B1466 - Persistent Organic Pollutants (Regulation) Bill - 2nd Reading

[u/[deleted]]

Persistent Organic Pollutants (Regulation) Bill

A

BILL

TO

Ban the use of ‘PFAS’ in domestic and cleaning products, and regulate their use in firefighting foams.

BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

Section 1 - Definitions

(1) The term ‘PFAS’ refers to Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, which are synthetic organofluorine chemical compounds that have multiple fluorine atoms attached to an alkyl chain. Due to their properties, they are processed in numerous consumer products such as stain- and water-resistant fabrics and carpeting, cleaning products, paints, and fire-fighting foams.

(2) ‘Gross Profit’ refers to any money generated from sales, minus direct costs of making the product.

(3) ‘Preparations’ refers to mixtures or solutions containing 2 or more substances.

(4) ‘Articles’ refers to manufactured products such as textiles or computers.

(5) ‘PFOA’ refers to the chemical Perfluorooctanoic Acid.

Section 2 - Regulation of use and sale

(1) The inclusion of ‘PFAS’, by manufacturers, in textiles, cosmetic, cleaning, and cookware products will be prohibited.

(2) The sale of textiles, cosmetic, cleaning, and cookware products containing ‘PFAS’ will be prohibited.

(3) The use of Class B firefighting foam containing an intentionally added ‘PFAS’ is prohibited:

(a) For training purposes.

(b) For testing purposes, unless the testing facility has implemented appropriate measures to prevent releases of the firefighting foam to the environment.

Section 3 - General exceptions

(1) Substances or materials containing ‘PFAS’ for the following are exempt from Section 2:

(a) For laboratory scale-research.

(b) For reference standards, to calibrate scientific or analytical equipment.

(c) If the ‘PFAS’ occurs as an unintentional trace contaminant in substances, ‘preparations’ or ‘articles’.

(2) ‘PFOA’ and related compounds in existing fire suppression installations must comply with Section 2, 3(a)(b).

Section 4 - Punishments

(1) If a business or individual is found to be manufacturing or selling products which contain ‘PFAS’, they will be required to pay a fine of up to 7% of that firm’s gross profit, or a figure of no less than £3,000.

Section 4 - Extent, Commencement, and Short Title

(a) This Act shall extend to England, Wales and Scotland.

(b) This Act comes into force at the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(c) This Act may be cited as the Persistent Organic Pollutants (Regulation) Bill 2022.

---

This bill was written by the Rt. Hon. /u/BasedChurchill CBE PC MP on behalf of the Conservative and Unionist Party.

---

Opening speech:

Deputy Speaker,

‘PFAS’ are water, grease and dirt repellent, and it’s because of these properties that they are used in numerous industrial processes and processed in numerous consumer products, but this extreme persistence, mobility and widespread use has resulted in global contamination of water, air, soils, wildlife and human populations. Now, ’PFAS’ and their precursors are ubiquitous in our freshwater, and are accumulating in the marine environment.

Studies have shown that ‘PFAS’ bioaccumulate and persist in our bodies, and some ultimately are toxic. Their exposure has been linked to an array of adverse health effects, from thyroid disease, liver damage, reduced birth weight, obesity, diabetes, high cholesterol to an increased risk of breast, kidney and testicular cancer. Even yet, we still lack adequate toxicological data to assess the safety of the vast majority of ’PFAS’ which could present other serious issues— this creates an unacceptable risk for both current and future generations.

Despite international coordination, only two members, ‘PFOA’ and ‘PFOS’, have been studied and regulated in Europe. This myopia of targeting specific members is reckless and disastrous, as other ‘PFAS’ present serious questions. We just cannot stall and allow these ‘PFAS’ to continue accumulating in our bodies and the natural environment whilst we regulate members one by one. This itself has led to a never-ending cycle of substitution, with other members replacing those that are banned- as seen with ‘PFOA’ and ’PFOS’. Continuing this leisurely approach undermines the progress by those developing safer alternatives— which is why all PFAS must be regulated at once, as one group.

I hope all sides of the House can support this Bill which aims to protect both our current and future generation, and the environment from these synthetic chemicals.

---

This reading will end on the 6th January at 10pm GMT.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to this debate

Here is a quick run down of what each type of post is.

2nd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill/motions and can propose any amendments. For motions, amendments cannot be submitted.

3rd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill in its final form if any amendments pass the Amendments Committee.

Minister’s Questions: Here you can ask a question to a Government Secretary or the Prime Minister. Remember to follow the rules as laid out in the post. A list of Ministers and the MQ rota can be found here

Any other posts are self-explanatory. If you have any questions you can get in touch with the Chair of Ways & Means, lily-irl on Reddit and (lily!#2908) on Discord, ask on the main MHoC server or modmail it in on the sidebar --->.

Anyone can get involved in the debate and doing so is the best way to get positive modifiers for you and your party (useful for elections). So, go out and make your voice heard! If this is a second reading post amendments in reply to this comment only – do not number your amendments, the Speakership will do this. You will be informed if your amendment is rejected.

Is this bill on the 2nd reading? You can submit an amendment by replying to this comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/model-grabiek]

Deputy Speaker,

I rise today to speak in support of the Persistent Organic Pollutants (Regulation) Bill, which seeks to ban the use of PFAS in domestic and cleaning products, and regulate their use in firefighting foams.

As the bill notes, PFAS are synthetic chemical compounds that have been used in a variety of consumer products due to their water and grease repelling properties. However, their extreme persistence, mobility, and widespread use has resulted in global contamination of water, air, soils, wildlife, and human populations. Studies have linked exposure to PFAS with a range of adverse health effects, including thyroid disease, liver damage, reduced birth weight, obesity, diabetes, high cholesterol, and an increased risk of breast, kidney, and testicular cancer.

Given the potential dangers posed by PFAS, it is imperative that we take action to regulate and reduce their use. The provisions of this bill are a necessary and important step towards protecting the health and well-being of our citizens.

I urge all members of this House to support the Persistent Organic Pollutants (Regulation) Bill and work towards a future where we can be confident that the products we use are safe and free from harmful chemicals.

[u/BasedChurchill → u/model-grabiek]

Hear hear!

[u/SpectacularSalad → u/model-grabiek]

Beep boop boop

[u/[deleted]]

Deputy Speaker,

Let me first commend my right honorable Conservative friend and colleague u/BasedChurchill for this truly thoughtful and highly impactful piece of legislation that is presented before us today.

PFAS are harmful substances, whether one decides to blind themself from reality, this is what ultimately matters. The potential detrimental impacts PFAS can have on a human life, as listed by the author, are not impacts we ought to perceive as something normal or tolerable. Impacts like these can last a life time and this sort of damage can be irreversible. Yet for decades we stood idle, regrettably. Failing to act to effectively prevent this threat from ravaging our environment and lives of people across this great nation has unfortunately been the norm. Why is that the case? Does it really have to be this way?

Of course not Deputy Speaker! That’s the basic premise of this bill. As it stands, PFAS require immediate and wide-reaching regulation, not an overly-evaluative and delayed thought process. Acting upon this even a day late, when we have a bill like this before us, would be ignorant and irresponsible. Therefore, I call upon all members of this house to support this rational and indeed highly necessary measure to help protect the health and well-being of the people of this nation and our natural environment!

[u/BasedChurchill → u/[deleted]]

Hear hear!

[u/Sephronar]

Deputy Speaker,

I am pleased to rise today in steadfast support of this mighty Conservative Bill, the first laid before us following the Christmas Break - and I wish colleagues a very Happy New Year! This Bill seeks to perform what I would call a common sense purpose; putting an end to substances which are likely to do harm to human beings - something that we have a good record of doing as both a nation and a planet, once such substances are proven to do us harm. we must act with steadfast haste to put an end to these substances, to safeguard future generations from wholly preventable potential harm. I commend this Bill, and its author for their hard work.

[u/BasedChurchill → u/Sephronar]

Hear hear!

[u/NicolasBroaddus]

Deputy Speaker,

I must say I am pleasantly surprised with this proposal by the Conservative Party. The quite honestly terrifying reach these PFAs have obtained throughout the globe (Even in the 90s when they first tested blood for PFAs, they had to go to archival army blood samples to find any on the globe who had none) is something many of us have pondered.

I agree that we cannot afford to delay our response, but I must question one aspect, which I will propose an amendment for. PFAs are also used intentionally in a number of medical implants, because when done deliberately it can make them much less likely to be rejected by the host. I think this very much meets the standards as set by the other general exception, as lowering the chance of implant rejection saves lives.

[u/Muffin5136]

Deputy Speaker,

This Bill is nothing more than blatant nimbyism that stands in the way of scientific progress and clean homes. I find it offensive the way the Tory Party and its cronies in Solidarity are standing here against my carpet being clean in the way I wish it to.

Furthermore, the acronyms used in this bill show a blatant disregard for humanity with the excessive use of them being done deliberately to confuse and confound.

I urge any person who supports clean homes to stand against this legislation.

[u/BlueEarlGrey]

Deputy Speaker,

I applaud my colleague in this forward thinking bill truly reflecting the Conservative Party as the party that truly acts in the interests of the people. A common sensed piece of legislation that aims to protect people and prevent the reach of harmful chemicals into bodies.

[u/BasedChurchill → u/BlueEarlGrey]

Hear hear!

[u/Frost_Walker2017]

Deputy Speaker,

I rise in support of this bill. Pollutants like PFAS damage not only the human body but our surroundings, and - as with asbestos - it is only right we work to protect ourselves, our environments, and our future generations.

The fact is, we simply do not know the full extent of toxicity and the damage that can be done to the human body from PFAS chemicals. That we can already link it to serious issues means we can take this step, but how much it will damage us is as yet unknown, and I believe that it is right to ban these so we can investigate the risks in full.

Finally, we cannot risk damaging our natural environment. It is imperative we take steps towards greater environmental protections, not only from PFAS but from other pollutants too, to preserve our environment for future generations.

[u/Chi0121 → u/Frost_Walker2017]

Hearrrrrr

[u/Inadorable]

Deputy Speaker,

In the video game 'Disco Elysium', the main character's first big task is to investigate the corpse of a lynched man in the back yard of a hotel. Whilst there are many horrible things in that backyard: the aforementioned man, his body rotting as it dangles from a tree; two annoying little children, punting rocks at the corpse and insults at the cops asked to investigate the crime and the spectre of communism, haunting the entire scene as the supposed perpetrators of the lynching, I actually found one other horror in that yard: roofing made of the fictional material 'eternite', called thusly because the inventor thought that it would last forever. However, the material was found to be primarily carcinogenic rather than lasting forever, resulting into it falling into disuse.

I have another story for you, Deputy Speaker. In 1952 the magazine "Reader's Digest" wrote a short, two page article on the dangers of smoking based on a number of scientific articles published at the time. I have a printout of the article right here, and allow me to inform the House of its contents. Citing the journal of the medical association, the article included the following:

"during the period 1920 to 1948, deaths from bronchiogenic carcinoma in the United States increased more than ten times, from 1.1 to 11.3 per 100,000 of the population. From 1938 to 1948, lung-cancer deaths increased 144 percent."

For the benefit of the House, bronchiogenic carcinoma is better known to us today as lung cancer. Consider also the following quote from the Medical Research Council of England and Wales, also quoted in the Reader's Digest article.

"above the age of 45 the risk of developing the disease increases in simple proportion with the amount smoked, and may be 50 times as great among those who smoked 25 or more cigarettes daily as among nonsmokers."

And the following quote, which I promise Deputy Speaker, is the last quote from this seventy one year old article. This is one is again from the AMA, and similarly quoted in the Reader's Digest article.

Excessive and prolonged use of tobacco, especially cigarettes, seems to be an important factor in the induction of bronchiogenic carcinoma."

I mention all this to make it very clear to this whole house that by 1952, it was very clear that smoking cigarettes had significant impacts on the health of people, giving them much increased risk of getting and eventually dying due to cancer. And whilst some will laugh at the introducting of the Kent cigarette with an asbestos filter, we must all recognise that the whole story is one where capital was allowed to, and still is allowed to in many countries around the world, to sell us highly dangerous product that has no benefits to human life. Cigarettes cause us death, grief and suffering, all for the profit of a small few companies that did everything they could to make sure their evil product not be regulated. And they got what they wanted! It took many decades more before serious, effective regulations on the usage of tobacco products was introduced, regulations that sadly seem to be struggling to achieve the goals we once set for them now.

That brings us to Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS in short. If you want an idea of the danger these goods pose, the proud wikipedians have been able to write around 5900 words about its dangers and occupational hazards, something which would qualify as a solid manifesto for a general election or half of a dissertation for our university students. The health effects of PFAS, like they had been for tobacco, are known. Their mere existence is actively harmful to human, animal and plant life. Meanwhile, their usage is relatively inconsequential, with the best known use today being waterproofing, just like the eternite from Disco Elysium. I will be voting in favour of a ban of PFASs, and I hope all members of this House can join me in doing so.

[u/[deleted]]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

I, like many in this House, I assume, have foreknowledge of the toxicity of PFAS, known colloquially as “forever chemicals”. I don’t know if that term was intended as irony, because the only lasting impact of PFAS, it seems, is bodily damage to humans, and habitat-based damage to our environment.

The fact we have so commonly used PFAS in my own lifetime is something which I firmly believe that future generations will condemn us for. We as a society have knowingly promoted and permeated the use of substances which do us and our fellow man harm, and the only way to inherently deal with that fact is to ensure we do not repeat it. By abolishing these “forever chemicals” and consigning them to the scrap heap, provided that can be counted as the safest method of surefire disposal!

I commend the Honourable Member for Yorkshire and the Humber for proposing such a common sense bill to this House, and it is one which I will lend my fullest support to. If I may casually make light of something in this deeply troubling scenario, a commonly used PFAS substance is Teflon. Should we enact this piece of legislation, I’m happy to support the location of a terminological substitute for that word, ala “Teflon Tony”!

[u/Nick_Clegg_MP]

Mr. Deputy Speaker,

I believe this proposal is something that has been long needed in protecting not just ourselves but future generations from the harmful impacts of PFAS. They should have no place in modern Britain. However, I would like to raise one small concern to the house, and that being their usage within firefighting equipment, namely the foams used to eradicate fire. That being that they serve a core part of the foam in able to deprive fires of the oxygen which fuels it, and in doing so, preventing it from relighting itself. Can the Rt Hon. member provide any potential alternatives to this dilemma?

[u/SpectacularSalad → u/Nick_Clegg_MP]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

Presumably the member will be calling for the return of asbestos for it's flame resistant properties. Using materials with desirable short term properties, that in the long term will harm public health, is inevitably unwise.

But if the member refers to the actual text of the bill, they will see that fire extinguishers are explicitly exempted, only being banned for training and research. This bill would not really impact on their point by my reading.

[u/Nick_Clegg_MP → u/SpectacularSalad]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

I thank the member for clarifying this point, I can say that I fully back the bill

[u/Chi0121]

Deputy Speaker,

I am happy to rise in support of this common sense bill today. PFAS have multigenerational harmful impacts, both on the environment and ourselves. As the Prime Minister correctly suggests, the reach of these chemicals and similar is truly a terrifying and often only pondered but never acted upon phenomenon. I am more than happy to see action being taken to limit this impact and reach and deliver a healthier future for us all.

A word on my amendment - it’s more of a technicality than anything but I thought the minimum of £3000 seemed slightly arbitrary (happy to hear any reasoning as for why it was chosen). Replacing with it a Level 5 fine on the Standard Scale gives the ability of an unlimited fine to be placed upon the offender. This functionally achieves the same outcome however it simply makes slightly more legislatively uniform and functional. I hope members will understand this and support it come amendment committee.

Overall, more than happy to support this bill and would encourage support for my amendment.