The aim of this paper is to analyse which are the main issues faced by the EU to reach the 2022 Restriction roadmap’s goals. The EU launched a plan to ban thousands of harmful chemical substances, in particular PFAS, that we use to manufacture our-daily-life products such as kitchen and childhood tools or toys, electronic devices and vehicles. The environmental charity called ClientEarth and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) reported that one year later no real change has been achieved. The essay describes why achieving the general goal of eliminating perennial organic pollutants (POPS) is so difficult in the short term.
Introduction
In the last few years, the European Union's interest in the environment grew and the public opinion became more aware of the catastrophe we might face. Unfortunately, applying new environmental laws on all the European Union territory is tremendously difficult to the extent that it took 20 years since the Stockholm Convention to draft a dangerous chemical substances list, including the polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS (Bongioanni, 2023).
The PFAS are synthetic chemicals used to manufacture many daily life’s objects. In the last few years, they have been recognized as highly environmental pollutant agents. Being composed of carbon-fluorine bonds, their particles are strongly bonded, resisting many atmospheric conditions, such as extremely high and low temperatures and travelling long distances. This is why they are also called the “forever chemicals”. They can be gas, liquid or solid polymers. They can be found in many sectors such as aerospace, defence, food materials, constructions, electronics devices and others. (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)) Due to their gaseous, liquid and solid state, they can be inhaled through contaminated air, drunk through contaminated water or ingested by contaminated food.
Many studies have been carried out to understand how much they are poisoning human health. Some studies confirmed that, after being absorbed, they go to organs occupying different receptors, proteins and cell interfaces. Others have highlighted that forever chemicals may be linked to some forms of cancer (Kwiatkowski & et al., 2020). However it is not confirmed that PFAS cause cancer and tumour in humans (McGrath, 2022). The most common forever chemicals are the Perfluooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and the Perfluoroctanoic acid (PFOAs). Today more than 17.000 sites are contaminated in Europe: according to “The Forever Pollution Project” the number of PFAS contaminated sites could be up to 38.000. Many of these cases are generated by manufacturing factories due to their suitable characteristics. Indeed, they can be found in many daily use objects.
According to LiveScience, the first PFAS were invented in the 1930s. Then, they were developed in the 1960s after a US Navy aircraft fire in 1967: scientists created a foam containing the PFAS to extinguish fires. (Ross, 2019) From the 1970s public health impact studies highlighted first the exposure of workers to PFAS, but only in the 2000s researches were augmented (Mueller & Schlosser, 2020).
The Stockholm Convention
In 2004, the Stockholm Convention entered into force to “protect human and environmental health from persistent organic pollutants (POPS)” under the UN Environmental Programme. The document bans production, use and trade of POPS. The POPS Review Committee is a bureau of technical experts that have to decide which substances should be included in the POPs lists (Convenzione di Stoccolma, 2022). The Convention commit the member States to:
- “Eliminate and reduce the 12 worst POPS,
- support the transition to safer alternatives,
- target additional POPS for action,
- cleanup old stockpiles and equipment containing POPS,
- work together for a POPS-free future.” (UNIDO)
Each Party, whether it is a State or a regional economic integration organisation, that wants to import or export listed chemicals has to guarantee that it has a “environmentally sound disposal” (art.3), it has been allowed to do so and it provides the certificate where it states that it is committed to minimise the consequences of the chemical’s use. Each of the 182 States which are members to the Conference of Parties (COP) has to send the National Action Plan it intends to commit to. The Action Plan should contain the evaluation of the projects aimed to reduce and manage the POPS use, followed by a review every 5 years (art. 5). Parties are encouraged to promote awareness on the consequences of using POPS among the public, workers, scientists, educators (art.10). The text highlights the importance of researching, monitoring and cooperating. Indeed as art.12 states, Parties should help developing countries and Parties with economies in transition to collect as soon as possible as many techniques to reach the Stockholm Convention goals. The projects aimed to keep up with the plan are also financially supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and other bilateral or regional mechanisms (Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPS), 2020).
The most important laws on chemicals restriction
From 2007, one of the main bodies for chemical substances regulation is the European Chemical Agency. Most industrial sectors use chemical substances to manufacture products in our globalised economy. As researches showed, an increasing number of chemicals are so resistant and frequently used that they are very difficult to eliminate. The EU is trying to draft regulations to prevent chemical use without hurting European economic actors. Enterprises and consumers are involved in implementing changes to create a safer environment (ECHA, Introduction).
One of the main EU laws is the REACH Regulation, which entered into force in 2007. The law is applied on almost every kind of chemical. The REACH arranges how the economic actors should collect and how the knowledge on chemicals should be evaluated in order to manage and classify the dangerous substances. REACH means Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals. While the enterprises should cooperate to register the chemical substances, the European Chemical Agency evaluates their registrations and if they obey the EU law. Member States have to evaluate if the substances are a peril to human health, proposing substances to add to the list of the Community rolling action plan (CoRAP) based on toxicity, carcinogenicity and other fundamental parameters (ECHA, Community rolling action plan). In each final CoRAP, every substance should be evaluated by a chosen State (ECHA, Substances Evaluation). However, evaluating which information is needed for the regulation may not have “direct legal implications”, it does not mean that their use will be automatically limited. Every chemical substance case should be submitted to the REACH mechanisms and classifications (ECHA, Assessment of regulatory needs).
Besides the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP), the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR Regulation), the Prior Informed Consent Regulation (PIC), the Chemical Agents Directive (CAD) and the Carcinogens, Mutagens or Reprotoxic substances Directive (CMRD), European Union has proposed the Persistent Organic Pollutants Regulation (POPS). The POPS Regulation’s aim is to apply what has been established by the Stockholm Convention. POPS are generically pesticides, industrial chemicals or other chemicals unintentionally produced by many industries.
EU Green Deal: what has been done for harmful substances limitation?
When the Green Deal was launched, the European Union adopted the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability to reach “a toxic-free environment” on 14/10/2020 (Commission, 2020). The Strategy is aimed to boost innovation and respect the Stockholm Convention purposes, which are protecting human health and the environment. For this reason, the EU tried to guarantee that chemicals that are not essential for society are removed. The EU has also framed the dismantling of harmful chemicals by enforcing rules, organising research groups and innovation agenda as an economic opportunity to become a relevant competitor in the international market (Commission, 2020). The main goal for the EU Green Deal is to become one of the first climate neutral actors by 2050. This means that it should encourage digital innovation in any economic sector. Digital innovation means more electronic devices, thus more dangerous raw materials processing and more chemical substances are used. As the communication from the Commission states “Chemicals are also the building blocks of low-carbon, zero pollution and energy- and resource-efficient technologies, materials and products.” (Commission, Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability Towards a Toxic-Free Environment, 2020, p. 1). The chemical industry is one of the most important in the whole EU economy. The EU confirmed that its companies lead innovation to “a safe and sustainable-by-design approach” which means providing a product while trying to reduce its harmful properties (Commission, Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability Towards a Toxic-Free Environment, 2020, p. 4). The highlight is on protecting “vulnerable groups” of consumers and spreading information on illness caused by chemicals implementation. The Commission remarks to be committed to making EU legislation more transparent. The EU aims to provide a periodic overview of the planned initiatives, distributing technical and scientific works to specific agencies and expand the ECHA role (Commission, Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability Towards a Toxic-Free Environment, 2020, p. 16).
One of the main issues framed by the European Commission is the non-compliance of registration dossiers. It seems that in many cases the chemicals’ registered dossiers do not have the necessary related information. Though they are enormously dangerous, they are still used by industry. The Commission is proposing to create a research and innovation agenda for chemicals including tools and data analysis capacities, establishing indicators for monitoring the chemicals impact (Commission, Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability Towards a Toxic-Free Environment, 2020, p. 21). The EU has chosen one of the main goals to promote sustainable standards abroad. As global chemicals production will probably double by 2030, EU would like to spread the sustainability-by-design approach outside its borders (Commission, Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability Towards a Toxic-Free Environment, 2020, p. 23) and increasing cooperation with third parties (Commission, Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability Towards a Toxic-Free Environment, 2020, p. 24).
Last year on 25/04/22, the EU proposed a Restrictions Roadmap under the 2020 Chemical Strategy for Sustainability. The Roadmap was created to highlight the transparency of the Chemical Strategy’s restrictions. Through its Rolling Lists of Chemicals, it identifies three pools of groups of substances: the ones on which restrictions are already applied, the ones which are currently under a REACH phase and the substances on which may be applied restrictions. The main harmful chemical substances that have been banned are the flames retardants, bisphenols, chemicals substances that are used for producing childhood’s articles and, of course, the non-essential PFAS (Commission, Restrictions Roadmap under the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, 2022).
It is important to underline that the EU approach on environmental policy is based on prevention and on the principle “polluter pays”. Since the first UN conference on the environment, the European Commission’s commitment has arisen. The principle of precaution is one of the main EU principles that depicts EU political approach. From the Restrictions Roadmap of 2022 under the 2020 Chemical Strategy for Sustainability, we can observe that a massive importance has been given to prevention creating a specific pool for the chemical substances whose use has not been banned yet. The focus is also on trying to integrate and make different sectors and actors cooperate to find a common solution. On the official Parliament website, we can read that today there are at least a hundred of environmental Laws, Regulations and Decisions. In 2001, the European Parliament and Council adopted standards for inspections which, unfortunately, were non-binding to member States ( Kurrer & Lipcaneanu, 2023).
What did the EEB and ClientEarth find out?
ClientEarth, the environmental law charity, and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) drew up a report on how the 2022 Roadmap improved chemical bans issued one year later. After underlining which are the most important goals for the Roadmap, it underlines the efficiency and transparency that have been reached by applying restrictions: in some cases, the REACH processes, which are Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation, have been completed in more than a year, other in a period from 6 months to a year and the cases where the restrictions were officially applied three months later (ClientEarth & European Economic Bureau, 2023, p. 8).
Two are the main groups of chemicals: Bisphenol and PFAS. Bisphenols are used to produce polycarbonate plastics and resins. Scientists have not recognized many risks even of the principal Bisphenols, (A and B) yet (ClientEarth & European Economic Bureau, 2023, p. 15). They have been partially restricted in thermal paper, material in contact with food and baby bottles. According to the report, “the manufacture and use of bisphenols is not per se a problem but that emissions can be controlled” (ClientEarth & European Economic Bureau, 2023, p. 17).
The PFAS Regulation seems to be on a voluntary basis. The Stockholm Convention and REACH Regulation gradually banned certain PFAS, but completely banned many widely-used PFAS (ClientEarth & European Economic Bureau, 2023, p. 19). As the report underlines, ECHA started the procedure for banning all PFAS but the Commission has not prepared the legal text yet (ClientEarth & European Economic Bureau, 2023, p. 21). Only few specific PFAS have been proposed for restrictions, not the whole chemical group. This means that, even though one substance is banned, it can be substituted with another chemical whose use is not restricted (ClientEarth & European Economic Bureau, 2023, p. 22). Two reasons why the bans are not effective are the numerous derogations and exemptions to the restrictions and the lack of shared information between involved actors. Missing information are often “the expected year of entry into force of the restriction […], any foreseen delays […], the scope of the proposal […]. For this reason, when an actor, such as an enterprise, wants to work anticipating the future restriction its opportunities are limited. ClientEarth and EEB identifies many cases of unjustified transitional periods causing delays, thus continuous use of the POPS (ClientEarth & European Economic Bureau, 2023, p. 23).
Few countries made a step towards strictly banning PFAS: Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Netherlands. At the EU level it is apparently very difficult to reach a common deal though the EU Green Deal has been launched in 2019 and the main scope is the green economy.
Pros & cons of totally banning PFAS
Even though the PFAS would be banned forever by European Regulations, another issue would come up: electric engines manufacturing. PFAS are fundamental for the electric vehicles (EV) supply chain: they are used to build the lithium-ion batteries because of their properties. As said before, Fluoropolymers are built by carbon-fluorine bonds which are particularly resilient to extremely high and low temperatures and other chemical agents. Three are the sectors that are fundamental for the green transition EU is proposing by launching the EU Green Deal:
- The automotive sector - PFAS they are used for cathodic bonds, battery’s gasket for vehicles,
- The electronic sector - for the semiconductors, hardware and electronic cables manufacturers,
- Renewable energy sector – building of solar panels for their resistance to the heat, production of wind turbines and their covering with paint (Confindustria, 2022, p. 3-6).
On one hand, many analysts consider the noxious employment of PFAS as safer because they are fire-resistant, water-resistant and oil-resistant. On the other hand, if the EU totally bans PFAS use without proposing an alternative to continue to produce the essential products for the green transition process, it may cause economic and trade changes (Chaplia & Arunashvili, 2022). The lack of an alternative plan to deal with the green transition instead of using PFAS to produce the already-cited electronic and renewable energy devices may cause a displacement of supply chain segments towards non-EU markets where generally environmental rights and policies are not considered a priority.
As we all know, China became the principal competitor in the electronic and renewable energy sectors for the EU and USA. In a European perspective China is apparently not caring about its pollution consequences. Compared to European principles, it seems that China is rather oriented towards growing the economy at any cost. The European Union has always considered itself as the defender of basic human and environmental rights since they obtained primary importance at the international level (in the 1970s). EU fundamental treaties “made the environment an official sector of EU policy” (Maastricht Treaty – 1993) and “established the duty to include environmental tutelage in every EU sector policy to promote sustainable development” (Amsterdam Treaty – 1999) ( Kurrer & Lipcaneanu, 2023). EU environmental law is based on the principle of “polluter pays”, precaution and correction of pollution.
It seems that nowadays citizens are the real victims. Scientists found numerous cancer and endocrine illnesses which may have been caused by PFAS use and production. Some studies confirmed that they may be linked to cancer and liver damage. About 17.000 sites would be contaminated in Europe (Alkousaa, 2023). The first and most instant solution could be removing the chemicals from water but it is apparently too expensive (McGrath, 2022). Moreover, only one third of the chemical substances dossiers under the REACH Regulation include the required information (Commission, Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability Towards a Toxic-Free Environment, 2020, p. 17).
Conclusion
To sum up, the EU plan launched last year has not brought on any significant change. Even though the main goal was to ban as many chemical substances as possible, this cannot be the short-term solution. PFAS are used for manufacturing daily-use products such as kitchen’s tools, cars, electronic devices, children’s care tools, and food packaging. Indeed, many studies recognized that PFAS are a fundamental part of contemporary mass production. This means that changing and removing those chemicals from the supply chain will be more difficult to apply than to legally ban it. As highlighted, removing PFAS is still very expensive and the available option is to substitute them with other not banned chemicals. Before reaching the toxic-free environment goal it would probably need many more years. Moreover, as the name suggests, they are perennial organic pollutants (POPS): PFAS intoxicates soil and water in the long term.
What ClientEarth suggests is that substances must be restricted by groups not case by case as they are classified with the current procedure. Derogations should not be strictly limited, “unless there is no alternative to their uses”. According to the report, authorities must display “precise timelines” in order to avoid the big delays PFAS regulation procedures are facing (ClientEarth & European Economic Bureau, 2023).
The EU usually promotes diffusion of information on environmental themes. However, the national government has decision making power. Until the environment is considered to be a shared competence, it could not be a big extraordinary change. In the short term, environmental themes should become a key competence. The EU and its specialised organisations could have more decisional making power on managing the POPS issue. It would be a utopian vision to strive for a completely PFAS-free society since PFAS are used to manufacture renewable energy devices too.
It is possible to say that although the EU Green Deal and, indeed, 2022 EU Chemical Strategy for Sustainability have ambitious and optimistic goals, there is no concrete proposed alternative to the PFAS use.
Matilde Pierattini (Junior Researcher G.E.O. Environment)
Bibliography
Kurrer, C., & Lipcaneanu, N. (2023, 04). Environment policy: general principles and basic framework. Tratto da European Parliament: https://www.europarl.europa.eu... A-1
Alkousaa, R. (2023, 05 26). No EU vote on restricting 'forever chemicals' before 2025, EU official says. Tratto da Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/busine... B-2
Bongioanni, M. (2023, 04 27). Il piano europeo per vietare le sostanze chimiche pericolose sta fallendo. Tratto da LifeGate: https://www.lifegate.it/piano-... B-2
Chaplia, M., & Arunashvili, A. (2022, 06 02). EU’s green agenda and PFAS ban are incompatible. Tratto da The Brussels Times: https://www.brusselstimes.com/... B-2
ClientEarth, & European Economic Bureau. (2023). The EU's bold plan to quit the most harmful chemicals is a year old. EEB. A-1
Commission, E. (2020, 10 14). Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability Towards a Toxic-Free Environment. Tratto il giorno 07 24, 2023 da European Commission: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/lega... A-1
Commission, E. (2020, 10 14). Green Deal: Commission adopts new Chemicals Strategy towards a toxic-free environment. Tratto da ec.europa.eu: https://ec.europa.eu/commissio... A-1
Commission, E. (2022). Restrictions Roadmap under the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. A-1
Confindustria, F. (2022). Osservazioni al Disegno di legge n. 2392 del 21 settembre 2021. A-1
Convenzione di Stoccolma. (2022). Tratto da Ministero dell'Ambeinte e della Sicurezza Energetica: https://www.mase.gov.it/pagina... A-1
ECHA. (s.d.). Assessment of regulatory needs. Tratto da European Chemical Agency: https://echa.europa.eu/underst... A-1
ECHA. (s.d.). Community rolling action plan. Tratto da European Chemicals Agency: https://echa.europa.eu/regulat... A-1
ECHA. (s.d.). Introduction. Tratto da European Chemical Agency: https://echa.europa.eu/it/supp... A-1
ECHA. (s.d.). Substances Evaluation. Tratto da European Chemical Agency: https://echa.europa.eu/it/regu... A-1
Kwiatkowski, C. F., & et al. (2020). Scientific Basis for Managing PFAS as Chemical Class. Environmental Science Technology Letters, 7, 532-543. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs... B-2
McGrath, M. (2022, 8 2). Pollution: 'Forever chemicals' in rainwater exceed safe levels. Tratto da BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/scien... B-2
Mueller, R., & Schlosser, K. E. (2020). History and Use of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) found in the Environment. Washington DC: ITRC. A-1
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). (s.d.). Tratto da European Chemical Agency: https://echa.europa.eu/hot-top... A-1
Ross, R. (2019, 04 30). What are PFAS? Tratto da LiveScience: https://www.livescience.com/65... B-2
Santi, S. (2023, 03 15). La mappa dei Pfas in Europa e in Italia: 17mila siti contaminati per sempre. Tratto da Lifegate: https://www.lifegate.it/mappa-... B-2
(2020). Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPS). Stockholm: UNEP. A-1
UNIDO. (s.d.). Stockholm Convention. Tratto da United Nations Industrial Development Organization: https://www.unido.org/our-focu... A-1
Information Content | ||
1 | Confirmed | Confirmed by other independent sources; logical in itself; coherent with other information on the topic |
2 | Presumably true | Not confirmed; logical in itself; coherent with other information on the topic |
3 | Maybe true | Not confirmed; reasonably logical in itself; coherent with some other information on the topic |
4 | Uncertain | Not confirmed; possible but not logical in itself; no other information on the topic |
5 | Improbable | Not confirmed; not logical in itself; contradicts with other information on the topic |
6 | Not able to be evaluated | No basis to evaluate the validity of the information |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||