Spacer

 

Google Translate

IPEN

A Toxics-Free Future

POPs

Read the Report and Executive Summary here

Environmental health researchers released alarming evidence [1] today that toxic brominated flame retardants, hazardous chemicals from electronic waste that are known to disrupt thyroid function and cause neurological and attention deficits in children, are contaminating recycled plastics in consumer products across Europe.

The report release coincides with a crucial vote in the European Parliament to establish and re-evaluate recycling exemptions for POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants) in waste and with the European Commission’s revision of POPs waste limits. Both decisions will determine whether toxic waste materials, such as e-waste containing brominated flame retardants, will be allowed in recycled plastics.

(Göteborg, Sweden): Public protections in Europe against the world’s worst chemicals will be decided in an upcoming vote on 10 October 2018. At issue is the regulation that implements the Stockholm Convention – a treaty that lists 28 substances for global elimination. Earlier this year, the European Commission proposed substantial changes to the regulation, including 56 amendments proposed by Members of the European Parliament. Public interest organizations from 150 countries have raised concerns about the proposed revisions, which would increase hazardous chemical contamination in consumer products, allow production and use of substances banned globally, and even weaken the EU´s ability to nominate new substances to the Convention. 

https://qz.com/1403021/pfoa-teflon-chemical-contaminating-drinking-water...

In a decision announced Friday (Sept. 21) in Rome, a group of UN experts tasked with deciding which chemicals should be globally banned under the Stockholm Convention decided to add PFOA and PFOS to the list.

(Rome, Italy) Faced with rampant drinking water pollution around the world from toxic fluorinated chemicals, a UN expert committee recommended a global ban on PFOA / PFOS. The committee recommended strict restrictions for their use in firefighting foams – a major source of water pollution around the world. At issue are two toxic fluorinated chemicals that have been used in firefighting foams; perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).

Fire Safety, Business, and Public Interest Groups Voice Opposition to Exemptions for Toxic Industry

Fluorine-free alternatives used safely by world class airports and oil and gas industry demonstrate viable alternatives to a persistent toxic pollutant

Report: Fluorine-Free Firefighting Foams

(Göteborg, Sweden): PFOA, the “Teflon chemical,” the cause of vast contamination of ground and drinking water around the world, is a persistent pollutant and suspected carcinogen. PFOA was nominated in 2015 for a global ban under the UN Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. An upcoming UN expert group meeting will make recommendations to governments about adding PFOA to the treaty, including possible loopholes that would continue production and use. Experts across diverse fields, including business, fire safety regulation, airport authorities, environmental science and medical device suppliers, strongly condemn proposed exemptions, arguing there is no justification for continued use when viable alternatives exist.

Fluorine-free Firefighting Foams (F3) position paper produced by IPEN. Main document and appendices are in English. Executive summaries are provide in English, Frence, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, and Arabic.

In preparation for the 14th meeting of the Stockholm Convention POPs Review Committee (POPRC), which will take place 17 - 21 September in Rome, IPEN has developed a Quick Guide to IPEN Views on POPRC-14. This document highlights IPEN's views on issues that the Committee will tackle at the meeting, including consideration of exemptions and formal recommendations for listing PFOA in the treaty. The Committee will also determine if perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) – a regrettable substitute for PFOS – warrants global action. Finally, the POPRC will make recommendations about whether loopholes that permit continued use of PFOS are still needed.

Pages

Subscribe to POPs