“In a regulation impact statement, the Department of Environment said action was necessary because of “market and regulatory failure” to address risks posed by PFOS in Australia.

Failure to ratify the listing could damage Australia’s reputation and “standing in international markets”.

‘The listing of PFOS signals international acceptance by scientific experts and governments of associations between PFOS exposure and various adverse human health and environmental effects,’ it said.”

“The statement outlines four different routes the federal government could take, including no action, “light touch” regulation or a total ban.

Ratifying the treaty with a total ban would be the cheapest option – aside from no action – eliminating 97 per cent of PFOS emissions at a cost of $39 million over 20 years.                A cost benefit analysis found a total ban would deliver the ‘greatest net benefit’ to Australia, by cutting emissions in the shortest timeframe, reducing the potential for further contamination and avoiding ‘considerable’ costs to industry.”

Read the full article by Carrie Fellner.