Center for International Environmental Law
CIEL
CIEL is a non-profit legal organization using law to protect the environment and human rights.
Lobbying Activity
Response to Strategy on Intergenerational Fairness
11 Nov 2025
The EU Strategy on Intergenerational Fairness must recognize that future generations are holders of human rights and that States bear corresponding obligations under international and EU law. This is not aspirational but grounded in existing normative frameworks. Nothing in EU law justifies discrimination across generations. The EU Member States and the European Union consequently must uphold their human rights obligations, included as laid out in EU primary law, also towards future generations as rights holders. This is also in line with human rights standards and authoritative interpretations by human rights treaty bodies, UN experts and regional courts. In its General Comment (GC) No. 27, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights underscores that future generations enjoy economic, social and cultural rights and that States parties must also take into account the rights of future generations to equal enjoyment of all human rights, and refrain from acts or omissions likely to result in or perpetuate discrimination against them. Other UN treaty bodies confirmed a similar interpretation, including the Committee on the Rights of the Child (GC No. 26, ¶ 11) or the Human Rights Committee (GC No. 36, ¶62). In doing so, they align with the broader understanding of the universality of human rights application. Therefore, the new Strategy should affirm that the EU has a duty of care extending to future generations, which entails upholding their human rights, consistent with the universality and interdependence of all human rights. Central to this duty is the protection of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which, as confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion on States obligations in respect of climate change, is inherent in the enjoyment of other human rights (¶ 393). The Strategy must serve as a vehicle for the realisation of the right to a healthy environment for present and future generations. As emphasized by the Special Rapporteur on the right to a healthy environment (A/79/270), States and regional organizations should support the mainstreaming of the right to a healthy environment in upcoming multilateral negotiations and agreements. This global momentum is also reflected in other regional systems. In its Advisory Opinion on the environment and human rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that the right to a healthy environment constitutes a universal value that is owed to both present and future generations (¶ 59). The ASEAN Declaration on the Right to a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment recognizes that this right must be fulfilled so as to meet equitably the developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations. This illustrates the emerging consensus that the right inherently encompasses an intergenerational dimension. The EU should therefore build on and contribute to this trend by embedding intergenerational equity as a core principle in its implementation of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. The Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations, as well as their legal commentary, provide a comprehensive articulation of the substantial and procedural obligations of States with respect to future generations. Endorsed by over 60 human rights experts, they have their legal foundations in international instruments, constitutional practice and general principles of law, reflecting shared values across all regions and Indigenous legal traditions. The Maastricht Principles offer the EU and Member States a coherent normative framework through which they operationalize intergenerational fairness in a way that is grounded in their human rights obligations. By doing so, the EU can demonstrate leadership in ensuring that the rights of future generations are effectively respected, protected and fulfilled.
Read full responseMeeting with Lena Schilling (Member of the European Parliament) and Food & Water Action Europe
15 Oct 2025 · LNG
Response to Legislative initiative on CO2 transportation infrastructure and markets
11 Sept 2025
Investments in CO2 transport infrastructure risk diverting critical time and resources away from more effective climate action, while simultaneously prolonging reliance on fossil fuels. Building large-scale CO2 transport infrastructure to support Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS), Carbon Capture & Utilisation (CCU) or Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) approaches like Bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) or Direct Air Capture with CCS (DACCS), will lock Europe into decades more reliance on fossil fuels and promote a slower and more drawn-out phase-out. At a time when urgent and deep emissions cuts at source are needed, this approach is both misguided and a waste of time and money we cannot afford. Researchers have found that pursuing carbon injection strategies could extend fossil fuel use by more than 80 years, undermining the pace of transition required to meet global climate targets (https://www.desmog.com/2024/06/10/carbon-capture-will-extend-oil-production-by-84-years-industry-study-finds/). CCS has a long track record of failing to deliver on its promises: Around 78% of large projects fail (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030142152100416X?via%3Dihub) with a recent report showing failure rates are increasing (https://www.dnv.com/news/2025/turning-point-for-ccs-is-now-dnv-report-finds-with-global-capture-and-storage-capacity-expected-to-quadruple-by-2030/); capture rates are routinely overestimated (https://ieefa.org/ccs); there is no evidence of technological or economic improvements in the technology in 4 decades (https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/heavy-dependence-carbon-capture-and-storage-highly-economically-damaging-says-oxford-report) and new research reveals potential storage availability may be 10 times lower than previously estimated (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09423-y). Despite claims that CCS is a climate solution, investment in the technology and supporting infrastructure risks increasing emissions rather than lowering them: The technology itself produces additional emissions through the significant energy required for the capture processa factor known as the energy penalty; over 85% of captured carbon is used on Enhanced Oil Recovery, generating more emissions and prolonging fossil fuel use (https://www.dnv.com/news/2025/turning-point-for-ccs-is-now-dnv-report-finds-with-global-capture-and-storage-capacity-expected-to-quadruple-by-2030/) and while hard to abate sectors like cement and plastics production are used to justify CCS investments, even supporters of the technology conclude it is likely infeasible for industrial application (https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Confronting-the-Myth-of-Carbon-Free-Fossil-Fuels.pdf). This increases the danger of CO2 transportation infrastructure locking in the use of fossil fuels into the future. Carbon capture, transportation and injection is very expensive. Researchers found that a CCS reliant pathway to net zero by 2050 would cost at least $30 trillion more than a low CCS pathway (https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/heavy-dependence-carbon-capture-and-storage-highly-economically-damaging-says-oxford-report). The EU shouldnt waste public money on risky CCS projects that distract from climate action. Overall, the IPCC labels CCS as one of the least effective and most expensive ways to reduce emissions (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-7/) and cautions against overreliance on CCS and related technologies, noting their future deployment is uncertain, they face multiple feasibility constraints, and could have adverse impacts on human rights and ecosystems (https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/IPCC-Unsummarized_Unmasking-Clear-Warnings-on-Overshoot-Techno-fixes-and-the-Urgency-of-Climate-Justice.pdf). Risks of CCS transport and injection to marine environments are detailed in the attached report: Deep Trouble - The Risks of Offshore Carbon Capture and Storage.
Read full responseMeeting with Jessika Roswall (Commissioner) and
1 Jul 2025 · Circular and toxic-free plastic
Meeting with Jessika Roswall (Commissioner) and
24 Apr 2025 · International Plastics Agreement
Meeting with Lynn Boylan (Member of the European Parliament)
18 Mar 2025 · Petrochemicals industry and pathways to transition
CIEL Urges EU to Halt Offshore Drilling and Geoengineering
17 Feb 2025
Topic — The European Oceans Pact establishes a vision for a holistic approach to ocean-related policies.
Message — The organization requests strengthened legal frameworks to halt offshore oil and gas activity. They also demand a ban on geoengineering experiments and deployment in EU waters.12
Why — Restricting these activities would avoid multi-billion dollar costs for dismantling and cleaning up abandoned offshore infrastructure.3
Impact — Fossil fuel corporations would be barred from expanding production in lucrative offshore areas.4
CIEL urges broad ban on bisphenols in food packaging
8 Mar 2024
Message — CIEL supports a swift ban on BPA and urges the Commission to group all bisphenols to prevent substitution. They recommend expanding the scope to include recycled materials like paper and board.12
Why — This would reduce health risks and position the EU as a global regulatory leader.3
Impact — Manufacturers would face administrative burdens and costs to re-apply for chemical authorizations.4
CIEL urges faster classification and clearer labels for endocrine disruptors
18 Oct 2022
Message — CIEL demands a shorter transition period and new visual symbols to identify endocrine-disrupting chemicals. They also propose technical wording changes to allow broader scientific evidence in classifications.123
Why — Faster implementation helps CIEL fulfill its goal of protecting vulnerable groups from hazardous chemical impacts.45
Response to Measures to reduce microplastic pollution
18 Jan 2022
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to this consultation.
Growing scientific research has demonstrated the increasing presence of microplastics in the environment, including food, water, and air. The unintentional release of microplastics represents an unregulated portion of the toxic life cycle of plastic that needs to urgently be addressed.
The Commission’s impact assessment should clearly consider the negative externalities of microplastics releases in its analysis. These include the costs of inaction and the costs related to the increasing air, soil, and marine pollution, the impacts linked to microplastics acting as a vector for toxics and diseases, and other risks (e.g. antibiotic resistance, threatened food security, etc.). The Commission's initiative rightfully identifies that while risks to human health are still being explored, they would likely increase without EU action.
The EU must prevent and minimize microplastics releases by adopting legally binding measures underpinned by the precautionary principle. Voluntary, downstream, and mitigation measures have proven ineffective to tackle this issue, and failed to protect the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
Currently, the measures under consideration are limited to three sources of primary microplastics. However, the initiative highlights the lack of a comprehensive approach to address unintentional releases of microplastics in EU law. The Commission should therefore adopt a holistic approach to microplastic regulation and avoid regulatory and implementation gaps.
The new measures should also include monitoring, source-specific emission reduction targets, and go beyond the physical releases of microplastics in the environment. A comprehensive approach would require the EU to also address the chemical-related hazards and toxicity of microplastics, including their ability to degrade into nanoparticles and adsorb/desorb hazardous compounds. In fact, microplastics can contain substances such as EDCs, POPs, and pathogens linked with developmental, reproductive, brain, immune, and other disorders.
This integrated-regulatory approach should also include other sources in its scope: for instance, primary microplastics such as polymer-coated controlled-release fertilizers, and secondary microplastics arising from uses in paints, healthcare, and medical waste (e.g. face masks), geotextiles, and agriculture.
The FAO has recently published an assessment report on agricultural plastics which shows that plastic products have crept into every aspect of food systems. It is estimated that 12.5 million tonnes of plastic products are being used in plant and animal production annually globally. Vegetable, fruit, crop, and livestock sectors collectively represent 10 million tonnes a year. Around 50% of the total annual quantities of plastics originate from films for mulching, silage production, greenhouses, etc. Other notable sources include sewage water containing microparticles from textiles, compost, fertilizers, and food packaging. A study has estimated that an adult ingests between 40000 to 50000 microplastic particles a year due to consuming contaminated food. This can lead to physical, chemical, and biological effects. Taking into account these data, there’s the risk that in the long term, microplastics and their toxic components will significantly degrade human health and the terrestrial ecosystem if no holistic action is urgently taken.
In its action plan "Towards Zero Pollution for Air, Water and Land", the EU has committed to reducing microplastics by 30% by 2030. This initiative is the opportunity for the EU to take a leadership role and fully address the harms of microplastics.
Read full responseMeeting with Thierry Breton (Commissioner) and
24 Jun 2021 · Discussions on the implementation of the chemicals strategy for sustainability.
Response to Revision of EU legislation on hazard classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals
29 May 2021
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the revision of the EU legislation on hazard classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals (CLP).
CIEL and its many partners in the EDC Free Coalition have been advocating for the establishment of horizontal criteria for endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) for many years. Identifying and restricting EDCs across EU law is necessary to ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment from these hazardous substances. This measure would also support the other two main objectives of EU chemical regulation by creating a level playing field, thus supporting a better functioning of the internal market, and supporting innovation (for elements on the relation between precaution based regulation and the positive impact on innovation, see report: Driving Innovation, available at: http://www.ciel.org/Publications/Innovation_Chemical_Feb2013.pdf). The implementation of the mandate given to the Commission by the 7th Environmental Action Programme (2013-2020) to draft harmonized hazard-based criteria for EDCs in EU legislation is long overdue.
Therefore, CIEL strongly supports the EU commitment in the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability to amend the CLP Regulation and introduce new hazard classes on EDCs, as well as to ensure that consumer products do not contain EDCs and other hazardous chemicals. The EDC classes, in line with the strength of evidence required under each category, should include both category 1 (1A and 1B, as “known” and “presumed” EDCs) and category 2 (“suspected” EDCs). This approach would also be fully in line with the WHO definition of EDCs.
We also welcome the EU commitment to set a global example by promoting these changes to the CLP at the international level. Once ambitious, science-based hazard classes are adopted in the CLP, the same approach should be swiftly taken at the UN GHS level, to avoid weakening the standards and complicating implementation.
We believe the impacts listed in the Inception Impact Assessment should further explore and detail the numerous positive social, environmental, and economic impacts that such a decision would achieve. A prompt CLP revision will likely bring legal certainty and reduce the cost of inaction on the sound management of chemicals. EU research projects on EDCs, such as the EDC-MixRisk (see https://edcmixrisk.ki.se/2019/03/26/press-release-health-risks-associated-with-mixtures-of-man-made-chemicals-are-underestimated/ ), show how the health risks associated with the combined exposures to EDCs or potential EDCs are systematically underestimated under current assessment methods. The science is clear: EDCs affect human health and wildlife.
EDCs can also have multigenerational effects and irreversibly damage children’s development. Delaying action and decision undoubtedly puts the health of current and future generations at risk, and constitutes a failure to abide by international human rights obligations. By introducing new CLP criteria, classes, and labeling requirements, the Commission would contribute to protecting people against harmful exposures, including vulnerable populations, children, workers, and women. The IIA should explore further positive impacts, including the consideration of additional fundamental rights (e.g., children’s rights).
The overall benefits of action would be cross-cutting and help to achieve the objectives of several EU initiatives, ranging from the Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child, to the Circular Economy Action Plan.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of EU legislation on registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals
29 May 2021
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the revision of the REACH Regulation and the Inception Impact Assessment (IIA).
We welcome the ambitious commitments established in the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) and call on the Commission to ensure the implementation of all the promised actions.
However, we note that there are several notable discrepancies between the plans for the REACH revisions in the IIA and the CSS. For instance, the CSS commits to amending REACH article 57 and "introduc[ing] endocrine disruptors, persistent, mobile and toxic and very persistent and very mobile substances as categories of substances of very high concern” (SVHC), this commitment appears to be missing from the IIA.
We also believe that the revision of registration requirements should ensure that registration dossiers include all information needed for substance identity, hazard assessment, and risk management of chemical substances. In order to identify substances such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), it is urgent to close data gaps and include new and updated test requirements, methods, and guidelines.
To ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment, the revisions should extend the registration requirements to all polymers. To do so, the priority for registration should go to those used in the highest volumes. The recent IPCP scientific “Statement on the Registration of Polymers under REACH” ( https://www.ipcp.ch/activities/polymer-statment ) highlighted how these types of polymers massively contribute to the plastic pollution crisis, can leach contaminants, and are “thus likely to result in the highest exposures.” Registration requirements should also include polymers that can become substances of concern when they degrade, including those that can degrade into micro and nanoplastics.
CIEL supports introducing a generic Mixtures Assessment Factor (MAF) and believes this should translate into a concrete use of the MAF in the chemicals safety assessment of registrants and not be a mere assessment exercise.
Lastly, the EU needs to hold industry manufacturers and importers responsible for their obligations under REACH. When the industry is not compliant or does not share sufficient information, this also has a cascading effect on national controls. A glaring example is the case of nanoforms of substances: despite the expired deadline for registration requirements, information remains scarce, and the national enforcement remains a challenge/failure burdening the EU Member States, at the expense of people’s health and the environment.
Read full responseMeeting with Thierry Breton (Commissioner) and European Environmental Bureau and
5 May 2021 · Implementation of the chemicals strategy for sustainability
Response to Revision of EU rules on food contact materials
29 Jan 2021
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the revision of EU rules on food contact materials (FCM).
In order to address the identified issues, CIEL supports option 2: the creation of a new regulatory framework. The new framework should be based on CHEM Trust’s 5 key principles:
1. A high level protection of human health: substances used should have adequate safety data and be regularly reviewed;
2. Thorough assessment of chemicals in materials and final articles: The presence/migration of chemicals in food contact articles – including Non-Intentionally Added Substances (NIAS) – should be measured, assessed and controlled;
3. Effective enforcement;
4. A clean circular economy based on non-toxic material cycles; and
5. Transparency and participation for supply chains and final consumers.
PROHIBITING THE PRESENCE OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS IN FCMs:
In order to minimize the impacts on human health resulting from exposure to toxic chemicals in FCM we call for the Commission to implement the commitments of the Farm to Fork Strategy to ensure public health by reducing the use of hazardous chemicals. CIEL calls on the Commission to effectively prohibit the use of hazardous chemicals in FCM. Such approach would further support the commitments made on the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability which additionally augments ambitions for the removal of hazardous chemicals for non-toxic material cycles.
In this regard, we advocate for the strengthening of the tiered approach proposed in the Inception Impact Assessment (IIA):
- Identified “tier 1 substances” should be prohibited in FCMs. These should include category 1A, 1B and 2 CMRs, EDCs, PBTs and vPvBs. The regulation should allow for the further inclusion of substances under “tier 1,” in line with scientific developments and the precautionary principle. Following the future development of hazard classes for EDCs, all presumed and suspected EDCs should be prohibited in FCMs.
- In relation to tier 2 substances, substances in the nano form in particular, it would be critical to ensure that the safety assessment is tailored to the specificities of such materials and that a precautionary approach be adopted to ensure safety.
- The approach for “tier 3 substances” appears to be embryonic at this stage and would merit further clarification to allow for practical suggestions and constructive comments.
We also call on the Commission to address other issues missing from IIA, such as the need to address specific concerns on EDCs (low doses effects and non-monotonic dose responses), as well as the issue of combined exposures to unintentional mixtures of chemicals used in FCMs. We would welcome the Commission to clarify whether NIAS would be addressed in the tiered approach and how they will be controlled.
CREATING A NOVEL FCM REGULATORY FRAMEWORK:
The new legal framework, pursuant to option 2, should be designed as a robust, holistic, and advanced system for all sectors that will need to coordinate to minimize legislative gaps and shortcomings.
This new framework should aim to capture the identified gaps by responding to the 8 fundamental issues found in the IIA. This involves avoiding the issues with multi-materials with complexities related to definitions, addressing the issues of the full characteristics of final materials alongside the development of safer alternatives and better protection to sensitive populations such as pregnant women and children.
The framework should be inclusive of measures on consumers’ right to information. While the responsibility on consumer safety should rely on the industry, individuals should know which chemicals are used and might migrate from FCMs.
The overall objective must be met by building a comprehensive framework that is coherent with environmental legislation and ensures a high level of protection of human health.
Read full responseResponse to Update of concentration limit values of persistent organic pollutants in waste
7 Aug 2020
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) is grateful for the opportunity to respond to this consultation.
We call on the European Commission to “protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants” (POPs) in the update of POPs content levels in waste, in line with the objective of the EU Regulation on POPs and the Stockholm Convention. The impact assessment should prioritize human health and the environment over economic considerations of waste management costs.
Please find our feedback attached.
Read full responseMeeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and
23 Jul 2020 · To discuss the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, especially with relation with endocrine disruptors.
Response to Chemicals strategy for sustainability
18 Jun 2020
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) welcomes the possibility to respond to the public consultation.
We support the Commission’s ambition for a toxic-free environment.
● General comments:
o Ensure the strategy operationalizes the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle in accordance with the EU Treaties.
o Increase transparency in decision-making processes (such as the REACH Committees)
o Prioritize legislative and policy interventions to implement preventive and precautionary measures, according to the ‘hierarchy of controls’ in risk management
o Minimize exposure to hazardous chemicals and phase out the most hazardous chemicals, such as POPs and HHPs. Promote safer chemicals substitutions (including non-chemicals alternatives) to achieve a high level of protection of human health and the environment
o Adopt a grouping approach to regulation of classes of chemicals (e.g. PFAS, Bisphenols, Brominated Flame Retardants) to avoid ‘regrettable substitutions’
o Address mixture toxicity via a cross-cutting approach to ensure a high level of environmental and human health protection and tackle combined exposures
o Adopt coherent and ‘horizontal’ regulatory approaches across different sectors and legislation for instance in relation to EDCs and nanomaterials
o A true circular economy must be toxic-free: Implement similar requirements for virgin and recycled materials. The Strategy should inform the actions in the Circular Economy Action Plan, aim at a toxic-free interface between chemicals, products, and waste, and include measures to ensure transparency and full disclosure and traceability of substances across the value chain
o Include an action plan with clear timelines and action to close the current gaps and address inconsistencies across chemicals legislation
o Properly implement the ‘no data no market principle’
o Ensure coherent EU action at the global level and end ‘double standards’ for both exports from and imports to the EU.
Specific suggestions are included in the attached document. These cover EDCs, nanomaterials, plastic additives, and the global aspects of the Strategy.
Read full responseMeeting with Frans Timmermans (Executive Vice-President) and European Environmental Bureau and
16 Jun 2020 · European Green Deal, new circular economy action plan and the circular plastics economy
Response to A new Circular Economy Action Plan
20 Jan 2020
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this consultation.
- The Plan should be developed in coherence with the zero-pollution ambition for a toxic-free environment and include the phase-out of hazardous substances such as EDCs, flame retardants, fluorinated compounds, and heavy metals. Failure to do this threatens with the contamination of recycled materials from hazardous chemicals and the continuation of human and environmental exposure. In particular, the EU should withdraw its recycling exemptions under the Stockholm Convention for materials containing POPs flame retardants. This would protect public health and prevent damaging the credibility of the recycling sector in the long-term.
- Transparency and access to information on chemicals are prerequisites for enabling a circular economy. Accessible and full information is also important in creating an incentive for manufacturers to opt for the products and materials with a lighter environmental footprint, and must follow the product life cycle and supply chain.
- The scope of the Sustainable Product policy should be broad and include the use and design of materials, starting with the production process rather than focus only on the final product. For instance, by addressing plastics as a material and not as a product, the EU can foster systematic change in plastic production and use. The global nature of the plastic crisis, with its severe health, climate and environmental impacts throughout its life cycle, means transformative action is needed at the global level. The development of the Plan offers the opportunity to include robust directions for a global agreement that takes a comprehensive approach across the lifecycle of plastic.
- The Plan should include actions that tackle the release of microplastics, including from textile synthetic fibers, tire dust and production pellets all along the supply chain. The EU should also clarify the difference between compostable, bio-based and biodegradable plastics, with the two latter being submitted to the same prevention measures as conventional plastics. Rules on labeling and placing on the market are urgently needed to tackle false green claims.
- Textiles, presented among the areas of special interest, must include sustainability considerations not only in terms of safety (e.g. pesticide use in growing cotton), but also in regard to resource efficiency, keeping in mind the zero pollution action plan for water, oil, and soil.
- In aiming to achieve both climate neutrality and economic circularity, it is important to take into account the ways green energy is produced, stored and distributed, particularly for the production, use, and disposal of (lithium) batteries. This includes both at the industrial and consumer level (e.g. electric means of transport), and for the technological developments of green energy (e.g. the question of the end of life, recyclability and disposal of old technologies that create a whole group of a new type of e-waste and hazardous waste).
- In shifting from linear to circular models, it will be essential to include just transition mechanisms for workers. The development of policies at every stage of the products lifecycle should respect the human rights to health and to a healthy environment.
- The circular economy must not operate by false assumptions that recycling is the key to managing the excessive production of waste. Recycling is a finite process, with some materials having only a couple of cycles of recycling capacity. Policies should respect the waste reduction hierarchy and so focus on waste prevention and reduction and scale up zero-waste models.
Read full responseResponse to Fitness Check on endocrine disruptors
9 Jul 2019
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) welcomes the possibility to provide comments on the European Commission Roadmap for the Fitness Check on Endocrine Disruptors (EDCs).
Comments on section A of the Roadmap, on the purpose and scope of the evaluation:
The Commission explains that the fitness check on EDCs “will feed into the reflection [on] whether legislative changes are necessary”. However, the need to introduce legislative changes is a long-overdue commitment. The 7th Environment Action Programme (EAP), which dates back to 2013, mandates the EU to “develop harmonised hazard-based criteria for the identification of endocrine disruptors". The existing criteria to identify EDCs are intended and designed for pesticides and biocides only. The Commission announced in 2017 that it will work on a new strategy to minimize exposure to EDCs in toys, cosmetics and food packaging (EC Press Release, 7 July 2017), and it reiterated its commitment in its communication “Towards a comprehensive European Union framework on endocrine disruptors”, stating that “the Commission considers that there should be a coherent approach to the identification of endocrine disruptors across all relevant Union legislation, based on the broadly accepted definition of the World Health Organisation” (EC Communication, 7 November 2018, and also "Findings of the Fitness Check of the most relevant chemicals legislation (excluding REACH)", part 1, 25 June 2019). Therefore, instead of delaying legislative action by investigating the opportunity to regulate EDCs, the Commission should rather focus on how to address the gaps, how new specific provisions should be framed, and how human health and environmental protection be achieved. In this regard, we would like to reiterate our suggestions in the report “Disrupted Criteria. The criteria to identify endocrine disruptors: implications beyond pesticides and biocides” (CIEL, ClientEarth, 2017).
The Roadmap announces that the fitness check will compare the current situation with 1999, when the first EDC strategy was adopted. However, while comparing the current situation with that of 20 years ago can contribute to assessing past progress, a proper updated EDC strategy with specific measures and actions (including a timeline, budget, and targets) is still lacking.
The Roadmap also mentions the assessment of the international dimension, referring in particular to imported products. We suggest that this section include not only market impacts but also human health and environmental impacts. In addition, the EU has taken international commitments to act on hazardous chemicals, and it has the opportunity to play a leading role in strengthening protection from EDCs at the global level (e.g. at UNEA and SAICM).
Finally, the fitness check should contribute to ensuring that new provisions on EDCs will be in line with a toxic-free circular economy.
Comments on section B of the Roadmap, on the consultation of citizens and stakeholders and data collection and methodology:
The Roadmap mentions an upcoming consultation of key stakeholders and public authorities. However, it does not give more information on how these stakeholders will be identified, which issues will be addressed in this targeted consultation or when this will take place.
------
CIEL is part of the EDC-Free Europe coalition, which brings together public interest groups representing 70 environmental, health, women’s and consumer groups across Europe who share a concern about EDCs and their impact on our health and wildlife. Our comments are complementary to those submitted by EDC-Free Europe.
We remain available for any clarification. We look forward to participating in the fitness check to help the EU achieve its commitments on EDCs.
Read full responseMeeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Greenpeace European Unit and
18 Oct 2018 · discussion on Plastics Strategy
Response to Towards a more comprehensive EU framework on endocrine disruptors
18 Jul 2018
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) welcomes the possibility to provide feedback on the Roadmap 'Towards a more comprehensive EU framework on
endocrine disruptors' (EDCs).
On Section A:
The Commission is mischaracterizing the context: ‘societal concern remains high’ because of the growing scientific evidence linking EDC exposure to several diseases, the misleading claims of scientific uncertainty, and the Commission’s own delays in complying with its obligations on EDCs. The European Court of Justice has already condemned the Commission’s delays and failure to act (Case T-521/14), and the European Parliament has already vetoed the Commission’s attempt to include an illegal provision in the EDC identification criteria for pesticides. The Commission is now risking failure to implement its commitments and objectives set by the European Parliament and Council, which are appropriately mentioned in the Roadmap. To avoid this, part of the Roadmap should be revised.
The 7th Environment Action Programme (EAP) mandated that the Commission develop ‘harmonised hazard-based criteria for the identification’ of EDCs. However, the Commission developed long-overdue identification criteria for only two regulations, on pesticides and biocides, and major legislative gaps remain. The Commission’s claim that ‘a comprehensive set of legislative measures is in place’ to provide a high level of protection to humans and the environment is therefore distorted and overlooks the existing gaps.
On Section B:
The 7th EAP asks the Commission to ‘set out a comprehensive approach to minimising exposure to hazardous substances,’ but this is missing from the Roadmap, contrary to what was previously announced by the Commission. On 4th July 2017, the Commission claimed ‘to start working on a new strategy to minimise exposure of EU citizens’ to EDCs ‘to cover toys, cosmetics and food packaging.’ To do so will require addressing legislative gaps. Therefore, the Roadmap must go beyond a ‘framework of EU policies’ that already exist and be reframed as a new strategy to minimize exposure to EDCs.
The new strategy should not only include research and awareness-raising activities, but also aim to address legislative gaps. Moreover, it should minimize the combination effect of exposure to mixtures of EDCs (the ‘cocktail effect’), take action to identify and address suspected EDCs, and move towards the regulation of groups of chemicals. Specific timelines will need to be added. We further encourage the Commission to meet the eight demands for an EU EDC Strategy presented by the EDC Free Europe coalition.
To ensure coherence and effectiveness, the Commission must make sure that all activities are in line with the EU Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy. Allowing the presence of EDCs in plastics would not only expose people and the environment to these hazardous chemicals, but also hamper recyclability.
With regard to cooperation on the global scene, the Commission must also consider adding support for the implementation of the EDC work plan developed at the International Conference on Chemicals Management and for the continued inclusion of EDCs on the agenda of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) beyond 2020 process.
Read full responseResponse to Evaluation of Food Contact Materials (FCM)
22 Dec 2017
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) welcomes the possibility to comment on the European Commission roadmap for the evaluation of food contact materials (FCM). - See document attached -
Read full responseResponse to Amendments of the Annexes to REACH for registration of nanomaterials
6 Nov 2017
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) welcomes the publication of the European Commission’s official proposal for REACH Annex revisions to address nanomaterials. Detailed comments to both the political and technical aspects of this proposal are provided in the attached document.
Read full responseResponse to Criteria to identify endocrine disruptors for biocidal products
18 Jul 2016
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) welcomes the Commission’s effort to define criteria for endocrine disruptors based on the WHO/IPCS definition, and without the element of potency, according to the Commission’s mandate to adopt “specific scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties.” However, CIEL is deeply concerned that:
1. The draft criteria illegally restrict the scope of the approval mechanisms to substances having endocrine disrupting (ED) properties “known” to cause adverse effects, by removing substances that “may” cause adverse effects.
Since the approval mechanisms in the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR, Regulation (EU) 528/2012) excludes substances having ED properties that “may” cause adverse effects, while the draft criteria are limited to substances “known” to cause adverse effects, it follows that the draft criteria are deliberately excluding substances that are “presumed” to have ED properties. Additionally, there are no criteria for substances that are “suspected” to have ED properties.
Consequently, this formulation:
a) exceeds the Commission’s mandate in restricting the scope and objective of the Regulation;
b) is inconsistent with the BPR, which applies the same approval mechanisms for substances with ED properties and substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic for reproduction according to the CLP classification, since the CLP classification encompasses different categories, covering also “presumed” (and “suspected”) carcinogenic, mutagenic and repro-toxicants;
c) is inconsistent with the level of protection from endocrine disruptors set in the BPR, which in Article 5.1(d) also excludes substances “identified in accordance with Article 57(f) REACH as having ED properties.” Since those endocrine disruptors “give raise to an equivalent level of concern” that substances which meet the identification criteria for carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and toxicity for reproduction, it follows that the determination of ED properties shall adopt a similar method of identification and include presumed and suspected EDCs;
d) fails to comply with the precautionary principle, to which “the provisions of the Regulation are underpinned by;” and
e) fails to comply with the purpose of the BPR to ensure “a high level of protection of both human and animal health and the environment,” paying “particular attention” to the “protection of vulnerable groups” such as pregnant and nursing women, the unborn, infants and children, the elderly, and workers and residents highly exposed over the long term.
2. The draft criteria lower the level of protection by limiting the scientific evidence that can be considered for assessment.
The draft criteria ask the adverse effect to be “relevant” for human health, excluding EDs, which effects have been demonstrated on animals only. The draft criteria also favor studies “primarily performed according to internationally agreed study protocols” above other studies, such as peer-reviewed independent studies that could bring stronger scientific evidence in identifying endocrine disruptors.
Consequently, this high burden of proof:
a) fails to comply with the precautionary principle;
b) fails to ensure a high level of protection for human and animal health and the environment; and
c) is inconsistent with the CLP practice for classification and weight of evidence.
Read full responseResponse to Criteria to identify endocrine disruptors for plant protection products
18 Jul 2016
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) welcomes the Commission’s effort to define endocrine disruptors’ criteria based on the WHO/IPCS definition, and without the element potency, according to the Commission’s mandate to present “specific scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties”. However, CIEL is deeply concerned that:
1. The draft criteria illegally restrict the scope of the approval mechanisms to substances having endocrine disrupting (ED) properties “known” to cause adverse effects, by removing substances that “may” cause adverse effects.
Since the approval mechanisms in the PPPR exclude substances having ED properties that “may” cause adverse effects, while the draft criteria are limited to substances “known” to cause adverse effects, it follows that the draft criteria are deliberately excluding substances that are “presumed” to have ED properties. Additionally, there are no criteria for substances that are “suspected” to have ED properties.
Consequently, this formulation:
a) exceeds the Commission’s mandate in restricting the scope and objective of PPPR;
b) is inconsistent with PPPR, which applies the same approval mechanisms for substances with ED properties and substances that are carcinogenic and toxic for reproduction according to the CLP classification, since the CLP classification encompasses different categories, covering also “presumed” (and “suspected”) carcinogenic and repro-toxicants;
c) fails to comply with the precautionary principle, to which “the provisions of the Regulation are underpinned by”; and
d) fails to comply with the purpose of PPPR “to ensure a high level of protection of both human and animal health and the environment”, particularly towards “vulnerable groups of the population, including pregnant women, infants and children.”
2. The draft criteria lower the level of protection by limiting the scientific evidence considered. The draft criteria ask the adverse effect to be “relevant” for human health, excluding EDs, which effects have been demonstrated on animals only; the draft criteria also favor studies “primarily performed according to internationally agreed study protocols” above other studies, such as peer-reviewed independent studies that could bring stronger scientific evidence in identifying EDCs.
Consequently, this high burden of proof:
a) fails to comply with the precautionary principle;
b) fails to ensure a high level of protection for human and animal health and the environment; and
c) is inconsistent with the CLP practice for classification and weight of evidence.
3. The Commission was mandated to present scientific criteria for the determination of ED properties. The Commission’s proposal modifies the derogation provision, from negligible “exposure” to negligible “risk” in addition to proposing criteria. The change to the derogation provision is a regulatory change exceeding the mandate and is therefore illegal. This addition shifts the PPPR’s hazard-based approach to a risk assessment approach and cannot therefore use Art. 78.1(a) PPPR as a legal basis, as this can only be used to adapt the regulation to “current scientific and technical knowledge”.
Additionally, the draft changes the derogation in PPPR:
i. from being a closed definition (“that is” the product is used in closed systems) to an illustration (“in particular”);
ii. from having strict conditions (“excluding” contact with humans) to merely aspire at them (“aim at excluding”); and
iii. from not exceeding the lowest “default value” set for residues to a situation “where maximum residue levels [...] can [...] be set.”
Consequently, this change in the derogation:
a) exceeds the Commission’s mandate; and
b) allows the approval of substances that would otherwise be banned by the current PPPR, thus failing to comply with the precautionary principle and high level of protection for human and animal health and the environment.
Read full response