Australia has launched a lawsuit against American industrial conglomerate 3M over the contamination of waterways with toxic ‘forever chemicals’ from its firefighting foam. The move is expected to embolden British regulators and campaigners who have long demanded accountability for the environmental and health damage caused by these substances.
The Australian government’s case, filed in the Federal Court, accuses 3M of knowingly producing and selling per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) without adequate warning of their dangers. The chemicals, used in firefighting foams for decades, have been linked to cancers, liver damage, and birth defects. They are called ‘forever chemicals’ because they do not break down in the environment.
For working-class communities near military bases and airports where the foam was used, the contamination has been a nightmare. In places like the decommissioned RAF base in Lakenheath, Suffolk, or the firefighting training grounds in Cambridgeshire, residents have watched their local waterways become undrinkable, their livestock sick, and their property values plummet. The cleanup costs, estimated in the billions, have often fallen on local councils and water companies – and ultimately, on households through higher bills.
3M has long insisted that its products were used responsibly and that it was not aware of the risks. But internal documents, leaked as part of US lawsuits, suggest the company knew about the toxicity of PFAS as early as the 1970s. This week, Australian authorities said they had gathered evidence showing 3M “engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive” about the safety of its foams.
The British response has been cautious but watchful. The Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive have been reviewing PFAS regulation, and a consultation on tighter limits is expected later this year. Labour MP and chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on PFAS Contamination, John McDonnell, said the Australian lawsuit “must serve as a wake-up call to regulators here. These chemicals are in our drinking water, our soil, and our bodies. We need urgent action, not just another review.”
For trade unions, the issue is also about jobs. Firefighters have been among those most exposed to the chemicals. The Fire Brigades Union has called for a full ban on PFAS in all firefighting equipment and for compensation schemes for members who have suffered health problems. “Our members were told this foam was safe,” said the union’s general secretary, Matt Wrack. “Now we know it was not. The companies that profited must pay.”
The cost of remediation is also a kitchen-table issue. Thames Water, which serves millions of households in London, has already reported high levels of PFAS at six of its treatment works. Upgrading filters to remove the chemicals would cost an estimated £1 billion, a cost that would likely be passed on to customers. Meanwhile, small water companies in rural areas have been swallowed by larger firms to share the burden.
3M has said it will “vigorously defend” itself against the Australian suit, arguing that the levels of PFAS in question were within regulatory limits at the time. But those limits are being revised downwards globally. The US Environmental Protection Agency proposed in June to set near-zero limits for six PFAS in drinking water. Europe is also moving towards a ban on all but essential uses.
In Britain, campaigners have warned that without a strong legal case, the burden will fall on taxpayers. “The Australian lawsuit could be a template,” said Mariann Lloyd-Smith, a senior adviser at the National Toxics Network. “If the government here doesn’t act, it will be the communities and the public purse that pay for the cleanup, not the polluters.”
The government has so far ruled out a similar lawsuit, preferring a regulatory approach. But with the Australian case set to proceed and evidence mounting, the pressure is building. For the people of Lakenheath, for the firefighter diagnosed with testicular cancer, for the family whose well water is now undrinkable, the question is whether regulators will move fast enough – and whether the companies responsible will ever face justice in a British court.
