PFAS — often called “forever chemicals” — represent one of the most serious and poorly regulated pollution crises in the UK. Resistant to heat, water and oil, PFAS have been used for decades in firefighting foams, on waterproof clothing and outdoor gear, non-stick coatings on pans, stain repellent on carpets and furniture, and in lots of industrial processes. They persist in the environment and accumulate in our bodies over a lifetime.
You may have heard of PFOA – a type of PFAS – from the true story of the world’s biggest class action lawsuit documented in the Hollywood film, Dark Waters, starring Mark Ruffalo. It tells the story of how DuPont, makers of Teflon, poisoned a town in West Virginia and the 20-year legal battle that followed.
Here in the UK, a similar situation is unfolding. We have spent the past 18 months investigating two major PFAS hotspots: Bentham (North Yorkshire) and Thornton-Cleveleys (Lancashire). What began as a single journalist’s inquiry evolved into a major national issue, with ongoing parliamentary scrutiny, media investigations and a steadily expanding legal case led by Fighting Dirty.
This review summarises how the case is unfolding — and why the UK’s regulatory system has repeatedly failed to protect the public.
The First Lead: A Toxic Town in North Yorkshire
The entire PFAS investigation began when an investigative journalist approached us with troubling findings from Bentham, a small town in North Yorkshire.
Based on extensive review of residents’ records and local environmental data, Bentham appeared to be “the most PFAS-polluted place in the UK.”
The pollution was traced to Angus Fire, a manufacturer of firefighting foams that had allowed PFAS-laden lagoon water to leak into local watercourses for years. The contamination spread through groundwater, soil, and air — all without effective intervention from the Environment Agency (EA).
But Bentham was only the beginning.
A Second Site: Thornton-Cleveleys, Lancashire
While examining Bentham, we uncovered similar — and in some ways more revealing — evidence at AGC Chemicals in Thornton-Cleveleys. AGC manufactures fluorochemicals, the very substances at the centre of global PFAS concerns.
This site became the focus of the investigation for several reasons:
- The EA’s own internal documents showed long-standing concern about PFAS risk.
- AGC was preparing a new Section 61 permit, effectively updating their emissions permissions.
- During a formal PFAS Inquiry, AGC failed to disclose that they were actively emitting PFAS — until corrected by a representative from the Royal Society of Chemistry.
- Thousands of pages of correspondence showed evidence gaps, inconsistent monitoring, and unclear enforcement.
For now, we concluded that AGC offered the clearest “smoking gun” of regulatory negligence — making it the best test case for exposing national-scale failures.
What PFAS Are — and Why Dilution Doesn’t Work
PFAS accumulate in human and animal tissue, linger for decades and have been linked to:
- immune system disruption,
- fertility issues,
- thyroid disease, and
- certain cancers.
Crucially, PFAS do not break down naturally, and even “trace levels” accumulate over time.
This is why one of Britain’s commonly used pollution models — “dilute and disperse” — is fundamentally flawed when it comes to PFAS.
Dilution may reduce the harm of substances like lead, arsenic, or pathogens, but for PFAS it simply spreads contamination further, embedding it deeper into water systems and food chains.
The UK’s regulatory framework has not caught up with this reality.
The Regulatory Failure Behind PFAS Pollution
Across Bentham and Thornton-Cleveleys, we are finding consistent patterns of failure by the Environment Agency:
- Lack of proactive investigation
Pollution continued for years without meaningful intervention. - Insufficient monitoring requirements
Water companies were not required to test for PFAS — and often didn’t. - Generic waste codes
PFAS-contaminated materials moved through the system under broad categories that concealed their true contents. - Permit systems not updated for modern chemical risks
The Section 61 amendment process at AGC became a flashpoint for revealing these gaps. - Inadequate response to emerging evidence
Even when the EA had documentation indicating PFAS dangers, enforcement actions were inconsistent or absent. - Protecting polluters, not citizens
While the companies that create pollution were allowed to continue profiting for decades, local residents were not informed about the risks and how to protect themselves.
This is exactly the kind of systemic failure Fighting Dirty was built to challenge.
Building the Case: Thousands of Documents and Expert Analysis
Once the scale of the PFAS issue became clear, our team began:
- filing Environmental Information Requests (EIRs),
- gathering correspondence between AGC and the EA,
- compiling permit applications and emissions data,
- and engaging directly with impacted residents.
We have hired a forensic chemical scientist, whose role is to analyse the vast dataset and identify where regulatory action fell short.
We are currently raising £15,000 to complete this expert analysis — a crucial step in preparing any legal challenge.
To date, the evidence corpus includes thousands of pages of technical material.
A National Conversation Emerges
As the investigation progressed, we shared carefully selected documents with trusted journalists, including those at ENDS Report, whose subsequent long-read investigation credited Fighting Dirty directly.
Meanwhile, we have also:
- provided evidence to MPs in the parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee,
- supported journalists from major news outlets,
- engaged with residents living near affected sites,
- and worked with major documentary producers to explore international coverage.
Political scrutiny intensified when Georgia met with two members of the Environmental Audit Committee, including the Chair, to explain the regulatory gaps that allowed PFAS pollution to become so widespread.
What Makes the AGC Case Legally Significant
The AGC site provides a rare combination of:
- documented emissions,
- internal regulatory concern,
- permit changes underway,
- public scrutiny already on record,
- and long-term pollution with clear community impact.
This combination could allow Fighting Dirty to argue that the EA failed in its legal duty to prevent environmental harm.
If the Section 61 permit — expected in early 2025 — appears legally inadequate, it may trigger a judicial review.
Why This Case Matters for the UK
PFAS pollution is not an isolated issue. What we’ve uncovered at AGC and Bentham likely reflects a much larger national problem:
- old industrial sites leaking into aquifers;
- sewage treatment works receiving PFAS-contaminated waste;
- water companies not required to test for or remove PFAS from water or the sewage sludge that they sell as a fertiliser to farmers;
- regulators dependent on outdated models.
This case offers the opportunity to set a legal precedent:
a ruling that requires regulators to actively prevent PFAS contamination rather than simply document it.
As Georgia summarised at one point in the investigation:
“They’ve known residents are being exposed to harmful substances, and they’ve allowed it to continue.”
That simple sentence captures the core of the case.
The Road Ahead
Our PFAS investigation is ongoing. The next major milestones include:
- completion of the expert chemical analysis,
- review of the forthcoming Section 61 permit,
- further publication of findings via trusted journalists,
- continuous engagement with affected communities, and
- potential legal action against the EA.
PFAS contamination is a slow-moving emergency. But with persistence, expert collaboration and citizen-led legal pressure, this case could reshape how the UK regulates dangerous chemicals — and how it protects its people.
PFAS pollution thrives on being unseen.
These chemicals don’t cause immediate disasters. They accumulate quietly in water, soil and bloodstreams — while regulators delay, deny and defer responsibility.
Fighting Dirty exists to make the invisible visible: through investigations, legal pressure and forcing regulators to confront what they would rather ignore.
If you can, donate today — and help us shine a light where contamination depends on darkness.