Australia has recently banned the import, use, and manufacture of three “forever chemicals”: PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS.
These compounds persist in the environment, accumulate in living organisms, and pose health risks. The World Health Organization has classified PFOA as a carcinogen and PFOS as a possible carcinogen.
While this step is significant, it is limited. More than 14,000 types of PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances) exist, and the European Union is moving toward banning them all by 2030. The EU’s broader approach reflects the huge costs of cleanup and the risks of waiting for proof of harm from each chemical before acting.
Why PFAS are a problem
Since the 1950s, PFAS have been widely used to make products water-, fire- or stain-resistant. Their persistence means that once released, they are almost impossible to remove, leaving communities and ecosystems exposed for decades.
The greatest risks are faced by workers and communities near chemical plants, airports, and military bases where firefighting foams containing PFAS were used. But contamination is now found almost everywhere – in water, food, packaging, carpets, cookware, and even air.
Not all PFAS are proven harmful, but most have never been thoroughly tested. This is why the EU has adopted the precautionary principle: if there’s a chance of serious harm, regulators should act even without full certainty. A total ban also prevents “regrettable substitution,” where one banned chemical is simply replaced with a slightly altered – but equally harmful – version.
Australia’s cautious approach
Australia is taking a slower, risk-based path. It banned three chemicals but only after strong evidence of harm. This leaves thousands of other PFAS – and many new industrial chemicals – largely unchecked.
The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants has gradually added PFAS chemicals to its list of restricted substances. But Australia has not yet fully ratified the relevant amendments, delaying stronger national action.
Australian health authorities argue evidence of harm from most PFAS is limited, though they acknowledge risks from PFOA. By contrast, US and European experts link PFAS exposure to a range of problems, including reduced kidney function, thyroid disease, higher cholesterol, and several cancers.
Why precaution matters
The 1992 Rio Declaration established that scientific uncertainty should not delay protective action. This principle has guided international agreements on marine pollution and trade disputes over genetically modified organisms.
The EU is applying this to PFAS, consulting industry about uses and alternatives, and pressing companies to share safety data they have often withheld. Regulators face a knowledge gap: manufacturers know most about toxicity, yet governments must protect public health without sufficient information. Precautionary bans help close this gap.
Even if phased out, PFAS will linger in soil, water, and food for decades. That means bans must be paired with limits on acceptable levels of contamination.
What Australia should do
Most PFAS in Australia arrive through imports, meaning regulation of products is key. Essential uses, such as in healthcare, will require safer substitutes. Industry resistance is likely, as seen in Europe, but without stronger rules, taxpayers will keep bearing the massive costs of cleanup.
By late 2025, Australia’s Senate committee on PFAS will deliver its report. Policymakers could learn from Europe’s precautionary model: restrict PFAS as a class, while allowing essential uses where no safe alternatives exist.
Given the scale of the problem, regulating chemical by chemical is no longer viable. A broad ban would better protect health, the environment, and future generations.
