Wait wait. They’re not going to ban toxic chemicals in consumer goods?
Is this something like “Na is toxic. Cl is toxic. NaCl is tasty.”?
It’s more things that the US would call “Generally Recognised As Safe” or GRAS. Stuff that was tested in the 70s and written off as fine, in spite of the fact that it does have some negative effects. Typically the effects don’t occur immediately in small doses, only very large doses, however at the time there was no real study done on the effects of continuous low doses over a long period. More recent research has determined that they are in fact harmful in this way.
However, getting businesses to change is hard, because money, and it sounds like they’ve managed to get the EU to back off. Shame.
It also could be something along the lines of how lead is toxic, but is useful in electronics. Therefore, it makes more sense to tell people to not eat their computer than it does to ban lead.
They are perfectly able to make that distinction. It is about products, where normal use and disposal can lead (haha) to exposure.
Well, we did ban lead in computers in the EU nearly a decade. Afaik it’s not much of a problem for industrial processes because those can control solder temperatures precisely. For private usage you still can buy solder with lead.
That said, I do agree with you that there needs to be a distinction regarding how likely the PFAs are to actually end up in someone’s body. Not just based on the type of product but also based on the buyers. Professional equipment sold in specialized stores may be much more dangerous than stuff you can get in the supermarket.
Unrelated but you just reminded me of CJ from The West Wing:
I’ve been seated next to a chemist tonight.
23 Nobel winners, I couldn’t get literature or peace or something?
They speak in letters that don’t spell anything but end up meaning table salt.
NaCl is “toxic”. Salt (mostly the sodium/Na in it) is linked to quite a few health issues.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/salt-and-sodium/
That’s the issue here: It’s always the dosage that makes the poison.
Hmm… it is probably not toxic in traditional sense. Otherwise everything can be dangerous, even water.
Also some people noted that general products are in focus here, not only food. This is a subtle but huge difference.
Didn’t you hear? We’re living in the worst timeline. The world is one big South Park episode.
I guess we make too much money with poisoning our people.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The EU has abandoned a promise to ban all but the most vital of toxic chemicals used in everyday consumer products, leaked documents show.
PFAS – also known as forever chemicals – accumulate in nature and in our bodies where they can damage the endocrine, immune and reproductive systems.
The planned ban would have taken thousands of the most hazardous products off the market but it is now unclear whether the proposals will be mothballed or buried.
An EU official declined to comment on the leaked documents but said: “It’s no surprise that the Reach revision doesn’t feature in the work programme.
An earlier leak of the EU’s chemicals plans reported by the Guardian in July showed the scope of the bloc’s ambition had been weakened in the face of intense industry pressure, which was backed by EU political leaders including the French president, Emmanuel Macron.
The Green MEP Bas Eickhout said: “It’s very clear that there’s not enough appetite with this commission to have a proper revision of the Reach regulation, so let’s make it a campaign issue in the June 2024 elections.
The original article contains 569 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
“A little poison builds character”.
So what are these hazardous products that are currently on the market?
Well, we’re mostly talking about PFAs here. Those are used in many industrial processes. So they’re often in products where no one actually want them. But some machine during manufacturing used them hence they’re there. Not much, but because they’re extremely stable and “not much” can accumulate over a human’s lifetime.
As far as I understand it, they’re mostly used because they’re hydrophobic. I.e. prevent water from sticking. Hence if you want to buy a product that’s meant to contain some PFAs, you’ll find them in stuff like ski wax and anti-fogging sprays for glasses.
The link in the article mentions six groups of substances (anilines, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mycotoxins and PAHs) as known or presumed carcinogenic. Another list gives suspected carcinogenic chemicals. These include acrylamide and some aprotic solvents, benzophenones, flame retardants, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and pesticides. Benzene, formaldehyde and silica dust, which are used widely, are not on this list but are associated with leukaemia and lung cancer.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental-burden-of-cancer/chemicals
No idea about concrete products though. PFAS is in frying pans (teflon) and Gore-Tex at least.
