New evidence now reveals how Big Toxics and its allies have used misleading narratives to try to weaken the concept of ‘essential use’, to create regulatory loopholes for their hazardous products, and ultimately derailing the Commission’s flagship chemicals reform.

https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/01/how-essential-are-hazardous-substances

Introduction

As we approach the end of the von der Leyen Commission the postponement and even abandonment of major Green Deal commitments to tackle hazardous chemicals and pesticides has pleased both industry and the political right. As part of this trend the European Commission’s proposal to reform existing chemicals rules has been kicked into the long grass, with disputes about one of its key components – the ‘essential use’ concept – apparently at the “heart” of the Commission’s “political impasse”. Introducing an ‘essential use’ concept could really help with streamlining the regulation of hazardous substances in everyday consumer products, from childcare articles to textiles, and with the substitution to safer alternatives. But corporate lobbies have been fighting back hard to demand major loopholes. In doing so they are trying to undermine a sensible measure aimed at responding to the growing toxics crisis and the bad decision-making by industry that has allowed hazardous substances in consumer products in the first place. Below we explore five of industry’s key, but misleading, arguments about ‘essential use’.