Forever Chemicals, lasting consequences: The PFAS challenge for F&B

SUE NEWTON: Today's podcast focuses on PFAS, often referred to as forever chemicals. We explore what they are, how they enter food systems, and what businesses need to do to identify and manage the risks they present. I'm really pleased to be joined today by two of my colleagues with particular expertise in this subject, Neil Gunn, Head of Water Research in the Willis Research Network, and Frederick Gentile, Director of Risk Engagement. Neil, can we start off at the very beginning, please, with you. Could you briefly explain what PFAS are for us?

NEIL GUNN: So PFAS stands for Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. That's between you and me, long carbon chains saturated in fluorine. It's a large group of thousands of synthetic compounds that have been used for decades because of their resistance to heat, water and grease. That's made them really, really useful industrially. But the downside is that they don't readily break down. They're extremely mobile in water, air and soil, and they persist in the environment and accumulate over a long period of time. That's why they've got the name forever chemicals.

SUE NEWTON: And why are PFAS a particular concern to the food and beverage sector, Neil?

NEIL GUNN: I think for the food and beverage sector, the challenge is that the PFAS can enter the food chain through many different pathways. So let's talk through those. One of those is an environmental route. So via contaminated soil and water, they can be uptaken by crops or ingested by livestock. Water in particular is a key vector, whether it's used for irrigation processing or as an ingredient.

I'd add to that quite a few agrochemicals are PFAS. They'll probably show up in some of your hazards. There are also contributions from food contact materials. So historically, PFAS have been used in grease proof packaging, which is hard to say quickly, fast food wrappers or bakery papers, and potentially from processing equipment in certain circumstances. We've all heard of Teflon. So

In terms of the products, most at risk, seafood is often highlighted because PFAS accumulates up food chains in the aquatic environment. So that's to say, when small things get eaten by bigger things, they take on and concentrate their PFAS. Unfortunately, PFAS also getting concentrated in grape skins. So wine is a particular concern. But it doesn't stop there. You can also see elevated levels in dairy, meat and eggs where animals have been exposed, as well as in crops grown in contaminated areas.

So that contamination might not be industrial, but it might arrive from the common practice of spreading treated sewage sludge to land as a fertilizer or soil enhancer. So it's not confined to a single category. It's really a supply chain wide issue.

SUE NEWTON: And how does same PFAS it affect human health, Neil, given everything you've just said about all the different places where it exists or could exist? And what current scientific evidence is there to inform us, really, about what the long-term exposure to PFAS might be doing to our health?

NEIL GUNN: So in the same way that PFAS accumulate in the environment, they do so in the human body as well, building up over time. The scientific evidence is quite clear for some classes of PFAS, which have been studied for a long period of time. These chemicals are associated with many illnesses, such as raised cholesterol levels, impaired liver function, and increased risks of certain cancers and immunological disorders. And with other PFAS that haven't been studied for so long, research is still ongoing, but all the evidence is accumulating, pointing to detriments in health all the way across the class, not without exception, but in the main.

The key issue, though, is long term and low level exposure. Even if the concentrations in individual food items are relatively low, we're talking parts per billion, really low amounts, the cumulative effect over time is what regulators and public health bodies are really focused on. So while there's still some uncertainty in the science, there's certainly enough concern to trigger precautionary action.

SUE NEWTON: Given everything you've just told us about what the potential impacts are to human health, can you tell us a little bit about how PFAS are being monitored and how they're regulated in the UK as well, please?

NEIL GUNN: Yeah, sure. I think it's fair to say that regulation is evolving really, really quickly. That's obvious. In the UK, we're broadly aligned for trade purposes with EU frameworks. But when it comes to food safety standards for PFAS, we diverge from them. The EU has established specific limits for PFAS compounds in listed food categories, and regulators are conducting ongoing monitoring and surveillance to track levels across the food chain. In the EU in August this year, PFAS bands were coming on packaging across the whole of that market.

So their initiatives are led by science toward restricting PFAS as a class. And they're kind of dividing things into two groups. Where use of PFAS is not essential, they're looking for a blanket ban. So an example of that would be mascara, which doesn't run when you cry. They don't think that it's necessary, be inclined to agree with them. And where there's a strategic requirement to use PFAS, perhaps in the manufacture of key electronic goods or in defense, there'll be a continued allowance to use PFAS, but with stricter guidelines on closing the loop and cutting down pollution emissions, that is.

So this is a significant change that the UK hasn't mirrored as yet. And though there are discussions that are happening far more slowly than they are in the EU. But we also see tightening standards around drinking water as well, with greater scrutiny of environmental emissions, which will feed through into agriculture and food production. So for businesses, the key takeaway is that regulations and their enforcement are increasing not just in terms of compliance with limits, but in demonstrating that they understand them and are actively managing their exposure across the value chain.

SUE NEWTON: Thanks, Neil. That makes sense and I think leads us nicely into the next question, which Frederick, if we can turn this over to you, please. PFAS isn't a new exposure. Companies in the food and beverage sector have been managing PFAS related risks for some considerable time. So what's different now in terms of how businesses need to be thinking about it?

FREDRICK GENTILE: You're absolutely right, Sue. It's not new, but the context has changed quite significantly. What I mean by that is, in the past, businesses could take a relatively narrow view, complying with defined limits where they were clearly prescribed, testing where required, and focusing on the known substances. I think what's different now is the level of uncertainty and the breadth of the issue. We're moving towards a scenario where the definition of what matters is expanding.

For example, a watch list of PFAS compounds is growing, the thresholds are becoming more stringent, and there's generally a greater scrutiny from regulators, customers and consumers. So the mindset needs to shift from one of reactive compliance to that of proactive risk management, and businesses need to be asking where could PFAS be in our business processes and supply chains, both upstream and downstream? Where are our potential blind spots?

I think there's also a much stronger reputational dimension. Retailers and consumers are becoming more aware of PFAS, and that in turn, creates an expectation around transparency. So even in advance of regulation that Neil was talking about, there's pressure to demonstrate that you're taking the issue seriously.

And let me just contextualize that for a moment. UK media coverage of PFAS escalated dramatically over the last two years. So what started as a specialist environmental story in early 2023 reached the BBC countryfile by August '24, and that prompted a parliamentary inquiry. And by early 2025 the Royal Society of chemistry had found that 9 in 10 UK adults were already concerned about PFAS in their drinking water. The story has gone mainstream, and the regulatory and reputational pressure on water companies in particular is following close behind.

A recently published report on the subject from the environmental audit committee contained a quote which highlights the point about pressure. And the quote was, "the government must hold polluters to account for the release of PFAS into the environment, making them pay for clean up and ensuring they're effectively deterred from future emissions." In short, it's gone from being a technical compliance issue to something that sits firmly on the broader risk and strategy agenda.

SUE NEWTON: That's really helpful, Frederick. Thank you. And building on that, can you outline for us, please, some of the practical measures that businesses should be taking?

FREDRICK GENTILE: Yeah. I think it might be helpful to break it down into a few core areas. The first one is really understanding your exposure. That means mapping your supply chain and looking at your raw materials, the water sources, the processing environments and packaging, and really all of that to identify where PFAS could realistically be present and in what quantities.

I think the second point really is supplier engagement. Businesses can't do this in isolation. They need to work closely with suppliers to get visibility on materials on inputs and controls. And that might involve getting safety data sheets, questionnaires, data requests or even introducing more stringent contractual requirements over time.

I think the third point really is targeted testing and monitoring. You don't necessarily test everything, but you do need to take a risk-based approach, focusing on the higher risk ingredients, geographies, and processes. I guess the fourth point really is reviewing your alternatives, particularly in packaging or food contact materials where PFAS have historically been used. And in many cases, there are viable alternatives emerging. And moving early can reduce both regulatory and reputational risk.

Finally, it's about governance and documentation, and that's being able to demonstrate, if you're challenged, that you understand your risk, you've taken reasonable steps and you're actively managing the issue. So really none of this is about eliminating risk overnight. It's about building a credible defensible position.

SUE NEWTON: Thanks, Frederick. And perhaps now, looking ahead, Neil, what do you see as the biggest challenges and opportunities for tackling PFAS in the food and beverage sector?

NEIL GUNN: That has to be uncertainty. So we've touched on this already, but businesses are having to make decisions now when both the science and the regulatory landscape are still evolving and changing. And that creates a risk of overinvesting in the wrong areas or under preparing for what's coming. And then I would add to that, the complexity of supply chains. So for many businesses, especially those who are sourcing globally, gaining full visibility of what's going on in all the sites that you're sourcing materials from is really difficult.

So PFAS can originate a long way upstream, and tracing it back isn't always straightforward. As Frederic said, documentation, so things like Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) really, really key. But I'd say that alongside that, there's some opportunities opening up as well. For companies that invest early in understanding their exposure and improving traceability, they're likely to be in a far stronger position as regulations tighten. Maybe that would give them some extra flexibility when that happens. But there's also the chance to take a lead on transparency, and being open with how you're managing PFAS can help you build trust with customers and stakeholders, for sure.

Finally, I think there's innovation. We're seeing developments in testing methods, water treatment, and alternative materials which could significantly reduce reliance on PFAS. So while it's definitely a challenge, it's also an opportunity to strengthen resilience, improve supply chain insight and differentiate yourself in the market.

SUE NEWTON: Great. Thanks, Neil. And finally, perhaps a closing thought from each of you please. What's the one piece of advice you would like to leave listeners with?

NEIL GUNN: So for me, I think it would be not to wait for perfect clarity. You're unlikely to get it. I would focus on understanding where your exposure might be and start taking proportionate steps now. Even simple actions like reviewing suppliers or asking the right questions can make a meaningful difference, and they can be conducted as part of your existing business activities anyway.

SUE NEWTON: From you Frederick. Thanks.

FREDRICK GENTILE: From my perspective, Sue, businesses must start treating PFAS as a strategic issue, not just an operational technical one. And I think that those businesses that navigate this part well will be the ones that integrate it into their wider risk management, their sustainability, and the communications approach. Just remember, it's not just about compliance, it's about credibility.

SUE NEWTON: Thank you. And that brings us to the end of today's podcast. Thanks very much, Neil and Frederick, for your insights and to you for joining us. If you've enjoyed today's discussion, please subscribe, rate, and share this podcast. Thank you and goodbye.

SPEAKER: Thank you for listening to this podcast from Willis a WTW business. The information in this podcast is believed to be accurate at the date of publication. This information may have subsequently changed or have been superseded, and should not be relied upon to be accurate or suitable after this date. This podcast offers a general overview of its subject matter. It does not necessarily address every aspect of its subject or every product available in the market. It is not intended to be, and should not be used to replace specific advice relating to individual situations.

We do not offer and this should not be taken as legal, accounting, or tax advice. If you intend to take action or make any decision on the basis of the content of this publication, you should first seek specific advice from an appropriate professional. Some of the information in this publication may be compiled from third party sources we consider to be reliable. However, we do not guarantee and are not responsible for the accuracy of such.

The views expressed are not necessarily those of Willis Towers Watson. For further authorization and regulatory details about our Willis Towers Watson legal entities operating in your country, please refer to our Willis Towers Watson website. It is a regulatory requirement for us to consider our local licensing requirements.