Questions Raised

Recent editions of Bentham News have published a number of letters and articles discussing PFAS contamination in Bentham, including the Angus Fire site, health concerns, soil testing and local food safety.

As part of Cleaner Bentham's ongoing research, we reviewed these contributions alongside publicly available reports, environmental investigations and scientific literature. We believe it is important that residents have access not only to conclusions, but also to the questions that remain unanswered.

1. Site Contamination vs Town Contamination
Several contributions correctly distinguish between contamination on the Angus Fire site and contamination across the wider town.

However, some statements appear to go further by asserting that Bentham itself is not contaminated. 

At present, the evidence publicly available confirms PFAS contamination associated with the Angus Fire site. 
It also confirms that contamination has extended beyond factory buildings, with residential properties near the site having been purchased as part of remediation activities and testing being done on the Playing fields and Fields to the west of Duke Street Opposite the lagoons confirms PFOAS there.

The key question is therefore not whether contamination exists, but:
How far has contamination travelled, through which pathways, and at what concentrations?
This remains an important evidence gap.

Source: Angus Ramboll Report

2. Drinking Water
Statements have been made that Bentham's drinking water has been thoroughly tested and is safe.
Cleaner Bentham has requested environmental information from multiple organisations regarding PFAS testing and drinking water. While various assurances have been given, comprehensive datasets supporting these conclusions have not been publicly released.

The distinction between:
a conclusion, and the underlying evidence, is important.

Residents should be able to see the data on which such conclusions are based.
What we do know is as follows: 
1. Testing of Tap water on two local Business sites do show levels of PFAS Contamination
2. PFAS testing by Yorkshire Water shows contamination
3. PFAS were found in Tatham Boreholes shows contamination.
4. Angus Fire Claim their tap water is safe.
Questions: 
 a. (1) are the sites now connected to the mains?
 b. (1 & 3) is the contamination residual from Polluted Boreholes? 
 c. (1 & 4) what evidence does Angus Fire and Yorkshire Water base it's facts "Tap Water is safe"
d. (3) Why did Lancaster City Council find PFAS in water in Tatham and where did it come from?
Sources: 
NYCC Testing (local Business below) - FOI requests; Yorkshire Water Results* - Tatham PFAS, Local Businesses results: 1 2 Angus Fire Claims

*Water is tested at the works inlet.
The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) has set guidance levels for PFAS in drinking water, which are tiered based on concentration: Tier 1 for concentrations less than 0.01 µg/L, Tier 2 for less than 0.1 µg/L, and Tier 3 for 0.1 µg/L or more. 
These guidelines are precautionary and aim to ensure water safety while further research is conducted.
Editors note: CB believes that anything above absolute zero (0.000000) is contamination. 

3. Health Data
One letter argued that Bentham compares favourably with North Yorkshire and England on several broad health indicators such as life expectancy and mortality.
This is useful information.
However, overall population health indicators do not necessarily answer the same question as investigations into specific diseases or conditions that have been associated in scientific literature with PFAS exposure.
These are different analyses and should not be confused.
A town can perform well overall while still displaying unusual patterns in particular health indicators.

Source - Italian fellas research Source - Local Health screenshots

4. Soil Testing at Bentham Allotments
The Bentham Allotments Committee should be commended for commissioning independent PFAS testing and publishing headline results.

The reported testing found PFAS to be present at low concentrations and compared favourably with the guidance values referenced in the article.

However, several questions remain:

• The full laboratory dataset was not published. 
• The complete list of detected PFAS was not provided. 
• Detection limits were not reported.
• The article focused primarily on PFOS and PFOA.
• One allotment site cannot automatically be assumed to represent all soils across Bentham.
• The allotment results are therefore useful data, but should not be interpreted as answering every question about PFAS in Allotment or local soils.

5. The Unnamed PFAS Expert
The allotment article refers to advice from a PFAS expert but does not identify the individual.
There may be perfectly valid reasons for this. 
However, scientific transparency is strengthened when expertise can be independently assessed through named qualifications, institutions and publications.
This is particularly relevant where statements are made about food safety.

6. What Does Current Science Say about PFAS and foods?
The allotment article states that long-chain PFAS such as PFOS and PFOA do not accumulate in fruit and vegetables.
Recent scientific reviews suggest a more nuanced picture.
Current research indicates that:

• Different PFAS behave differently.
• Short-chain PFAS may transfer more readily into edible plant tissues.
• Long-chain PFAS can accumulate in plant roots.
• Local food production in contaminated areas has been associated with increased PFAS body burdens in some studies.
  
  This does not mean Bentham produce is unsafe.
  It does mean that the science is more complex than a simple yes-or-no answer.
  Source
  
  Sources: 1 2 3 

7. The Need for Evidence

Cleaner Bentham's position remains unchanged.
The objective is not to create fear.
The objective is not to create reassurance.
The objective is to obtain evidence.
Questions about environmental contamination are ultimately answered through:

• sampling,
• monitoring,
• disclosure of results,
• independent review,
• and transparent discussion.

The more information that becomes available, the better residents can understand both the risks and the uncertainties that remain.

The best outcome for everyone is not speculation, but evidence about our local 'contamination/pollution' issue.

Outstanding Questions Raised by the Bentham Allotments Article

Reference Values
The article compares the allotment results against the following values:

• PFOA: 125 µg/kg
• PFOS: 11 µg/kg

The source of these figures was not identified within the article. Plus PFOs and PFOAs are groups of chemicals not a single species. 
Questions requiring clarification:

1. What specific document were these values taken from?
2. Which organisation produced them?
3. Are they:Human health screening values?Residential land values?Allotment/growing values?Ecological protection values?Groundwater protection values?
4. Human health screening values?
5. Residential land values?
6. Allotment/growing values?
7. Ecological protection values?
8. Groundwater protection values?
9. Are they current values or historic values?
10. Are they regulatory limits or investigation thresholds?
11. Do they apply specifically to food-growing land?
12. Were they selected by the unnamed PFAS expert?
13. Were alternative guidance values considered?

Until the source and applicability of these values are verified, conclusions based upon comparisons to them should be interpreted with caution.

Allotment Testing Dataset

The article states that 54 PFAS compounds were tested.
Questions requiring clarification:

1. What were the 54 compounds tested?
2. Which compounds were detected?
3. Which compounds were not detected?
4. What were the laboratory detection limits?
5. What laboratory performed the analysis?
6. Can the full analytical report be made available?

PFAS Expert
The article references advice from a PFAS expert.
Questions requiring clarification:

1. Who was the expert?
2. What are their qualifications?
3. Which institution are they associated with?
4. Did they review the complete dataset?
5. Was their advice provided formally or informally?
6. Can their scientific rationale be published?

Scientific Interpretation
The article states that long-chain PFAS do not accumulate in fruit and vegetables.
Recent scientific literature suggests a more complex picture.

Questions requiring clarification:

1. What scientific sources support the statement?
2. Does the statement apply to all crops?
3. Does it apply to root vegetables?
4. Does it apply to PFOS and PFOA specifically?
5. How does the statement reconcile with published studies showing long-chain PFAS accumulation in roots and crop tissues?
6. Were short-chain PFAS considered separately?

Representativeness

Questions requiring clarification:

1. How many allotment samples were taken?
2. At what depths?
3. From which locations?
4. Are the results representative of all allotment plots?
5. Can the results be extrapolated to gardens elsewhere in Bentham?
6. Can the results be extrapolated to farms elsewhere in Bentham?

Comparison With Angus Fire Data
Questions requiring clarification:

1. How do the allotment concentrations compare with Angus Fire off-site soil samples?
2. How do they compare with other Bentham soil investigations?
3. Are they consistent with local background levels?
4. Are they elevated compared with regional background concentrations?

Drinking Water

Questions requiring clarification:

1. What PFAS testing has been undertaken on drinking water serving Bentham?
2. Which compounds were analysed?
3. What were the results?
4. Have all datasets been published?
5. Were private water supplies included?
6. How do the results compare with current DWI guidance values?

Liverpool John Moores University Study

Questions requiring clarification:

1. What work was undertaken by Liverpool John Moores University?
2. What methodology was used?
3. What conclusions were reached?
4. Can the report and supporting data be released?
5. Which of the current public questions might the findings help answer?

Publication of these findings may help address several of the issues currently being debated within the community.

Executive Summaries of Articles on PFAS in food. 
A Scoping Review of PFAS Mitigation Strategies for Soil, Water, and Experimentally Exposed Fruits and Vegetables 

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Presence in Food- Comparison Among Fresh, Frozen and Ready-to-Eat Vegetables (Food Chemistry, 2023)

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Food and Their Contribution to Human Exposure (Current Opinion in Food Science, 2025)

Update: 24th June 2026
Source
Cleaner Bentham Update: 
Review of Bentham Allotments PFAS Testing

Following publication of the Bentham Allotments PFAS testing article in the June 2026 edition of Bentham News, Cleaner Bentham undertook a review of the information presented, relevant scientific literature and independent technical advice.Firstly, we would like to acknowledge the positive step taken by the Bentham Allotments Association in commissioning independent PFAS testing. Obtaining environmental data is always preferable to speculation, and we welcome efforts to improve understanding of PFAS contamination within Bentham.

What Was Reported?
The Bentham News article reported:

• Testing by an independent laboratory.
• Analysis for 54 PFAS compounds.
• Sampling from four locations.
• PFOA concentrations of approximately 1 µg/kg.
• PFOS concentrations ranging from approximately 0.11–0.39 µg/kg.

The article concluded that produce grown on the allotments was safe to eat.

Cleaner Bentham Review
Cleaner Bentham subsequently reviewed:

• The published article.
• Recent peer-reviewed scientific literature regarding PFAS uptake into crops.
• Independent technical advice from environmental professionals.

This review identified several questions which we believe deserve clarification.

Screening Values
The Bentham News article stated that DEFRA-derived safe values for land used for residential purposes with home-grown produce were:

• PFOA: 7.6 µg/kg
• PFOS: 13.0 µg/kg

An independent technical review commissioned by Cleaner Bentham concluded that these values do not originate from DEFRA publications and appear instead to correspond to CL:AIRE Category 4 Screening Levels (C4SLs) for residential land with consumption of home-grown produce.

The review further notes that CL:AIRE publishes separate screening values for allotment land use.

This distinction matters because risk assessments are dependent upon land-use scenarios.

Bioaccumulation in Crops

The Bentham News article stated that a PFAS expert had advised that long-chain PFAS, including PFOS and PFOA, have not been found to accumulate in fruit and vegetables.
Cleaner Bentham reviewed the academic literature cited within the independent technical review.
That review concluded:

"The current literature provides clear evidence that PFAS, including PFOS and PFOA, bioaccumulate in vegetables grown in PFAS contaminated soils."

The review also notes that:

• PFAS uptake into plants is well established.
• Root vegetables can accumulate PFAS.
• Leafy vegetables are often significant contributors to dietary exposure.
• Detectable concentrations of PFAS have been reported in fruits, vegetables and grains grown in contaminated areas.

This does not automatically mean produce grown in Bentham is unsafe. However, it does suggest that crop uptake should be considered when interpreting PFAS results in food-growing environments.

What Cleaner Bentham Is Not Saying

Cleaner Bentham is not claiming that:

• The allotments are unsafe.
• Residents should stop growing food.
• The testing results are incorrect.

We have seen no evidence that would justify making such statements.

What Questions Remain?
At present, several questions remain unanswered:

1. Were the correct land-use screening values used when interpreting the results?
2. What was the source of the comparison values quoted in the article?
3. Were vegetables, fruit or other edible crops tested directly?
4. Was a food-chain assessment undertaken?
5. Can the full laboratory report be made available for independent review?

Recommendations
The independent review recommends that:

• Edible plant tissue testing should be undertaken.
• Further technical assessment should be completed before definitive statements regarding the safety of produce are made.
• A multidisciplinary review involving appropriate expertise would assist in providing residents with clear and authoritative information.

Cleaner Bentham Position
Cleaner Bentham supports transparency, evidence-based decision making and independent scientific review.
We welcome the allotment testing and the publication of results.
We also believe that residents are entitled to understand:

• How conclusions were reached.
• What evidence supports those conclusions.
• What uncertainties remain.

Our objective is not to create alarm but to encourage informed discussion based upon the best available evidence.
As further information becomes available, we will continue to update residents accordingly.