The European Commission has drawn up strict criteria for when the use of the most dangerous substances is justified. However, with the review of the EU's main chemicals regulation not yet complete, green NGOs are calling for a redoubled effort to curb pollution and health risks, reports Euronews.
The European Commission's guidelines on what constitutes "main use" of dangerous substances have divided opinion this week. Politicians and industry representatives gathered in Brussels to discuss future chemicals policy. Green groups have issued a warning that the EU executive is failing to meet its commitments to tackle pollution and health risks, citing in particular the delayed review of the flagship REACH regulation.
"Better protecting human health, tackling pollution and moving towards a toxic-free environment is our long-term priority," Environment Commissioner Virginius Sinkevičius said in a video address to open a two-day conference on the future of EU chemicals regulation , hosted by Belgium as the rotating EU Council President.
The meeting took place a day after the European Commission set out guidelines for assessing when the benefits to society of using a dangerous chemical outweigh the risks. The "essential use" criteria, designed to push manufacturers toward safer production processes and inform future policies, have met with mixed reaction from industry, activists and academics.
Cristina De Avila, who heads the Safe and Sustainable Chemicals Unit at the Commission's Environment Directorate, told conference attendees that implementing the new essential use criteria will help increase regulatory efficiency and predictability for authorities and industry. However, she pointed out that the guidelines will only have legal force if and when they are incorporated into specific legislation.
The new criteria stipulate that the primary use of a restricted chemical is when it is necessary for health or safety or "critical to the functioning of society" and should only be permitted when "there is no acceptable alternative" to the substance in question.
Will eternal chemicals be banned?
At the same time, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is still carefully considering a proposal to ban per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), known as "permanent chemicals", due to their tendency to remain in the environment and accumulate in living organisms for extremely long periods of time.
Ian Cousins, a professor of chemistry at Stockholm University, said his research shows that no alternatives are available for about 30 percent of PFAS applications, mostly in industrial processes. He also cited industry opposition to the proposed ban. Last year, ECHA was overwhelmed with over 5000 responses to a public consultation, many from companies or lobby groups outlining why their use of the substances was imperative.
“There are some PFASs with no available alternatives, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means we haven't found them. Still, it's encouraging that there are so many alternatives now available," Cousins said.
The researcher argues that stricter regulation of groups of harmful chemicals, of which PFAS is just one example, will encourage companies to look for safer alternatives.
Teresa Kjell, head of policy at the International Chemical Secretariat (ChemSec), which works with companies to help them replace hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives, echoed Cousins' words.
"There is clear evidence that legislation spurs innovation," says Kell.
According to her, many of the PFAS currently in use are easily replaceable, such as the F-gases used in heat pumps and refrigeration systems, for which alternatives are available.
"A complete ban on PFAS would be the largest ever under EU law, covering a whole family of thousands of structurally related chemicals with uses ranging from water repellents, lubricants and non-stick coatings to refrigerants. But the new essential use guidelines will not immediately affect the PFAS restriction process,” Avila said.
High-profile pollution scandals have made PFAS emblematic of the broader problem of toxic chemicals in the environment. However, persistent chemicals are only one group of substances among over 20 chemicals registered with ECHA for production or use in the EU.
Regulatory reform
Under the REACH regulation, chemicals have so far been evaluated one by one, and it can take years for a substance to first be classified as "of very high concern" (called an SVHC) and then another lengthy evaluation before being added to the "list with permissions' - a de facto ban where usage permissions are issued on a case-by-case basis. Since the entry into force of the regulation in 2009, only 59 entries have been made to the list. Many of the chemicals listed are still widely used.
The current European Commission was due to present a proposal to revise REACH under its Chemical Sustainability Strategy (CSS) adopted in 2020 in a bid to speed up the process and ultimately fulfill the EU's ambition of "zero pollution" by reducing use and release into the environment of all harmful substances. The executive branch came under heavy criticism from environmental groups when it shelved the project last October.
"At the end of our mandate, it is not time to come up with legislation on the scale of the REACH review. "Discussions and consultations are ongoing and the future of the revision proposal will only be decided after the European elections in June and the election of a new EU executive who will take office in the autumn," Avila said.
The latest analysis by the European Environment Bureau (EEB) suggests that only one of the 13 targets outlined in the Commission's chemicals strategy has been fully achieved. A major criticism in the group's report was that significant shortcomings remain in the REACH regulation. According to the environmental group, remarkable progress has only been made in revising the rules on how to classify, label and package chemical substances and mixtures.