Leaders reject EC bid to introduce less stringent eco-labelling criteria
By Miriam Markus-Johansson
On April 24, the Regulatory Committee of EU Member State representatives rejected a European Commission (EC) proposal on eco-label criteria for specific product categories. The proposal would have allowed flame retardants (including decaBDE), biocides, PVC and GMOs in eco-labelled textiles, mattresses, flooring products and wooden furniture items; instead, the EC will have to go back to the drawing board and propose new criteria.
Of particular interest here is not why the proposed criteria were rejected, but why the criteria were proposed in the first place. After all, the EU's eco-labelling framework is supposed to identity products that do not include such types of chemical compounds.
The main purpose of the framework, as stipulated by Regulation No. 1980/2000 on a Revised Eco-Label Reward Scheme, is to propose products with reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle. Products are to be analysed beginning with raw material extraction, then through production, distribution and use phases, and ending with disposal after use. Some of the ways to reduce environmental impacts at each level include using environmentally friendly materials and restricting the presence of controlled, harmful substances. Directive 2005/95/EC restricts the use of flame retardant decaBDE in electrical equipment, so there is legal justification to phase out that compound in other product categories, as well, especially in eco-labelled products touted as being more environment friendly.
PVC, GMOs and biocides are also controlled at the EU level, but should they be categorically rejected in all eco-labelled products? In this case it's worth looking at other models. Scandinavia's Nordic Swan eco-labelling scheme, for example, prohibits PVC in flooring, while GMOs, biocides and flame retardants are not allowed in wooden furniture and mattresses. Furthermore, Nordic Swan criteria for furniture and home decorations are among the most stringent in the world, and they also require a high proportion of forest source certification. In these countries at least, both the technology and a market for products meeting such criteria do clearly exist.
So, if it's possible to develop products meeting more stringent criteria, why lower the standards proposed for the 'EU flower' eco-labelling system? Unfortunately, various political, economic, social and cultural factors make this a difficult question to answer. First of all, producers and consumers alike have been slow to recognise and accept the EU flower. This might be due to the fact that, compared to Scandinavian countries, the EU bloc as a whole has less consumer purchasing power and lower levels of environmental awareness.
This being the case, will less stringent criteria ensure increased EU-flower accessibility to EU producers and consumers over the long term? Or are there even better reasons for maintaining the highest possible standards? Scandinavia's eco-labelling scheme has indeed been very successful, and more companies are using it as a marketing tool; the main problem is rather how to ensure frequent revision of eco-labelling criteria in order to better differentiate eco-labelled products from non-labelled products.
Generally, eco-labelled substances should be free of harmful substances, but there are instances in which small or trace amounts of restricted substances in such products are justified if the environmental gains potentially outweigh other adverse impacts. Some products, for example, include small amounts of heavy metals but perform with high energy efficiency. This involves weighing one environmental concern against another, i.e. waste management versus CO2 emissions. Such assessments rely mostly on pure science and technological feasibility, but are also political decisions which to a large extent reflect current environmental priorities.
