Largest-ever ban on toxic chemicals in EU hit by ‘extremely frustrating’ delays | Pollution
Harmful compounds in nappies and toxic “forever chemicals” in everyday products are among 14 groups of hazardous substances affected by long delays in EU pollution controls. report The findings were described by scientists as “extremely frustrating”.
The European Commission sought to remove wide-ranging categories of hazardous substances from the market in April 2022 with a “road map of restrictions” that was hailed at the time as the biggest ever ban on toxic chemicals.
But four years later, it had failed to initiate the process of regulating seven of 22 hazardous chemical groups, “effectively freezing” progress on regulating seven more, according to a progress check. ClientEarth and the European Environmental Bureau.
Green groups say the European Commission is the “chief obstacle” to its own road map and claim “illegal delays” have led to around 100,000 tonnes of extra chemical pollution from six groups.
Hélène Duguy, a lawyer at ClientEarth and co-author of the report, said the announcement of a roadmap with a concrete timeline for phasing out hazardous substances was “very encouraging”. “It’s now four years since the first broadcast and things really aren’t looking good.”
Proposed restrictions resulting from the delays include lead in bullets, which has been linked to chronic kidney disease in hunters; ingredients in child care products linked to cancer and genetic mutations; calcium cyanamide, a fertilizer that emits carcinogenic substances; and a bioaccumulative flame retardant used in cars.
Under EU chemicals regulations, known as Reach, the Commission is obliged to draft an amendment to the list of restrictions within three months after receiving opinions from expert committees. The report found that the deadline was never met, with delays ranging from 13 to 47 months, with an average of two years.
Lead in ammunition and fishing gear was responsible for most of the 98,000 tonnes of pollution, a 23-month delay attributed to delays beyond the legal deadline, the report said. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) estimates that approximately 44,000 tonnes of lead are released into the environment from these sources each year.
Some restrictions have been successfully implemented. The commission has restricted Pfas in firefighting foam, lead in PVC plastics, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) used in clay pigeon hunting, and a handful of other groups of toxic chemicals.
Europe has led the way in regulating harmful substances, introducing some of the strictest regulations on hazardous chemicals in the world. The road map was part of a continental detox aimed at regulating hazardous substances using blanket bans with limited exemptions.
It has been celebrated by green groups for improving on the previous cat-and-mouse approach, in which regulators banned a particular substance only to slightly alter the compound for industry and circumvent the ban without reducing the risk.
Mirella Miettinen, a chemical regulation researcher at the University of Eastern Finland who was not involved in the report, said many cases progressed through the opinion-forming phase but got stuck at the decision-making stage. He described the lack of political will as “extremely frustrating” for those trying to promote restrictions.
“The findings of the report are important and highlight the long-standing administrative negligence of the European Commission in its decision-making process on the restriction of harmful substances under the Reach regulation,” he said.
The commission did not respond to a request for comment. Some chemical groups are no longer restricted under the roadmap after committees recommended not to do so or after the Commission decided to pursue them through a different regulatory pathway.
But the latest version of the roadmap, which is updated annually, delayed the timelines for some other chemical groups without explanation.
“The plan doesn’t really function as a plan anymore,” Duguy said. “This is like a mirror of the European Commission’s inefficiency and inaction.”
