Shorouk Express
Margot Wallström is a former vice president of the European Commission and former foreign minister of Sweden. Jytte Guteland is member of the Swedish parliament and former lead negotiator on EU climate law in the European Parliament. Mats Engström is a former deputy state secretary at the Swedish Ministry for the Environment.
The chemical industry is vital to Europe’s economy and employs millions of workers across the bloc. However, too many hazardous substances remain on the market, threatening humans and nature alike. For example, the use of a group of chemicals known as PFAS — or “forever chemicals” — has contaminated thousands of sites and can now be measured in our bloodstreams.
It is, therefore, worrying that after 18 years in force, the flagship of Europe’s chemicals legislation — the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) — is becoming endangered.
What the European Commission has promised is to “simplify” REACH. But the proposal presented to member country experts seems more akin to deregulation and a lowering of ambitions. For instance, if put into action, the goal of phasing out substances of very high concern would be severely diluted.
The main reason behind this revision is an intense lobbying campaign for European “competitiveness.” But this approach is too narrow and short-sighted. And while the intention of simplification may be good, undermining vital legislation will harm people, the environment and the economy — not to mention citizens’ confidence in the EU.
Among the authors of this article, one of us proposed and negotiated REACH in the early 2000s, and another was the European Parliament’s lead negotiator on the EU’s climate law. In both cases, we witnessed intense lobbying to slow progress, with industry pressure to weaken REACH described as “the largest ever lobbying campaign in Europe.”
The situation today seems widely similar in terms rolling back legislation. According to the EU Transparency Register, industry lobbying on REACH and PFAS has been very intense in recent years.
However, there’s no evidence that regulation is the main cause of the chemical industry’s current problems — not to mention that substituting the most hazardous substances would provide a competitive advantage in future global markets. It would also help other industries, such as textiles, furniture and recycling, and several companies in these sectors have already called for a stronger REACH rather than a watered-down one.
More crucially, though, what the Commission is indicating would cause harm. It would limit the authorization procedure for substances of very high concern — for example, by excluding those with widespread uses — which would result in more such substances remaining on the market and increasing risks.
The Commission is also reversing its position on the 2020 Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. This is particularly evident in its weakened approach to the rapid phaseout of substances with well-established generic risks, such as neurotoxicity, or are persistent in the environment (“forever chemicals”).
Essentially, this new approach would reduce regulatory incentive to replace these substances. But we know from experience that voluntary approaches fail to deliver results, with the burden of regulation increasingly falling on national authorities — something that could lead to fragmentation of the internal market.
Take the debate on PFAS, which are endocrine disruptors and possible carcinogens. Two of us writing this piece had blood tests done a few years ago, and as expected, the results showed widespread PFAS variants at levels typical of individuals of a similar age. Other potentially dangerous chemicals, such as polychlorinated alkanes, were also present.
These levels are remarkably high, and their presence is frightening because there are many gaps in research on the effects they might have. Moreover, it’s almost impossible for individuals to do anything about this, as we’re constantly exposed to these chemicals from so many different sources, including drinking water and food.
This is why we need legislation and standards.
So far, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has promoted the “One Health approach” — which links human well-being to that of animals, plants and the wider environment — in a very positive way. But we also need an ambitious policy on hazardous substances that is guided by the precautionary principle.
Instead, this potential weakening of chemicals legislation is yet another example of how “simplification” often means deregulation. It also makes the commitment to “stay the course on the Green Deal” in the new Commission’s policy guidelines increasingly meaningless.
The Commission’s own estimates show that the cost of cleaning up PFAS contamination across the bloc will be between €5 billion and €100 billion per year — that’s just one example of the human and economic cost of inaction when it comes to hazardous substances.
As such, Europe’s competitiveness and its citizens would truly benefit from stronger chemicals regulations. In order to achieve that, we must first close the information gap, while the EU accelerates its phaseout of the most harmful substances and ensures regulation is properly enforced in all member countries.
To restore the ambition of the EU’s chemicals policy and actually protect both its people and the environment, we need urgent improvements to REACH. Only then can the EU deliver on its commitments to a toxic-free environment.
