School uniforms and non-stick pans are some of the everyday products that are treated with a group of chemicals, called PFAS, to make them stain and water resistant.

But there is growing concern about the long-term environmental and health impacts of some of these "forever chemicals" - so called because they persist and accumulate across ecosystems.

A group of MPs has now called for a complete ban on their use, unless manufacturers can demonstrate they are either essential for their product or there is no alternative chemical.

Academics and environmental groups have said they are "delighted" by the recommendations, made by the House of Commons' Environmental Audit Committee.

The government says it will now consider the recommendations, but recently published its own PFAS plan which it said showed it was taking “decisive action” on the issue.

PFAS are a group of more than 15,000 man-made substances which have unrivalled properties - they can resist oil, water, high temperatures and UV.

As a result they are found in many products - from life-saving uses like medical equipment and firefighting foam to everyday goods such as raincoats.

But these same properties that make them so useful also mean when they get into the environment they do not easily break down.

"Nearly all of us will have some level of PFAS in our bodies. But evidence we heard throughout our inquiry suggests that our dependence on PFAS has come with a cost to the environment, and perhaps to human health too," said Toby Perkins, chair of the Environment Audit Committee.

There is not extensive research on the impacts of all PFAS, but some are proven to be toxic and carcinogenic - increasing the risk of kidney cancer and raising cholesterol.

Perkins said that the public should not panic, but "now is the time to act" before pollution gets worse.

Just a couple of months ago the government produced its own PFAS plan but the committee said this "disproportionately focuses on expanding PFAS monitoring rather than preventing or remediating contamination".

The committee has said from 2027 the government should phase out all non-essential uses of PFAS - where the chemical can be removed or replaced without health and safety issues.

Products which would likely have to remove PFAS include cookware, food packaging and everyday clothing.

"It's staggering, they're in so many products. A lot of the time, they're put in from a convenience point of view, [e.g.] stain-resistant, so that's why they're in school uniform, but consumers don't know," Dr Dave Megson, reader in chemistry at Manchester Met University said.

Other recommendations include:

• Apply the "polluter pays principle" where companies using the chemicals pay for the cost of clean up
• Establish a remediation fund for those communities dealing with high levels of legacy pollution
• Increase the number of incinerators to destroy PFAS in waste products

Environmental groups, academics and research institutions reacted positively to these proposals.

Stephanie Metzger, policy advisor at the Royal Society of Chemistry, said it was “excellent” and the committee recognised that the government needed to introduce mandatory rules rather than allowing industry to self-police.

Mat Young, from Cleaner Bentham, a community group campaigning to clean up high levels of PFAS contamination in their town in Yorkshire, said he was "really impressed".

"Currently there's no recourse, whatsoever. To have a remediation fund [proposed] is absolutely brilliant - but this should have been done decades ago. "

• Town brings legal case over 'forever chemicals'

But industry groups took issue with the report's findings. Tobias Gerfin from the Federation of the European Cookware, Cutlery and Houseware Industries, said "banning this application is not really the right way forward."

He acknowledged non-stick pans were not essential but said there would be negative effects such as more food waste.

A ban similar to the one being proposed by the committee is already due to be approved by the EU later this year.

Without the government introducing the same measure it risks the UK falling behind, warned the committee.

The problem the UK faces is it does not have the same resources - for example for funding and research capacity - to match the EU, said Chloe Topping, senior campaign manager at environmental charity Fidra.

The government will now consider the recommendations before deciding whether to accept any.

But a Defra spokesperson said: "The first ever PFAS Plan shows the decisive action we are taking to better understand and tackle the sources of these chemicals, including through better guidance and monitoring, tougher rules on their use and support for transitioning to safer alternatives."