Chemical pollution remains one of the world’s most under-recognised crises, despite a growing awareness. In 2022, human use of toxic chemicals exceeded safe planetary boundaries.
Dr Marcos A. Orellana, UN special rapporteur on toxic chemicals and human rights since 2020, talked to EUobserver about the wide gap between the science and the political will, the hidden risks of hazardous chemicals, and Europe’s responsibilities in protecting human rights not only at home but also across the world.
From the threat of so-called 'forever chemicals' to the role of corporate accountability and international trade, Orellana warns against regulatory loopholes, lobbying, and the disinformation that is leaving citizens and future generations exposed to potentially irreversible harm.
EUobserver: European chemical legislation is seen as some of the strictest in the world. Do you think the laws currently in place are enough, or do you fear the weakening of protections in the name of simplification?
Orellana: The EU and its member states have been leaders internationally in controlling chemicals and toxic pollution. We see that in multilateral settings, where the EU has often taken stronger positions than other countries. EU regulations are among the most protective in the world.
That said, recent proposals by the European Commission could weaken existing regulations, to the detriment of the right to health and a healthy environment — for example, the recent omnibus proposal on regulations concerning classification, labelling, and packaging for cosmetics and fertilisers.
Calls for efficiency and cost-savings are legitimate, but they should not be used to justify lowering protection levels. Human rights are not opposed to administrative efficiency; what they oppose is weakening controls established for the public interest.
To what extent do you see a risk of litigation in Europe because of this weakening of laws?
The risk of litigation is real, especially because EU law establishes precautionary principles, non-regression, and fundamental rights such as the right to health. But litigation could be a positive thing. It can advance the rule of law and allow EU judicial institutions to ensure accountability and align legislation with fundamental norms.
Do you see a different approach in the US under the Trump administration? Could this affect the EU and other countries in the world?
What’s happening in the US is extremely worrying globally, not only for people who live in the United States of America, but for the whole world, because the denial of science as a guide in policymaking is something that deprives public authorities of an objective benchmark for decision-making.
And that has also global consequences given the level of trade that the US has with the rest of the world when it comes to chemicals, especially with the EU.
This has ripple effects, including on international trade. We can see there is pressure on the EU and other countries to weaken regulatory controls to satisfy economic pressures from the US. This makes it doubly important for countries to remain clear about the fundamental role of human rights in public policy, especially regarding hazardous chemicals.
If we take PFAS as an example, these so-called 'forever chemicals' are found almost everywhere. What is your perception of the lack of political action?
I am very concerned about PFAS. They are virtually indestructible and toxic at certain concentrations. PFAS comprise thousands of human-made chemicals that the environment cannot absorb. They remain and accumulate, increasing planetary toxification — a legacy we leave for future generations.
Current approaches are limited, fragmented, and largely ineffective because PFAS production and contamination continue to grow. Legislation in the EU, even with initiatives like the universal ban proposed by five countries, risks being weakened by numerous exemptions.
PFAS have no natural place in the environment. We should focus on transitioning away from them, supporting technological innovation and finding substitutes. Exemptions undermine protective legislation, creating gaps that leave citizens insufficiently protected.
Then, is the issue of PFAS a problem of political will?
Political will is growing. EU initiatives on PFAS regulation reflect that. However, societal awareness is still largely insufficient. Globally, PFAS production and use create environmental injustices, as industrialised countries export PFAS-laden products to developing countries, causing pollution there. Fragmented initiatives, like the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, only partially address the issue. A robust global response is still lacking.
What should be the responsibility of chemical companies for health and environmental impacts, especially considering that cleanup costs often fall on taxpayers?
Chemical companies that profit from hazardous products should be accountable for their liabilities. This includes cleanup and remediation, healthcare for affected individuals, and medical monitoring of exposed populations. Legal systems worldwide struggle to ensure this accountability, which undermines access to justice and effective remedies.
In Australia, the government has engaged affected communities exposed to PFAS from firefighting foam, providing access to clean water and compensation. Whether the compensation is adequate remains a question, but the approach is promising.
What about the EU’s responsibility for protecting not just citizens within Europe, but also those in third countries?
The question of hazardous or highly hazardous pesticides has a global dimension and it involves shared responsibilities. There are responsibilities of the EU. There is also responsibilities of importing countries that have the duty to protect people in their territory.
Importing countries are often the ones that have the least capacity to deal with these substances. At the border, they have very limited capacities to control what is actually imported in their territories. The boundaries may also be porous. So even if a substance is not legally imported, it finds its way through the border. That again highlights the responsibility of the exporting states.
For the EU to take action, there needs to be champions. And so these same countries that they say, well, we need EU action, are putting obstacles to EU-level measures. And so there's an inconsistency there. Doing the right thing doesn't depend on what others do. And so for Italy or Germany to say that they cannot or will not take action absent EU law is disingenuous.
We've seen that France and Belgium are taking action because it is the right thing to do. And when something is right, the costs of doing the right thing need to be absorbed and dealt with. We don't just do what is cheap. We do, we act, because we are morally guided by human rights and the right to a healthy environment in this instance.
If you could identify one of the biggest overlooked risks today regarding chemicals, what would it be?
The biggest blind spot is the gap between scientific knowledge and policy response. Emerging chemical hazards are identified, but there is no clear pathway from identification to action.
It is expected and there's hope that the newly established international panel on pollution, so much like the international intergovernmental panel on climate change, may provide the data that's necessary for policymakers to take action because that is the step that is needed to bring into alignment the science and the policy.
This gap that exists is not an accident. It is a result of deliberate disinformation tactics of certain industries that benefit and profit from the status quo of exposing people to hazardous chemicals because they derive a profit. That needs to be dealt with.
The disinformation trends, the confusion in society, the obfuscation of science, the attacks against scientists, and so all of that, resulting in the lack of alignment between what science tells us about the risks and what policy needs to address those risks.
Become a subscriber and support EUobserver's journalism in 2026.
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.