OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Det Økologiske Råd

Ecocouncil

The Ecological Council (Det Økologiske Råd) is a Danish NGO founded in 1991.

Lobbying Activity

Response to Review of the requirements for packaging and feasibility of measures to prevent packaging waste

9 Jul 2020

In Green Transition Denmark, we clearly support circular economy and the thought that waste is reduced and goods are re-used and recycled as much as possible. However, it is very important to be aware of the limitations – hazardous chemicals. This can in many cases be a big problem, e.g. when old goods with a content of chemicals that that are not allowed today are being recycled or goods are recycles to other types of goods with higher requirements for chemical content. We have seen examples where children’s toys made of recycled plastic contained extreme levels of hazardous chemicals, e.g. dioxins (https://ipen.org/news/some-plastics-can-poison-children). Dioxins are considered to be some of the world's most toxic chemicals and are extremely harmful even in very small quantities at a few tenths of a picogram per gram. Some of the toys examined contained thousands of times this amount. Brominated dioxins affect the brain's development, damage the immune system and increase the risk of cancer. Therefore, when talking circular economy, it is very important to strictly keep waste containing hazardous chemicals out of the circular economy loop. This further leads to the importance of banning chemicals that are today a barrier for the circular economy to be fully implemented. We need to use taxes and fees to push industry and companies in the right direction. Historically we know, that voluntary efforts do not work – fees and taxes does. In part C in the Roadmap under ‘Likely economic impacts’ it suggests that ‘businesses that adapt to the new requirements could be rewarded through lower extended producer responsibility fees..’. But it should be the other way around, that businesses that do not adapt should pay higher extended producer responsibility fees. It is important not only to focus on circular economy as in recycling of waste. Instead, most importantly, we need to lower production and use of packaging and wrappings. Hereafter, we need smarter designs, to be able to reuse more directly (e.g. through a deposit and return system – like the Danish model). Lastly, if not possible to reuse, then we need designs that makes the packaging and wrappings recyclable (the Danish Plastics Federation, together with other Danish organisations, has developed a design guide for reuse and recyclability: (https://plast.dk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Design-Guide-Reuse-and-recycling-of-plastic-packaging-for-private-consumers-english-version-1.pdf). Moreover, it is important to keep the high-quality plastics (like food contact materials) in the top of the loop, so it is not mixed with low quality or contaminated plastics (e.g. from cleaning agents) that are unsuitable to recycle to high quality materials. In the worst case scenario, all the high quality plastics ends like flowerpots and road cones. The possibility to sort high quality plastics separately should be further investigated.
Read full response

Response to Chemicals strategy for sustainability

19 Jun 2020

Eksponeringen for kemikalier fra det omgivende miljø samt via de produkter vi omgiver os med er en kæmpe trussel mod folkesundheden samt vores økosystemer. Derfor er det væsentligt med en seriøs indsats der stiler mod et samfund, hvor mennesker og miljø ikke udsættes for skadelige kemikalier. Vi peger her på en række indsatser, der i dag er utilstrækkelige til at sikre mennesker og miljø, eller er helt oversete. 1. Utilstrækkelig kemikalielovgivning Overordnet set mangler der kemikalielovgivning, som effektivt beskytter mennesker og miljø mod skadelige effekter. Fx er hormonforstyrrende stoffer kun reguleret i meget begrænset omfang, og nanomaterialer samt samvirkende effekter af kemikalier er slet ikke reguleret. 2. REACH overensstemmelseskontroller REACH-data er grundlaget for hele EU's kemikaliehåndteringssystem. Det skal sikres, at ”No data no market” faktisk virker. Desværre viser ECHA’s årsrapporter, at op mod 70 procent af alle registreringer af kemikalier er mangelfulde. Det omfatter både mindre fejl og forglemmelser, men i mange tilfælde også alvorlige mangler. Læs mere i vores indsatspapir: https://rgo.dk/skal-en-smiley-ordning-saette-skub-i-kemikalieindustrien-i-eu/ Med hensyn til stofevaluering udført på medlemsstatsniveau blev 264 kemikalier evalueret mellem 2012 og 2019. For mere end 65 % af de kontrollerede dossierer var yderligere oplysninger nødvendige for at afklare mistanke om bekymrende forhold: https://echa.europa.eu/da/-/50-more-reach-dossiers-checked-for-compliance-in-2019 3. Gruppering af kemikalier Kemikalier risikovurderes enkeltvis. Mange skadelige kemikalier bør i stedet reguleres via en grupperingstilgang – særligt for at undgå substitution der fortrydes. Et eksempel er BPA der erstattes af fx BPS eller BPF, som tilsyneladende er lige så skadelige (se mere her: https://chemtrust.org/bisphenol_group/) 4. Sporbarhed Der mangler en lovgivning der sikrer, at information om kemikalier følger strømmen fra materiale over produkt til affaldsled. 5. Genanvendte materialer De samme krav der gælder for POP’er og andre skadelige kemikalier i produkter af jomfrueligt materiale skal gælde for produkter lavet af genanvendt materiale. Forskere bag en undersøgelse, der finder kemikalieniveauer der er giftige for mennesker i legetøj af genanvendt plast, opfordrer til øjeblikkelig handling for at ændre de globale genanvendelsessystemer for at forhindre farligt kemisk indhold i at komme ind i den cirkulære økonomi (https://ipen.org/news/some-plastics-can-poison-children) 6. Fødevarekontaktmaterialer Lovgivningen for fødevarekontaktmaterialer skal revideres således at den lever op til de fem vigtige principper, som NGO-miljøet har fremført: https://chemtrust.org/5-key-principles-fcm/. Dette vil sikre et højt beskyttelsesniveau for menneskers sundhed samt for miljøet. Yderligere bør migrationen af kemikalier fra fødevarekontaktmaterialer, herunder ikke-tilsigtede tilsatte stoffer, måles og kontrolleres.
Read full response

Response to A new Circular Economy Action Plan

20 Jan 2020

Rådet for Grøn Omstilling ser positivt på tilblivelsen af en ny Actionplan for cirkulær økonomi. Vi ser alt for mange barrierer for en omstilling til en reel cirkulær økonomi. Herunder et manglende informationsflow for indholdsstoffer i produkter fra prodution til affaldsled, hvilket vanskeliggør både genbrug og en hensigtsmæssig genanvendelse.Men også manglende krav til kvaliteten af forbrugerprodukter, som kan være altafgørende for i hvor høj grad de kan holdes i brug, repareres og genanvendes. Derfor er det væsentligt, at den kommende Actionplan for cirkulær økonomi leverer på følgende områder: - Der skal igangsættes initiativer som nedsætter vores forbrug og dermed brugen af jomfruelige materialer. Dette kan gøres gennem afgiftreguleringer på jomfruelige materialer. - Der skal indføres krav om langt højere kvalitet af produkter, så de kan holdes i brug i længere tid, kan repareres samt genanvendes i sidste led. Nye regler om krav til mulig reparation af WEEE-produkter i Ecodesigndirektivet kan bruges som eksempel og skal følges op med at inkludere langt flere produkter og produktgrupper. - Flere kemikalier og kemikaliegrupper bør forbydes i forbrugerprodukter. Skadelige kemikalier er en direkte stopklods for den cirkulære økonomi - og samtidig vanskeliggør skadelige kemikalier genbrugstanken. - For plastprodukter og emballage bør der indføres en diffenrentieret afgiftsstruktur, der understøtter en overordnet reduktionsdagsorden ved design til genbrug og genanvendelse uden problematiske kemikalier. - Stil krav til brugen af bionedbrydeligt plast da det forurener plastfraktionen efter indsamling og ødelægger muligheden for genanvendelse. - Øget oplysning til forbrugerne (og producenter) omkring biobaseret og bionedbrydelig plast, da anvendelsen nemt kan være mere til skade for miljø og klima end til gavn. - Sørg for at indsatserne i Actionplanen for cirkulær økonomi spiller sammen med det kommende udvidede producentansvar, hvor der bl.a. skal stilles krav til tilbagetagningsordninger via f.eks. pant. - Stil krav til høj kvalitet af plastikemballage (f.eks. fødevarekvalitet), så kvaliteten i genanvendelsen forbliver høj. - Stil krav til design af emballage, så plastik ikke tabes til naturen, og så der altid er mulighed for at emballagen kan genanvendes. Sammensatte materialer vanskeliggør i høj grad muligheden for genanvendelse. Her indgår også designkrav som muliggør reparation.
Read full response

Response to Fitness Check on endocrine disruptors

10 Jul 2019

The Danish Ecological Council welcomes the opportunity to provide comments to the European Commission road map for the fitness check on endocrine disruptors. We welcome the focus on protection of vulnerable population groups that are particularly sensitive to endocrine disruptors, and the particular attention to legislation that does not contain specific provisions for EDCs e.g. legislation of toys, cosmetics and food contact materials. However, we are concerned that this new initiative with an ED fitness check will result in a further delay of the protection of the European citizens and the environment from harmful effects due to exposure to endocrine disruptors. This is especially concerning as the European Commission has failed to deliver the protective measures as defined by the 7th European Environment Action Programme (7th EAP) in order to ensure minimisation of exposure to endocrine disruptors. The Danish Ecological Council is part of the EDC-Free Europe coalition, bringing together public interest groups representing 70 environmental, health, women’s and consumer groups across Europe who share a concern about hormone-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and their impact on our health and wildlife. We therefore fully support the comments submitted by the EDC-Free Europe campaign. In addition to the evaluations mentioned in the section “Data collection and Methodology”, we will recommend that the fitness check also considers various reports published by the Danish Centre on Endocrine Disrupters, in particular the reports “Information/testing strategy for identification of substances with endocrine disrupting properties” ( http://www.cend.dk/files/EDtestingstrategy.pdf); “Report on Interpretation of knowledge on endocrine disrupting substances (EDs) – what is the risk?” (http://cend.dk/files/ED_Risk_report-final-2019.pdf); and “Input for the REACH-review in 2013 on endocrine disrupters” (https://mst.dk/media/mst/9106721/rapport_input_for_the_reach-review.pdf).
Read full response

Response to Evaluation of the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive

19 Mar 2019

The current directive is a bad compromise, which set targets for fuels we don't need but in reality not for the 'fuels' we do need. Electrification of the EU transport sector is absolute key. It is a joke, that fossil fuels are part of definition of alternative fuels. Fossil gas must be removed no matter the form - CNG, LNG and LPG. Due to lack of an effective directive, the level of infrastructure is very different from country to country. It is essential that EU secures the infrastructure for electrification in all of EU - at least secure that TEN-T core network is adequatly covered asap. To ensure a quick electrification and decarbonisation the TEN-T comprehensive network needs to be covered in 2025. It is important that the revised directive also enables charging of heavy vehicles. The electrification of trucks is moving a lot quicker than anybody expected, and it is essential the EU secures that TEN-T core network is ready for cross-boarder heavy vehicles. This should both adress quick charging point, but also cabling for future use, and selfcharging trucks (autonomous trucks). Like with tele-communiction it is important that EU ensures 'roaming' with charging between national boarders with a maximum price that ensures easy cross-boarder transporttation. With the rapid development in the use of electricity at sea, the EU should set a target for onshore power supply for ferries and cruiseships in EU in 2023. This will ensure a level playing field between countries and would facilitate minimizing air pollution a lot.
Read full response

Response to Criteria to identify endocrine disruptors for biocidal products

14 Jul 2016

The Danish Ecological Council calls on the EU Commission to make significant changes to the proposed criteria for identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). The current proposal fails to address this pressing public health threat and fulfil the legal mandate to protect the health of humans, animals and the environment from exposure to these chemicals in our daily lives. The proposed criteria require such a high amount of evidence that it will be nearly impossible to identify more than a small number of substances posing a threat to human health & environment from hormone disruption. In contrast, current lists of potential EDCs include over 800 substances. Over 1300 scientific studies link exposure to EDCs to spiralling rates of hormone-related cancers such as breast or testicular cancer, fertility problems, diabetes, obesity & behavioural problems in children. The World Health Organization has called EDCs a ‘global threat’. The health costs of diseases associated with EDC exposure are estimated at 158 billion € yearly in the EU. The Commission has ignored the majority of respondents to its 2015 public consultation who supported the most effective use of science to protect humans and wildlife, especially vulnerable groups such as pregnant women, babies and children. In the 7th Environmental Action program, the EU committed to minimising EDC exposure. To achieve this goal, the following major aspect needs to be changed: The Commission proposes to identify EDCs only if they are known to have adverse effects in humans or wildlife not intended to be affected. The word ‘known’ means to have proof. Demanding such proof weakens the current law which says to regulate those substances that ‘may’ cause harm (like for carcinogens that ‘may cause cancer’). Such a high burden of proof blocks expert opinion about the likelihood of an effect and is unacceptable, as it is likely to result in damage to humans and the environment before action is taken. This contradicts the precautionary approach enshrined in the EU Treaty and built into the biocide & pesticides laws. It also clashes with the current successful approach of identifying & ranking carcinogens and chemicals toxic to reproduction according to the level of evidence. Substances should be identified as EDCs when they are known or presumed to have adverse effects. Only this approach is consistent and coherent with the EU biocides law which says biocides should not be allowed on the market if they “are considered as having endocrine-disrupting properties that may cause adverse effects in humans”. The Commission should act on the existing scientific evidence and the best option for health is an approach with three categories (confirmed; suspected and potential EDC). The proposal must be rectified to ensure a high level of protection for health and the environment, preventing endocrine-related diseases for Europeans and averting damage from our ecosystems. France, Sweden and Denmark have already expressed their disagreement (http://goo.gl/oU3QDS). The world’s leading experts on EDCs - the Endocrine Society (https://goo.gl/MNE4c7) and other scientists (http://goo.gl/u0LtIl) have strongly criticised the proposal, as have certain industry sectors who believe the criteria should be stronger to identify and phase out potentially harmful materials (http://goo.gl/pmYHkh). EDCs are a threat to our society’s current & future public health and prosperity. Europe should take a leading role in regulating EDCs, as this will stimulate innovation so that all industries in the various sectors develop and use better and safer alternatives. Our everyday exposure to these chemicals – in our food, cosmetics, homes, countryside, work places, schools, & hospitals, must stop to protect the health of current and future generations.
Read full response

Response to Criteria to identify endocrine disruptors for plant protection products

14 Jul 2016

The Danish Ecological Council calls on the EU Commission to make significant changes to the proposed criteria for identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). The current proposal fails to address this pressing public health threat and fulfil the legal mandate to protect the health of humans, animals and the environment from exposure to these chemicals in our daily lives. The proposed criteria requires such a high amount of evidence that it will be nearly impossible to identify more than a small number of substances posing a threat to human health & environment from hormone disruption. In contrast, current lists of potential EDCs include over 800 substances. Over 1300 scientific studies link exposure to EDCs to spiralling rates of hormone-related cancers such as breast or testicular cancer, fertility problems, diabetes, obesity & behavioural problems in children. The World Health Organization has called EDCs a ‘global threat’. The health costs of diseases associated with EDC exposure are estimated at 158 billion € yearly in the EU. The Commission has ignored the majority of respondents to its 2015 public consultation who supported the most effective use of science to protect humans and wildlife, especially vulnerable groups such as pregnant women, babies and children. In the 7th Environmental Action program, the EU committed to minimising EDC exposure. To achieve this goal, two major aspects need to be changed: 1) The Commission proposes to identify EDCs only if they are known to have adverse effects in humans or wildlife not intended to be affected. The word ‘known’ means to have proof. Demanding such proof weakens the current law which says to regulate those substances that ‘may’ cause harm (like for carcinogens that ‘may cause cancer’). Such a high burden of proof blocks expert opinion about the likelihood of an effect and is unacceptable, as it is likely to result in damage to humans and the environment before action is taken. This contradicts the precautionary approach enshrined in the EU Treaty and built into the biocide & pesticides laws. It also clashes with the current successful approach of identifying & ranking carcinogens and chemicals toxic to reproduction. Substances should be identified as EDCs when they are known or presumed to have adverse effects. The Commission should act on the existing scientific knowledge and the best option for health is an approach with three categories according to the level of evidence. 2) The Commission proposes widening the current exemption for those pesticides identified as EDCs into a major loophole. Changing `negligible exposure’ to ‘negligible risk´ would allow continued uncontrolled exposure to these EDCs. This is unacceptable. The Commission has gone beyond their identification task, weakening the law by reintroducing specific risk assessments for pesticides identified as EDCs in the future. The proposal must be rectified to ensure a high level of protection for health and the environment, preventing endocrine-related diseases for Europeans and averting damage from our ecosystems. France, Sweden and Denmark have already expressed their disagreement (http://goo.gl/oU3QDS). The world’s leading experts on EDCs - the Endocrine Society (https://goo.gl/MNE4c7) and other scientists (http://goo.gl/u0LtIl) have strongly criticised the proposal, as have certain industry sectors who believe the criteria should be stronger to identify and phase out potentially harmful materials (http://goo.gl/pmYHkh). EDCs are a threat to our society’s current & future public health and prosperity. Europe should take a leading role in regulating EDCs, as this will stimulate innovation so that all industries in the various sectors develop and use better and safer alternatives. Our everyday exposure to these chemicals – in our food, cosmetics, homes, countryside, work places, schools, & hospitals, must stop to protect the health of current and future generations.
Read full response