Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
EU Earth News

EU Unveils Plan For 'Largest Ever Ban' on Dangerous Chemicals (theguardian.com) 57

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
Thousands of potentially harmful chemicals could soon be prohibited in Europe under new restrictions, which campaigners have hailed as the strongest yet. From a report: Earlier this year, scientists said chemical pollution had crossed a "planetary boundary" beyond which lies the breakdown of global ecosystems. The synthetic blight is thought to be pushing whale species to the brink of extinction and has been blamed for declining human fertility rates, and 2 million deaths a year. The EU's "restrictions roadmap" published on Monday was conceived as a first step to transforming this picture by using existing laws to outlaw toxic substances linked to cancers, hormonal disruption, reprotoxic disorders, obesity, diabetes and other illnesses.

Industry groups say that up to 12,000 substances could ultimately fall within the scope of the new proposal, which would constitute the world's "largest ever ban of toxic chemicals," according to the European Environmental Bureau (EEB). Tatiana Santos, the bureau's chemicals policy manager, said: "EU chemical controls are usually achingly slow but the EU is planning the boldest detox we have ever seen. Petrochemical industry lobbyists are shocked at what is now on the table. It promises to improve the safety of almost all manufactured products and rapidly lower the chemical intensity of our schools, homes and workplaces."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Unveils Plan For 'Largest Ever Ban' on Dangerous Chemicals More

EU Unveils Plan For 'Largest Ever Ban' on Dangerous Chemicals

Comments Filter:

  • PFCAs, all of them, gone. Nobody reads the label on non-stack pans saying don't use once scratched. This is fantastic, as long as we have a rigorous testing regime.

    • As a former chemist, I have shaken my head for decades at non stick pans that solve a non problem. One of the worst and most persistent consumer products.

      • Apparently, you don't cook.

        • I use a frying pan daily and have no problems with things sticking to it. You just need to have the correct heat in the pan before you start cooking in it.

          • I use a frying pan daily and have no problems with things sticking to it. You just need to have the correct heat in the pan before you start cooking in it.

            Look, I cook a lot, for a larger than an average family, and I've made a bit of a study of it over the past about 10 years. I love my carbon steel, I love my cast iron, and yeah, at times, I love my non-stick pan (my one non-stick pan).

            Teflon (or other similar non-sticks) are far slipperier than even the best seasoned pan and they are incredibly easy to cook with and maintain. There are some few dishes that are much, much easier to cook with a non-stick pan, and that require much less fat. Scrambled eggs, c

            • Comment removed based on user account deletion

              • you described nothing requiring a Teflon coating.

                Perhaps you forgot read what I actually wrote? Bolded, below, for comprehension:

                "...they are incredibly easy to cook with and maintain. There are some few dishes that are much, much easier to cook with a non-stick pan, and that require much less fat..."

                ".. but there are some cooking tasks they are legitimately very good for."

            • Why not just fry stuff in WD40? Prevents it sticking to the pan and gives it a nice flavour to boot.

              • Is that an attempt at humor--but doesn't really make much sense, but ok. There is clear evidence that most of the chemicals used in various non-stick chemicals hang around in the environment for a long time and many probably have deleterious effects on various life form. For humans, this is seen mostly as endocrine disruptors and possible carcinogens. The risk is there for environmental buildup, there's a clear risk for industrial and factory workers producing these chemicals, and there's a clear longterm h

          • Non-stick pans are one of the major things that helped enable me to learn to cook healthier food with less oil/fat. Yes, you have to be careful that they are in good condition, but that's a tradeoff I'm comfortable with. I think overall I'm coming out ahead on it. Other people trying to decide for me would be annoying.

            This is like lead solder versus lead-free solder. Yes, if you're in the habit of eating your solder, don't use lead. I can't imagine the flux core is great for you either. But don't exp
            • Luckily a few years ago I went on a low carb diet, so I can eat any fat that I want. I lost 25# putting me in normal BMI for my height, and my bloodwork and blood pressure are normal. If you want to think that cooking on some frankenstein polymer that releases residual monomer and decomposes into god knows what into your food is healthier than a pat of butter, have at it.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Khyber ( 864651 )

              "This is like lead solder versus lead-free solder. Yes, if you're in the habit of eating your solder, don't use lead. I can't imagine the flux core is great for you either. But don't expect the lead-free stuff to work as well, either, it doesn't."

              Tell me you don't work an SMT line without telling me you don't work an SMT line.

              Tin solder paste is a fucking godsend compared to lead solder paste. The flux in lead solder pastes tends to bubble a lot more, causing tombstoned/sleeping components, shifted componen

    • My only fear from this is that when certain materials and chemicals are banned, industries switch to others that are often newer and whose health impacts are not (yet) known. Potentially out of the frying pan and into the fire.

      I've tried to eliminate large amounts of plastic from my daily life, starting about 15 years ago. It's hard to do. If you ever eat out, it's pretty much impossible.

      • That's one of the things this is trying to stop. From the article:

        Nevertheless, the European Chemicals Agency favours dealing with chemicals in groups because chemical firms have previously avoided bans on individual chemicals by tweaking their chemical composition to create sister substances that may also be dangerous, but which then require lengthy legislative battles to regulate.

        The industry tactic, known as “regrettable substitution”, has been criticised by environmental groups for allowing the replacement of substances such as the endocrine-disrupting bisphenol A with other bisphenols.

        • I agree that's a great step, and I mentioned in a different post that this EU effort would ban all the BP* chemicals that are similar-to-but-not BPAs. My fear is more overarching than that.

          Pesticides are a sister area where when one pesticide is banned, companies scramble for alternatives that are either older (having been rejected for various reasons) or novel. These old or novel chemicals may end up being even worse for the environment and animals. My understanding is that, for example, the growth in neo-

      • A prime example of this is replacing Teflon, which is pretty straighforward to deal with, don't heat it above around 300 degrees which is pretty hard to do even if you try, with ceramic nanoparticles which can cross the blood/brain barrier and have God-knows-what long-term effects that we've barely begun to look into. But hey, it's not evil nasty Teflon so it has to be OK.

    • If I understand correctly, PFOA (which is a PFCA) has been banned in the EU since 2015 or so.

      The teflon itself (PTFE) is not the problem, but apparently they needed PFOA to make the teflon stock to the metal. I wonder whether teflon pans are now or teflon or there is another unpleasant compound that replaces PFOA.

  • Devil's Advocate (Score:3)

    by PseudoThink ( 576121 ) on Monday April 25, 2022 @04:42PM (#62478454)
    ...or is this just a political maneuver to get private companies to lobby (ie. spend $$$) on getting their toxic chemical darlings taken off the list? I know nothing other than the headline, I admit that this comment is just a curmudgeonly skeptic's first thought.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by splutty ( 43475 )

      They already did that, and obviously failed. Generally that's not how business goes in the EU.

      Although of course, with something of this magnitude it might very well become the way it's going :D

    • Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Informative)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Monday April 25, 2022 @05:44PM (#62478690)

      ...or is this just a political maneuver to get private companies to lobby (ie. spend $$$) on getting their toxic chemical darlings taken off the list?

      EU, not US, there's a letter difference. No I'm not kidding, not posting in jest, it's just not at all how the EU operates, a collective that is happy to tell the world's largest and wealthiest companies to go **** themselves.

    • If you tried to ban lead today one party would be calling it fake news and finding “experts” who say it’s harmless.

      • If you tried to ban lead today one party would be calling it fake news and finding “experts” who say it’s harmless.

        The anti-BPA movement is an example of how consumers can get nasty chemicals removed (in some cases with government assistance), but also how even government regulations frequently fall short. What about all the other BP* chemicals? Are they say? I would guess not from my reading.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ufgrat ( 6245202 )

      Except that the EU is actually trailing the US in banning some chemicals. Fuji has had to discontinue some of their transparency film (film's not dead, yet) in the US, because of a chemical (PIP (3:1)) used in the manufacture of the substrate, which is banned in the US, but NOT the EU. I suspect it's on the new list, though.

      Of course, the chemical in question is massively useful across multiple industries, so they had to grant a number of exceptions to keep from wiping out large swaths of industrial / ele

      • Except that the EU is actually trailing the US in banning some chemicals.

        And it's ahead in others. The real question is just how far reaching each of the groups regulations are. Also when we look to what is banned in each group you'll find a lot of restrictions were tightened in the EU first.

        But ultimately it is subject to a lot of protectionism. Each group attempts to grant exceptions for their own industry at the expense of importers.

  • Personally, I think it's got nothing to do with chemicals and everything to do with our modern societal norms - at least for men. These days, our society is actively trying to eliminate any overly masculine behaviours from our everyday lives. Unfortunatley, through millenia of evolution, for males fertility is inseparably linked to masculinity and all the behaviours that come with it. If you attempt to psychologically castrate males and eliminate competitive behaviours which make them achieve and main their

  • More people are killed by contact with Dihydrogen Oxide than any other chemical

  • "up to 12,000 substances could ultimately fall within the scope of the new proposal"

    Usetabe that every child had a chemistry set with those substances. We had loads of fun blowing things up and fueling rockets and melting Mary's Barbie doll. Then the lawyers came.

    Now no more chemicals, no erector sets, no fun. But we still have Barbies. Does that explain the gender confusion we now live with?

  • Does this mean the EU sort-of agrees with Alex Jones?

    • Probably they kinda agree with some things. They probably don't agree with “The majority of frogs in most areas of the United States are now gay”, although who knows these days?

      Fact is, Alex Jones just talks so much that occasionally a partial truth slips in there accidentally.

      • I just find it amusing that so many people went after ol Alex over his hyperbolic statements regarding endocrine disruptors, only for the EU to start banning possible endocrine disruptors.

        As for the frogs, maybe Kermit knows the truth? But he was going interspecial 50 years ago, so . . . maybe he's a bad source.

  • that Dihydrogen Monoxide made this list.

Slashdot Top Deals

I'm always looking for a new idea that will be more productive than its cost. -- David Rockefeller

Close