By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
IndebtaIndebta
  • Home
  • News
  • Banking
  • Credit Cards
  • Loans
  • Mortgage
  • Investing
  • Markets
    • Stocks
    • Commodities
    • Crypto
    • Forex
  • Videos
  • More
    • Finance
    • Dept Management
    • Small Business
Notification Show More
Aa
IndebtaIndebta
Aa
  • Banking
  • Credit Cards
  • Loans
  • Dept Management
  • Mortgage
  • Markets
  • Investing
  • Small Business
  • Videos
  • Home
  • News
  • Banking
  • Credit Cards
  • Loans
  • Mortgage
  • Investing
  • Markets
    • Stocks
    • Commodities
    • Crypto
    • Forex
  • Videos
  • More
    • Finance
    • Dept Management
    • Small Business
Follow US
Indebta > News > Defining ‘forever chemicals’ is a job for science alone
News

Defining ‘forever chemicals’ is a job for science alone

News Room
Last updated: 2025/06/18 at 12:30 AM
By News Room
Share
6 Min Read
SHARE

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

It has all the makings of a toxic controversy. Growing evidence suggests that the molecules known as forever chemicals — used in everyday items like cosmetics, non-stick pans and water-repellent clothing — can build up in the environment and in the body, to the detriment of both.

Last year, the world’s pre-eminent chemistry organisation announced a panel would look again at how the chemicals — more properly known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS — are defined. That has stoked unhappiness among some researchers, who suspect that the rethink, to be carried out by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, might end up narrowing the definition and letting some forever chemicals off the regulatory hook. The current definition, they protest, is grounded in science and works well; the new initiative, they argue, is motivated by political or economic considerations, rather than science.

Their objections deserve a hearing. In setting out its reasons for redefining a class of chemicals that have existed for decades, the chemistry union tellingly mentions European regulation and declares it is “hardly feasible” for around 9,000 PFAS to face a possible ban from 2026. That seems an odd statement: it is unclear why a chemically rigorous definition of a chemical, as newly drafted by the world’s top chemistry body, should nod to anything other than chemistry.  

Forever chemicals, featuring a backbone of carbon atoms with fluorine atoms attached, were first developed in the 1940s. Their resistance to oil, grease and water made them a commercial hit. But those same qualities allowed the molecules to linger indestructibly — in water, soil and air, in the food chain, in blood and human organs. The substances have been variously implicated in cancers, obesity and falling fertility. Manufacturers including 3M and DuPont have paid out enormous sums to settle health- and environment-related PFAS lawsuits.

The exact number of legacy and novel PFAS is uncertain because some were made but never documented; figures between 5,000 and 12,000 are often quoted. Their proliferation, along with rising health and environmental concerns, led to the OECD consulting on a peer-reviewed definition intended to capture the full range of fluorinated molecules. That concluded in 2021, with the input of chemical agencies around the world.

In the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters, the 20 protesting academics expressed concern this month that any fresh IUPAC manoeuvring could “exclude certain fluorinated chemical subgroups from the scope of the existing definition”. Given that the union is regarded as the ultimate arbiter of all things chemical, including the names of new Periodic Table elements, its verdict will carry clout. The letter continues: “An IUPAC-endorsed and potentially narrower PFAS definition could . . . influence regulatory bodies and others to adopt less protective policies.”

The letter of protest was co-ordinated by Gabriel Sigmund, a micropollutants researcher at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. It is signed by, among others, scientists in the US, Canada, UK, Sweden and Switzerland, some of whom worked on the OECD definition. More than 200 scientists have since added their signatures, the FT has learnt. 

Alex Ford, a marine ecotoxicologist at Plymouth University in the UK, said he signed because altering definitions could “sow doubt and create confusion” and the precautionary principle should reign supreme. “We are still seeing the harmful effects in wildlife of chemicals we banned decades ago . . . they are chemically stable, very mobile and, the more we look into them, toxic.”

As is fairly common with academic researchers, at least two members of the new IUPAC panel list past or current links with industry. Co-chair Pierangelo Metrangolo, a Milan-based chemist, discloses consultancy work for the company Solvay Solexis on his publicly available CV. In 2023, its parent company Solvay paid out nearly $400mn to settle a PFAS lawsuit in New Jersey.

There is no indication that Metrangolo was involved. He has previously said the new panel “has not finalised any conclusion, yet, and there are no indications that certain subgroups of chemicals would be excluded”. The IUPAC did not respond to a request for comment.

It is tempting to gloss over the row as technical, arcane or irrelevant. But the definition of a forever chemical matters to us all: like the chemicals themselves, its influence could persist — on research, industrial practice, regulation and legal liability cases — for decades to come.

anjana.ahuja@ft.com

Read the full article here

News Room June 18, 2025 June 18, 2025
Share this Article
Facebook Twitter Copy Link Print
Leave a comment Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Finance Weekly Newsletter

Join now for the latest news, tips, and analysis about personal finance, credit cards, dept management, and many more from our experts.
Join Now
Trump’s ominous ICE security state

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for freeYour guide to what Trump’s…

Investors pile into tokenised Treasury funds

Crypto companies and traders are pouring billions of dollars into tokenised versions…

Liechtenstein hit by Russia-linked ‘zombie trust’ crisis

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects…

BlackRock tried private credit once before. Will this time be better?

Seven years after BlackRock’s last big foray into private credit, last week…

The global economy is suffering from the Rashomon effect

I have marvelled over the past few years, and continue to marvel,…

- Advertisement -
Ad imageAd image

You Might Also Like

News

Trump’s ominous ICE security state

By News Room
News

Investors pile into tokenised Treasury funds

By News Room
News

Liechtenstein hit by Russia-linked ‘zombie trust’ crisis

By News Room
News

BlackRock tried private credit once before. Will this time be better?

By News Room
News

The global economy is suffering from the Rashomon effect

By News Room
News

Hong Kong listings pipeline hits record high as equity market booms

By News Room
News

Donald Trump calls Elon Musk a ‘train wreck’ as feud escalates over third party

By News Room
News

Gaza on brink of running out of fuel in Israeli siege

By News Room
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Youtube Instagram
Company
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Press Release
  • Contact
  • Advertisement
More Info
  • Newsletter
  • Market Data
  • Credit Cards
  • Videos

Sign Up For Free

Subscribe to our newsletter and don't miss out on our programs, webinars and trainings.

I have read and agree to the terms & conditions
Join Community

2023 © Indepta.com. All Rights Reserved.

Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Lost your password?