the battle plan of industrialists to avoid the banning of the “poison of the century”

We get out of the elevator like in an American series. Dark counter, sophisticated bouquet, affable guide. In the vast meeting room overlooking the royal palace in Brussels, notepads and pens lined up bear the law firm’s unadorned logo: Mayer Brown. Jean-Philippe Montfort receives without a tie, in a fitted shirt and “as a citizen”, he says. Much in demand in Brussels, this lawyer is a specialist in the European Reach regulation on chemical substances. These days, the number one problem for its clients, firms in the sector, is the possible banning of a whole family of molecules, PFAS, in the European Union (EU).

During several months of investigation, Le Monde and its partners of the “Forever Pollution Project” dissected more than 1,200 confidential documents from the European Commission and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), obtained by requests for access to public documents, as well as hundreds of open sources.

In addition to the lawyer, who operates as a discreet actor of influence, our investigation brought to light a vast lobbying campaign led by around a hundred organizations and around thirty leading chemical manufacturers, such as 3M, Chemours (formerly DuPont), Arkema, Solvay and ExxonMobil. Its objective: to dilute as much as possible the project of “universal restriction” of these per- and polyfluoroalkylated substances, ultra-toxic and persistent in the environment, better known under the name of “eternal pollutants”. Inaugurated at the end of 2019, the regulatory process should be completed in 2025. Forty-three employers’ organizations are involved in this lobbying battle which has only just begun.

Stopper la « substitution regrettable »

Banning PFAS would be a historic step in toxics regulation. For decades, in fact, whether in Europe or elsewhere, prohibitions have been implemented molecule by molecule, at the cost of years of effort by the public authorities and decades of damage to the environment and health. At the origin of this approach by grouping, now in progress for the PFAS: the desire to stop the “regrettable substitution”, a practice of manufacturers consisting in replacing a harmful product prohibited by another product which sometimes turns out to be just as dangerous. afterwards.

For industry, the stakes are monumental. If PFAS pass through, the future of other families in difficulty, such as phthalates or bisphenols, will be obliterated. “Arbitrary”, the grouping “probably represents one of our biggest problems”, recognizes Jean-Philippe Montfort, who usually flees any media exposure. And, like all important “problems”, it arouses extraordinary mobilization.

You have 74.07% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.

Source