Environmental Protection: Wonderful and Dangerous | nd-aktuell.de

When the Stockholm Convention came into force exactly 20 years ago, it marked a historic moment in Sona Dadhania’s opinion: “It was the first global treaty aimed at eliminating or restricting chemicals harmful to human health and the environment,” such as Expert from market research company IDTechEx explains. More specifically, the convention, adopted at a conference in the Swedish capital, regulates the handling of “persistent organic pollutants.” Surprisingly late, considering that dangerous chemicals have been produced and processed on an industrial scale since the mid-19th century.

The Stockholm Convention, which has now been ratified by 186 states, started with the ban on the “Dirty Dozen”: Twelve organic chlorine compounds that are considered carcinogenic and can alter the genetic makeup are gradually being withdrawn from circulation. These include the insecticide DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) – the industrial chemicals are found primarily in transformers and capacitors. The UN agreement also regulates questions of disposal and support for poor countries through money, knowledge and technology transfer. The Convention Secretariat in Geneva also collects important information, monitors the register of exemptions for certain countries and accepts applications to extend the provisions.

Not all PFAS are known

That is precisely the charm of the convention: its expansion is desired. The EU and individual European countries in particular have recommended additional substances for inclusion over the years. According to Dadhania, 2009 marked another “milestone.” At that time, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its related substances were the first from the group of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) to be regulated at the international level. The PFAS, which do not occur in nature, consist of carbon chains whose hydrogen atoms have been replaced in whole or in part by fluorine atoms. Since they are hardly degradable in the environment, they are referred to as “forever chemicals”. But the path that the convention shows is an extremely long one. So far, only three PFAS chemicals have been included in the convention – but according to the OECD definition, the group includes almost 5,000 substances. More recent estimates put the number at 10,000 or even 12,000 substances. Although PFAS have been on the market for at least 50 to 60 years, “we still don’t know all the substances,” explains Mark Bücking from the Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology. Still, as research continues to identify more risks to human and environmental health, activists and lawmakers worldwide are beginning to take a more proactive approach to regulating PFAS, according to an IDTechEx study.

Europe is pursuing the most “aggressive” approach to regulation. In January 2023, specialist authorities from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden submitted a proposal to the European Chemicals Agency to ban the production, import and use of all PFAS with a few exceptions in the EU. The following public consultation received over 5,600 stakeholder comments. Most of the critical objections came from Germany and Japan – countries with powerful chemical industries. Most positive comments were received from Sweden.

Many useful properties

The problem with the ban: “PFAS have wonderful properties,” as the Nature Conservation Association (Nabu) says. They are water, grease and dirt repellent as well as heat and acid stable. In addition, their areas of application are diverse. They are found in disposable coffee cups and pizza boxes, in textiles and furniture, in firefighting foam and implants, in cookware and even in dental floss. Proponents also argue that future industries such as the hydrogen economy, 5G mobile phone technology, electric vehicles, sustainable packaging and heat pumps rely on PFAS.

At the same time, however, the dangers for people, animals and plants are well documented. If the substances enter the environment, which mainly happens during production and disposal via wastewater and exhaust air from factories and landfills, they also accumulate. PFAS can now be detected in soil and even drinking water worldwide, for example in Germany. The Federal Association of the Energy and Water Industry (BDEW) is therefore calling for a strict ban in a joint statement with the German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation (BUND). The reason is obvious: according to the current state of technology, PFAS can only be partially retained and can therefore be detected both in wastewater treatment plant effluents and in sewage sludge. The demands on expensive mechanical-biological treatment of wastewater are increasing. BDEW and BUND therefore want manufacturers in the chemical industry and in retail to share in the costs: “Environmental impacts must be priced in. Also to promote the development of environmentally friendly alternatives.«

This is exactly the key question: In order to ban PFAS, equivalent substitutes are needed. In fact, research is being conducted on this in many places, and numerous companies are advertising “PFAS-free” alternatives. Bernd Wille from the Nabu Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology Committee is convinced that a ban will come, but with exceptions and transition periods. For example, for Teflon – a central material in medical technology: “Developing replacements for it takes a very long time,” explains the chemist. Nevertheless, the ban should come into force as early as 2026: “The part of the industry that has recognized that we have to move away from fluorinated compounds needs the ban for planning security. The other part needs the ban to start moving.”

First substitute materials in the textile sector

External pressure apparently promotes the development of substitute materials, as the textile sector shows. PFAS are particularly used in outdoor clothing, whose consumers spend a lot of time in nature and are generally considered to be more environmentally conscious. “Globally, consumer concern about the harmful effects of PFAS in fashion has increased in recent years,” says Marguerite LeRolland, industry expert at market research company Euromonitor. Numerous US states are planning to ban them in textiles after activist campaigns and lawsuits drew attention to the toxic chemicals. This has accelerated research around the world: London start-up Amphico, co-funded by textile wholesaler Toyoshima of Japan, has developed fully recyclable, PFAS-free, breathable and water-repellent fibers for outdoor and sportswear and aims to start mass production this year begin.

The Japanese chemical company Toray, one of the largest manufacturers of water-repellent fibers, is also moving towards PFAS-free textiles – more than 90 percent of its products that contained these substances have been replaced, according to their own statement. However, these are “indispensable” in construction machinery, cars, aircraft, agricultural machinery, semiconductors and filters.

You can also hear something similar from parts of the chemical lobby in Europe, which is using the big club of exodus of industries to raise the mood against a strict ban. With success: A few days ago, a letter from Commission boss Ursula von der Leyen became known calling for a massive expansion of the exceptions and a generally later introduction.

Strong chemical lobby in Germany

There are influential supporters in Germany in particular: the CDU and CSU are trying to get the federal government to reject the EU-wide ban in its planned form and to advocate for longer, sometimes unlimited, exceptions. At the end of April, the Union held a public hearing on PFAS in the Bundestag’s Environment Committee with the core demand of maintaining added value. »A far-reaching ban on PFAS not only threatens our prosperity. Our health care is also at massive risk,” said the responsible rapporteur Alexander Engelhard.

Although this has no substance, it illustrates how successful the lobbying work of the chemical industry in particular is. This also applies elsewhere: manufacturers actually have to prove to the European Chemicals Agency how their substances can be used safely. In fact, as it is said, even the provision of data on the composition of products is incomplete and not very transparent. According to an analysis by the European Environment Agency, four years after the publication of the EU chemicals strategy for sustainability, only one of 13 targets has been implemented. The PFAS made this particularly clear: regulatory oversight is overwhelmed and there is an “appalling lack of corporate integrity,” according to the NGO umbrella organization. He also sees “a worrying level of ignorance among downstream users of chemicals.”

Therefore, more efforts are needed within the framework of the Stockholm Convention, given its binding nature and international scope. And the convention is being further developed: a new mechanism is intended to better monitor compliance with the obligations by the individual contracting parties. The tasks are unlikely to become less even in the distant future when PFAS are extensively limited: even among the substitute products there are substances that are considered to be hazardous to health.