While the European Union is working on a proposal for a ban of thousands of synthetic substances known as PFAS, used in products ranging from clothing to pots to fire foam, doubts are emerging on the role of the consultants chosen to support the agency that will then actually decide the rules.
Last month, the European Agency for chemicals (Echa) published an update in which it promised that some of these chemicals could remain in use “on rigorous conditions”, which aroused questions about how this conclusion had come, especially in the light of the strong pressures exercised by industry.
According to an investigation by Financial Timesthe consultancy company Ramboll, commissioned by the Echa of providing strategic consultancy on the PFAS, would have also collaborated in the same period with some of the main producers of these substances. The British newspaper specifies that the information is based on official EU documents and registers obtained through the NGO for the air climate, which would clearly show the overlap of the roles between the agency and consultant consultant for the industry.
It is clear that if the rumors are confirmed, there would be an evident conflict of interest in a dossier of great importance for public health and the environment.
What the Financial Times discovered
Interior documents and registers cited by the British newspaper would suggest that Ramboll, commissioned by Echa starting from 2020 to provide scientific support on the PFAS, would have collaborated with industrial groups such as Honeywell, 3m and Gujarat Fluorochemicals at the same time. All these subjects are directly involved in the production and marketing of PFAS, substances known for their persistence in the environment and in the human body and potentially connected to cancer and fertility problems.
According to NGO and activists, this overlap of assignments may have influenced some Agency’s recommendations, in particular the decision to keep certain Pfas in use instead of proposing an immediate ban. Specifically, the consultancy firm would have influenced the technical recommendations on the derogations for fire foams.
The Financial Times He writes that, in 2020, Ramboll contributed to a report for Echa and the Commission, in which it was recommended to grant petrochemical companies a 10 -year transition period to find PFAS substitutes in fire foam. This gradual elimination, which lasted a decade, was included in the final EU law adopted in April.
It is obviously a worrying situation, which would risk undermining the credibility of the entire regulatory process.
Ramboll, for his part, rejected the accusations, claiming to base his assessments on independent scientific tests and to adopt internal procedures to avoid conflicts of interest, including the establishment of “ethical walls” between different projects. The company also specified that the role of consultants would not affect the final decisions of the ACHA.
The story would also highlight a structural node: the growing dependence of the European Commission and its agencies on external consultants to manage the amount of work linked to the Green Deal and the review of environmental regulations. Several observers claim that Echa would not have enough internal resources to face a process of this reach without resorting to private companies.
If confirmed, the revelations could feed controversy over the role of private consultants and the transparency of European decisions regarding public health and environmental protection.
Asked by the Financial Times, Echa has reiterated the correctness of her procedures, stating that the selection of consultants took place through competitive and transparent tenders. Ramboll, in turn, would have declared that the criticisms of activists would not carefully reflect his work.
Filed an urgent question to the European commission
Following the revelations of the Financial Times On the conflict of interest that would involve Ramboll, the MEP Cristina Guardo (Verdi/Ale) announced the deposit of an urgent question to the European Commission.
It is unacceptable that those who recommend European institutions on the rules to ban PFAS both the same person who work for those who have all the interest in slowing down these rules – He said look, asking that the Commission and Echa clarify any contractual relationship and guarantee that the scientific assessments are carried out in full independence.
The MEP also stressed that, according to what reported by the international press, Ramboll would have recommended a ten-year Pfas Phase-out in the fire foam, then received in the EU legislation with a further derogation at the end of 2025, defining the situation “An emblematic case of how lobbies can influence public decisions, with direct impacts on citizens’ health“.
Look he concluded by announcing the urgent question to ask “total transparency, the application of the precautionary principle and a universal prohibition of the PFAS, from trade to production, which can no longer be postponed“.
