Le guide de la pollution : comment l'industrie bloque la réglementation des produits chimiques toxiques

The document outlines a 'playbook' of industry tactics used to block chemical regulations, including the suppression of harmful data, the funding of biased research, and the use of front groups. It provides detailed case studies on PFAS, Bisphenol A (BPA), benzene, and pesticides to illustrate these patterns. The authors argue that because of this history of manipulation, chemical manufacturers and their trade associations should be prohibited from participating in the regulatory processes that govern their products, similar to the WHO's approach to the tobacco industry.

• The chemical industry employs a variety of deceptive tactics to avoid regulation, such as withholding harmful internal research, funding scientists to produce favorable results, discrediting independent science, and using 'astroturfing' to create fake grassroots support.
• In the case of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), companies like DuPont and 3M knew as early as 1970 that these chemicals were 'highly toxic when inhaled and moderately toxic when ingested', yet they concealed this evidence for decades to avoid regulation.
• The plastics industry, specifically through Plastics Europe, attempted to block the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) from classifying Bisphenol A (BPA) as a substance of very high concern by challenging the reliability of independent scientific studies in court.
• The oil industry used the research group Concawe to oppose stricter occupational exposure limits for benzene in Europe, leading the European Commission to adopt limits in 2024 that closely mirrored the industry's own proposals rather than the stricter recommendations of the ECHA's Risk Assessment Committee.
• Pesticide manufacturers have used 'ghostwriting' to influence regulatory assessments; for example, internal emails revealed that Monsanto employees wrote a 2000 study on glyphosate safety that was published under other authors' names and used for two decades to support the chemical's safety.
• The authors recommend that companies manufacturing or selling hazardous chemicals, pesticides, and plastics be banned from participating in regulatory processes to prevent conflicts of interest, citing the World Health Organization's (WHO) rules regarding the tobacco industry as a precedent.

APA

Radvany, R., Cann, V., & Holland, N. (2026). Le guide de la pollution : comment l'industrie bloque la réglementation des produits chimiques toxiques. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Le-guide-de-la-pollution.pdf

Chicago

Radvany, Rachel, Vicky Cann, and Nina Holland. Le guide de la pollution : comment l'industrie bloque la réglementation des produits chimiques toxiques. Center for International Environmental Law, 2026. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Le-guide-de-la-pollution.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Radvany |first1=Rachel |last2=Cann |first2=Vicky |last3=Holland |first3=Nina |title=Le guide de la pollution : comment l'industrie bloque la réglementation des produits chimiques toxiques |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |date=February 2026 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Le-guide-de-la-pollution.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{radvany2026guide, author = {Radvany, Rachel and Cann, Vicky and Holland, Nina}, title = {{Le guide de la pollution : comment l'industrie bloque la réglementation des produits chimiques toxiques}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2026}, month = feb, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Le-guide-de-la-pollution.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }