A group of 20 internationally renowned scientists has issued a strong warning against attempts to narrow the definition of 'forever chemicals' (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances - Pfas). They argue this effort, potentially influenced by some within the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUpac), is politically or economically motivated to weaken regulation. Such a change could drastically reduce the scope of control, undermine monitoring, and weaken public health and environmental protections in regions like the EU and UK.
Scientists warn against attempts to change definition of ‘forever chemicals’
PfasEnvironmentWorldChemistryPollutionRegulators
AI Summary
TL;DR: Key points with love ❤️A group of 20 internationally renowned scientists has issued a strong warning against attempts to narrow the definition of 'forever chemicals' (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances - Pfas). They argue this effort, potentially influenced by some within the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUpac), is politically or economically motivated to weaken regulation. Such a change could drastically reduce the scope of control, undermine monitoring, and weaken public health and environmental protections in regions like the EU and UK.
Trending- 1 Last year: IUpac launched a project aimed at providing a rigorous definition of Pfas.
- 2 This week: A group of 20 scientists published a paper in Environmental Science & Technology Letters defending the current definition.
- 3 Ongoing: Regulation regimes for Pfas are being worked out in the EU and UK.
- Potential weakening of Pfas regulation
- Reduced scope of substances subject to control
- Undermining of monitoring efforts
- Potential weakening of public health and environmental protections
- Substantial delays in scrutiny and regulation of harmful contaminants
What: International scientists are warning against efforts to narrow the definition of 'forever chemicals' (Pfas).
When: A paper was published this week in Environmental Science & Technology Letters; IUpac launched a project last year.
Where: International context, with implications for regulation in the EU and UK.
Why: Scientists believe the attempts to change the definition are politically and/or economically motivated, aiming to weaken regulation and reduce the number of substances subject to control, thereby undermining public health and environmental protections.
How: By publishing a paper defending the current OECD definition and urging policymakers to continue using it, while also highlighting the potential negative impacts of a narrower definition.