet those same qualities now pose a growing health and environmental challenge.
The hard truth: this isn’t as simple as “just stop using them.” We need to develop solutions to reduce the PFAS already saturating our environment. We need to better understand and address the health impacts of the PFAS already in our bodies. And, perhaps most difficult, many of the lifesaving and life-changing use cases of PFAS force us to weigh these positives against their irreversible costs.
Here’s the deeper question:
Who should lead the charge in addressing the PFAS crisis? Can businesses tackle this massive social and environmental risk, or is this the kind of global challenge that demands stronger, coordinated regulatory control? Join the live debate on Tuesday, 23 September.
The continually expanding downsides of forever usefulness
PFAS are defined by carbon-fluorine bonds so strong that they rarely break down. Since the 1950s, more than 4,700 variations have been manufactured — part of a broader group of over 10,000 known substances. They show up in textiles, cookware, packaging, electronics and beyond. Their durability, heat resistance, and water- and grease-repellent properties made them miracle substances of the modern age.
But the very properties that make PFAS so useful are the same ones that make them dangerous. They resist degradation, persisting in soil, water and air for decades or even centuries — and, most troubling, they’re now showing up in living organisms, including humans.
The health risks are sobering: increased cancers, fertility problems, developmental delays, liver and thyroid issues. The effects are still being studied, but some chemicals such as PFOA are already restricted — and studies suggest exposure will continue for generations.
And yet, PFAS have also saved innumerable lives — and meaningfully improved even more. They are integral to certain medical devices such as pacemakers, vascular grafts and surgical stents, where their durability and biocompatibility reduce complications and extend device lifespans. They enable prosthetics and joint replacements with smoother, longer-lasting performance. In pharmaceuticals, fluorinated compounds derived from PFAS chemistry have enhanced the stability and effectiveness of critical drugs, from cancer treatments to cholesterol-lowering statins.
Beyond medicine, PFAS have reshaped daily life in ways that, while not always lifesaving, are undeniably life-changing. Non-stick cookware reduced foodborne illness risks by making thorough cooking easier and safer. Stain- and water-resistant fabrics improved hygiene and durability in hospitals, schools and homes. Firefighting foams, though now controversial for their contamination risks, were a frontline tool for decades in preventing devastating blazes at airports, fuel depots and industrial sites. Even something as simple as weatherproof clothing has enabled more people to safely work, travel and exercise outdoors in harsh conditions.
These conveniences and protections are more than luxuries. They have expanded mobility, productivity and quality of life. Some argue those tangible, immediate upsides of PFAS — which can be measured in improved outcomes, reduced risks and enhanced daily living — must be weighed seriously against the longer-term, more diffuse harms.
Challenge your thinking:
In both the near and long term, how do we decide which PFAS-containing products are “worth the risks” because of their positive impacts — and which should be eliminated at all costs? Share your thoughts in our discussion forum.
Can we innovate (or evolve) our way out of PFAS?
In a strange twist, the same advanced sciences that created PFAS are now being harnessed to solve their problems. From deep-UV “zapping” that splits their carbon-fluorine bonds, to Oxford researchersdestroying PFAS while recycling their fluorine for reuse, to filtration systems capturing up to 99% of PFAS particles, the innovation pipeline is racing ahead.
Some researchers are looking to biology. At Cambridge, scientists are studying gut microbes that appear capable of digesting PFAS. Others are exploring engineered enzymes and bacteria that could break them down. Could nature itself evolve solutions — and could we accelerate those adaptations?
Dr. Anna Lindell shares how probiotic approaches could play a role in reducing PFAS in the human body.
The regulation dilemma
Governments are acting on the PFAS problem, but the regulatory landscape remains fragmented and uneven. In the USA, the EPA has set the first enforceable drinking-water limits for several PFAS, pushing utilities to test and treat. The EU is moving faster, weighing class-wide restrictions that could amount to a near-ban. Standards are emerging elsewhere (Canada, Japan, Australia), but they are uneven.
The result: regulatory gaps where production (and pollution) can “leak” across borders.
And then there’s the economic and political backlash. Industries that depend on PFAS — from aerospace to semiconductors to medical technology — warn that abrupt restrictions would cripple innovation and supply chains. Lobbying efforts have already slowed or softened proposed bans.
The CFC precedent looms large here. When the Montreal Protocol banned ozone-depleting substances in the 1980s, industry claimed the sky would fall. Instead, innovation flourished, delivering safer alternatives faster than expected. But PFAS are embedded even more deeply in global supply chains — and in some cases, are literally keeping people alive.
Challenge your thinking:
Can a world still divided on the need for climate action – a clear existential threat – ever solve the more insidious problem of PFAS through coordinated regulatory action? Or will waiting for regulators to catch up prove a “too little, too late” strategy? Add your voice to The Situation Room.
The corporate reckoning
While regulation inches forward, businesses face mounting pressure to act now. Consumers are increasingly aware of PFAS — and increasingly unforgiving of companies seen as ignoring or downplaying the risks.
Several household brands have gained reputational boosts by voluntarily phasing out PFAS, aligning their sustainability messaging with public health concerns (though it bears mentioning that, if PFAS are swapped for a similar compound, these efforts amount to little more than greenwashing). For these companies, “doing the right thing” has translated into stronger brand loyalty and market advantage.
But not every company can afford a rapid exit. For some, PFAS are so embedded in supply chains or product performance that eliminating them overnight is virtually impossible. A medical device manufacturer, for instance, may struggle to find materials that match the durability and biocompatibility of PFAS. For these firms, the path forward involves nuance: phasing out non-essential PFAS, redesigning products to limit contamination risk and investing in alternatives that offer similar benefits with fewer downsides.
We also see a divide emerging between proactive and passive companies. Proactive firms are supporting scientific research, investing in PFAS mitigation projects and experimenting with safer substitute chemicals. Passive ones are content to sit back, arguing they comply with current laws and will adapt only when forced to. The risk? Once regulations do tighten — or lawsuits land — those lagging could face sudden compliance costs, reputational damage and shareholder backlash. In other words: inaction might feel safe today, but it could prove far riskier tomorrow.
Challenge your thinking:
Is doing nothing on PFAS today a bigger strategic risk than the costs of acting early — or are companies right to let regulators set the pace? At the very least, should companies be forced to be more transparent about the PFAS they are responsible for adding to the world?
Can we take the “forever” out of forever chemicals?
PFAS pose a paradox not unlike the underlying fossil fuel consumption that enables their production: they are both a testament to human ingenuity and a warning of its unintended consequences. They’ve given us convenience, safety and medical miracles — but at the cost of a chemical legacy we may never fully erase.
Whether PFAS become the next CFC success story or remain a toxic inheritance for future generations depends on the balance we strike today: between innovation and restraint, corporate responsibility and regulatory power, short-term convenience and long-term survival.
What do you think? Are PFAS an indispensable innovation we must learn to manage, or an indefensible mistake we must eliminate at any cost?
Can we take the “forever” out of forever chemicals?
PFAS were designed to last — and now they won’t go away. From water and soil to our own bloodstreams, their durability is creating risks we may never erase. Join experts from WSP, Sykehusinnkjøp and EcoOnline as they debate how far and how fast action must go.
Tuesday, 23 September at 10:00 AM EDT | 3:00 PM BST | 30 minutes
