PFAS in Drinking Water: Setting a Standard for Jersey
Speech in the States Assembly 25 March 2026
I would like to begin by congratulating the Minister for the Environment for bringing forward this amendment to the Water Law and for delivering on his commitment.
Why this matters
Today is the first time this Assembly is being asked to place a legal standard on PFAS in our drinking water. That matters.
Because once a standard is written into law, it defines what is considered safe and what level of exposure we are prepared to accept for every Islander.
What are PFAS?
PFAS are known as “forever chemicals”. They do not break down. They accumulate in the environment,
and they accumulate in the human body. The Government’s own work confirms this. PFAS have been found in groundwater, streams, and in the public water supply.
They are linked to a range of health outcomes, including impacts on the immune system, cancers, neurological development, and liver function.
A long-standing issue for Jersey
This is not new. We have known about PFAS contamination in Jersey for decades, linked to the historic use of firefighting foam at the Airport. This is not an emerging issue. It is a long-standing one.
The scientific recommendations
That is why the Scientific Advisory Panel was established:
- to review the evidence
- to assess the risks
- to recommend a standard that protects Islanders
They carried out that work thoroughly:
- reviewing international studies
- engaging with global experts
- assessing treatment options
Their recommendation was clear: 4 nanograms per litre, to be achieved within five years
Understanding the science
It is important to understand how this standard fits within the wider science.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assesses chemical risk across Europe. Their work established a Tolerable Weekly Intake (TWI) , it’ sthe level of PFAS exposure considered safe. This level is extremely low.
And importantly, it is a total exposure figure, including:
- drinking water
- food
- the wider environment
Water typically accounts for around 20% of total exposure.
Why water standards matter
The standard we set for water therefore matters enormously. Because if a large share of that total intake is taken up just by drinking water, there is little room left for other sources. And total exposure can exceed what is considered safe. This is why the Panel’s recommendation is not arbitrary it sits within a full exposure framework.
International context
Globally, the direction is clear:
- Denmark: 2 ng/L
- Sweden: 4 ng/L
- United States: 4 ng/L (for key PFAS compounds)
Jersey is not leading here — it is following And while we take time to catch up, the science and regulation will continue to move forward.
A practical timeline — not a delay
The Panel recognised Jersey’s constraints. So they extended the timeline to five years. This was not intended as a delay —
but as a practical pathway to delivery.
Let me be clear:I support introducing a statutory PFAS standard. Because having no standard is no longer acceptable.
But this is only the beginning. Setting a standard is not the end of the conversation. It is the beginning of our responsibility.
If we regulate at this level:
- the data must be accessible
- it must be open to scrutiny
- and it must extend beyond drinking water
Wastewater and disposal pathways also matter. Because PFAS does not disappear, it moves. We need transparency about where it goes.
Acting on science — not delay. It is whether we act on the science now —
or delay based on perceived difficulty.
PFAS does not wait. It accumulates — in soil, in water, and in our bodies. And its impacts are not evenly distributed. They fall hardest on:
- children
- pregnant women
- the elderly
- those with weakened immune systems
We are seeing trends that should give us pause.
More children are requiring additional support than before.
I am not saying PFAS is the sole cause.
But there is growing evidence linking early-life exposure to impacts on neurological development.
When the science is moving toward concern — especially for children —
the responsible response is not delay.
It is precaution.
The cost of delay
Delay does not pause exposure. It extends it. And it risks locking in both:
- long-term health impacts
- long-term public costs
We are told costs may be significant. But even within supporting material, it is accepted that:
- other, less expensive solutions may exist
- they have not yet been fully assessed
- the final approach is still uncertain
That is not evidence-led policy.
What can be done now
There is another path.
We do not need to wait for a single large infrastructure solution.
We can act now.
- targeted filtration in schools and public buildings
- protection for those most at risk
Two schools have already taken this step.
That shows what is possible —
and that progress can begin immediately.
This is not about choosing between action and affordability.
It is about choosing where to act first.
Engaging with the public
We also need to reflect on how we engage with the public. Those raising concerns are not a problem to manage.
They are part of this conversation. They are engaged.
And that engagement matters. Because it reflects something important:
Islanders care about their health, their environment and the decisions we make in this Assembly.
Conclusion
Today we are taking an important step: placing a legal standard on PFAS in our drinking water.
And I support that.
But this cannot be where we stop.
This must be the point where we begin to act.
Because the science already points us in one direction —
toward greater protection.
So I will support this proposition.
But I do so with a clear expectation:
- that we move forward with urgency
- with transparency
- and with a firm commitment to protect Islanders
And that we act before risk becomes consequence.
Because when it comes to protecting Islanders, acting late is still acting too late.