Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract In 2020, the European Commission released its Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability towards a Toxic Free Environment (CSS) as part of the European Union’s zero pollution ambition, which is a key commitment of the European Green Deal. One group of substances highlighted in the CSS is persistent, mobile and toxic and very persistent and very mobile (PMT/vPvM) substances. This article focuses on the current, broad European political landscape that applies to PMT/vPvM substances as well as looking into gaps and opportunities within this policy framework. To look at the political landscape, strategies and action plans published in the context of the European Green Deal, as well as a small number of other strategies adopted prior to the European Green Deal, were reviewed. A template was developed to identify actions related to PMT/vPvM substances and the actions were split between the following categories: “Prevent & Reduce”, “Prioritize”, and “Remediation”. Following this, opportunities and gaps were identified.The current overarching strategy governing environmental policy is the European Green Deal which aims to achieve carbon neutrality and zero pollution by 2050. The CSS is the main and most focused Green Deal strategy addressing chemical pollution and uses a hierarchy tailored to chemicals management called the Toxic Free Hierarchy. The potential sources and exposure pathways of PMT/vPvM substances which result in environmental emissions are vast. This has the resultant effect that the relevant legal framework to address PMT/vPvM substances spans policies and legislation with different aims. Broadly, these policies and legislations are related to prevention, minimization/control and remediation, as reflected by the toxic-free hierarchy. There are many gaps and opportunities in the current policy framework which have primarily arisen due to the bold ambition of the CSS and the subsequent introduction of new hazard classes for PMT/vPvM substances. One such gap is related to a lack of harmonization across European Chemicals Policy demonstrated via the Cosmetics Regulation and the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR) which are currently not aligned. The Cosmetics Regulation does not require a re-evaluation of a substance even in light of new scientific information, whilst the BPR requires new scientific evidence to be considered. In addition, REACH (SVHC criteria) and other legislation using hazard classes for triggering risk management measures (BPR, PPPR, pharmaceutical legislation, Water Framework Directive) may be expected to be revised or are currently being revised based on the new hazard class. The regulation of PMT/vPvM substances is in its infancy. While many EU action plans exhibit gaps and opportunities for chemical regulation as a whole, only certain policies refer to PMT/vPvM substances directly. It is up to policymakers, regulators and academia to highlight those gaps and corresponding emerging windows of opportunity that reflect potential regulatory engagement. The introduction of new hazard classes for PMT/vPvM substances in the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) regulation provides a first step as these substances are identified, however, regulatory consequences need to be implemented in all other legislation in the future. This will need strong commitment from the European Commission and the EU Member States.
Mohr et al. (Sat,) studied this question.