The European Union's Ecolabel scheme should be beefed up to encourage less use of potentially dangerous chemicals in products, says a report by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and the European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC). The environmental label, which is recognisable by its flower logo, is intended to help consumers make greener choices in purchasing many day-to-day use products such as light bulbs, detergents or paper. The report calls for the Ecolabel to be more strict on the chemicals used in the products it endorses. The report comes out just as European leaders are debating the revision of the Ecolabel Regulation.
"It is the ideal time for discussion on a systematic and strategic approach to chemicals within the Ecolabel scheme," said Doreen Fedrigo, EEB's policy unit coordinator. Monique Goyens, director general of BEUC, said: "Consumers should be able to trust that products bearing the Ecolabel do not contain substances which are hazardous to health and the environment." The EEB and BEUC said they do not simply want to restrict the use of problematic chemicals in Ecolabelled products. They have proposed that the scheme should question whether a dangerous chemical in a product fulfils an absolutely necessary function, if the design of the product could be adapted to avoid using the chemical, and whether the substance could be substituted for another which is less dangerous. If these are not options, the organisations have called on environmental ministers to use the Ecolabel to encourage restricted use of the dangerous chemicals in the product to ensure it still works as it is designed to, but has fewer risks to health and the environment.
The report can be downloaded at: Ecolabel Report
Posted at
Cross posted at The Dake Page
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 40
As you may have guessed, I'm not a big fan of the European system where unelected bureaucrats have unprecedented power over the economy in what is advertised as a free market system. I arrived at this opinion after said Brussels' bureaucrats attempted to force Microsoft to give (that means for free) its competitors significant trade secrets that Microsoft had developed and patented at a substantial cost to its shareholders so that the market for computer software would be "fair" in Europe.
("Fair" is a favorite word of liberals because it has no objective definition and can mean whatever they want it to mean, much as the Queen stated to Alice in "Through the Looking Glass".)
My opinion was strengthened when Microsoft resisted, putting the interests of its shareholders first as American companies are supposed to, and said unelected bureaucrats proceeded to fine Microsoft millions of dollars (of the shareholders money) to force compliance with their "fairness" scheme The fines and the battle continue to this day. As you may have guessed, I own a little Microsoft stock.
You seem to be enamored with all things European, and that is your right. I certainly enjoy the excellent photographs you share, and I have spent some wonderful vacations in Europe. But, when you suggest exporting European socialism and bureaucracy to the U.S., I have to speak up. I say let Europe be Europe, so the Americans who prefer their system have a clear choice between it and the American free market capitalism. After all, freedom to choose is what liberty is all about.
neat idea
Just the past few weeks in the UK, the traditional 100w lightbulb was phased out. That's fine, I use the new styled 'energy-saving' bulbs, except in 2 light fittings, one in our porch and one in the front garden. We have now learned that the new ES bulbs are not made to fit those specific fittings - we will have to replace both - and considerable cost.
There were stampedes at the shops to try to buy up the entire UK stocks of 100w bulbs. I didn't join in as we had 2 spares - however, we are now down to 1 and when that goes... well the replacing exercise will have to start!
I assumed, apparently wrongly so, that "environmental ministers" included the U.S. with all of the "global" talk on the environment lately.
Check these out: Green Marketing
These are all voluntary programs that allow businesses to "differentiate your product or service as environmentally sound..." and "market your product to green consumers."
On my trip there I was not impressed with their standards at all. Then again I was in Turkey, Bulgaria, and Amsterdam. I am glad they are going to do their part.
One of my favourite light fittings is a rescued street light fittin from the early 1900s. Why should it now be scrapheaped just BECAUSE the EU says so? It has been working since 1904...
A mind of its own is right. I was there around New Years and it was quite an experience. Not the place for me.. I am a Cape Cod Girl.. lol
It was very dirty outside the train station and a little scary on the roads as cars just wizzed by within feet of us. There streams were filthy and I was surprised to see a few houseboats on them.
I hate to bring this up, (actually I dont hate to, if I did I wouldnt) but lets not forget the absurd European reaction against GMOs. Again a purely political issue, with no scientific merit. My point being, that like others here, and probably more so than you David, I tend to be a bit skeptical about European pronouncements and sometimes self righeous initiatives.
Except Reagan enlarged the size of the federal government and the national debt to unprecedented proportions, though Bush II seems to have broken his record for increasing the size of government and debt.
Platitudes are nice, but sometimes they don't jive with actions.
Excellent question. In Europe the Ecolabel is a Regulation, which means it is defined at the European Union (EU) level, with EU-level (government) standards. The US ecolabel programs are all voluntary and it is third parties who set review the data.
Very difficult to answer, Sy. REACH and Ecolabel and the others are all political, of course, because they are laws passed to affect change. In reality they are all designed to change "market dynamics" (which the "free market" people should actually appreciate if they thought about it rather than simply read from the their playbook).
What Ecolabel does (both the EU and the US versions) is provide for data to be communicated to the public. The same for REACH. It puts industry in a position to 1) demonstrate safety (rather than the lack of risk, an important and somewhat contentious change in past systems), and 2) gain some market advantage from showing their chemicals are "safer." How you define what is safer will always be debatable, but it is up to the companies to provide the data. While sometimes cumbersome, this on its face isn't an unreasonable request - simply tell me what the chemical's properties are, i.e., does it persistent in the environment, is it toxic, how do you protect workers that make it and consumers who use products made from it. Seems like a no brainer. Full knowledge of the properties of chemicals weren't always known by the company making them, and formulators and downstream users often didn't even know what chemical(s) they were using because they were trade secrets. [The confidential information issue remains very difficult as somehow you have to ensure safety without telling your competitors all your competitive secrets.]
In any case, even if companies understood their products they didn't always communicate it well, though certainly they do so much better than in the early days when even workers weren't told the hazards. But the theory is that if all the safety information is available, people can make informed judgments. Over the last decade especially, the notion of "just trust me, I know it is safe" from the manufacturers doesn't doesn't give the public confidence that they aren't being lied to. By providing the information, the public (and governments and NGOs and competitors) can make decisions based on reality and not on fear.
So in my opinion this will result (and has resulted already) in market changes where "being green" or "safe" will be competitive advantage and businesses will thus be encouraged to develop new, inherently less hazardous, chemicals and products. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. Without the pressure to innovate, mostly companies will continue to sell the old products that are nearly pure profit because the immense R&D, advertising, name-recognition, etc. costs have already been recaptured.
On it's face, it sounds like it wouldn't make sense to have to replace that light fixture, but I'm a little confused. Wouldn't have bulbs for that light have been designed differently in 1904 than even the last generation of bulbs? I wonder if the fixture can be adapted to accept the more modern bulbs.
So, I remain skeptical about just putting it all out there, and letting the wisdom of the people decided the market.
The problem with GMOs, in my opinion, was three-fold.
First, the technology was new, and thus there were many uncertainties to be addressed.
Second, the EU is just naturally more precautionary than the US.
Third, the companies (in particular Monsanto, who became the poster child) just did not appreciate that difference.
The net result was a naturally more precautionary people who felt the big US companies were trying to shove a new, untested, and uncertain product down their throats. The questions they asked either were dismissed offhand (in their opinion) or simply remained unanswered by the manufacturers (again in their opinion). There are still some questions related to ecological drift of modified genetic material and resistance that they feel have never been fully addressed. Meanwhile in the US, hardly anyone seems all to worried about it (not counting Greenpeace).
I have the same reservations, but what is the alternative. People demand information, and isn't it better to give it to them transparently so they can develop a sense of participation, rather than have them remain cynical, skeptical, and then go ahead and make decisions based on false information, like in your Frankenfoods example? When the companies don't provide the information, somebody else will, and not usually to the benefit of the company. I've seen too many products banned based on bad information. In most cases, if industry had their stuff together they could have provided the real data quickly and kept it from getting out of hand. But historically companies have been reticent to make the information available (or even have it handy). That really is why the public doesn't trust them...and by extension, the scientists that work for industry.
When the people started realizing that chemicals just dumped in rivers gave them cancer and killed the wild life and plant life they started slowly to hold corporations accountable. Environmental protection costs extra money and that is precisely where the resistance stems from - greed and immorality and complete disregard for the well being of others.
It doesn't really matter if it is the US or Europe or China, it is our responsibility as citizens of this world to have programs and laws in place to protect ourselves and our planet.
I agree with most of the EU labels and would like to see more done in the US. It's not a question of copying what the EU does. I highly suspect that it was the American corporations who influenced the US decision to stay out of the loop.
You can sell anything to Americans - no matter how poisenous - as long as it is cheap. Then like foolish sheep they run to their lawyers when their precious dog or child dies from this weeks poison in Walmart products. Blaming China - ha. It's American corporations who moved to China - so they could avoid the few protective laws we have in place to keep the company from dumping chemicals in the river or adding them to their product and sell cheap. Never mind that no one really wants to spend the time and money to inspect the imported goods.
It's too high a price to pay not to have good environmental laws in place and then - really - enforce those laws too. It's killing us and our planet.
Who cares whether Amsterdam has dirt in their streets. I know plenty of areas and ghettos in the US who are far worse. Better to live on a house boat then to live under a bridge.
These laws and labels are necessary for our survival and the survival of our planet, it's as simple as that. The EU is at least making an effort and they are by no means a shining example, they make plenty of mistakes. They are making a difference and they are changing our mindset about environmental threats and blowing the whistle on products and companies who couldn't care less, except their bottomline.
Overall, my observation is that the American people, while perhaps much less precautionary than the Europeans, are in fact demanding more accountability. They just want to be sure that they aren't being exposed to unsafe chemicals, and there are enough cases where that hasn't turned out to be true to make the public more suspicious. Many US companies, especially the multnational corporations that are already meeting European and Canadian requirements, are actually eager to raise the bar since they feel it gives them a competitive advantage.