Pathway to Tox-Free Living: Policy and Action

CCB • November 24, 2025

Leading scientists, consumer advocates and policymakers gathered on November, 18th in Brussels for the conference "From Evidence to Policy: Toward a Tox free Living Environment".
They warned that exposure to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in homes and consumer products represents a silent but severe public health and economic crisis. New findings presented to over 65 participants by the
EU Baltic Sea Interreg project NonHazCity3, LIFE ChemBee and the ToxFree LIFE for All projects as well as revealed widespread contamination of European households by complex chemical mixtures of hormone system disrupting substances (so called endocrine disrupters – EDCs) that contribute to chronic disease and impose enormous health costs.


According to the key note speaker Dr. Aleksandra Rutkowska, the home environment is a significant source of exposure to EDCs through indoor air, dust and daily contact with common products. Current research links such exposure to a shocking amount of lifestyle diseases including 22 cancer outcomes, 18 metabolic disorder outcomes and 17 cardiovascular disease outcomes. Scientists also stressed that the crisis spans generations. EDCs trigger epigenetic changes that not only affect today’s population but also future children and even grandchildren. Other effects include reproduction disorders. Over the last decade, 150 million babies were born preterm, and evidence shows that reducing the use of plastics by half could cut the risk of preterm birth by half as well.

The NonHazCity3 project presented evidence that hazardous substances remain common in construction materials and contribute significantly to indoor exposure. Organophosphate flame retardants are estimated to cause a loss of thirteen million IQ points every year in the European Union. Biocides have been found to leach from outdoor paints and PFAS have been detected in dust samples from preschools. At the same time, project representatives emphasised that effective solutions already exist. Stronger legal requirements, full transparency regarding the chemical content of new and reused building materials and the use of green procurement systems can substantially reduce exposure. The Swedish BVB system was highlighted as a successful example, enabling the City of Västerås to decrease the number of products assessed as unsuitable for use by half. 


The construction and buildings sector is enormous: globally, it may account for around 37 % of CO₂ emissions; within the EU, production continues to grow — and this scale means that even incremental improvements in material composition, reuse and safety can make a big difference,” says Eugeniy Lobanov, CCB Hazardous Substances Working Area Leader. "What stood out from our discussion in the conference is that safe, tox-free construction is achievable — but only if science, policy, and people move together. We need transparency, collaboration, and persistence to ensure the buildings we construct today don’t become tomorrow’s pollution,” Lobanov concludes.

Speakers cautioned against weakening chemical regulation and stressed that progress requires strong legislation, transparent markets and practical support for consumers. Without these steps, the long-term health and economic consequences of hazardous chemicals exposure will continue to grow. 


At the conference CCB moderated a dedicated panel exploring how hazardous substances still widely present in building materials affect human health, the environment, and circular economy efforts. The session brought perspectives from science, NGOs and consumer experience, municipal practice, and policy.


Key messages from the panel included:


1. Evidence of widespread chemical risks in construction


Findings from the NonHazCity3 project show that building materials still contain numerous hazardous substances—such as PFAS, bisphenols, flame retardants and plasticisers—which can migrate into indoor dust, stormwater, and the wider environment. This presents long-term risks as buildings last for decades and materials may later be reused or recycled.


2. Real-world challenges for consumers and builders


Insights from practical renovation stories illustrated how difficult it can be for consumers and even renovation professionals to understand what chemicals are in materials. Labels are often unclear, information fragmented, and safe alternatives difficult to identify—highlighting the need for better transparency tools and market incentives.


3. Municipal leadership shows that change is possible


Examples from cities such as Stockholm and Västerås demonstrated how chemical-smart procurement, material logbooks, and product assessments can drastically reduce the use of hazardous substances in public buildings. These systems also support future renovation, safe reuse, and circularity.


4. Policy must ensure transparency and prevent regrettable substitution


The panel stressed that EU and national legislation must advance toward mandatory chemical content disclosure, stronger restrictions, and clearer rules for safe circularity. Avoiding “regrettable substitutions”—where one harmful chemical is replaced by another equally problematic one—remains a key challenge.

CCB’s role and NGO perspectives


Throughout the conference, CCB emphasized the crucial role of NGOs in:


  • Raising public awareness about chemical risks in everyday environments
  • Translating scientific evidence into accessible messages for citizens and decision-makers
  • Supporting municipalities and national authorities in implementing chemical-smart building practices
  • Advocating for stronger EU and national policies, including transparency requirements, safer product design and a toxic-free circular economy


CCB also highlighted its ongoing work within NonHazCity3, and specifically regional awareness-raising campaign (follow in social media - #nhc3campaign), which continue to build public capacity on safe and sustainable construction and renovation in the Baltic Sea region.


***

Article written by Eugeniy Lobanov, CCB Hazardous Substances Working Area Leader


By CCB March 30, 2026
Brussels, 30 March 2026 - Today, Fisheries Ministers from EU Member States meet with the European Commission for the AGRIFISH Council. On this occasion, Oceana, BLOOM, ClientEarth, Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB), Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF), Seas At Risk and WWF EU, handed a symbolic ''Pandora’s Box'' to the EU Commissioner Costas Kadis, sending a clear message as the European Commission prepares its 2026 evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The box represents the risks of revising EU’s main fishery policy framework: once opened, competing demands from Member States, industry, small-scale fishers, and coastal communities could quickly spiral into division, regulatory delays and uncertainties. This would put at risk the hard-won progress made in restoring Europe’s fish populations and improving the profitability of the fishing sector. NGOs urge decision makers to build on the progress made to date and to prioritise the full and timely implementation of the existing rules. Reopening the CFP and its related provisions would undermine ocean health and the long-term future of Europe’s fishing communities. '' Europe's fisheries policy is facing a credibility test. The law is already there. The tools to rebuild our seas already exist. What's missing is the political will to deliver. Overfishing should have ended by 2020 at the latest. Reopening the CFP would signal that missed deadlines carry no consequences, erode trust, revert the progress made, and put the future of our fisheries and coastal communities at stake ’’, said the NGO coalition. *** Oceana: Vera Coelho, Executive Director and Vice President in Europe BLOOM: Claire Nouvian, Founder and General Director ClientEarth: John Condon, Lead of Marine Ecosystems Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB): Ida Carlén, Co-Chair Environmental Justice Foundation: Steve Trent, CEO/Founder Seas At Risk: Dr Monica Verbeek, Executive Director WWF EU: Ester Asin, Director
By CCB March 10, 2026
Uppsala, March 2026 - CCB has closely worked with the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) ever since its adoption and welcomed the opportunity to give feedback to this crucial directive for marine biodiversity and ocean health through the EU Call of Evidence . Evaluations conducted by the EU Commission previously found many positive effects for EU marine waters stemming from the directive, but also that the directive has some shortcomings. CCB however, maintains that the largest obstacle to fully implementing the directive and achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) is the lack of political will among Member States to do so. This forthcoming revision must therefore result in a framework directive that is more easily enforceable, measurable and implementable, accompanied by sufficient funding to carry out the measures. Furthermore, in order to achieve GES as fast as possible other key pieces of EU legislation must also support reaching it and focus on achieving the goals of the MSFD in their objectives. Seeing that European seas generally are in poor condition and under mounting pressure from human activities and that in the Baltic Sea the situation is especially dire there is an urgent need for truly ecosystem-based management of our seas and for reaching GES. The revised MSFD can help us achieve this, but only if it includes the points outlined below and the directive is fully and swiftly implemented: *** [Short version]*** Operationalise the overarching GES goal: EU sea areas were supposed to reach GES already in 2020, but due to low political ambition, sadly did not do so. Member States should therefore strive to reach GES as fast as possible now. Setting a new overall deadline for when to reach GES is not the answer on how to achieve this goal most efficiently, instead tools that address pressures and measure progress and ensure actual, timely implementation of ambitious measures must be included in the revised directive in order to operationalise achieving the overall GES goal. CCB therefore recommends making the existing and forthcoming threshold values for the descriptors and their criteria legally binding and part of the main directive. Improving regional coordination and implementation: To improve the coherence, coordination and effectiveness of MSFD implementation, assessment of GES, monitoring and the national PoMs the role of the Regional Seas Conventions (RSCs) must be clarified. CCB would welcome collating all the national PoMs into one regional PoM for the Baltic Sea, which should be aligned with, in addition to reaching the goals of the MSFD, with achieving the goals of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). Land-sea interface: For the Baltic Sea to achieve GES it is key that land-based pressures, primarily nutrient runoff from agriculture causing severe eutrophication, is also addressed and that implementation of the MSFD goes hand in hand with the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The goals of the MSFD and achieving GES should also be included when implementing and shaping the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), as well as any synergies with implementing the EU Zero Pollution Action Plan which are also important to identify and utilise. The Baltic Sea also has a too high prevalence and level of other pollutants and hazardous substances affecting marine life. Fisheries and aquaculture: As one of the main pressure factors on the marine environment in general, as well as in the Baltic Sea, fisheries and aquaculture and the effects they have on the marine ecosystem and its biodiversity must be addressed in order to achieve GES. This is especially crucial when considering the MSFD descriptor for Biodiversity (D1), Fish and Shellfish (D3), Food webs (D4) and the one for Seabed integrity (D6). Climate change: Climate change is also affecting the Baltic Sea faster than other marine regions and must be factored in when managing the sea area and its resources to ensure EBM and the full implementation of the MSFD and achieving GES. The effects of the climate crisis should be accounted for when setting pressure reduction targets and threshold values for the descriptors and their criteria, in a way that when an effect cannot be measured nor predicted the precautionary principle must be used. Revising Art. 14 of the MSFD: Article 14 in the MSFD outlines the acceptable exceptions when reaching GES is not possible. The article needs to be revised in the forthcoming revision, since it contains too many and too broad in scope possibilities for exemptions (e.g. in Art. 14(4)), which jeopardise the implementation and fulfilment of the directive as a whole. A possible way of modifying it would be to introduce an obligation for Member States to demonstrate that they have taken all measures within their control nationally and that they have tried to address the problem and advance solving it on a regional level through cooperating with other Member States, before they can apply for a possible exemption. Make the Programme of Measures contain ambitious & concrete measures: One of the cornerstones of the MSFD is the national PoMs that are published every six years and are precluded by an assessment of GES in national waters and a monitoring programme. Unfortunately, the current approach to PoMs where Member States freely can choose measures has led to an overall too low level of ambition in the PoMs, and to large differences within regions and between neighboring countries in terms of which measures are included. In order to fully implement the directive and to achieve GES it is of paramount importance that the national PoMs have a high level of ambition and contain concrete, implementable measures and that there is regional coordination. Easing the reporting burden: One of the results from the evaluation of the MSFD was that the current reporting burden is considered to be too high and a possible way to address this is to align the reporting obligations of the MSFD to more reassemble those of the WFD, that has a more simplified 6-year cycle compared to the MSFD. The implementation cycle however should not be revised or at least not in a way that delays reaching GES. Improve coherence with other legislation: To ensure that the revised MSFD is fully implemented it is essential that coherence with other relevant legislation is improved. The MSPD (foundation for the forthcoming Ocean Act) is also currently being revised and to reach the goals for both the directives achieving GES needs to be a cornerstone of the Ocean Act. This is the only way to deliver truly ecosystem-based management of our seas, and the revision of both directives should therefore be coordinated and focused on achieving GES. CCB looks forward to continuing to provide input to the revision process of the MSFD as well as working with the implementation of the MSFD, especially in the Baltic Sea. CCB expects that the revision will result in a more enforceable directive that leads to the fast implementation of ambitious measures to improve the state of the Baltic and European Sea areas and to the achievement of GES. The full text of the submission is available here . *** Links to supplemental documents supporting our positions: CCB’s submission to the Call for Evidence for the Ocean Act Guiding Recommendations for Source-to-Sea Restoration in Riverine, Coastal, and Marine Ecosystems (Coalition Clean Baltic, 2025) Position Paper on Marine Protected Areas (Coalition Clean Baltic 2024) Don’t sink the Common Fisheries Policy – fulfil its potential (joint NGO Briefing 2025) Blue Manifesto (joint NGO paper)