The Australian government has launched a landmark lawsuit against the US conglomerate 3M over its production of PFAS, so-called ‘forever chemicals’ that contaminate water supplies and accumulate in the human body. The case, filed in a federal court in New South Wales, seeks compensation for the cost of cleaning up toxic firefighting foam used at airports and military bases. In Britain, the Ministry of Defence is now reviewing its use of PFAS in firefighting foams, raising questions about the safety of those who serve and the communities living near training grounds.
PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are used in everything from non-stick pans to waterproof clothing but their resilience means they never break down in the environment. They have been linked to cancers, liver damage and fertility issues. The 3M case is the latest in a string of legal actions globally, following a $10.3 billion settlement in the US last year for water contamination claims.
For the UK, the immediate concern is military equipment. The Royal Air Force and Navy have used PFAS-based foams for decades to extinguish fuel fires. A Ministry of Defence spokesperson confirmed: ‘We are actively reviewing the use of PFAS in firefighting foams to ensure compliance with evolving environmental and health standards. Where alternatives are available, we will transition quickly.’ But campaigners say the pace is too slow. Steve Voller, whose family’s farm in Northamptonshire was contaminated by PFAS from a nearby airbase, said: ‘They knew the risks. It’s not just about soldiers. It’s about the water we drink and the food we grow.’
Australia’s lawsuit is a high-stakes move. Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus described the chemicals as ‘an insidious threat’. The case argues 3M knew of the dangers as far back as the 1970s but suppressed evidence. 3M has said it is committed to ‘responsible management’ and that its products were used in accordance with regulations at the time.
The impact on British households could be significant. Drinking water supplies near military training sites, including in Suffolk, Wiltshire and Lincolnshire, have shown PFAS levels above recommended limits. Water companies, which face clean-up costs potentially running into billions, are pressing regulators to force a shift. Meanwhile, unions representing firefighters have called for a national ban. Mark Walkington of the Fire Brigades Union said: ‘Our members are getting sick, and we still don’t have a clear timeline for a safer alternative. This is a matter of life and death.’
The cost of clean-up falls on the public purse or on water bills. Australia’s case could set a precedent, forcing manufacturers to pay. But for now, the government is taking a cautious approach. A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spokesperson said: ‘We are reviewing the evidence and working with international partners. The UK is committed to phasing out PFAS in firefighting foams by 2025 where safe alternatives exist.’ to many, that target is too distant.
This is not just about chemicals. It is about who bears the risk and who foots the bill. Workers, soldiers and families in the shadow of military bases have been left in the dark for too long. The Australian lawsuit shines a light on a global problem, and the UK must now decide whether to join the fight or leave its own people to swallow the cost.
