RSC urges government to stop PFAS polluters ‘getting off the hook’ following London coffee controversy

THE UK government has been urged to make industrial polluters pay for PFAS remediation in waterways after a London woman was fined for pouring coffee down a street drain.

The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) has renewed its call for the government to enforce a “polluter pays” policy, following the case of Burcu Yesilyurt, who was fined £150 (US$197) last month for pouring the dregs from her reusable coffee cup down a drain before boarding a bus in London. The local authority has since retracted the fine, originally issued under the Environmental Protection Act.

The RSC’s policy advisor Natalie Sims said Yesilyurt’s case “exposes wider gaps in the way pollution is managed in the UK, with major industrial polluters too often let off the hook”. The RSC has used the controversy as a springboard to renew its campaign for stronger government action on PFAS pollution, citing the well-documented links between these highly persistent chemicals and health issues such as cancer and birth defects.

RSC analysis last year found that 37% of samples from across the watercourse in England and Wales contained concentrations of PFOS – one of the most common types of PFAS – at concentrations greater than the 10 ng/L level deemed in UK legislation to be “low risk”, including the 4% of samples with concentrations above the “high risk” level of 100 ng/L. Another common PFAS chemical, PFOA, exceeded 10 ng/L in 35% of samples, including 3% at “high risk” levels.

UK law currently requires the removal of PFAS from drinking water if a single chemical exceeds 100 ng/L, although this limit will soon apply to the total accumulation of all PFAS chemicals, bringing the UK in line with European Union regulation. The change is welcomed by the RSC, but they argue the law should go further and prohibit single PFAS chemicals from exceeding 10 ng/L.

In comparison, the US – where lawsuits have led to multibillion-dollar settlements from companies such as 3M and DuPont – requires PFAS removal when a single chemical exceeds 4 ng/L.

The RSC is also encouraging people to write to their local MP by signing its open letter. They added that the “polluter pays” principal is now policy in the EU, although analysis by ENDS Report recently found that chemicals companies have lobbied against the UK adopting similar policy. PFAS removal is most commonly carried out using granular activated carbon adsorption, while membrane filtration methods are under development. PFAS destruction is very expensive, although some techniques such as advanced oxidation are being explored.

Sims said: “Companies that pollute the environment with toxic chemicals, like PFAS, should pay for their removal from our waterways, rather than burden the already strained public purse strings. At the same time, we need to hold ‘diffuse sources’ – such as road run-off, waste emissions and agriculture – to the same level of monitoring and enforcement as water companies.”

A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spokesperson said: “This government is committed to protecting human health and the environment from the risks posed by PFAS. We’re working at pace together with regulators to assess levels of PFAS in the environment, their sources and potential risks, to inform our approach to policy and regulation.”

‘One rule for ordinary people, another for business’

Yesilyurt said she was “shaky” when she arrived at work on the morning of the coffee incident, recalling three council officers “chasing” her when they saw her pour the drink away. She said: “It’s hard not to feel like there’s one rule for ordinary people and another for big businesses.

“I was fined for pouring away a small splash of coffee, yet companies that release harmful chemicals into our rivers often face no consequences. If we’re serious about protecting the environment, responsibility has to start at the top.

“We don’t even properly measure how much PFAS is getting into our water, let alone expect companies to help clean it up. Until polluters pay, the rest of us will keep covering the cost.

“I just want a cleaner, safer future for my daughter – and that’s why I’m writing to my MP, hoping others will too.”