❌ Or see how countries behind the original proposal (🇳🇴 🇸🇪 🇳🇱 🇩🇪 🇩🇰) have already proposed weaker approaches on #PFAS mabufacturing for exports + many new derogations from ban.
❌ Or the 🇪🇺 chemicals agency leaving 8 sectors out of its evaluation.
https://www.chemsec.org/pfas-restriction-proposal-5-red-flags-from-the-recent-update/
But today, after intense corporate lobbying, proposed #PFAS restriction is fragile.
❌ Take 🇪🇺 Commission’s emphasis on tackling consumer PFAS uses (cosmetics, waterproof clothing...) but indicating a far weaker approach on industrial sources of pollution.
https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/consumer-pfas-vs-universal-ban
❌ Or see how countries behind the original proposal (🇳🇴 🇸🇪 🇳🇱 🇩🇪 🇩🇰) have already proposed weaker approaches on #PFAS mabufacturing for exports + many new derogations from ban.
❌ Or the 🇪🇺 chemicals agency leaving 8 sectors out of its evaluation.
https://www.chemsec.org/pfas-restriction-proposal-5-red-flags-from-the-recent-update/
❌ Or recent industry-friendly @europarl.europa.eu report on fluoropolymer #PFAS which:
➡️ risks pre-empting far more detailed ECHA work
➡️ only interviewed industry
➡️ uses a too-narrow lens to assess fluoropolymers
➡️ has research "limitations"
➡️ wrongly says F-gases are already regulated enough
❌ And today, despite the intense criticism of EU fluoropolymer #PFAS industry, we see Plastics Europe enjoyed much greater lobby access to Commissioners’ cabinets on varied issues in last year.
2025 = 11 meetings
2024 = 1
2023 = 6
2022 = 1
2021 = 1
2020 = 3
https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/plasticseurope-services-sprl?rid=454264611835-56
EU Commissioner Roswall told us that Commission “ensured transparency & accountability in all lobby and stakeholder meetings and proceedings”.
The EU Commission also has obligations under EU lobby register.
Today we have written to ask how "accountability" has been demanded of Plastics Europe’s lobbying.
