A ban on forever chemicals would be best
Kallinge is one of a growing list of European towns with extreme levels of Pfas. In fact, there are tens of thousands of contaminated sites. It is time to slam on the brakes. There is a lot of talk about clean-up technologies and how these might solve the problem. But relying on clean-ups is like bailing out a sinking boat with a teacup while the crew is busy drilling new holes in the hull. Legislation is urgent and essential. Indeed, Europe has a detailed plan to ban all Pfas, and with strict time limits on transitions to safe alternatives.
But now Brussels says that, instead, it intends to exclude these chemicals from consumer products only. These account for barely one-fifth of all Pfas emissions, so banning them would only slow the rate at which they accumulate in water, soil and human tissue. Such a partial ban would be a short‑sighted capitulation to commercial interests and a free‑market ideology that opposes all regulation.
Even when we halt the Pfas locomotive, we will be cleaning up this mess for decades to come.
Jonatan Kleimark
Head of corporate sustainability, ChemSec (International Chemical Secretariat), Gothenburg, Sweden
Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
Inquiry hears of older people ‘cull' as Matt Hancock defends care home policies
Care home deaths felt like a 'cull of older people who could no longer contribute to the society', the UK Covid-19 inquiry has heard as Matt Hancock defended his handling of an 'impossible' situation. There were tense exchanges as the former health secretary returned to give evidence to the wide-ranging probe, this time focused on the adult social care sector. Mr Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting to breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, responded to an accusation he had 'blatantly lied about the situation with care homes'. At a Downing Street press conference on May 15 2020, Mr Hancock said: 'Right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.' Bereaved families have previously called the phrase a 'sickening lie' and a 'joke'. The inquiry has heard there were more than 43,000 deaths involving the virus in care homes across the UK between March 2020 and July 2022, and a civil servant was quoted earlier this week describing the toll as a 'generational slaughter within care homes'. On Wednesday, remarks were read to the inquiry from an anonymous witness, who accused Mr Hancock of not being heartfelt or having a proper understanding of the situation care homes were in during the pandemic. Counsel to the inquiry Jacqueline Carey KC, who gave no further information on the person's identity or their role, said: 'One person in particular said 'He (Mr Hancock) blatantly lied about the situation with care homes, there was no blanket of protection. We were left to sail our own ships. He wasn't heartfelt. He had no understanding or appreciation of the challenges care homes face, pandemic or not, it felt like we were the sacrifice, a cull of older people who could no longer contribute to the society'.' Mr Hancock said he felt it was 'not helpful' for the inquiry to 'exchange brickbats' – a term used to describe a verbal attack. He added: 'I've been through everything that we did as a department, a big team effort, and we were all pulling as hard as we possibly could to save lives – that's what I meant by saying that we tried to throw a protective ring around. 'Of course, it wasn't perfect. It was impossible – it was an unprecedented pandemic, and the context was exceptionally difficult. 'What I care about is the substance of what we did, the protections that we put in place, and most importantly, what we can do in the future to ensure that the options available are better than they were last time.' He said the emphasis was on ''tried' – it was not possible to protect as much as I would have wanted'. He added that he and others were 'trying to do everything that we possibly could' in 'bleak circumstances' at a time when 'I also had (former government adviser) Dominic Cummings and a load of people causing all sorts of problems for me, and I had Covid'. Elsewhere in his evidence, Mr Hancock – who said one of his own relatives died in a care home but did not give further details – acknowledged the policy around discharging patients from hospital into care homes early in the pandemic was an 'incredibly contentious issue'. When the pandemic hit in early 2020, hospital patients were rapidly discharged into care homes in a bid to free up beds and prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed. However, there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April. This was despite growing awareness of the risks of people without Covid-19 symptoms being able to spread the virus. The High Court ruled in 2022 that government policies on discharging hospital patients into care homes at the start of the pandemic were 'unlawful'. While the judges said it was necessary to discharge patients 'to preserve the capacity of the NHS', they found it was 'irrational' for the Government not to have advised that asymptomatic patients should isolate from existing residents for 14 days after admission. Asked about the policy, Mr Hancock said there were no good options, adding: 'It's the least-worst decision that could have been taken at the time.' Pressed further, he said he had both agreed with and defended the decision at the time. He added that 'nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives.' He said while the policy had been a government decision, it had been 'driven' by then-NHS chief executive Sir Simon Stevens, now Lord Stevens. The inquiry heard Mr Hancock said in his witness statement that NHS England had 'insisted' on the policy, and while he did not take the decision himself, he took responsibility for it as then-health secretary. Asked about March 17 2020 when NHS bosses were instructed to begin the discharge process, Mr Hancock said officials were 'pushing very hard' to get more PPE (personal protective equipment) into care homes. He said not advising care homes to isolate returning residents without symptoms was a 'mistake', but it was in line with clinical guidance at the time. In 2023, appearing for a separate module of the inquiry, Mr Hancock admitted the so-called protective ring he said had been put around care homes early in the pandemic was not an unbroken one, and said he understood the strength of feeling people have on the issue. Mr Hancock's statement, referred to during Wednesday's hearing, said while there had been 'widespread concern' that patients being discharged from hospital were the main source of infection in care homes, 'we learned in the summer of 2020 that staff movement between care homes was the main source of transmission'. He told the inquiry he had wanted to bring in a ban on staff movement between care homes but that being unable to secure funding from the Treasury to compensate affected workers was a 'killer blocker' so it did not happen. Nicola Brook, a solicitor representing more than 7,000 families from Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK (CBFFJ), said Mr Hancock's claim that the discharge policy had been the least-worst decision available was 'an insult to the memory of each and every person who died'. The CBFFJ group has written to inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett, to express their concern at some 'key decision-makers' not expected to be called in this module, including former prime minister Boris Johnson and Lord Stevens. When asked about when visits to care homes were banned, which led to some people unable to be with their loved ones when they died, Mr Hancock said: 'Some of the things people went through are truly ghastly.' He said while visiting restrictions 'are a reasonable measure', there should be more 'nuance' in future. Outlining the state of the adult social care sector at the outbreak of the pandemic, Mr Hancock said it 'was badly in need of, and remains badly in need of, reform', but rejected the suggestion of it being a 'Cinderella service to the NHS'. He said pandemic contingency plans, prepared by local authorities for adult social care, had been 'as good as useless' at the time, and described a 'hodge podge of accountability' between local councils and government departments. He claimed the situation has 'got worse not better' for care homes in the event of another pandemic hitting, and suggested a series of recommendations, including having isolation facilities in care homes and ensuring a stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE). Hearings for module six of the inquiry, focused on the effect the pandemic had on both the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the UK, are expected to run until the end of July.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Once again, Diane Abbott has given us a glimpse into Labour's dark soul
For years, Diane Abbott has been the unlucky teddy-bear strapped to the grille of the Corbynite lorry. After coming to prominence in the Eighties as the first black woman in Parliament, her slow slump into ineptitude meant she came to be seen as little more than a mascot as magic grandpa drove Labour to its worst electoral defeat since 1935. Even under Starmerite rule, however, she's still clinging to that red bonnet, keffiyeh fluttering. Thank God for that. From wearing two left shoes on the campaign trail to brain-freezing spectacularly in interviews, Abbott has long provided the nation with a great deal of mirth (tempered, it should be added, with much compassion for her medical complaints). But her value is greater than that. When the veteran socialist took to X this week to lambast the hated Israel Defence Forces based on highly dubious reports that it had apparently opened fire on civilians for the fun of it – how else do Jews spend their time, amirite? – she did the nation a service by showing us Labour's true colours. 'Beyond horrific that the Jewish Defence Force is gunning down Palestinians as they queue for food #Gaza Genocide,' she wrote. The Jewish Defence Force? Oops! When it comes to slips of the mask, the Hackney MP does it more ham-fistedly and more frequently than anybody else. If she was half as slick as her colleagues, she'd be selling us snake-oil with the best of them. Instead, she can't help but show us what's in the bottle. (Though she has since deleted her tweet). Think, for example, of when she wrote to the Observer a few months before October 7 to assert that Jews were unable to suffer racism, only 'prejudice, like redheads'. (She later apologised for and retracted her comments). Now, I don't know if any kibbutzim of gingers exist anywhere in the world, but if they did, I'd be fairly certain they'd be safe from the marauding butchery of Hamas. After being suspended from the party, she vehemently denied a report that she refused to go on an anti-Semitism awareness course to have the ban lifted. In any event, it would have been fatuous to sit through a lecture on the topic and be awarded a clean bill of health when your passions run that deep. Yes, the best kind of bigot is one who lacks self-awareness. When the whip was finally restored to the member for Hackney North, there was no mistaking the hollowness of her leader's pledges of zero tolerance on the subject of anti-Semitism. And now we have her tweet this week. The fundamental truth is that like Leftist movements all over the world, Labour has a problem with Jews. The moderates do their best, equivocating, browbeating, overthinking and smarming, but when the chips are down they can't restrain their instinctive repulsion for Israel. Did anybody believe that Keir Starmer, who campaigned hard to put Corbyn in Number Ten, would have any scruples whatsoever when it came to selling Britain's Jews down the river? Sadly, many people did. Great numbers of Jewish voters of the Left who had abandoned their natural home during the Corbyn years were only too willing to give Sir Keir the benefit of the doubt. I know. I couldn't work it out, either, at the time. One year on and where do we find ourselves? With a Government that singles out Israel for repeated condemnation while downplaying the depravity of Hamas and failing even to stand firm against the Islamic Republic of Iran, whether overseas or on our own shores. Which brings me back to Abbott. Here she is on Iran: 'Trump knows that Iran is not close to building a bomb. But he is directing the attacks on Iran anyway… Netanyahu is aiming for regime destruction.' She also argued a military campaign would be 'catastrophic'. Here she is on banning Palestine Action: 'It really is wrong… What Israel is doing is terrorism. What Palestine Action is doing is protesting it.' In fact, she would rather proscribe Israeli politicians than the thugs who sabotaged an RAF aircraft. 'The entire Israeli government should be sanctioned,' she ranted. It doesn't end there. Here, for good measure, are Abbott's thoughts on the child rape gangs: 'There is a lot of nonsense and deliberate misinformation about child sexual grooming. Some media only 'care' about certain predators, some politicians talk as if they are the only perpetrators.' Abbott is the gift that keeps giving. She is the true, unfiltered voice of the Left who insists on saying the quiet part out loud. From Starmer's point of view, he should have dumped her ages ago. For the country, however, the longer she remains pinned to the lorry the better.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Bond yields rise and pound falls as Starmer fails to back Reeves
UK government borrowing costs jumped sharply and the pound declined against major currencies as markets speculated on the future of Rachel Reeves. Bond yields rose sharply across the board after the chancellor was seen crying in the House of Commons during prime minister's question time. Reeves was visibly distraught seated next to Sir Keir Starmer during a debate on the government's U-turn on disability welfare reforms. The yield on the ten-year gilt gained 0.22 percentage points on the footage to 4.6 per cent, reversing an earlier fall in morning trading, and registering the sharpest intra-day climb since President Trump's tariffs announcement on April 2. Borrowing costs on 30-year bonds also gained 0.21 percentage points to 5.45 per cent — a six-week high. Bond yields rise when the price of the asset falls. • Tax increases may be the only lever left for the chancellor to pull Investors also dumped the pound, forcing sterling 1 per cent lower against the dollar to $1.36 and 0.7 per cent weaker against the euro at €1.15. A Labour spokesperson later said the chancellor's upset was due 'personal reasons'. The moves are the biggest market reaction yet to the Labour government, which economists said will struggle to meet its fiscal rules after the £5 billion in savings from proposed welfare reforms have been wiped out by this week's amendments. The U-turn on winter fuel payments had also left Reeves with another £1.5 billion gap to be filled with tax rises or further spending cuts at the autumn budget. The chancellor has repeated her commitment to meeting her target to balance day-to-day spending with tax revenues within the next five years, despite having less than a £10 billion buffer against the target. Analysts at Deutsche Bank calculated an estimated £31 billion hole in the public finances in the autumn, caused by downgrades to future productivity growth, market changes in borrowing costs and rising trade uncertainty. • UK borrowing falls in May after higher tax on businesses Neil Mehta, portfolio manager at RBC BlueBay Asset Management, which is a holder of gilts, said a 'fiscal crisis now appears to be on the horizon unless tough decisions, such as tax rises, are enacted. Markets will be on high alert over the next months.' Bond markets and the pound had been broadly unmoved by the government's decision to water down its pensioner winter fuel payment restrictions and concessions to backbenchers over cuts to personal independence payments. Gilts had rallied earlier this week after the Bank of England indicated that it could slow down the pace of its bond sales to the market. Previous episodes of bond market stress this year have been driven mainly by Trump's economic policies, from proposed tariffs to a major expansion in the US fiscal deficit. The pound has also risen by more than 9 per cent against the weakening dollar this year.
