ChemSec

👇🏾 Here are four new EU policy buzzwords to keep an eye on in 2026!

💚 Need to #greenwash your toxic portfolio?

🔥 With these 6 easy steps, you’re guaranteed to succeed and will have your company looking sustainable in no time!

👀 You haven’t missed that we recently updated the SIN List with over 20 new substances, have you?

🧡 A 𝗯𝗶𝗴 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗞𝗦 to our friends in the #ZeroPM project for helping us identify these chemicals.

👉🏿 See all the newly added substances here: sinlist.chemsec.org/persistent-m...

💚 Did you ever wonder how chemical companies are able to turn even their dirtiest laundry into something clean; how nasty, toxic chemicals can become green and sustainable?

🔥 Wonder no more: chemsec.org/reports/6-ea...

😭 European chemical industry is hurting, and it's blaming 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀!

🔎 But the three main reasons why the chemical sector is taking a beating are:
↳ High energy prices
↳ Lack of demand
↳ Chinese competition

💚 Not green regulations. Still this is what they’re screaming to the #EU Commission

YouTube video by ChemSec ChemScore 2025: Here are the results!

🥳 Today’s the big day! Join us at 4pm CET for the ℂ𝕙𝕖𝕞𝕊𝕔𝕠𝕣𝕖 2025 Premiere, where we'll rank the top 40 chemical producers on their chemical footprint. Don't miss it!

👉🏾 www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6E2...

👉🏻 Save your spot now: us02web.zoom.us/webinar/regi...

🔬 Part of the problem is that standard chemical testing doesn’t adequately detect all neurotoxic effects. The commonly used tests focus on more short-term toxicity.

❌ This results in major data gaps.

💡 But now, there is a way forward: chemsec.org/neurotoxican...

🤔 Here is a crazy thought: what if we took the current logic of EU #chemicals legislation and applied it to traffic rules... How would that play out?

🧠 Unlike other harmful chemicals like PFAS, 𝗻𝗲𝘂𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 rarely make headlines — yet they’re among the most devastating.

💥 By adding three neurotoxicants to the 𝗦𝗜𝗡 𝗟𝗶𝘀𝘁, we demonstrate that some should be treated as “equivalent level of concern”.

👉🏾 chemsec.org/neurotoxican...

REACH revision: Here’s how to get it right The REACH revision should simplify and protect people and the planet in the same go. ChemSec is determined to help out with this!

👉🏻 Here is what the EU Commission should do to come to grips with the REACH revision: chemsec.org/reach-revisi...

(5/5)

💬 ”We need a chemicals legislation that lives up to the standards citizens expect. A modernisation and simplification of REACH is urgent to better protect EU citizens, human health and the environment and to improve our competitiveness”, Swedish Environment Minister Romina Pourmokhtari said.

(4/5)

🌱 The 10 countries made a strong call that a revised REACH must strengthen the protection of citizens and the environment. They voiced the need to make it more efficient and modern — not only a simplification for industry.

(3/5)

🇸🇪 This week, Sweden together with France, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Hungary, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Austria and Slovakia took a stand in the EU Environment Council.

(2/5)

🇪🇺 After a negative opinion was issued by the Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board a few weeks ago and Ursula Von der Leyen publicly admitting that simplification is about deregulation, we’re not the only ones worried about what will happen with the EU’s landmark chemicals legislation.

(1/5)

🎙️ 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿𝘀:
↳ Dr Hans Peter Arp, Professor at the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
↳ Dr Agathe Bour, Ecotoxicologist at Goodpoint
↳ Dr Hanna Holmquist, Senior Toxicologist at ChemSec

(3/3)

𝗜𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿, 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻:
✅ Which new chemicals have been added to the SIN list — and why
✅ The methodology behind selecting these substances
✅ Why adding these chemicals and hazard classes to the SIN List is important

(2/3)

🧡 Join us for a one-hour deep dive into the science, methodology, and policy relevance of the SIN List update and learn all about the newly added chemicals!

👉🏾 Register for the #webinar: us02web.zoom.us/webinar/regi...

(1/3)

💰 The Investor Initiative on Hazardous Chemicals (IIHC) is a global, investor-led initiative focused on reducing the risks of hazardous chemicals. It brings together 70+ institutional investors with $18 trillion under management or advice.

(3/3)

💬 “Legal predictability is key for major institutional investors. Opening up for emission control discussions instead of a phase-out, and reducing the scope of uses, provides neither clarity nor the necessary high ambition”, says Caroline Sundin, member of the Investor Initiative IIHC.

(2/3)

🚨 Investors are sounding the alarm on PFAS.

The decision to split the EU-wide PFAS restriction and leave out eight major use categories, combined with vague discussions about “emission control” instead of a full phase-out, is causing concern:

(1/3)

𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴
↳ As long as your car is registered, you’re free to drive. A driving test is only required if others can provide overwhelming proof that you’re unsafe behind the wheel.

🤔 What do you think??

(4/4)

𝗘𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗮𝗻𝘀
↳ Instead of banning cars without brakes, authorities will simply require drivers to “reduce” the number of crashes over time.

(3/4)

𝗘𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
↳ Drunk driving remains banned, except for “essential” trips — such as getting home from a bar.

𝗛𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁
↳ Car manufacturers no longer need to crash-test vehicles. They simply declare them “safe by design.”

(2/4)

🚘 What if the EU's chemicals legislation applied to traffic rules?

𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝗗𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗔𝗰𝘁
↳ Stop signs are now “suggestions.” Drivers can roll through if they feel confident. The same applies to speed limits. Each driver decides what feels safe for them.

(1/4)

EU leaders contaminated with PFAS "forever chemicals" PRESS RELEASE: Harmful PFAS substances have been found in the blood of 24 EU representing 19 countries.

🚩 Harmful PFAS substances have been found in the blood of 24 EU leaders representing 19 countries, confirming that no one is immune to exposure from these persistent “forever chemicals.”

Read the full press release here: chemsec.org/eu-leaders-c...

But here’s where it falls short:

⚠️ Member States have until 2039 (with possible extensions to 2045) to comply

⚠️ Only 25 PFAS total are now included on the list, not the 100+ recommended by scientists

⚠️ No strong framework to make polluters pay

⚠️ Chemical mixtures are still being largely ignored

Here’s the good news:

✅ New hazardous substances were added to the list of water pollutants, including TFA, Bisphenol A, certain pesticides and some pharmaceuticals

✅ Mandatory testing will begin for the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs)

🐟 After years of negotiations, the EU finally struck a deal last week to update their rules on water pollution. The deal is progress on paper, but something about it seems… fishy.

🧠 Scientists have begun to argue that chemical pollution poses a similar threat to climate change.

👱‍♀️ Anne-Sofie Bäckar, head of ChemSec, agrees. Here she sets out the evidence.

➡️ Read the full article here: chemsec.org/chemicals-an...