The recent tsunami of “simplification” proposals that the European Commission has put in motion has made its priorities clear: the European Union (EU) must regain competitiveness through economic growth. But the question on the minds of anyone who understands the consequences of these proposals on the health and well-being of European citizens is the following: economic growth, but at what cost?
Unlike the Commission, some of us still remember the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability and the New Consumer Agenda adopted 5 years ago, which promised to help fight toxic chemicals and pollution that are detrimental to the health of both people and planet.
Achieving this goal under the pressure of the Commission’s barrage of “simplification” proposals will be a considerable challenge, especially since the Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has explicitly stated that deregulation is a must. In the current context, even daring to ask industries to comply with existing legislations that were put in place to protect us from the risks of toxicity and pollution has been deemed too much of a “burden” for an “industry in crisis.”
More rules (not less) are needed to protect us from toxic chemicals
The inconvenient truth is that existing rules put in place to protect us from toxic chemicals are not as robust as people may think. While politicians debate the economy, competitiveness, and innovation, ordinary European citizens are facing a growing public health crisis. Although the green chemistry narrative emerged in the 1990s, the promises of a “clean world” are far from being realized. Regulations have failed to protect us—and our unborn children—from being exposed to a cocktail of toxic and harmful chemicals, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), bisphenols, and flame retardants, to name but a few.
The Commission claims that deregulation is the best way to cut costs and make Europe competitive again. The irony is that deregulation, which strips us of our protections, does the exact opposite. Diseases linked to toxic-chemical exposure cost us billions of euros already and will lead to massive economic and societal losses in the future, due to lifelong productivity losses resulting from reduced fertility, physical disabilities, premature death, and a host of other preventable health conditions.
Although the future of our health and well-being doesn’t look particularly bright, it is not written in stone. Our existing expertise, including that of chemical experts, can help us look for synergies between economic growth and the protection of human and environmental health from hazardous chemicals.
We can start this upward trend by laying the right foundations for the EU’s Circular Economy Act, a new law due for adoption later this year that “aims to accelerate the transition to a more circular economy, increasing the EU’s economic security, resilience, competitiveness and decarbonisation,” according to a 2025 news article by the Commission. If done correctly, the law will create a win-win situation for the European economy, society, and the planet.
Creating a healthy circular economy
If the EU wants to become the world leader in the circular economy by 2030, we need to accept that more sustainable products cannot be produced without better decisions surrounding chemical regulations. But better decisions cannot be made if information on the chemicals present in everyday products is not available. It is therefore crucial to urgently start developing an effective tracking system (for example, via a Digital Product Passport) to increase overall transparency and chemical traceability.
Knowing which chemicals are in what products will also strengthen the recycling industry, which is currently being hampered by technological constraints and concerns regarding potential toxic-chemical presence in recycled materials. Indeed, it is currently extremely difficult to know if chemicals that have been previously banned (known as legacy substances) are still present in secondary raw materials. Tracking chemicals will make it much easier to tackle these substances in the future.
In several cases, speeding up the restriction process and removing the most harmful chemicals from the outset is the most efficient and cost-effective way to enhance clean material cycles. These tactics were recommended by the European Chemicals Agency for a whole group of aromatic brominated flame-retardants—very persistent and toxic chemicals that accumulate in our bodies and the environment.
Today’s inaction, slow regulatory processes, and restrictions filled with loopholes only fuel uncertainty among companies and will make it much more difficult and costly to tackle legacy chemicals in the future.
For a clean and healthy circular economy to succeed, using safe chemicals cannot be seen as a burden or “nice to have” but as a must. Rather than presenting simplification as the silver bullet for Europe’s economic woes, the Commission should understand that it is our high standards for quality, safety, and health that make us truly competitive. Simplification won’t stop toxic chemicals from creating a European health crisis, but promoting nontoxic materials and products, made and recycled in Europe, just might.
Dorota Napierska Credit:
Courtesy of Dorota Napierska
At this historic moment of economic transformation, the question that chemists should be asking themselves is this: Why not step up and rethink chemistry according to principles of being safe and sustainable by design? Chemistry has a tremendous opportunity to shape the future circular economy rather than be shaped by it.
Dorota Napierska is the toxic-free circular economy policy officer at Zero Waste Europe.
Views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of C&EN or ACS.
Do you have a story you want to share with the chemistry community? Send your idea or an 800-word submission to [email protected].
2026 American Chemical Society
