ChemSec

🤔 Which chemical companies are the best and worst performers in #ChemScore 2024? 🥇 Norwegian agrochemical company Yara International lands the top position in this year’s ranking ahead of last year’s winner SABIC, and Indorama Ventures. 🇺🇸 The bottom three are all American companies, with #PFAS producer The Chemours Company in last place behind Westlake and 3M. 👉🏾 See the full ranking: https://lnkd.in/e-vqXm3

🥳 It’s here, ladies and gentlemen, the moment you’ve all been waiting for — #ChemScore 2024. 💜 We’ve got something special for you — a unique #webinar recording with the brilliant minds behind the ranking. They’ll take you on a deep dive into this year’s results, exploring each category, highlighting standout trends, sharing best practices, and offering investor perspectives. And, of course, the grand finale: the big reveal of the ChemScore 2024 winner! 📺 So grab a seat, get comfy, and hit play to find out who takes the crown this year: https://lnkd.in/dga3bgQV

😲 Europe’s biggest plastics companies rely on stubbornly high use of toxic chemicals in their production, according to ChemSec data. 5️⃣ For five consecutive years, European plastics giants have lagged the rest of the world on their toxic footprint – and shown zero improvement. 📣 The Financial Times commented: “The EU consistently presents itself as an ambitious negotiator on climate and environmental matters. … But in [the global plastics treaty negotiations this week in] Busan, the bloc’s industrial position might undermine that position.” ⚠️ Read the full story here: https://lnkd.in/dsuEkePg

💬 “I thought I had seen it all… but clearly I hadn’t” 💬 “I never want to watch a normal webinar again” 💬 “ChemSec somehow manages to strike a perfect balance between seriousness and fun, a must-watch!” 📺 Clear your Thursday morning schedule because at 9 am the results of #ChemScore2024 will be announced… with a bang! With a brand-new format, the guys behind the ranking will guide you through this year’s results and notable trends before ultimately revealing the winner of ChemScore 2024. 😎 Tune in to chemsec.org on November 28 at 09:00 (CET).

💥 This week, we’re busting five common industry myths about the #PFAS ban! 📣 As decision time gets closer, industry opposition to the EU’s proposed ban on PFAS substances is getting louder. Powerful PR teams are pumping out the message that the world will end without PFAS. Their propaganda has been published or broadcast so often that it’s often assumed to be common knowledge. But that doesn’t make it true. 😎 For the last industry myth, we’re sticking with #fluoropolymers and debunking the claim that there are no alternatives to these PFAS plastics. 💬 As a British manufacturer of fluorocarbons puts it: “There are currently no viable alternatives to fluoropolymers that [are] so vital to the sectors and industries they serve and the world at large”. 🔎 But there are many existing alternatives to fluoropolymers. Some of the most well-known are polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyamide polymers, and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. The PFAS restriction proposal contains detailed discussions of whether and how these alternatives may be introduced. 👉🏽 Follow the link to find out exactly why this and other industry claims are false: https://lnkd.in/dgUAzcey

💥 This week, we’re busting five common industry myths about the #PFAS ban! 📣 As decision time gets closer, industry opposition to the EU’s proposed ban on PFAS substances is getting louder. Powerful PR teams are pumping out the message that the world will end without PFAS. Their propaganda has been published or broadcast so often that it’s often assumed to be common knowledge. But that doesn’t make it true. 🤡 According to the fluoropolymer industry, the OECD says #fluoropolymers are “low concern”. But this, friends, is nothing but another annoying myth. There are no such OECD criteria, and there have never been. So, how has this misunderstanding come about? 🔎 In 2009, An OECD Expert Group on polymers did indeed look at the evidence for the #health or environmental impacts of fluoropolymers. It found “weaknesses or inadequacies” in the data and methodology, and “data on a broad range of health endpoints were not available for most polymers”. No analysis of specific toxicological effects could be “meaningfully conducted”, the expert group stated. Since then, the OECD - OCDE has not done any further work on this. It's really time for industry to let this one go now… 👉🏿 Follow the link to find out exactly why this and other industry claims are false: https://lnkd.in/dgUAzcey

What he said! 👇👇👇

💥 This week, we’re busting five common industry myths about the #PFAS ban! 📣 As decision time gets closer, industry opposition to the EU’s proposed ban on PFAS substances is getting louder. Powerful PR teams are pumping out the message that the world will end without PFAS. Their propaganda has been published or broadcast so often that it’s often assumed to be common knowledge. But that doesn’t make it true. ✅ So far, we’ve busted two myths. Next up is the claim that not all PFAS are harmful and the bad ones are already banned. 🤓 While it is true that not all PFAS are equally toxic, the fact that they do not break down in nature is in itself cause for concern. Persistence leads to increased concentrations, which leads to levels that will eventually have effects, so even less toxic PFAS will impact human health and the #environment over time. Moreover, the more we know about PFAS molecules, the more hazard endpoints they show. ⚖️ Finally, the bad ones – those where #health concerns are most acute – have by no means gone away. Only a tiny handful of PFAS chemicals have been restricted so far. The only way to effectively ban such a huge group of chemicals is through a group-based approach. Otherwise, we will continue to have a lot of “regrettable substitutions” on our hands and legislation won’t be able to keep up. 👉🏻 Follow the link to find out exactly why this and other industry claims are false: https://lnkd.in/dgUAzcey

💥 This week, we’re busting five common industry myths about the #PFAS ban! 📣 As decision time gets closer, industry opposition to the EU’s proposed ban on PFAS substances is getting louder. Powerful PR teams are pumping out the message that the world will end without PFAS. Their propaganda has been published or broadcast so often that it’s often assumed to be common knowledge. But that doesn’t make it true. 😷 Have you heard the claim that without PFAS, there will be no #medicines? 💬 EFPIA - European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations states that “a proposed restriction on the use of [PFAS] could see the widespread shut down of medicines manufacturing … with a significant number of critical medicines no longer available, impacting patient access to medicines”. 🏥 But is this true? No. The restriction proposal clearly states that PFAS used as active ingredients in medicines should be excluded altogether from any ban. As for medical devices and equipment, the proposal suggests derogations for a host of medical products, such as catheters, membranes, fluids, bandages, packaging and tubes. 👉🏾 Follow the link to find out exactly why this and other industry claims are false: https://lnkd.in/dgUAzcey

💥 This week, we’re busting five common industry myths about the #PFAS ban! 📣 As decision time gets closer, industry opposition to the EU’s proposed ban on PFAS substances is getting louder. Powerful PR teams are pumping out the message that the world will end without PFAS. Their propaganda has been published or broadcast so often that it’s often assumed to be common knowledge. But that doesn’t make it true. 🌍 First out is the claim that without PFAS, we cannot stop #climatechange. 💬 This statement from the American Chemistry Council, a US chemical industry trade association, is just one of many examples of this argument: “PFAS chemistries … are used in many of the technologies that will help take us to a clean energy future, such as solar panels, wind turbines, green hydrogen, and batteries for electric vehicles and energy storage. [They] are critical to accomplishing clean energy goals.” 🧐 However, looking at the technologies listed above one by one, we see that many commercial alternatives to PFAS are either available or in development. And where there is some doubt, the PFAS restriction proposal explicitly recommends derogations. The “green transition” is absolutely possible without PFAS! 👉🏼 Follow the link to find out exactly why this and other industry claims are false: https://lnkd.in/dgUAzcey