Compendio de estrategias frente a la contaminación

The report details how industrial actors employ strategies such as suppressing harmful data, funding biased research, and using front groups to avoid regulation of toxic chemicals. It provides case studies on PFAS, Bisphenol A (BPA), benzene, and neonicotinoids to illustrate these patterns of disinformation. The document concludes that to protect public health and the environment, companies producing hazardous substances should be prohibited from influencing the formulation of the policies that regulate them.

• Industrial manufacturers employ a wide array of deceptive tactics to avoid the regulation of harmful products, including the non-disclosure of internal research showing harmful effects, the funding of academics to produce industry-friendly findings, and the use of 'astroturfing' to create fake grassroots support.
• In the case of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), producers such as DuPont and 3M knew by 1970 that these chemicals were 'highly toxic when inhaled and moderately toxic when ingested,' yet they suppressed this research for decades to evade regulation.
• The plastics industry, specifically through the group PlasticsEurope, has repeatedly challenged the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in court to contest the classification of Bisphenol A (BPA) as a Substance of Very High Concern (SVHC), despite overwhelming evidence of its endocrine-disrupting effects.
• The oil industry used the research group Concawe to oppose stricter occupational exposure limits for benzene in Europe and to influence the World Health Organization's IARC classification of diesel exhaust, eventually leading the EU to adopt less strict exposure limits than those recommended by scientific bodies.
• Pesticide companies like Bayer and Syngenta have used 'product defense' firms to create scientific uncertainty regarding the impact of neonicotinoids on bees, attributing colony declines to 'inadequate hive maintenance' rather than the chemicals themselves.
• The report identifies the use of 'ghostwriting' as a fraudulent scientific tactic, citing examples where Monsanto employees authored safety evaluations for glyphosate (RoundUp) that were published under the names of independent researchers to influence regulatory discourse for 25 years.

APA

Radvany, R., Cann, V., & Holland, N. (2026). Compendio de estrategias frente a la contaminación. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Compendio-de-estrategias-frente-a-la-contaminacion.pdf

Chicago

Radvany, Rachel, Vicky Cann, and Nina Holland. Compendio de estrategias frente a la contaminación. Center for International Environmental Law, 2026. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Compendio-de-estrategias-frente-a-la-contaminacion.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Radvany |first1=Rachel |last2=Cann |first2=Vicky |last3=Holland |first3=Nina |title=Compendio de estrategias frente a la contaminación |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |date=February 2026 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Compendio-de-estrategias-frente-a-la-contaminacion.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{radvany2026compendio, author = {Radvany, Rachel and Cann, Vicky and Holland, Nina}, title = {{Compendio de estrategias frente a la contaminación}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2026}, month = feb, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Compendio-de-estrategias-frente-a-la-contaminacion.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }