Author: Emil Panzaru

The European Union should not choose fear over a measured response to food dyes

It is time to rethink food regulations. The EFSA should revise its attempt to eliminate all risks, in favor of risk-based management which aims to minimize all possible dangers

European Union officials might feel vindicated after the United States Food and Drug Administration decided to ban erythrosine on the 15th of January 2025. Displayed under the number E127 on EU labels, erythrosine is typically used to give food and drinks a vibrant red color. Since 1994, however, Europe has banned its use in anything other than cocktails and candy cherries, citing supposed worries around E127 and public health in the form of hyperactivity and thyroid problems, including a potential link to higher rates of thyroid cancer. Europeans could claim that they have been keeping consumers safer for much longer than America.

Any such boasting on the issue would be uncalled for. Seeing another agency reach the same conclusion does not give the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the main body responsible for overseeing the safety and quality of the EU’s food, permission to set aside the scientific and economic facts out of over-precaution.

The EFSA makes much of the hyperactivity claim, citing it as the main reason for outlawing E127 as early as 1994. The reality is that evidence of erythrosine’s harm is limited. Studies that find a link between the dye and hyperactivity and imbalances in the thyroid gland cite what statisticians like to call a small effect size. Put simply, food dyes account for a small part of a much larger problem. Other factors, like personal genetics and underlying environmental factors, better explain children and young adults’ smaller attention spans.

More serious accusations of erythrosine causing thyroid cancer in adults that the EFSA has toyed with are even less well-grounded. Reliable findings refer mainly toexperiments on male mice. Of course, one substance being toxic to mice does not make it harmful to humans.

To its credit, the EFSA acknowledges more evidence is needed in its 2011 reassessment of E127, where any potential to create tumors “may be considered of limited relevance to humans” and not related to any changes in cell structure  (“genotoxic activity”). Still, it feels the need to keep the substance restricted from the mere possibility of it happening.

Quantity matters, too. Too much or too little, no matter how good or bad, can lead to problems. As such, the EFSA establishes an acceptable daily intake, the amount anyone can consume without threatening an average person’s health. The threshold for erythrosine is relatively low at just 0.1mg per kilogram per day. Yet the consumption rate for 95% of all adults is a mere fraction of that number at 0.0031 mg per kilogram per day, posing no danger to most people. Despite this fact from the EFSA’s own figures, the agency has yet to revise its attitude to E127.

More than anything attempts to create “purely organic” food will collide with the economic realities businesses and consumers face. Items using natural colorants have a much shorter shelf life, forcing manufacturers to use more additives and add extra preservatives to keep their products viable. These workarounds result in more expensive food to make and stock, leaving consumers with fewer and pricier choices than before.

Therefore, instead of mutual congratulations, it is time to rethink food regulations and avoid future mistakes. In a September 2024 article on tackling emerging risks, the EFSA recognizes the need to improve its overall risk communication.

Though a pertinent suggestion, it should only be the start of reform. The regulatory body must revise its generally precautionary instincts (a futile attempt to eliminate all risks) in favor of risk-based management, which aims to minimize all possible dangers.

At the same time, EU policymakers should address substances based on all available evidence rather than preconceived notions that equate “natural” with “good” and “artificial” with “bad”. Real vindication does not come from feeling superior but from improving consumer well-being.

Originally published here

A PFAS ban in the European Union sows economic chaos and puts energy security at risk

On Monday, the 20th of January 2025, EU environmental commissioner Jessika Rosswall announced to the press that the European Union was seeking a bloc-wide ban on perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl (known under the acronym PFAS) in consumer products. The measure is set to come into force next year, as the Commission will determine exemptions based on the “essential” role some PFAS products play in the economy. 

Emil Panzaru, Research Director at the Consumer Choice Center, warned that the decision would only have negative consequences: “A ban will cause economic chaos. PFAS are integral to thousands of items, from medical equipment to semiconductor chips, batteries, and household appliances. Without them, we cannot have laptops, TVs, modern cars, solar panels, heat pumps, cooking appliances, or computers.”

Panzaru added: “The decision contradicts the EU’s efforts to shore up its microchip industry, nullifying the increased investments promised by earlier 40-billion euro subsidy from the European Chip Act. Worse still, replacements for the PFAS that go into renewables are either impossible to find or come in the form of rare earth minerals from China, undermining the EU’s strategic autonomy and energy security.”

Talk of exemptions to try and calm doubts is unrealistic. Calling some of these functions ‘essential’ and others ‘non-essential’ is a politically arbitrary decision that does not reflect economic realities. After all, the coating developed for non-stick cooking proved helpful in medical stents that save lives in the batteries that help power cars, and in the microchips that power our digital age. Besides, even the sections exempt from a ban must follow strict rules for use and disposal, creating artificial scarcities where there should be abundance in consumer goods.”

Panzaru concluded: “The only sensible course of action is to renounce the plan for a sweeping ban entirely. Instead, PFAS products should be evaluated rationally and on a case-by-case basis. Keep in mind both the costs and benefits of their use and focus on the actual concentrations that real-life people are likely to encounter. In some pollution cases, applying existing environmental rules more thoroughly is all that is needed.”

See HERE for an early detailed breakdown of the negative effects of an EU-wide PFAS ban by the Consumer Choice Center in the press. 

– PRESS RELEASE ENDS – 


About the Consumer Choice Center:

The Consumer Choice Center is a non-profit organization dedicated to defending the rights of consumers around the world. Our mission is to promote freedom of choice, healthy competition and evidence-based policies that benefit consumers. We work to ensure that consumers have access to a variety of quality products and services and can make informed decisions about their lifestyle and consumption. 

South Africa’s prohibitionist approach to public health paved the way for the failed generational ban

A slippery slope argument is correct when it takes time to explain how reasonable initial ideas can lead to a disastrous outcome that proponents did not foresee.

New Zealand’s coalition should shelve the ‘Fair Digital News Bargaining’ Bill before it drives local news to extinction

Some ideas are popular enough to be given another chance. First proposed by the previous Labour government of New Zealand, the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill has found a new lease on life among members of the new ruling coalition. On the second of July, Minister of Media and Communications and member of the National Party Paul Goldsmith announced that the government would advance this law that would force tech platforms to pay traditional media companies for digital news content. In response, the National Party and New Zealand declared their public support for the bill. The sole dissenter is the ACT Party, which has invoked the “agree to disagree” provision in the coalition’s rules, meaning that the government will have to seek the approval of opposition parties to pass the bill. That approval looks achievable, with the original proponents in the Labour Party keen to give the bill their blessing.

By its own standards, the bill will make things worse for the New Zealand media and tech landscape.

We need only look at similar bills in Australia and Canada to realize this fact. Like New Zealand’s law, Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code and Canada’s Online News Act aim to address what they depict as unfair competition – digital platforms are supposedly feeding off the attention of traditional sources, linking to various opinion and news pieces and driving traffic online to their benefit without offering any compensation in return. Therefore, authorities believe they must force tech companies to the bargaining table to even the odds and give the ailing old-fashioned industry a chance.

But Canada and Australia have achieved the exact opposite of their aim. Both governments have inadvertently created costs for digital platforms that incentivize the latter to stop collaborating with news outlets. That is exactly what happened with Meta, which decided on August 2nd, 2023, to discontinue news availability for all Canadian users of Facebook and Instagram and is mulling a similar possibility in Australia.

Goldsmith is aware of falling into an identical trap. In a conversation with Newstalk ZB, Goldsmith has openly admitted that Facebook and Google would also want to exit the New Zealand news market due to the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. Yet his allusions to amendments and the threat of further legislation as a bargaining chip during that conversation are neither reassuring nor a solution to the problem – threats of additional regulations only add to costs, and ad-hoc changes undermine competition by making the rules of the game unpredictable for tech and media players.  

Worse, such regulations ultimately damage local outlets that depend most on social media for outreach. Studies examining Canadian social media users found that their digital consumer habits remained unchanged – 33% continued getting their news from Facebook and Instagram. What changed was a dramatic drop of 85% in engagement for regional sources. The situation worsened to the point where almost half of all local Canadian media decided to stop posting on Facebook entirely.

An identical bill in New Zealand would spell disaster for local news sources. The physical sector was already undergoing significant downsizing, with many of the largest stakeholders choosing to focus more on national content. Stuff closed down The Northern News and the Whangarei Leader (two local Northland community newspapers), while NZME shut down the Wairoa Star (a Hawke’s Bay community paper that had run for 103 years). At the same time, New Zeelanders are still interested in local affairs but 64.4% of them (2.7 million) prefer to get their information online, even more than their Canadian counterparts. Many of these sources are local papers or independent journalists who rely on digital engagement and subscriptions to stay afloat. If the law ever passed, online traffic would dry up altogether, and most local outlets and journalists would lose their livelihoods overnight.

One can only conclude, as my colleagues Yaël Ossowski and David Clement have pointed out, based on solid evidence, that the largest establishment media players have the most to win from the deal. That is not the fairness that was promised.

The question then is: why continue to promote the law? Policymakers are repeating the age-old mistake of demonizing intermediaries, a politically popular position at a time when big tech is becoming unpopular. Yet the move fatally misreads the relationship between tech and media. The examples of Canada and Australia show how, far from sucking the oxygen out of the room, digital platforms allow local providers to reach more people than ever before. By scaring online platforms away, New Zealand’s government would cause irreparable damage to the very people and businesses that politicians claim to want to help the most.

If it genuinely wants good news, New Zealand’s government should stay out of the business of picking economic winners and losers and let consumers decide. Bad ideas should remain dead.

Esenciální oleje jako nebezpečné látky? Evropský parlament zachránil mnohamiliardový byznys

Často v Česku nadáváme na „ten zlý Brusel“ a na to, jak „nikým nevolení úředníci rozhodují o tom, co se smí a co se nesmí“. Jenže v praxi my, kdo se staráme o práva spotřebitelů, vidíme, jak to reálně funguje. Skutečně jsou tu úředníci s dost extremistickými návrhy. Ale také volení zástupci Evropanů ze všech členských států, kteří se tomu nebojí učinit přítrž.

Možná překvapí, že EU reguluje i takové věci, jako jsou vonné esenciální oleje. Ale ono je to logické: jde o zboží, které přichází na jednotný evropský trh, a platí, že abychom nemuseli mít sedmadvacet různých pravidel, je pro výrobce kdekoliv v Evropě lepší mít jedny platné všude. A nemuset se starat o různé typy registrací, regulací a požadavků.

Možná také překvapí, že jde o miliardy. Evropské země patří k předním světovým producentům těchto olejů. Dvěma nejvýznamnějšími příklady jsou Bulharsko, kde se vyrábí světově proslulý růžový olej z údolí Kazanlak a jehož vývoz činí 92 milionů eur, a Francie, která je třetím největším vývozcem levandule na světě (458 milionů eur).

Česko tak velkým producentem není, ale je příjemcem výhod, které vyplývají z jednotného evropského trhu v kosmetickém průmyslu, který je na esenciálních olejích do značné míry závislý. Až 992 derivátů esenciálních olejů je součástí běžně dostupných šamponů, deodorantů a dalších kosmetických přípravků, které denně používáme. Objem trhu s tímto kosmetickým zbožím má v Česku letos dosáhnout podle odhadů objemu přes 33 miliard korun.

Jenže příliš opatrná Evropská agentura pro chemické látky (ECHA) už dříve rozhodla, že omezí distribuci klíčových látek pro kosmetický průmysl. ECHA vyznává takzvaný absolutistický „přístup založený na nebezpečnosti“, který omezuje jakékoli směsi, pokud byť jen jediná chemická složka může být hypoteticky nebezpečná při laboratorních testech. A esenciální oleje dala do jednoho pytle s potenciálně nebezpečnými umělými látkami.

Evropský parlament měl ale jiný názor. Začátkem října přijal nové právní předpisy, které mění status esenciálních olejů v rámci celoevropských pravidel pro  klasifikaci, označování a balení látek a směsí. Místo omezujícího přístupu byrokratů parlament seznal, že zcela přírodní a bezpečné extrakty budou zařazené do kategorie látek přírodního a botanického původu a nikoli v jednom nařízení s organickými insekticidy, kam opravdu nepatří.

Lekcí z celé kauzy je několik. Zaprvé, je dobře, že europoslanci dbají na zájem svých voličů především v době, kdy opravdu není zájmem kohokoli zvyšovat životní náklady lidí, což je obvykle vedlejší účinek jakýchkoli omezujících ustanovení v evropské nebo národní legsilativě. Díky této „drobné“ změně Evropského parlamentu si celé odvětví ekonomiky polepší o stovky milionů eur.

Schválením v Evropském parlamentu to ale nekončí. Aby nová legislativa vstoupila v platnost, je potřeba, aby změny posvětila i Rada Evropské unie a Evropská komise v rámci takzvaného interinstitucionálního trialogu, kdy mezi sebou evropské orgány uzavírají potřebné kompromisy. Je zásadní, aby členské státy měly primárně na paměti náklady, které regulace přináší nakonec spotřebitelům a snažily se je snížit co nejvíce.

A druhé poučení z této kauzy je také v tom, že demokraticky volení zástupci by měli nastavit jiná pravidla pro byrokracii, aby například ECHA změnila svůj přístup z absolutního pohledu na bezpečnost na vyváženější přístup založený na vnímání a analýze rizik. Existují empirické důkazy o tom, že esenciální oleje jsou pro lidi i životní prostředí neškodné a agentury by měly brát v úvahu i ekonomické a sociální důsledky svých rozhodnutí na členské státy i regiony. Politici pak budou mít méně práce v přípravě legislativy a v opravování chyb úředníků.

Originally published here

Are we witnessing the first cracks in the EU’s “better safe than sorry” approach?

A new amendment to EU essential oils regulations spells victory for European consumers and industry

Good policy-making means correcting unfortunate mistakes. For this reason, it is wonderful to see the European Parliament address burdensome essential oils rules. In today’s plenary vote, Members of Parliament approved amendment 32, designed to adjust Classification, Labelling, and Packaging (CLP)regulations. Instead of grouping essential oils under the ambiguous label of mixtures containing more than one substance, any natural water or steam emulsions will now be more accurately described as substances of natural botanic origin, separate from already extant rules (EU) No 1107/2009 and (EU) No 528/2012 for organic insecticides.

The proposal significantly improves the European Union Chemicals Agency’s (ECHA) ruling. The initial plan was based on a hazard mentality, which allowed for no amount of risk so long as a single part of a substance may be troublesome in a hypothetical laboratory setting. It further equated essential oils with hazardous artificial compounds when all the available evidence suggests they are natural and perfectly safe. As a result, the ECHA would most likely have curtailed essential oils from being bought or sold via EU regulation 2021/1902.

The original regulations would have only added fuel to the fire consumers face. The EU-wide inflation rate remains high at 4.3%, a figure well above the European Central Bank’s price stability target of 2%. Higher prices translate into a general price rise, making it harder for ordinary Europeans to make ends meet. Thanks to the extra regulations, the few available products would have become more expensive due to the added compliance costs, piling further momentum to price rises. In the worst-case scenario, ordinary buyers could have been deprived of some of their favorite perfumes, shampoos, and make-up kits (which contain at least nine hundred and ninety-two substances derived from rose, chamomile, lemon, tree bark, or other natural components).

The amendment will prevent either scenario– essential oils never have to be withdrawn from the market because of unfounded safety concerns or comply with additional labeling rules and regulations. Consumers are left to enjoy the same items at affordable prices.

Producers in European member states also have reasons to celebrate the certainty the amendment brings to their businesses. France could have lost its position as the second-biggest supplier of lavender and the third-biggest exporter of the plant, and 458 million euros in exports. Bulgaria’s Kazanlak Valley is famous worldwide for its rose oil. It alone yielded two tonnes of essential oils, then exported for 92 million euros annually. Bulgarian workers and companies who were reasonably concerned about the implications of the ECHA’s actions can now breathe a collective sigh of relief. So, too, can the 4500 families in Italy’s Reggio Calabria responsible for harvesting 95% of all bergamot around the world. Italy’s 174 million euros in exports are safe and secure.

Smaller players in the market were even more vulnerable to change. Lithuanian cosmetics companies could see their mint, chamomile, juniper, and spruce overseas exchange disappear, losing 379.9 million euros. Minor yet entrepreneurial enterprises like the Tedre Farm in Estonia, originators of a more efficient carbon monoxide extraction method for raspberry oil, may have been rendered insolvent under the ECHA’s plans. With amendment 32, they and others can make their mark in the broader market unperturbed.

However, policymakers should go further and urge the ECHA to change its mentality towards regulation altogether. Currently, the ECHA operates based on a hazard-based, “better safe than sorry” approach, which has led it to oppose essential oils needlessly. Instead, regulators should practice the risk-based method, assuming realistic intended use levels. In doing so, they should incorporate the empirical evidence that shows essential oils to be harmless to humans and the environment into regulatory decision-making.  This way, they will avoid making any future mistakes.

Originally published here

Proposed EU essential oils amendment is a relief for European consumers and businesses

Under its strict “better safe than sorry” hazard approach, the ECHA intended to modify existing Classification, Labelling, and Packaging (CLP) rules and group essential oils under the nebulous category of mixtures containing more than one substance. The original plan meant essential oils were wrongly considered on par with dangerous artificial substances and became open to potential market restrictions under EU regulation 2021/1902.

Introduced on the 21st of September as a correction to the CLP, Parliament’s amendment 32 now rightfully recognizes these water or steam-based extracts as organic and safe. The proposal creates a new rubric of multi-constituent substances of natural botanical origin not covered by existing rules (EU) No 1107/2009 and (EU) No 528/2012 for organic insecticides.

Consumers and producers have every reason to support this potential return to regulatory and economic common sense. Emulsions like rose or lemon oil are vital ingredients for bio-make-up kits, shampoos, deodorants, and other cosmetics. The 2.29 billion euro European clean beauty industry could not exist without them. Provision 32 reassures suppliers that their items will not be spontaneously removed from shelves just because one particle out of a hundred could prove dangerous in a hypothetical laboratory setting. It also guarantees that no frightening labels or warnings will be present on the packaging, which would have needlessly scared many consumers away.

Most importantly, it means companies do not have to incur extra costs when inflation is already driving prices up across the board. It is worth remembering that EU-wide inflation rates remain stubbornly high at 5.9%(jumping in Hungary to a whopping 14.2%). Now was not the time for a thicket of unexpected chemical regulations to make things even harder. Thanks to the Parliament’s intervention, consumers can still find their favorite items in stores at the usual prices.

EU member states should feel even more encouraged by the amendment. Bulgaria is the world’s number one rose oil producer, harvesting almost two tonnes of emulsions annually for exports worth 92 million euros. Bulgarian producers were understandably worried the ECHA might wipe their business out. Approximately 4500 family-owned small companies in Reggio Calabria generate 95% of global bergamot production.

The ECHA’s initial decision left their future uncertain, and Italy could have lost 174 million euros in exports. France’s renowned lavender business and 458 million euros were on the line. Estonia’s Tedre Farm, inventor of a novel carbon monoxide method for emulsifying raspberries, would have squandered the fruits of its innovation. Bulgaria,  Italy, France, Estonia, and other member states can now rest assured that EU regulations do not unfairly disadvantage them.

There is still work to be done, of course. The proposal has only been tabled and is pending formal adoption in a Parliament plenary. For all the reasons mentioned above, MEPs should move to approve the amendment at the first available opportunity.

More so, policymakers should strike at the root of the problem and urge the ECHA to consider a change in mentality. In light of the essential oils case, it has become clear that hazard-based thinking does not accurately reflect the dangers of substances. Such reasoning must be replaced with a risk-based assessment of emulsions and other compounds. A risk-based evaluation would operate with safe intended use levels and take realistic evidence seriously. Research has shown that essential oils are harmless to people, plants, animals, and the environment and preferable to artificial repellents like DEET and picaridin. Regulators should listen and follow suit. That would be the best news to look forward to.

Originally published here

Erorile strategiei anti-fumat a României. Motivele pentru care planurile Guvernului nu au „lipici” la populație

Expertul Emil Pânzaru a analizat pentru „Adevărul” strategia anti-fumat a României. Acesta crede că taxele suplimentare pe tutun și pe produsele alternative nu aduc nici bani în plus la buget și nici nu îi ajută pe români să renunțe la fumat.

Doctorul în economie Emil Pânzaru avertizează cu privire la politicile greșite ale statului român, care apelează exclusiv la taxe și impozite pentru a acoperi găurile din buget, în dauna altor segmente sociale și economice. Este și cazul fumătorilor, care, spune expertul, vor plăti prețuri mai mari din cauza accizelor suplimentare, iar acest lucru este dăunător și pentru strategia anti-fumat a țării, care la rândul ei generează efecte negative în domeniul sănătății, dar și în cel al combaterii infracționalității economice.

„Consumatorii români vor fi pedepsiţi fără sens pentru greşeala Guvernului. Problema este simplă, dar gravă. Statul român a cheltuit mult mai mult decât a încasat, estimările actuale plasând deficitul bugetar pentru 2023 în jurul cifrei enorme de 7,5% din PIB, mult peste pragul UE de 3%. Ca urmare, România ar putea pierde toate fondurile europene alocate prin PNRR, un dezastru pentru o ţară care are nevoie serioasă de investiţii”, avertizează Emil Pânzaru.

Taxele suplimentare nu garantează venituri mai mari

Disperat să-şi repare greşeala, Guvernul vrea să-i taxeze în plus pe „vaperi” şi pe cei care preferă alternative fumatului în general, arată Emil Pânzaru.

Însă faptul că statul va majora din nou aceste taxe nu înseamnă încasări suplimentare la buget. „Să fim clari – o măsură care descurajează consumatorii din a cumpăra nişte bunuri nu va aduce bani statului. Ministerul Finanţelor a estimat o creştere de 1,1 miliarde de lei la buget ca urmare a noilor impozite. Din contră, logica economică ne-ar spune că lucrurile s-ar întâmpla fix pe dos. Cu cât sunt mai mari taxele, cu atât oamenii vor cumpăra mai puţin sau vor evita taxele pe ascuns. Ar fi un scenariu prost pentru România, ţară în care evaziunea fiscală se ridică la 10% din PIB”, atrage atenția expertul.

Read the full text here

New EU rules on essential oils will hurt honest businesses and consumers

For many people, the European Union and its institutions have always meant overregulation and bureaucracy. Their beliefs are fed from time to time by specific rulings or proposals. This time it is the European Union’s Chemical Agency (ECHA) that has set sight on essential oils as substances needing strict control. You are most likely using essential oils without knowing it and with no harm done. Hundreds of such water or steam-distilled extracts make it into insect repellents,perfumes, cosmetics, and other toiletries like shampoos in small doses that havepassed skin and allergy testing. But the ECHA is not planning to consult their safety record and actual levels of exposure (what, in public policy speak, one would call ‘risk-based thinking’). Instead, it will amend CLP (Classification, Labelling, and Packaging ) and REACH rules to mark essential oils as hazardous complex chemicals of more than one constituent substance. Suppose one molecule in the mix could be characterized as a threat under isolated laboratory conditions or deduced via statistical reasoning. In that case, policymakers can label these natural oils dangerous or ban their usage altogether.

Legitimate producers and European consumers alike have no reason to welcome the news. Inflation, the rise of prices across the European economy, has not yet subsided – the EU’s average annual rate stood at6.4% in the EU (5.5% in the euro area), above the ECB’s price stability target of 2%. However, the average masks considerable variation in which poorer EU countries are affected more than their well-off counterparts. Luxembourg’s annual rate is amere 1%, whereas Hungary registers 19.9% (the highest in the EU), Poland at 11%, Romania at 9.3%, and Bulgaria at 7.5%. Because consumers in poorer countries tend to spend more of their income on essential goods and find saving money hard, they are likely to suffer disproportionately because of inflation.

Similarly, legal producers (who make it an objective to comply with the rules fully) in these countries will see a generalized rise in the cost of services, leaving their financial prospects uncertain. By demanding more onerous procedures, the ECHA’s ruling makes it harder for suppliers to bring their goods to the market. As fewer goods are available to buy, the measure is fuelling the momentum of rising prices, which leaves consumers even worse off than before.

The ECHA’s decision is particularly damaging when considering how the European essential oils market works. Notably, smaller companies drive the industry in the EU. No less than 95% of the world’s supply of bergamot comes from 4500 Italian families cultivating it in the Calabria region. The Essential Citrus team in Portugal extracts oil from over 350 citrus varieties in Alejento. Estonia’s Tedre-Farmuses a one-of-a-kind carbon monoxide method to distill oil from 2.5 hectares of raspberries. As such, these enterprises have much smaller profit margins, meaning they are less likely to be able to afford to operate in an environment with costlier restrictions and where their dedicated buyers are scared away by frightening warning labels. With their loss comes a loss of revenue, potentially endangering the 2.29 billion euro European clean beauty market and more economic woes for consumers.

Policymakers, producers, and consumers should encourage the ECHA to reverse course and avoid this outcome. Preliminary discussions began on the 30thof June when the EU’s Permanent Representative Committee requested that the EU Commission re-evaluate the classification for essential oils four years from now. But that should only be the start. Better still, regulation should focus on the genuine threat from fraudsters who overpromise and underdeliver on the medical effects of essential oils using concrete evidence (like safety tests grounded in plausible levels of exposure) rather than hypothetical reasoning.  Consumers can then stay safe without making the cost-of-living crisis more complicated than it already is.

Originally published here

Eastern Europe should reject the proposed EU chemical regulations

A new red-tape mission is about to worsen the lives of Eastern European consumers, producers, and suppliers.  Under the influence of the Green Deal, the European Union’s Chemical Agency (ECHA) will transition to a hazard-based approachpremised on preventing any potential threat. Regulators will no longer focus on concrete exposure levels to determine whether a product is safe for consumers, as they used to in the older risk-oriented assessments. Instead, policymakers will use lab-related hypothetical scenarios or advanced statistical tests to label a consumer good as dangerous or remove it entirely from store shelves if it could constitute a problem in any way, shape, or form.

However, trying to achieve zero dangers comes at a high cost. In the case of the ECHA’s revised rules, increasing regulatory pressure raises the costs of complying with said rules. This increase leaves many smaller companies unviable, making perfectly safe goods unavailable to consumers. The effect will be decisive for Eastern European countries already heavily invested in chemical markets, which therefore have the most to lose from any disruption.

The best example of this dynamic comes from an unlikely source – essential oils. Often assumed to be just relaxation tools, these steam or water-based plant extracts are widespread ingredients in most toiletries, cosmetics, and perfumes and are the economic bread and butter of many Eastern European countries. Bulgaria is the world’s top producer of rose oil, with up to two tonnes of rosesharvested yearly in the famous region of Rose Valley. Not to be outdone, the Tedre farm in southern Estonia has cultivated a waste-efficient carbon monoxide method of extracting oil from its 2.5 hectares of raspberries. Though not comparable to Bulgaria or Estonia in terms of output, Lithuania does produce important essential oils like mint, chamomile, juniper, and spruce.

However, hazard-based regulations would have essential oils on the chopping block. Policymakers plan to replace their current designation as complex natural substances with the nebulous idea of ‘more than one constituent substance.’ In practice, this redesignation means that essential oils will be treated the same way as synthetic mixtures – subject to the complete restrictions of hazard-based rules.

Most Eastern European firms will quickly find their businesses unviable because of the ECHA’s decision. Like the Tedre farmers, Bulgarian cultivators in the Rose Valley, and Lithuanian agriculturalists, these producers and retailers tend to besmaller domestic enterprisesScaring consumers away with severe warnings on labels and prohibiting products are extra costs they can ill afford to take on (which is why 85% of all firms signed up to onerous legislation are large international conglomerates).

The economic consequences for the essential oils market in countries like Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, and others in the region will be severe. Looking at export numbers alone, Bulgaria could lose 445 million euros from its sale of essential oils and associated toiletries. Lithuania and Estonia’s numbers are more modest but still significant, at 379.9 million euroand 19.1 million euro, respectively.

Eastern European member states should encourage the ECHA to abandon its cause before it is too late. Tentative steps occurred on the 30th of June when Bulgaria and seven other states in the Permanent Representatives Committee urged the European Commission to prepare a report four years into the future on essential oils. The analysis will outline different norms regulating the ‘more than one constituent substance’ category. Estonia, Lithuania, and all other Eastern European countries should join Bulgaria in this endeavor.

Yet they should aim to do more. They must encourage the revival of risk-based thinking in the EU’s attitude towards chemicals. Risk-bearing is the only form of decision-making grounded in concrete toxicological data, aware of the fundamental economic trade-offs, and sensitive to the consumer experience. The time to end destructive campaigns (no matter how well-intentioned they may be) is here and now.  

Originally published here

Central and Eastern Europe would be hit hard by new rules on essential oils

Essential oil products generate hundreds of millions euros for several countries in Central and Eastern Europe. New rules threaten the industry.

New rules by the European Union’s Chemical Agency (ECHA) would significantly impact the commercialisation and use of essential oil products. 

This includes a wide variety of products consumers use, including everything from perfumes and other fragrances, to humidifier scents and insect repellents. The agency intends to adopt a new way of measuring harm caused by chemicals that doesn’t take into account the actual dosage that consumers will be exposed to.

It is unfortunate that the ECHA has chosen this exact moment to put overly restrictive chemical regulations in place. 

Following the European Green Deal’s footsteps and its vision of a toxic-free environment, the ECHA is replacing careful risk assessments based on actual exposure levels with a sweeping hazard-based approach grounded in hypothetical scenarios. The difference in practice between the two is radical. Where the first allows the use of a substance so long as it satisfies a safety threshold, the latter would prohibit compounds so long as something could go wrong.

The regulations will not spare even safe natural products from this effect, including steam and water-distilled (or manually pressed) extracts like essential oils. Under the current framework, policymakers classify them as complex natural substances. But all that would change with the hazard mentality, which would identify essential oils as mixtures of “more than one constituent substance” and restrict them as though they were volatile artificial materials, by legislation EU 2021/1902 on “toxic cosmetics”.

Impact in Central and Eastern Europe

The new ECHA guidelines will make it unfeasible for the sizeable Central and Eastern European essential oils industry to bring goods to the market. 

The businesses in Bulgaria’s famous Rose Valley harvest around two tonnes of rose oil yearly and earn 445 million euros for the country in exports of essential oils and toiletries. Similarly, the Tedre farm in Estonia produces 2.5 hectares of world-class raspberries and extracts raspberry oil based on a proprietary carbon monoxide method. Lithuania created 379.9 million euros worth of cosmetics exports from mint, chamomile, juniper, and spruce emulsions. 

Finally, Hungary benefits from 713.78 million euros of beauty industry exports. If only one part of a rose, raspberry, or mint product could be toxic or highly allergic, their goods will receive a harsh warning label at best. At worst, policymakers will make sure that they cannot commercialise these products at all. 

Firms in Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, and other Central and Eastern European countries are smaller than most international conglomerates and cannot pay the extra costs of compliance; instead, they will withdraw their goods from exchange entirely.

The last thing Central and Eastern Europeans need right now is needless red tape complicating consumers’ daily lives.  The ECHA’s overly cautious approach would only add fuel to the fire. Inflation, the general rise in prices across the economy, has hit Central and Eastern European countries harder than most, leaving most people unable to afford as much as they did before and devaluing their savings. 

Annual inflation rates are projected to be higher than the 2023 EU average of 7.1 per cent (6.1 in the euro area) in countries such as Bulgaria (8.6 per cent), Lithuania (10.7 per cent), Estonia (11.2 per cent), and Hungary (a whopping 21.9 per cent). Yet the hazard-based process will ultimately exacerbate inflationary pressures.

Convincing the EU to change course

As the insights of economics show, the lower supply coupled with the same demand results in higher prices, driving inflation forward and causing more suffering to ordinary buyers. For all its good intentions, the hazard-based mentality will deteriorate Central and Eastern European consumers’ purchasing power and living standards.

The way to stop the worst scenario from materialising is to convince EU regulators to change course. 

Some member states, Bulgaria among them, have already acted via the Permanent Representatives Committee. 

On June 30 this year, the Committee requested the European Commission re-evaluate the status of essential oils as “more than one constituent substance” four years into the new legislation. All Central and Eastern European states should support the request. 

Moreover, they should champion the reinstatement of a risk-based mentality as the only science-driven option that keeps consumers safe without sacrificing their economic well-being. 

Central and Eastern Europeans would have one less thing to worry about.   

Originally published here

The European Union’s new chemical regulations leave the bloc vulnerable to Chinese domination

The European Union’s Chemical Agency (ECHA) risks creating new problems for itself by moving from a risk to a hazard-based assessment of chemicals.

Sometimes, eliminating one set of problems only creates more dangers in their stead. The European Union’s Chemical Agency (ECHA) is about to do just that by moving from a risk to a hazard-based assessment of chemicals. Though seemingly just a change in words, the decision means regulators can label a substance as dangerous for its properties based on the material’s hypothetical characteristics rather than real-world exposure to harm. Simply put, policymakers will be able to introduce severe warning labels or prevent a product from entering the market if just one of its molecules could be dangerous based on hypothetical assessments under controlled laboratory setups. The ECHA’s new regulations threaten to undermine the European chemical market while making the Union progressively dependent on China for raw resources.

The case of essential oils encapsulates the problem. Essential oils are water or steam-based extracts integral to anything from perfumes and cosmetics to shampoos and natural insect repellents. They are vital components for the emergent market in clean beauty, with nine hundred ninety-two mixtures (including household names such as lavender, rose, and citronella) giving makeup its cleansing properties and deodorants their unique scent. When highly concentrated in doses containing 10% or higher quantities of emulsion, citronella, sage, and cinnamon also provide one to four hours of protection from mosquito and tick bites. And, unlike traditional DEET or picaridin sprays, they remain harmless to bees and the environment.

Despite all these benefits, essential oils’ designation as complex natural substances will have to change with the introduction of hazard-based thinking. Rule-makers will label the mixtures as dangerous chemicals or ban them entirely under EU regulation 2021/1902. In either case, European consumers tend to avoid buying products with skulls and crossbones stamped on them.

It is no understatement to say that the consequences for the 3.53-billion-euro EU market would be dire. Once the ECHA’s new rules are fully adopted, current EU and world leaders in the supply of essential oils, like Bulgaria, France, and Italy, stand to lose. Bulgaria will no longer be the top producer of rose oil, wasting between 800kg and two tonnes of the material and 92 million euros worth of exports. Italy is single-handedly responsible for 95% of the world’s bergamot production and will lose 174 million euros. France is the third-largest exporter and the second-biggest producer of lavender, worth 458 million euros in exports that it would have to give up on. Moreover, smaller producers in each of these countries stand to lose the most as it would be too expensive for them to replace essential oils with other products (putting the 4500 family businesses behind Italian bergamot in danger).

The story does not stop there. The ECHA’s decision will allow China to dominate the essential oils market with impunity. Chinese lavender production is already at an all-time high, with 40 tonnes harvested yearly, ten of which are reserved for exports. The contraction of the European market will allow China to step in and become the world’s substitute for essential oils, overcoming its previously estimated growth in the sector of 10.8% over the next eight years. The news would be welcome under ideal economic circumstances of free trade and open, voluntary specialization within a global market; however, in our world, the Chinese state controls Xinjiang Province’s lavender reserves. As such, the Chinese Communist Party could cut access to raw materials to make liberal democracies surrender. Far from being safer, consumers are left more exposed to geopolitical blackmail by authoritarian regimes.

Policymakers should urge the ECHA to reverse its hazard-based reasoning in favor of risk-oriented thinking. Regulators should emphasize safe levels of intended use, which, in the case of essential oils, means allowing the European market to thrive (stepping in only to prevent force and pseudo-scientific fraud).  In so doing, the European Union can benefit from diversifying its essential oil sources, thus protecting consumers from the vagaries of great power politics.

Originally published here

Scroll to top
en_USEN

Follow us

WASHINGTON

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

BRUSSELS

Rond Point Schuman 6, Box 5 Brussels, 1040, Belgium

LONDON

Golden Cross House, 8 Duncannon Street
London, WC2N 4JF, UK

KUALA LUMPUR

Block D, Platinum Sentral, Jalan Stesen Sentral 2, Level 3 - 5 Kuala Lumpur, 50470, Malaysia

OTTAWA

718-170 Laurier Ave W Ottawa, ON K1P 5V5

© COPYRIGHT 2025, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Also from the Consumer Choice Center: ConsumerChamps.EU | FreeTrade4us.org