A new report published by the Consumer Choice Center highlights how heavy handed chemical policy could undermine Europe’s efforts for semiconductor manufacturing.

The Consumer Choice Center’s David Clement, co-author of the report explained, “In February the EU announced the European Chips Act, with the goal of increasing supply chain resilience and boosting domestic production from 9% to 20% by 2030. Unfortunately, if the EU gives in to efforts calling for a ban, or phase out of PFAS, the goals of the Chips Act will be impossible to achieve.”

“PFAS, a grouping of 4000+ man-made chemicals, are vital for the production of semiconductors. If the EU seeks to ban their use then increasing domestic chip manufacturing will be incredibly difficult. Europe will ultimately end up failing to meet it’s chip production goals, or it will become almost entirely dependent on China for these chemicals. Both of these scenarios are problematic. If the EU is serious about increasing domestic chip production they have to also work to secure the key inputs involved in the production process, and PFAS are one of those key inputs.” said Clement

“In fact, we know that this is what will happen if the EU opts for a phase out. This is exactly what happened when Belgium paused production at a PFAS chemical plant in response to the tightening of environmental regulations. Reporting done by Business Korea highlighted that semiconductor producers have only 30 to 90 days of coolant inventory left before they will encounter serious production problems.” said Clement

“A clean drinking water approach to PFAS is entirely appropriate, but getting there cannot, and should not, result in outright production bans. If the EU can narrow its sights on proper production processes to avoid water contamination, they can protect European citizens without the chaos of an exacerbated semiconductor shortage,” said Clement.

Originally published here

Growing calls to end the use of so-called “forever chemicals”, used in everything from non-stick frying pans to medical equipment, risk causing unnecessary supply chain disruption and illicit trade

Recently, calls for a complete ban of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as “forever-chemicals”, have intensified in the EU. Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Denmark spearheaded a consultation on PFAS to collect the evidence to kick-start this process. Belgium is also tightening its PFAS regulations.

The EU already regulates some uses of PFAS. In line with the Stockholm Convention, the 2019 EU’s Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Regulation restricts the use of Polydioctylfluorenes (PFOS), a group of PFAS. A year later, the European Food and Safety Agency (EFSA) introduced thresholds for four PFAS in food.

Over the past few years, multiple EU Member States have pushed for regulation of individual PFAS. In 2018, Sweden and Germany jointly called on the EU to ban six long-chain PFAS. The greatest anti-PFAS sentiment comes from the Nordic countries, where restrictive national legislation has been introduced.

Sven Giegold, Speaker of the German Green Delegation in the European Parliament, proposed banning all PFAS  “so that manufacturers cannot simply switch to chemically similar compounds that are not yet regulated”. The Greens point to the dangers associated with the PFAS water contamination and health risks.

However, while it might be tempting to act on a whim and ban all PFAS single-handedly, we should take a step back. The complete ban would be a knee-jerk reaction to an issue that requires careful and ideology-free risk analysis.

Under the PFAS umbrella, there are between 4500 and 6000 chemicals. These man-made structures have been in use since the 1940s and have become extensively entrenched in our supply chains. The main reason for this is PFAS’ outstanding water, oil, and acid resistance and surface tension lowering properties.

Without PFAS, vital pieces of medical equipment would be difficult, even impossible, to produce. Surgical gowns, curtains, and floor coverings that contain PFAS help protect doctors from infections during surgeries. A wide variety of life-saving medical equipment uses PFAS. Stent-grafts, or fluoropolymer heart patches, used to cure various heart diseases, have helped millions of patients globally. The durability and reduced contamination of COVID-19 protective equipment is another example of PFAS’s multiple benefits.

PFAS also do carry some risks. When dumped into the water supply or used in excessive amounts, PFAS pose a considerable danger to our health and wellbeing. Much like many products and chemicals used in our daily lives, PFAS are not risk-free. That, however, doesn’t warrant a complete ban. A 2021 study by the Australian National University found that the exposure to PFAS comes almost entirely from water.  The risks associated with consumer items are nearly non-existent.

Because of PFAS’s overreaching use, the advocated ban will disrupt entire supply chains and shift production to countries with no respect for PFAS use thresholds or the environment, such as China. As long as the demand for a specific product – or production component – is there, and alternatives are either unavailable or less effective, the ban will only be exploited by producers in countries with no care for environmental safety standards or made available in the black market.

In the EU, illicit trade in pesticides alone – which have been subject to many bans and regulations – accounts for €1.3 billion annually, equal to the entire economy of Seychelles. A PFAS ban will only exacerbate these numbers unless the group approach is replaced with an individual risk assessment.

PFAS are diverse chemicals, many of which have become an indispensable part of crucial production processes such as the manufacture of medical equipment. Some PFAS, on the other hand, do pose a danger to our health and might require further restrictions or bans. Throwing all PFAS in the same basket out of precaution is neither economically nor scientifically sensible.

To protect European consumers, the European Union should opt for an individual risk assessment This would prevent unnecessary supply chain disruptions and illicit trade spikes. Europe can do better if it chooses science over populist calls for a complete PFAS ban.

Originally published here

Americans are facing higher prices on nearly everything they use from food to common household products. Instead of looking for solutions, Democrats are about to make things worse by banning a class of chemicals used in manufacturing that make products better and cheaper. In other words, pay attention, consumers. You’re about to get less bang for your already-beleaguered buck.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as man-made or, as the activists like to call them, “forever chemicals,” are the latest addition to the long list of environmental boogeymen blamed for everything from causing cancer to infertility, thyroid problems, and a host of other health issues. In a hunt for a quick fix, Democrat legislators are moving toward a complete PFAS ban, which would outlaw a diverse group of more than 4,000 chemicals, regardless of their individual risks, benefits, and availability of reliable substitutes.

The PFAS Action Act was introduced in April 2021 and passed by the House in July. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), a sponsor of the bill, called PFAS “an urgent public health and environmental threat.” Yet, it is alarmism — not evidence — that drives the Democrats’ PFAS legislation. The assumption behind their approach is that PFAS chemicals all carry equal risks. They do not. PFAS chemicals have a wide array of uses, and, depending on the environment, break down differently.

As for PFAS being a health threat, studies don’t support that claim. In December 2021, the Australian National University published a groundbreaking study on PFAS. One of the key findings was that exposure to PFAS in impacted communities almost entirely comes from water and firefighting foam. That’s a problem because those who drink contaminated water or eat locally grown food that is contaminated are at the highest risk of PFAS-associated health problems. Yet the problem isn’t the existence or use of the chemical. It’s irresponsible and illegal production processes. Ensuring that these chemicals are properly used should drive regulation.

While the Australian study found PFAS exposure (PFOA and PFOS) increased higher cholesterol, other risks have not been confirmed. Even so, new research published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research states that there is often insufficient data supporting PFAS exposure with any specific disease.

PFAS can be found in household items and other common consumer products — like cell phones, medical equipment, and food packaging. These chemicals are also found in hospital settings. Surgical gowns, antimicrobial curtains, and floor coverings all contain PFAS to help protect doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel from infections during surgeries. Water, acid, and oil resistance are some of the main features making PFAS hard to substitute.

Instead of enacting bans, a smarter way to approach PFAS would be to assess these chemicals individually so that those chemicals that pose a significant risk to our health and wellbeing can be regulated appropriately.

The overreaching government hand is not needed to reduce the use of PFAS — that’s already happening. Thanks to industry self-regulation, the use of PFAS has decreased. And according to a 2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls by the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, “industrial releases have been declining since companies began phasing out the production and use of several perfluoroalkyls in the early 2000s.” Also, despite alarmism, the report has found no causal relationship between perfluoroalkyls and pregnancy-induced hypertension, decreased antibody response to vaccines, or other reported ties.

It is important to take claims on the connection between PFAS and health effects with a pinch of salt. Over 200 laboratory animal studies found the link between exposure to PFAS and adverse health effects, which seems convincing at first glance. However, the significance of those conclusions for policymaking is overstated. A review of the lab studies found they used much higher PFAS exposure levels than those observed in the general population. In other words, these studies do not replicate how humans come in contact with these chemicals.

American consumers will have to foot the bill for the Democrats’ PFAS alarmism. With inflation spiking, one would expect regulators to be guided by evidence. The risks associated with consumer items that contain PFAS are non-existent, but the proposed ban comfortably ignores this. The increased cost of production — and the difficulty of finding substitutions for PFAS — will be passed on to consumers.

Another fact ignored by Democrats is that this ban will not cease the production or use of PFAS chemicals. It will simply shift it to countries such as China, where regulations are more relaxed. That means the PFAS Act will do nothing more than make Americans poorer and less safe.

Originally published here

China’s contested placement from 85th to 78th in the World Bank’s 2018 Doing Business ranking gained a lot of attention throughout the fall months of 2021 as news outlets highlighted how networks and net worth can be leveraged to have the odds fall in one’s favor.

Speculations mounted as to who was involved and Kristalina Georgieva, the chief of the IMF, came under pressure for the suspicious data points. While some were quick to speak on Georgieva’s behalf (such as the former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz), and her name was eventually cleared, the Doing Business reports have lost their credibility and publication has been suspended.

Situations such as this call into question reporting mechanisms for intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), along with the purpose and purse strings of those involved.

Over the past two decades IGOs have grown in size and influence as the financial resources from private actors have proliferated. The financing of IGOs bulged in the 1990s when the attainment of earmarked contributions (featuring conditional lending terms) became an encouraged practice for the UN, IMF, and World Bank. 

Accordingly, the operational activities, under the UN system, saw an increase in donors with special interests from 1994 to 2009 by a rate of over 200 percent. And yet the involvement of multinational corporations and politically inclined ‘philanthropists’ has received little attention.

Read the full article here