• Dansk
  • NL
  • EN
  • FI
  • FR
  • DE
  • EL
  • IT
  • NO
  • PL
  • PT
  • RO
  • SL
  • ES
  • SV

‘Better Regulation’ to make things worse

Industry tactics to delay and weaken workplace cancer law

Our new report shows how industry lobbies present employee protection against work-related cancers as an ‘unnecessary’ burden on companies and explains which tactics they use to weaken and delay the EU’s revision of the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive. In the EU alone, over 100,000 people a year die due to insufficient protection against cancer-causing substances in the workplace, making this lobbying a real threat to public health.


The revision of the Carcinogens Directive is a telling example of how industry is using the rhetoric and tools of ‘Better Regulation’ to pre-empt, delay, and weaken urgently needed rules, and how it plays off regulations against each other. Industry lobbies speaking the language of ‘simplification’, ‘burden reduction’, and ‘harmonisation’ have been well received by a European Commission that is keen to ‘cut red tape’. As a result, its proposal contains far too few, and too weak, exposure limits for workplace carcinogens. The European Parliament, however, still has a chance – and an obligation - to stop worker’s lives being sacrificed for industry’s profits.

As this report outlines, the inadequate regulation of carcinogenic substances in the workplace has devastating consequences: an estimated 100,000 deaths in the EU every year. The cost to society is a minimum of €2.5 billion annually. And yet, occupational cancers are avoidable. But without strict and binding rules they won’t be prevented, for industry has little incentive to do so; the risks and costs of exposure to workplace carcinogens are borne by the victims and society. Despite this, the Commission – heavily influenced by industry lobbies – delayed taking action for ten years. Now that it has finally acted, its proposal still only contains 13 substance exposure limits (promising 12 more by the end of 2016). This is contrary to the recommendation of various member states, health bodies, and trade unions, which advise including exposure limits for at least 50 carcinogenic substances.

Analysing lobby documents on workplace exposure limits for carcinogenic substances like silica dust and ceramic fibres, among others, this report highlights how ‘Better Regulation’ is in fact an attempt to reduce the regulatory ‘burden’ on businesses, regardless of the cost to people and planet, giving industry new opportunities to steer EU rule-making in a pro-business direction. The building blocks of Better Regulation (impact assessments, stakeholder input, evaluations, self-regulation, etc) have been instrumental in industry lobbying on the Carcinogens Directive, with industry tactics including voluntary initiatives to delay regulation, attacks on studies that don’t serve their interests, pushes for greater influence via more impact assessments, and the pitting of different EU rules against each other to erode standards.

Unsurprisingly then, industry was fairly happy with the Commission’s May 2016 proposal: there are not many exposure limits, and it is not very strict. BusinessEurope urged MEPs not to slow things down by changing the Commission’s proposal. But since we’ll be stuck with these exposure limits for many years, it is vital for hundreds of thousands of workers exposed to carcinogens across the EU that we get adequate protective limits now. Thankfully, the European Parliament’s rapporteur has proposed amendments to the Commission’s proposal that go a long way towards achieving this. But it remains to be seen what improvements MEPs are willing to make: ultimately, it will come down to how they assess the relevance of costs to businesses against cost to human life.
 

Attached files: 
The revision of the Carcinogens Directive is a telling example of how industry is using the rhetoric and tools of ‘Better Regulation’ to pre-empt, delay, and weaken urgently needed rules, and how it plays off regulations against each other. Industry lobbies speaking the language of ‘simplification’, ‘burden reduction’, and ‘harmonisation’ have been well received by a European Commission that is keen to ‘cut red tape’. As a result, its proposal contains far too few, and too weak, exposure limits for workplace carcinogens. The European Parliament, however, still has a chance – and an obligation - to stop worker’s lives being sacrificed for industry’s profits.As this report outlines, the inadequate regulation of carcinogenic substances in the workplace has devastating consequences: an estimated 100,000 deaths in the EU every year. The cost to society is a minimum of €2.5 billion annually. And yet, occupational cancers are avoidable. But without strict and binding rules they won’t be prevented, for industry has little incentive to do so; the risks and costs of exposure to workplace carcinogens are borne by the victims and society. Despite this, the Commission – heavily influenced by industry lobbies – delayed taking action for ten years. Now that it has finally acted, its proposal still only contains 13 substance exposure limits (promising 12 more by the end of 2016). This is contrary to the recommendation of various member states, health bodies, and trade unions, which advise including exposure limits for at least 50 carcinogenic substances.Analysing lobby documents on workplace exposure limits for carcinogenic substances like silica dust and ceramic fibres, among others, this report highlights how ‘Better Regulation’ is in fact an attempt to reduce the regulatory ‘burden’ on businesses, regardless of the cost to people and planet, giving industry new opportunities to steer EU rule-making in a pro-business direction. The building blocks of Better Regulation (impact assessments, stakeholder input, evaluations, self-regulation, etc) have been instrumental in industry lobbying on the Carcinogens Directive, with industry tactics including voluntary initiatives to delay regulation, attacks on studies that don’t serve their interests, pushes for greater influence via more impact assessments, and the pitting of different EU rules against each other to erode standards.Unsurprisingly then, industry was fairly happy with the Commission’s May 2016 proposal: there are not many exposure limits, and it is not very strict. BusinessEurope urged MEPs not to slow things down by changing the Commission’s proposal. But since we’ll be stuck with these exposure limits for many years, it is vital for hundreds of thousands of workers exposed to carcinogens across the EU that we get adequate protective limits now. Thankfully, the European Parliament’s rapporteur has proposed amendments to the Commission’s proposal that go a long way towards achieving this. But it remains to be seen what improvements MEPs are willing to make: ultimately, it will come down to how they assess the relevance of costs to businesses against cost to human life. 
 

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

As the investigation into the Dieselgate affair deepens both in VW’s home country Germany as well as at EU-level, the European Commission’s role in the scandal comes into focus. Corporate Europe Observatory recently obtained leaked documents which reveal the illegal attempt of the Commission’s enterprise department (DG Enterprise) to delay enforcement of EU emissions standards for diesel cars in a bid to help industry save money.

A documentary program broadcast on Dutch TV last week has sparked major concerns about the health risks of playing football on artificial turf fields made with rubber granulate from old car tyres. Corporate lobbying seems to have been behind the lack of regulation of these surfaces used by thousands of children every week.
Flemish daily De Standaard last week reported on the remarkable fact that Clean Europe Network – a coalition of litter prevention organisations – is run by Eamonn Bates, a veteran Brussels lobby firm that also chairs Pack2Go, the lobby group of companies producing plastic bottles, disposable cups and other packaging.
The International Civil Aviation Organization is expected to agree a new climate deal at its current assembly meeting. But its promise of “carbon neutral” flying through voluntary carbon offsetting is delusive, posing new threats to the environment and communities.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) finally sent us the raw data of three important scientific studies it used for its evaluation of glyphosate, the "Mysterious Three". But due to legal concerns, large sections of the data have been redacted.

Corporate Europe Observatory has decoded the list of beneficiaries of the European Central Bank’s corporate bond purchasing scheme. The results are disturbing, unless you think oil, fancy cars, motorways, champagne, and gambling are good places to put public money.

Story

Carbon Welfare

The reform of the EU Emissions Trading System could hand more than €230 billion in subsidies to energy intensive industries, a new report from Corporate Europe Observatory shows.

In the last years, controversies around the financialisation of nature and the concept of natural capital have fuelled divisions within civil society.

Subscribe to our newsletter