Wednesday

31st May 2023

Opinion

Worrying rows over future EU chemicals policy

  • The revelations point to a willingness to abandon high-level commitments taken by the previous and current EU Commission on crucial chemicals dossiers (Photo: Pixabay)

Recent revelations on major disagreements within the European Commission about the development of the European Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability suggest that representatives of the Department General for Internal Market (DG GROW) seek to fundamentally tone down the proposals, under the pretence of economic interests and overruling preventive actions on chemicals and public health.

With this agenda, a major contradiction with EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen's ambition to "put forward a cross-cutting strategy to protect citizens' health from environmental degradation and pollution, addressing air and water quality, hazardous chemicals, industrial emissions, pesticides and endocrine disrupters" is becoming apparent.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

  • Recent revelations on major disagreements within the European Commission suggest representatives of the Department General for Internal Market seek to fundamentally tone down the proposals (Photo: Wikimedia)

The Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability is one of the main pillars of the European Green Deal striving for "a zero-pollution ambition for a non-toxic environment", with the commission's Department General for Environment (DG ENVI) in the lead.

As is normally the case, other Commission departments are currently being consulted before European Commissioners formally adopt and publish the strategy – which is expected in September.

What the revelations also point to is a willingness to abandon high-level commitments taken by the previous and current Commission on crucial chemicals dossiers as well as with mandates that have been provided both by Member States (through the Environment Council conclusions and joint member states initiatives) and the European Parliament (through its recent resolution on the strategy) to upgrade European regulations for more health protection and to drive a toxic-free circular economy based on safe innovations.

Worrying examples

A tendency from parts of the European Commission towards minimising existing scientific evidence about health and environment effects of a significant number of chemicals currently on the European market – which are acknowledged by several high-level scientific reports as well as European agencies and Europe's official statistics.

Undermining of the concept of a "toxic-free hierarchy" through a "smart regulation" approach.

While legislation based on the former would allow acting on scientific evidence in a way that focuses on preventing toxic chemicals in products at the design stage, a so-called "smart regulation" approach is geared towards reducing administrative burdens for companies.

Watering down of the proposal to address several groups of chemicals of high concern, despite existing commitments and requests for action coming from the council and the parliament.

This is the case for the proposed six-point action plan to phase out non-essential uses of the extremely persistent chemicals (PFAS, a group of some 4,700 substances) as well as for proposals to develop a horizontal identification approach for endocrine disruptors and to truly minimise the exposure of humans and the environment to these harmful substances.

When considering that the current EDC strategy dates back 1999, that only 17 EDCs have been identified under EU laws while people are exposed daily to thousands of potential individual and mixtures of EDCs, such attempt to further slow down much needed action is unacceptable.

It is of utmost concern to the environmental health community that forces within the EU Commission are actively trying to push back against a European Green Deal that is supposed to put people's health at its core.

For the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability to be a game-changer towards a toxic-free, circular, and innovative economy, president von der Leyen and vice-president Frans Timmermans have to guarantee that their commitments towards the zero pollution ambition and improved health will be delivered.

Author bio

Natacha Cingotti is senior policy officer at the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL).

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

Analysis

Avoiding a Brexit chemical reaction

The UK's €56 billion chemicals industry was at first hoping Brexit would lead to less regulations - now it is hoping it can still access the single market.

Doubts over EU chemical agency after weedkiller study

Green MEPs and health pressure groups said the European Chemicals Agency could be suffering from conflicts of interest, after it said there wasn't enough evidence to prove that the world's most widely used weedkiller causes cancer.

To beat cancer, Commission must first beat chemicals lobby

The EU Commission wants to reduce cancer rates in Europe. So it's imperative this week's chemicals strategy properly regulates substances that can cause cancer - despite the efforts of the chemicals lobby, which has spent years successfully preventing tough action.

The EU needs to foster tech — not just regulate it

The EU's ambition to be a digital superpower stands in stark contrast to the US — but the bigger problem is that it remains far better at regulation than innovation, despite decades of hand-wringing over Europe's technology gap.

EU export credits insure decades of fossil-fuel in Mozambique

European governments are phasing out fossil fuels at home, but continuing their financial support for fossil mega-projects abroad. This is despite the EU agreeing last year to decarbonise export credits — insurance on risky non-EU projects provided with public money.

Latest News

  1. Germany unsure if Orbán fit to be 'EU president'
  2. EU Parliament chief given report on MEP abuse 30 weeks before sanction
  3. EU clashes over protection of workers exposed to asbestos
  4. EU to blacklist nine Russians over jailing of dissident
  5. Russia-Ukraine relations the Year After the war
  6. Why creating a new legal class of 'climate refugees' is a bad idea
  7. Equatorial Guinea: a 'tough nut' for the EU
  8. New EU ethics body and Moldova conference This WEEK

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. International Sustainable Finance CentreJoin CEE Sustainable Finance Summit, 15 – 19 May 2023, high-level event for finance & business
  2. ICLEISeven actionable measures to make food procurement in Europe more sustainable
  3. World BankWorld Bank Report Highlights Role of Human Development for a Successful Green Transition in Europe
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic summit to step up the fight against food loss and waste
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersThink-tank: Strengthen co-operation around tech giants’ influence in the Nordics
  6. EFBWWEFBWW calls for the EC to stop exploitation in subcontracting chains

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. InformaConnecting Expert Industry-Leaders, Top Suppliers, and Inquiring Buyers all in one space - visit Battery Show Europe.
  2. EFBWWEFBWW and FIEC do not agree to any exemptions to mandatory prior notifications in construction
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic and Baltic ways to prevent gender-based violence
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: Economic gender equality now! Nordic ways to close the pension gap
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: Pushing back the push-back - Nordic solutions to online gender-based violence
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: The Nordics are ready to push for gender equality

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us