Australia has launched legal action against 3M, accusing the multinational of concealing the dangers of its firefighting foams containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances. The contamination, now affecting water supplies and ecosystems, is part of a broader, accelerating crisis of industrial toxicity that shadows our attempts at energy transition.
The lawsuit, filed in a federal court, alleges that 3M knew for decades that its aqueous film-forming foams were toxic and persistent. Yet the company continued to market them, contaminating sites across the country. The Australian government now seeks compensation for clean up costs, which are expected to run into billions.
Parallel to this announcement, UK procurement standards for defence equipment have been publicly commended as ‘the safest on Earth’. This juxtaposition is instructive. One nation pursues retrospective accountability for regulatory failure; another claims to have engineered a system that pre-emptively eliminates such catastrophes. But how much of this is narrative, and how much is real?
Let us be clear about the science of PFAS. These compounds are human-made, with carbon-fluorine bonds so strong they almost never degrade. In organisms, they bioaccumulate. They have been linked to kidney cancer, thyroid disruption, and immune suppression. They are not a remote risk. They are a measurable, present danger.
The fact that we continue to discover such wide scale contamination globally is a feature of our reliance on cheap, persistent chemistry. The UK’s defence procurement – which includes rigorous testing, cradle to grave tracking, and a no-compromise exit strategy for hazardous materials – stands as a model. Yet we must ask: why is this not the norm across all sectors?
Energy transition offers a parallel here. We are shifting from fossil fuels to low-carbon technologies. But many of these, like lithium-ion batteries and solar panels, rely on rare earths and novel materials whose toxicity and life cycle impacts are poorly understood. History suggests we may be setting up the next generation of PFAS-style crises.
Australia’s case against 3M is a moment of accountability. It sends a signal that the costs of ignoring industrial pollution will eventually have to be paid. But legal action is an ex-post solution. What we need is ex-ante prevention. That means international regulatory frameworks that mirror the best practices, not the lowest common denominator.
The UK’s defence standards are a pragmatic gold standard. They are not about being virtuous. They are about being prepared. They accept that materials have consequences, and that the cheapest upfront cost often hides the most expensive bill later.
For the biosphere, the message is clear. Our industrial systems must be evaluated not just for their output, but for their long-term persistence. 3M’s foams were effective. That was never the issue. The issue was that they did not break down, and now they are in the rain, the soil, and our blood.
The transition to a sustainable economy is not just about energy. It is about materials. It is about chemistry. It is about designing systems that do not load future generations with invisible, toxic debt.
As the Australian case unfolds, we should watch not just for the verdict, but for the precedent it sets. If accountability can be enforced retroactively, it might just encourage proactive responsibility. And if the UK’s defence procurement is as robust as claimed, then it provides a template for how to manage dangerous substances without compromising safety or efficacy.
This is not an abstract issue. It is about the next decades of life on Earth. And we are going to have to make very specific, data-driven decisions to avoid repeating past mistakes.
