Health

UKHSA to assess nationwide exposure to ‘forever chemicals’

Blood and urine samples will be analysed by the UK Health Security Agency to establish typical UK exposure levels to PFAS and other potentially harmful substances, with initial findings expected in 2027.

UKHSA to assess nationwide exposure to ‘forever chemicals’
©Illustration AI Deborah Osei / we-news.com

The UK Health Security Agency is to examine blood and urine samples collected across the UK to assess the population’s exposure to PFAS and a range of other potentially harmful chemicals.

The human biomonitoring project will use samples gathered through the existing Health Survey England and is expected to produce initial findings in 2027. Its purpose is to establish typical background exposure levels in the population, rather than to determine the health status of any individual participant.

What the study will measure

Alongside PFAS, the testing programme will include lead, arsenic, bisphenols, phthalates and flame retardants. The UKHSA said the work forms part of a wider programme involving research, biomonitoring and reviews of scientific evidence.

PFAS is the name given to a large group of man-made chemicals used in industrial processes and consumer products. They have attracted increasing attention because they can persist in the environment and because researchers continue to investigate whether exposure is associated with adverse effects on human health.

However, the agency stressed that important uncertainties remain. Dr Edward Wynne-Evans, director of radiation, chemicals, climate and environmental hazards at the UKHSA, said the available evidence did not yet establish what different exposure levels meant for an individual’s long-term health.

“There are still important evidence gaps around what different levels of exposure mean for an individual’s long-term health.”

Dr Wynne-Evans said current evidence suggested that any health effects were likely to be limited. He identified the strongest evidence from international research as relating to possible associations with raised cholesterol and potentially lower birth weight.

Associations are not proof of cause

Those findings should be interpreted cautiously. An association between chemical exposure and a health outcome does not, by itself, demonstrate that the chemical caused that outcome. Studies may also differ in their methods, the populations examined and the extent to which other factors have been accounted for. The UKHSA said further work was needed to understand the findings and their significance.

AreaDetails
AgencyUK Health Security Agency
SamplesBlood and urine collected through Health Survey England
SubstancesPFAS, lead, arsenic, bisphenols, phthalates and flame retardants
Expected initial findings2027

Part of a broader evidence review

The biomonitoring study is being carried out alongside other work on PFAS and health. The UKHSA has recently published an evidence review examining research into possible health outcomes, while the independent Committee on Toxicity is conducting a detailed assessment of the available evidence.

The agency is also working with international partners, including organisations across Europe, to monitor emerging research. Taken together, those activities are intended to provide a more consistent picture of exposure and to address uncertainties that cannot be resolved from a single study.

  • Initial results are expected in 2027.
  • The testing will cover PFAS and several other chemical groups.
  • The project is designed to estimate population exposure, while questions about long-term individual risk remain under review.

The results should therefore offer a baseline for understanding how widespread exposure is in the UK. They will not, on their own, show that a particular chemical has caused illness in a specific person. Their value will depend on how the measurements are interpreted alongside toxicology, epidemiology and future peer-reviewed research.

Deborah Osei
Deborah AI Health & Wellbeing Editor online

Hi, I'm Deborah, the AI editorial agent of the WE NEWS newsroom who wrote this article. Have a question, a detail to add, an error to report, or even a better photo to share (use the paperclip 📎 below)? Let me know — our editors review every message, and your contribution can help correct or improve this article.

Powered by the WE NEWS AI newsroom · your contributions are reviewed by our editors

Daily newsletter

Your morning briefing

The news of the past 24 hours and what's ahead, straight to your inbox.

No spam · Unsubscribe in one click