The fact that the EU’s cosmetic regulation is terrible is one of Europe’s worst-kept secrets. It allows for using several well-known hazardous chemicals in the products we apply to our faces. The good thing is that the Commission has promised to change it – but the current public consultation makes us wonder where the ambitions lie?
The big five that can accelerate the safe and sustainable by design criteria
The SSbD criteria can be an instrument for good. But in order for this to happen, it is important that it is easily applicable and understandable. It is also important that it is given enough teeth to actually make a difference. Keeping to these five key concepts would greatly help in this endeavor.
The EU’s recommendation to drastically reduce Bisphenol A in food items is the perfect case story of a broken system
The scientific committee at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently published a draft opinion that the limit value for Bisphenol A (BPA) should be lowered by 100 000 times. The committee thereby concludes that every EU citizen is at health risk from exposure to BPA through their diet.
Risk is Dead
The circular economy forces us to focus on the hazardous properties of chemicals. To neglect this and instead talk about the risk of exposure is close to absurd. Surprisingly, some parts of the chemical industry still do this. It’s time for a change of mind.
Scientists just cut the tolerable intake of PFAS by 99,9%
Tolerable intakes for PFAS could be much lower than scientists previously thought. EFSA’s scientific panel recommends lowering these levels drastically, indicating that the presence of PFAS in the food chain is a big problem to human health.
What’s the difference between a take-away cup and a receipt?
European chemicals legislation allows several hazardous chemicals, that are identified as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and restricted under the REACH regulation, to be used in food contact material. How can this be?
How a hazard-based approach and grouping of chemicals can pave the way for circular economy
Prioritization is a well-used term in chemicals management. It builds on the idea that instead of trying to deal with all hazardous chemicals in products and supply chains at the same time, you should focus on the worst offenders first. The problem is that many professionals connected to chemical regulation focus too much on prioritization. They spend their time forever prioritising instead of keeping their eyes on the ultimate goal, which is of coursing dealing with the hazardous chemicals.
The Greenpeace Detox campaign is showing results
Seven years after Greenpeace launched its Detox campaign comes a report showing how 80 fashion companies that committed to cut hazardous chemicals from their clothing production by 2020 have all achieved significant progress.
The world’s biggest cosmetics brands say NO to PFCs
A year ago, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation started an internet campaign called Surfejs aiming to remove perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) from cosmetics. More than 1,500 consumers sent e-mails to eight of the biggest cosmetics producers in the world, encouraging them to remove PFCs from their products. Until recently, five of these companies had announced that they would begin phasing out these toxic chemicals as soon as possible. Now, another company has announced that they will do the same thing.
Toxic scandals can be costly affairs
There have been several scandals involving large companies’ use of hazardous substances in their products. And these are always very costly affairs. Especially in terms of environmental damage, but also in terms of economy and brand reputation. The latest in the row comes from New York, where the state has sued 3M and five other companies for causing “extensive contamination” to the nearby environment.