Verein für Konsumenteninformation
VKI
Wir informieren Konsument:innen, beraten sie und kämpfen für die Durchsetzung ihrer Rechte.
ID: 502554623335-14
Lobbying Activity
Response to Restrictions on bisphenol A (BPA) and other bisphenols in food contact materials
8 Mar 2024
VKI (Verein für Konsumenteninformation Austrian Consumer Association) was founded in 1961 as a testing organization. Main fields of VKI´s activities comprise product testing, publishing, law enforcement and advice to consumers, e.g., VKI regularly conducts lawsuits and claims with exemplary effect to further develop consumer law and grant consumers access to justice. VKI also runs advice centers in Vienna and Innsbruck. Content-wise VKI has a special expertise on topics like health and safety of products and food, sustainability and environment, financial services and consumer law. We are member of BEUC (The European Consumer Association) and ICRT (International Consumer Research & Testing). Our tests for harmful substances like bisphenols in products often yield alarming results. In one of our tests carried out last year together with other BEUC members, bisphenols were found in numerous children's products, including toys, blankets, bibs, food cans and beverage cans, drinks cans, shoes, sunglasses, tights, and drinking bottles; even one product labelled as bisphenol A-free released BPA! We found particularly high concentrations in all beverage cans and tins. The publication in our monthly magazine KONSUMENT is attached. Report of BEUC: https://www.beuc.eu/blog/hormone-disrupting-chemicals-found-in-60-of-121-childrens-products/ Studies carried out in the course of the Horizon project HBM4EU revealed that 92% of Europeans from 11 EU countries were contaminated with BPA residues in their urine, as reported by the EEA. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/peoples-exposure-to-bisphenol-a/#:~:text=The%20urine%20samples%20were%20collected,Govarts%20et%20al%2C%202023). Children are a particularly vulnerable group to hormone-disrupting and other dangerous chemicals, like bisphenols, but as well and only for example PFAS. It is thus especially important to ban these harmful substances in all products they come into contact. Contact with food contact materials is frequent and direct, so a ban in these products is a priority. We therefore highly welcome the proposal for revising the Food Contact Materials Regulation that includes the ban on Bisphenol A. We also appreciate the provisions to ban other bisphenols to prevent regrettable substitution. To protect our children, but also all people and the environment, we ask for following modifications: A wider a group approach shall be taken: According to the definition in article 1.2 (b) of the proposal the use of other bisphenols and bisphenol derivatives listed in Annex VI, Part 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 due to their harmonized classification as category 1A or 1B mutagenic, carcinogenic, toxic to reproduction or category 1 endocrine disrupting for human health shall be banned. We strongly ask the restriction shall be adopted with no exemptions (as proposed in Article 4.2) and for the entire class of bisphenols. Owing to the high structural similarity of bisphenols there is a high risk that these substances are used among each other as drop-in substitutes for restricted uses. Due to this high structural similarity, one can also expect similar hazardous properties towards humans and the environment. To the transition period: We support the general 18 months transition period foreseen in the draft restriction. However, we strongly disagree with the unlimited sell-off period (Article 10.5). Given the concerns identified by EFSA, we instead recommend a 12 month sell-off period, in line with the sell-off period for toys containing BPA foreseen under the proposed Toy Safety Regulation. This submission is delivered as part of the project n. 101114078 LIFE22-GIE-HU-ToxFree LIFE for All where consumer associations from Hungary, Slovenia, Czechia, and Austria plus ARNIKA, a Czech non-profit environmental organization are working on raising awareness among consumers to change their behavior and choosing toxics-free products and materials.
Read full responseMeeting with Manuela Ripa (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)
21 Sept 2023 · Detergents Regulation
Response to Simplification and digitalisation of labels on chemicals (CLP, Detergents, Fertilising Products)
17 Sept 2021
Aus Sicht des Konsumentenschutzes ist es sehr problematisch, Informationen zu den Produkten vom Etikett ins Internet zu verlagern.
Informationen im Internet werden bedeutend seltener abgerufen, als dass sie direkt am Etikett abgelesen werden. Somit wird die Transparenz für Konsument:innen erniedrigt und eine informierte Kaufentscheidung erschwert. Nicht Computer-affine Menschen würden überhaupt nicht an solche Informationen zu gelangen.
Diese Position betrifft alle chemischen Gemische, die Konsument:innen erwerben können.
Zur Produktgruppe der Detergenzien
- Gerade Produkte des täglichen Gebrauchs werden meistens am Point-of-Sale und nicht nach einer Internet-Recherche ausgewählt.
- Wir haben bei unseren Recherchen in den letzten Jahren festgestellt, dass die Informationen zu den Inhaltsstoffen, die laut
Detergenzienverordnung im Internet zur Verfügung gestellt werden müssen, häufig nicht korrekt sind. Wir haben unsere Zweifel, ob sich diese Situation in Zukunft ändern wird. Es ist davon auszugehen, dass Informationen direkt auf dem Etikett der Produkte verlässlicher sind. Häufig wird wohl bei insbesondere bei einer Änderung der Rezeptur der zweite Schritt, nach dem Etikett sondern auch die Angaben im Internet zu ändern, nicht vollzogen.
Die Detergenzienverordnung geht in Ihren verlangten Angaben über jene der CLP-Verordnung hinaus. Wir begrüßen dies, insbesondere da diese Gemische zu den häufigsten verwendeten Produkten in einem Privathaushalt zählen und bei vielen Produktarten täglicher oder beinahe täglicher Hautkontakt besteht.
Allerdings sehen wir es als problematisch an, dass diese erweiterte Deklaration der Inhaltsstoffe nur für Produkte gilt, die Tenside enthalten, nicht auch z.B. für Luftverbesserer, die ebenso dafür vorgesehen sind, als eine Ergänzung zur Reinigung regelmäßig im Haushalt verwendet zu werden. Daher sollte die erweiterte Deklaration auch für andere Haushaltsprodukte gelten.
Die bis jetzt vorgeschriebene Liste sollte überarbeitet werden.
- Einige Angaben, beispielsweise die der Art an Tensiden – anionisch, nichtionisch oder amphoter - sind zu wenig präzise, um Aussagen über gesundheitliche oder Umwelt-Eigenschaften zu erlangen.
- Unverzichtbar ist aus unserer Sicht, dass die folgenden Kategorien unabhängig von ihrer Konzentration anzugeben sind:
o Enzyme,
o Desinfektionsmittel
o optische Aufheller
o Duftstoffe
o Konservierungsmittel mit der konkreten Bezeichnung
Hier sollte ergänzt werden:
o SVHCs
o Chemikalien, die eindeutige oder potenzielle endokrine Disruptoren sind.
- Ebenso ist es aufgrund des häufigen Hautkontaktes zum Schutz von Allergiker:innen wichtig, dass dieselben allergieauslösenden Duftstoffkomponenten und mit denselben Konzentrationsgrenzen wie für Rinse-Off Kosmetikprodukte genannt werden. Duftstoffallergien betreffen immerhin bis zu 3% der Menschen und sind im Steigen begriffen.
Read full responseResponse to Environmental claims based on environmental footprint methods
31 Aug 2020
Please find enclosed the joint feedback from two competent bodies for national ecolabels, SMK (Stichting Milieukeur) and VKI - Austrian Consumer Association (Austrian Ecolabel) as well as the Austrian Position Paper on "Handling Green Claims".
In our feedback we express our concerns regarding a possible obligation to integrate e.g. PEF methods into the impact assessment of the national label schemes (as well as into the EU Ecolabel).
We acknowledge that PEF may contribute – as a kind of steering tool - to improve or complement EU or national ecolabel criteria, which are developed or revised within a transparent stakeholder process – but due to certain aspects and limitations of PEF Methods (which we elaborate in detail in our feedback paper enclosed), we are against a mandatory integration of PEF into EU and national ecolabel criteria. Furthermore it is unclear how criteria requirements for certain products or processes could be deduced directly from PEF.
Our strong doubts are not only based on methodological limitations of PEF or on the fact, that PEF may be a useful tool against certain, but not all greenwashing strategies (e.g. irrelevant Claims, such as a product that does not contain prohibited substances) – it is also due to the fact that PEF is large-scale industry dominated and has thus a certain restricted perspective.
Thus a mandatory integration of PEF into ecolabelling schemes does not seem to take into account the diverse structure of license holders and not to be in line with the open and transparent stakeholder processes concerning development and revisions of ecolabel criteria and the autonomy of the independent ecolabelling scheme owners, working according to the ISO 14024 and the framework of ISO 17065, the international standard for product certification.
Read full responseResponse to Targeted revision of EU consumer law directives
21 Jun 2018
VKI welcomes the Commission proposal on the modernisation and better enforcement of EU consumer law but several aspects need to be improved to ensure a high level of consumer protection.
- Right of withdrawal: It is troubling that the Commission decided to deteriorate the best-known consumer right when no conclusive evidence has been provided. There should be no change of law without evidence. On the contrary, all data suggest a severe lack of compliance by traders, signalling the need to protect, rather than deteriorate, consumers’ right of withdrawal. It is also very important for the online trade that consumers have the right to withdraw from a contract if the purchased goods are not what they expected. If they have to worry that they lose their withdrawal right, they might be less inclined to order online. Hence, the Commission should investigate how to strengthen this important consumer right rather than weakening it.
- Right to remedies: It is positive that consumers can seek redress in case of unfair commercial practices. Besides the right to compensation and the right to contract termination, further remedies, such as to ask for specific performance or right of restitution should be envisaged. In order to ensure that consumers are equally protected against unfair practices and ensure access to justice, more concrete conditions for the exercise of those remedies should be examined. Also, there should be clear definitions of what those remedies entail. There should also be a standard remedy for non-compliance in the Consumer Rights Directive (CRD), for example the consumer is not bound by the contract if the trader does not meet his/her obligations.
- Penalties: We strongly support this approach taken by the Commission. It is important to have truly dissuasive penalties for infringing companies, amounting to a significant percentage of their annual turnover and taking into account the EU wide dimension of the infringement. The Commission should examine the possibility of the highest sanctions, taking the example of the General Data Protection Regulation.
- Transparency of platforms: We welcome the suggested changes, which provide better transparency obligations for online platforms related to ranking criteria used by platforms, information on the status of the trader/consumer, whether EU Consumer Law applies and who is the responsible contracting party. For the latter, it should be explored whether self-declaration is sufficient to protect consumers. Moreover, a standard remedy is missing if traders do not comply with those requirements. Also, in congruence with the CJEU case law, the platform should be liable if it fails to inform the consumer that a third party is the actual supplier of the product, thus becoming contractually liable vis-à-vis the consumer. In general, rules on the liability of platforms are missing in the Proposal. Online platforms which have a predominant influence over the supplier should also be held liable for the contract performance. The should also be liable if they fail to remove misleading information given by the supplier and notified to the platform, and on guarantees and statements made by the platform operator.
What is also missing are rules for a better, more transparent user feedback/review system. This should be introduced in consumer law.
Read full responseResponse to Targeted revision of EU consumer law directives
21 Jun 2018
VKI welcomes the Commission proposal on representative actions. It is crucial to strengthen private enforcement and to give consumers a realistic chance to obtain redress in case of mass damages (see also https://vki.at/pk-gruppenklage-ak-vki)
This new instrument could make a real change in areas where mass consumer harm typically occurs. VKI finds it essential that the wide scope of the proposal is preserved including passenger rights. The respective re-evaluation clause in Article 18.2 should be deleted. Otherwise consumers facing mass harm situations in this area, e.g. last- minute mass flight cancellations, would be stripped of a possibility to collectively enforce their rights before the courts.
We strongly support obliging Member States to designate consumer associations as qualified entities. VKI in 2001 has developed the “Austrian style group action” (which means using existing procedural law provisions, without any cap of costs) and has gained a long standing expertise in bringing collective redress claims for consumers, getting millions of euros back to consumers. See an overview of examples in VKI´s study on collective redress in Austria: https://tinyurl.com/y7gkoom2 and VKI´s press release on what has been accomplished in 2017: 500 Mio for consumers: https://tinyurl.com/yabmj2h2. At the same time, the status and recognition of VKI and Chamber of Labour act as a strong safeguard against any potential abuse. The national experience in the EU also shows that it is not enough if only public bodies are entitled to bring collective actions, as for various reasons they often do not or cannot act.
The new possibilities for collective redress actions by qualified entities will finally plug the huge gap in the enforcement of the EU consumer rights landscape. Once adopted with some improvements as proposed below, they will mean that the EU countries will not be helpless in the face of any eventual Dieselgate or similar scandal.
We understand it is important to give Member States wide options of how to accord the new provisions with their own procedural laws. The new Directive should allow EU countries to have higher standards and to maintain or introduce other national procedures. In this sense it needs to be clarified, in the proposal, what is meant by the indication, in Article 1.2 that the Directive does not prevent adopting or maintaining in force provisions concerning “other” procedural means to bring actions aimed at the protection of the collective interests of consumers at national level. It is crucial that this directive has a minimum harmonization character and thus will not preclude better national rules or force Member States to amend to the disadvantage of consumers their existing collective redress systems.
However, the possibility for the Member States to derogate from the proposal in the instances of complex quantification of the damage of the individual consumer (Article 6 paragraphs 2 and 3), leaving consumers to have to act individually, might have the effect of seriously undermining the usefulness of the new procedures. Cases with more complex quantification are exactly the types of cases where consumers would not seek redress individually, as it would be economically unreasonable. Even if those consumers could rely on the declaration of the infringement, they would still have to prove both their individual damage and the link between the illegal behavior and the damage – in complex cases both of those elements are likely to require expensive legal, technical or expert opinions, which will be huge barriers for individuals.
Another big risk is only allowing to introduce redress actions once the decision concerning the infringement has become final (Article 5.3). This may incentivize the defendants to drag the litigation as long as possible with the hope redress actions will become impractical.
Read full responseResponse to Towards an EU Product Policy Framework contributing to the Circular Economy
4 Jun 2018
To whom it might concern
In view of a policy framework, and especially regarding circular economy, a holistic approach it is crucial.
It is beyond controversy that minimizing climate change, ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication, resource use and others are important contributions on the way to circular economy. In addition to that the impacts from chemicals at various stages of products manufacture, use and end-of-life for human health and the environment should not be neglected or underestimated.
In this regard we want to indicate that the model for characterizing human and ecotoxicological impacts of chemicals used these days for life cycle assessment (PEF and OEF) isn’t mature, and that the proposed weighting scores for the EF underestimate the contributions of chemicals at an alarming level.
(Find the justification at the attached file)
Kind regards
Christian Kornherr - Susanne Stark
Representing the Austrian Competent Body for the EU Ecolabel
Read full response