taz: Ms. Hermann, the EU Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall wants to wait for studies before submitting a proposal to regulate so-called perpetual chemicals. Have lobby groups slowed down the process?
Christine Hermann: The time frame was unrealistic from the start. Either the commission had an unrealistic assessment of how long the process would take. Or she wanted to make decisions before the official process was completed. The industry is worried and wants planning security. For such reasons, the Commission has already taken longer than it was legally entitled to in past restriction procedures to put forward a proposal capable of reaching a consensus.
taz: Did the Commission misjudge because the lobbying pressure from the industry was so great?
Hermann: Yes, in general there is influence at every point in the process, and sometimes it is very opaque. Discussions with industry and the member states are already taking place in advance in order to present a proposal that can reach a consensus. We have no insight into this. But it is an open secret that there are phases in which industry associations approach their member states and say: “Hey, we have a great interest here that our industry will not be affected by regulation.”
taz: According to Commissioner Roswall, the PFAS ban is a high priority for her…
Hermann: We lack trust in the EU Commission that it wants to implement its original promise. There was the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, which wanted to ban or restrict PFAS in all non-essential uses. We will ultimately be able to judge the Commission against the actual proposal.
taz: Why do these chemicals have to be banned?
Hermann: Perpetual chemicals, or PFAS, are a group of more than 10,000 substances. We know that they have one characteristic in common: their longevity. This means that they do not break down naturally in the environment or only over extremely long periods of time. They can also cause cancer, damage embryos or the central nervous system, or limit fertility.
taz: How long will the eternity chemicals stick with us?
Hermann: Even if we were to decide globally now not to produce PFAS anymore, future generations would still have to deal with them. This is precisely why the entire group of substances should be restricted. This creates regulatory clarity instead of evaluating each individual substance on its own.
taz: Why is the Commission so unambitious?
Hermann: The Commission finds itself in the difficult situation of representing all interests. I think that currently the debates about defense capability, competitiveness and so on are overrepresented. Ultimately, the long-term effects that PFAS have are lost in sight.
taz: Are there other pioneers in regulation or would it have to be the EU?
Hermann: The EU must be a pioneer here. PFAS are a global problem. The EU should lead the way and ensure that we make progress globally in developing alternatives. Fortunately, we see that individual Member States, such as Denmark and France, are willing to recognize PFAS as a real problem.