The Commonwealth of Australia has filed a landmark lawsuit against US industrial conglomerate 3M over its manufacture of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the so-called ‘forever chemicals’ that have been linked to cancer, liver damage, and immune system suppression. This legal action, coupled with mounting pressure from British MPs for a complete ban on PFAS, signals a strategic escalation in the global crackdown on these persistent environmental toxins. For the defence and security community, this is not merely a regulatory scuffle; it is a wake-up call about the vulnerabilities embedded in our supply chains and the legacy contamination that now threatens our military readiness and national security.
PFAS are used extensively in military equipment: from firefighting foams at airbases to waterproof coatings for uniforms and non-stick coatings for components. Their persistence in the environment means they accumulate in groundwater, soil, and the human body. Australia’s lawsuit, which alleges that 3M knew of the health risks for decades, is a direct assault on a key supplier to the defence industrial base. If successful, it could disrupt supply chains, raise costs, and force a rapid shift to alternative materials. The British MPs’ call for a ban adds political momentum, potentially creating a regulatory domino effect across NATO and Five Eyes nations.
From an intelligence perspective, this is a classic threat vector: a slow-moving but catastrophic contamination that undermines force health protection and operational security. The Australian Defence Force has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars on PFAS remediation at bases like Williamtown, RAAF Base Amberley, and Army barracks in Queensland. The contamination of water sources near these facilities has led to litigation from affected communities and veterans, eroding trust in the institution. The British military faces similar issues, with PFAS found in groundwater around MOD sites. The parliamentary call for a ban suggests that political leaders are losing patience with the military-industrial complex’s slow response.
The strategic pivot here is clear: we must decouple from legacy PFAS as a matter of national security. The current reliance on a single class of chemicals for critical applications creates a strategic vulnerability. If a hostile actor were to target our PFAS suppliers or exploit the legal chaos, they could degrade our ability to fight fires, maintain equipment, and protect personnel. Furthermore, the diplomatic implications are significant. Australia suing a US firm could strain the alliance, especially if the US government intervenes to protect a strategic supplier. Conversely, a coordinated ban across Five Eyes could force industry to innovate faster, but only if we invest in R&D now.
The intelligence failure here is twofold: first, the decades-long delay in recognising the threat, despite early warning signs from studies in the 1960s and 70s. Second, the failure to secure alternative materials before the legal and regulatory storm broke. Every defence ministry should be asking: what other ‘forever’ contaminants are lurking in our supply chains? The lesson is that environmental toxins are a form of hybrid warfare, slowly degrading our human capital and creaking infrastructure.
In operational terms, the Australian lawsuit and British MPs’ move are the opening salvos in a new front of the war on hostile contaminants. The defence community must treat PFAS with the same urgency as any other threat agent: map the contamination, invest in remediation, and pivot to safer substitutes. The time for strategic procrastination is over. If we fail to act, we will be fighting future conflicts on polluted battlefields with poisoned personnel. That is an unacceptable risk.
