Road to UNGA & UNEA | Global Governance on Endocrine Disruptors: From Science to Policy

About this Event

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) – chemicals found in everyday consumer products, including plastics, certain pesticides, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, textiles, and construction materials, that can mimic our own hormones and interfere with the endocrine system of people and wildlife – play a role in a range of disorders: from birth defects, reproductive disorders to cancers. First formally conceptualized by Theo Colborn at the Wingspread conference in 1991, building upon environmental concerns raised since the 1960s, particularly by Rachel Carson, the body of knowledge regarding these effects has deepened significantly, revealing increasingly complex patterns of endocrine disruption.

With mounting evidence showing the threats posed by human and wildlife exposure to EDCs, global action on EDCs have also been increasing through various international instruments and processes.

• Following international recommendations in 1997 by the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety and the Environment Leaders of the Eight regarding the issue of EDCs, WHO, through the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), a joint programme of WHO, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Labour Organization (ILO), developed in 2002 a report entitled Global Assessment of the State-of-the-Science of Endocrine Disruptors. The report concluded that understanding of the effects of EDCs on wildlife and humans was incomplete and that strengthened international collaborative efforts in a number of areas were of high priority.
• UNEP and WHO have been collaborating to provide State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupters in 2012.
• EDCs have been identified as an issue of concern under the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) since 2012 by the International Conference on Chemicals Management at its third session (ICCM3).
• In 2015, ICCM4 invited UNEP and WHO to address the needs identified by developing countries and countries with economies in transition by generating and disseminating information on endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
• In response to its commitment to the ICCM Resolutions on EDCs, in 2016, UNEP commissioned the International Panel on Chemical Pollution (IPCP) to develop a set of Three Overview Reports on EDCs in close collaboration with the UNEP Advisory Group on EDCs.
• The report of the UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights on the right to science, presented in 2021 to the 48^th session of the Human Rights Council, provides the tools to confront the severe toxification of the planet and its people and to uphold the human rights of all people, including the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
• At its resumed fifth session, in 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) through Resolution 5/7 requested the Executive Director of UNEP to, inter alia, subject to the availability of resources, and in cooperation with WHO, update the 2012 Report on State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. Similarly, at its 76th session, the World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted resolution WHA76.17 requesting the Director-General to work jointly with UNEP to update the report.
• The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) requires its Parties to take measures to eliminate or reduce the release of POPs into the environment, including those that are considered to be endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
• The recently adopted ‘Global Framework on Chemicals – For a planet free of harm from chemicals and waste’ – the multi-stakeholder agreement bringing in a variety of sectors to address the pollution crisis – presents a comprehensive plan with five strategic objectives and 28 targets to guide countries and stakeholders in jointly addressing the lifecycle of chemicals, including products and waste.  At ICCM5, it was decided that all existing SAICM emerging policy issues and issues of concern, including EDCs, should transition on an interim basis to “issues of concern” as part of the Global Framework on Chemicals.
• The newly established Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (ISP-CWP) will provide countries with independent, policy-relevant scientific advice on chemicals, waste, and pollution prevention.

Leading experts across various fields joining the panel of this event discussed how independent science, policy and research on EDCs can be translated to support and ground international governance to tackle exposure to EDCs, both globally and locally. Aimed at furthering global awareness and action on endocrine-disrupting chemicals, this event also identified what measures can be taken to strengthen global governance of EDCs.

This event was be followed by a light reception.

Speakers

By order of intervention. 

Jana URH LESJAK

Deputy Permanent Representative of Slovenia to the UN Office and other international organizations in Geneva

Thomas ZOELLER

Professor Emeritus, Biology Department, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Kei OHNO WOODALL

Senior Coordination Officer, Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions Secretariat

Vanessa ALIAGA

Second Secretary, Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva

Laura VANDENBERG

Associate Vice Chancellor and Vice Provost for Research & Engagement | Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts – Amherst | Representative, Endocrine Society

Martin SCHERINGER

Professor, Environmental Chemistry at Masaryk University | Senior Scientist and Group Leader ETH Zurich | Chair of the Board, International Panel on Chemical Pollution

Leo TRASANDE

Jim G. Hendrick MD Professor of Pediatrics & Director, Center for the Investigation of Environmental Hazards, New York University Grossman School of Medicine

Valentine PYTHON

Environmental Science Expert and Climatologist, Former National Council Member, Switzerland

Kay WILLIAMS

Head, Global Framework on Chemicals

Jane MUNCKE

Managing Director and Chief Scientific Officer, Food Packaging Forum | Moderator

Mickaël REPELLIN

Co-founder and Executive Director, Interdisciplinary Institute for Environmental Health Research and Information (IEHRI-PIRSE) and University of Lausanne | Moderator

Highlights

Video

Live on Webex.

Summary

Jana URH LESJAK  | Deputy Permanent Representative of Slovenia to the UN Office and other international organizations in Geneva

• This event takes place just two weeks after realizing much more must be done to secure an ambitious, legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution across its full life cycle.
• Plastics are just one example of consumer products with hidden threats: endocrine-disrupting chemicals that harm health, damage ecosystems, and undermine fundamental rights, including the right to a healthy environment, recently reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice. These harms cross borders silently, we must make them visible and act through genuine multilateral cooperation, with all countries committing to eliminating harmful chemicals. Though the path to a plastics treaty is uncertain, momentum must not be lost.
• Existing agreements, such as the Basel Convention, already provide avenues for cooperation. The new global framework on chemicals is a turning point, committing the world to safeguarding health, protecting ecosystems, and advancing sustainable development. Full implementation offers a unique chance to reduce harmful exposures, including endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
• The scientific community must be congratulated for its tireless research, which underpins action and solutions.
• For Slovenia, protecting humanity from these chemicals is not just an environmental or scientific necessity, but a moral obligation rooted in human rights. Slovenia looks forward to working with partners and UNEP to strengthen governance and secure the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment for all.

Thomas ZOELLER | Professor Emeritus, Biology Department, University of Massachusetts Amherst

• Looking at the scientific evidence as a whole, it is clear that chemicals interfering with hormone systems in humans and wildlife are causing or contributing to a measurable proportion of non-communicable diseases worldwide, with most evidence coming from the US and Europe.
• A major challenge is that the science is very granular, with epidemiological studies often focused on specific chemicals (e.g. PFOA and thyroid cancer), each disease having unique biology compared to others like breast, ovarian, or uterine cancer. This makes it difficult to communicate findings globally, whether to regulators or to the public. The field is complex, but the message can be distilled: these chemicals are contributing to disease. The complexity of human and animal biology also makes it hard for regulators to even define “adverse effects”; while death is straightforward, conditions like diabetes or cardiovascular disease have multiple contributing causes, and chemical mixtures are superimposed on them.
• Causation must be redefined to mean contribution rather than simple one-to-one cause–effect. Eliminating these chemicals today would lead to measurable improvements in human health.
• When asked about the most effective way to communicate science to policymakers, the first condition is that policymakers must be willing to listen. Some simply are not. For example, in 2015, during a presentation at the European Commission DG Environment, it was obvious that the day had been structured to highlight “controversy,” making it look as if no clear answers could be drawn. In such cases, stories or evidence have little impact.
• When policymakers are genuinely interested, effective communication requires a mix of elements:
  • Summarize evidence clearly and simply. Avoid dense statistics, explain plainly what a chemical does under certain conditions.
  • Explain why it matters. For example, if a chemical reduces thyroid hormone levels in a pregnant woman, emphasize that thyroid hormone is essential during the first trimester for fetal development.
  • Make it relatable. Link the science to everyday concerns, for mothers, young families, and communities. Explain exposures and practical steps they can take, such as how to handle plastics or avoid them altogether.
• Communicating science to policymakers is difficult, and successes are not consistent. There is a lack of clear examples where science alone drove significant policy without regulatory pressure. Still, it remains essential work. One can never assume they are “good enough” at it; it requires constant effort and refinement.

Kei OHNO WOODALL | Senior Coordination Officer, Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions Secretariat

• Two weeks ago, an inception workshop was held in Kenya for the UNEP-GEF project FIRE (Fortifying Infrastructure for Responsible Extinguishment), which aims to phase out PFAS-containing or fluorine-based firefighting foams in favor of safer alternatives. Participants included Ethiopia, Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, and Kenya. During the workshop, the Kenya Airport Authority demonstrated how fluorine-free foam works and shared their experience in identifying an alternative as effective as fluorine-based foams. When asked what motivated them to pursue fluorine-free foam ahead of others, they explained that they were influenced by a 2006 UNEP document, a risk profile by the POPs Review Committee on perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), now listed as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), its salts, and related compounds. The document detailed the environmental and health impacts of firefighting foams containing these chemicals. This information prompted the Kenya Airport Authority to begin procuring safer alternatives, even before an international agreement or national regulation required it.
• While internationally agreed measures must eventually be implemented at the national level, proactive action can also be taken directly on the basis of scientific information if it is found useful for decision-making.
• Regarding the challenges of joint decision-making at the BRS Conventions, the Stockholm Convention provides a clear example:
  • Scientific input is crucial. Substances with endocrine-disrupting properties, like PFAS, are reviewed by the POPs Review Committee, a subsidiary scientific body of the Convention. This committee considers scientific information from academia, industry, and Parties. One of the POPs characteristics is adverse effects, which include endocrine disruption as an endpoint.
  • For example, at the upcoming September meeting, the Committee will review draft risk profiles on polybrominated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans, as well as mixtures with chlorinated dioxins and furans. These are unintentionally released when organic materials containing bromine or chlorine, such as plastics with flame retardants, are burned. Scientific information on POPs characteristics is essential for these deliberations.
  • Decision-making challenges. Building consensus among Parties can be difficult because of different capacities, levels of economic development, and national interests. Yet Article 8 of the Stockholm Convention contains an important principle: “lack of full scientific certainty should not prevent a proposal from proceeding.” In other words, precautionary action is allowed even when uncertainty remains.
  • Precautionary approach. The COP is expected to make decisions in a precautionary manner to fulfill the Convention’s objective: protecting human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants.
  • Balancing protection and development. To succeed, Parties need not only information on harmful POPs but also on viable alternatives that protect health and the environment while supporting economic needs.
  • Looking ahead. This is why collaboration with initiatives like the Global Framework on Chemicals is so important. It helps address not only legally binding chemicals under the Convention but also related substances that influence decision-making and substitution strategies.

Vanessa ALIAGA | Second Secretary, Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva

• A recent example from Peru (2023–2024) shows how scientific research can directly shape policy. Three government ministries, Health, Environment, and Agriculture, partnered with two leading universities, with funding support from the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO), the WHO regional office for the Americas. Together, they conducted a study on low-income schools and surrounding communities to assess children’s exposure to endocrine-active plastics.
• The findings were striking: a large subset of children had very high levels of metabolites in their urine, indicating significant exposure. Importantly, these findings did not remain academic. The research team presented the results directly to vice-ministers in private bilateral meetings and, for each key finding, proposed a policy package.
• One outcome was a procurement checklist for schools, ensuring that materials purchased for children were free of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Similar measures were adopted in local daycare centers for children of single mothers, in other state-owned facilities serving children, and even in primary health outlets.
• Crucially, all of this happened within a single budget cycle, from research design to policy implementation. While that might not sound unusual, it was in fact a major achievement, showing that science can translate rapidly into action when communicated effectively.
• This example highlights the importance of building bridges between science and policy. Research should not remain abstract; it must be transmitted in an accessible language, tailored for decision-makers, and designed to lead to low-cost, quick, and efficient regulatory changes, sometimes without the need for new laws. This Peruvian case shows how that bridge can be built successfully.
• In Peru, processing scientific evidence for policy faces several challenges, many of which are common elsewhere:

1. Fragmented mandates: Responsibility for addressing issues like endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is split across multiple sectors. Without a clear leader, policy development and implementation are slow.
2. Capacity and data limitations: Few national centers conduct biomonitoring, product surveillance is slow, local toxicology assessments are almost nonexistent, and available analyses often don’t reflect the national context. Exposures vary widely, rural vs. urban, formal vs. informal economy, and mostly from imported goods, making one-size-fits-all policies ineffective.
3. Conflicting science: Industry-funded studies may produce differing conclusions, creating uncertainty. Decision-makers often set higher thresholds for action, allowing the status quo to persist.
4. Communication barriers: Technical briefs are complex and difficult for regulators to interpret, while public awareness materials are rarely available in Spanish or indigenous languages. Even when translated, they may remain unclear to the general public.

• Different solutions are suggested:
  • Appoint a dedicated public policy leader for EDCs.
  • Integrate EDC policy into broader health strategies, such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs) frameworks.
  • Produce plain-language, one-page policy briefs that clearly outline: the problem, public health/environmental relevance, evidence, legal context, costs, and implementation responsibilities.

Laura VANDENBERG | Associate Vice Chancellor and Vice Provost for Research & Engagement | Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts – Amherst | Representative, Endocrine Society

• When we think about testing chemicals, we need to recognize that each hazard is unique. For example, to test whether a chemical causes DNA mutations, you must design tests based on how DNA behaves and how cells respond to damage. Similarly, to know if a chemical is an endocrine disruptor, tests must be designed according to the principles of endocrinology, how hormones act in the body.
• Some key principles are quite straightforward:

1. Hormones act through receptors. Tests must evaluate whether a chemical affects the ability of a natural hormone to bind to its receptor, or whether the chemical itself binds to the receptor, mimicking or blocking the hormone.
2. Hormones have different roles at different life stages. Some stages, especially early development, are more vulnerable. Tests need to reflect this sensitivity.
3. The endocrine system is highly complex. Disrupting it in one area can produce unexpected effects. These effects are not “wrong” but show how intricate the system is.
4. Hormones act at extremely low doses. For example, the development of male reproductive organs depends on androgen hormones working at part-per-billion or even part-per-trillion levels. Missing that critical timing and dose leads to a non-functional system. Tests must reflect this reality.
5. Hormones do not follow the usual “more exposure, worse effect” model. Unlike poisons, where higher doses cause more harm, hormones (and endocrine disruptors) can produce very different effects at low versus high doses. Studying only high doses misses what happens at realistic low exposures.

• Over time, scientists have developed strong assays that respect these principles. However, many older tests, designed over decades, focused narrowly on toxicity rather than endocrine disruption. This has allowed harmful exposures in both humans and wildlife, showing that early testing was insufficient.
• Finally, the key question: Do we know enough to act? The answer is a resounding yes. The evidence linking endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) to human and wildlife health problems is clear, just as it was already clear 12 years ago in the last global state-of-science assessment. Today we know even more. Which makes it all the more troubling that action is still too often delayed out of fear, despite the evidence being strong enough to justify it.
•  Several key challenges exist in testing and regulating endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs):
  •  Divergent regulatory interpretations: Even when the same scientific tests are reviewed, different regulators may reach different conclusions. Honest scientific debate exists, but it can be hard to distinguish from decisions influenced by other factors. For example, bisphenol A (BPA): the EU has acted to reduce human exposure based on evidence known for decades, while the US has not, illustrating how regulatory action can lag despite clear science.
  •  Influence of vested interests: Some scientific evidence may be produced or shaped by stakeholders with conflicts of interest, which can “pollute” the literature and decision-making, sometimes in ways that are not transparent.
  •  The “chemical whack-a-mole” problem: As chemicals like BPA are phased out, often due to consumer choice rather than regulation, numerous replacement chemicals appear, often with little testing and minimal exposure data. This makes it difficult to fully assess and control risks, creating a continuous cycle of uncertainty.
  • Need for clear scientific principles: Despite these challenges, science must remain resolute in defining testing principles. For many EDCs, enough evidence already exists to take precautionary action with the information available.

Martin SCHERINGER | Professor, Environmental Chemistry at Masaryk University | Senior Scientist and Group Leader, ETH Zurich | Chair of the Board, International Panel on Chemical Pollution

• The challenges for the new Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution are the following:
  • Panel readiness: the panel is currently not fully operational. Many key elements remain unresolved, limiting its ability to carry out meaningful work.
  • Science-policy interface gap: what exists is mainly a science-regulator interface, not a true interface with politicians. Policymakers are often overloaded, making it difficult to communicate scientific insights directly. Working with the media can help indirectly influence political attention.
  • Handling uncertainty – Scientific work always contains uncertainty, but communication should start from what is known, emphasize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, provide a clear, positive takeaway to guide policy action, communication approach where scientists should deliver messages that are concise and punchy, scientifically sound, easily grasped by non-scientists, solution-oriented, showing what could or should be done.
  •  Solution-oriented assessments: inspired by the IPCC approach, these assessments explore practical options and responses to problems like endocrine-disrupting chemicals, helping bridge the gap between science and precautionary policymaking.
• To enable precautionary action despite scientific uncertainty, the panel should focus on clear, actionable, solution-oriented communication, while recognizing its current limitations in operational capacity and political reach.

Leo TRASANDE | Jim G. Hendrick MD Professor of Pediatrics & Director, Center for the Investigation of Environmental Hazards, New York University Grossman School of Medicine

• There is no cost without disease, and there is no disease without exposure data. The reason why we only had, until very recently, US, European, and later Canadian data on disease burden and costs due to these exposures is that there is no readily available biomonitoring survey data from other parts of the world, where exposures are likely greater because of higher use of pesticides and plastics, the chief drivers of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which affect everyone.
• Very recently, the Center for the Investigation of Environmental Hazards has begun to develop global exposure maps, taking the available epidemiologic literature to date, first for bisphenols, then for phthalates, and on PFAS. Using the phthalate data, the global first mortality due to cardiovascular disease is mapped. The findings were profoundly horrifying: about 350,000 deaths globally among 55–64-year-olds, with 70% concentrated in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation region. This speaks to the urgency of action in countries with large-scale petrochemical production and consumption, which are unfortunately driving disease and disability. The Center for the Investigation of Environmental Hazards is working to map exposure data not just for adult disease but across the entire lifespan.
• The economic costs of that mortality, based on the years of life lost or the societal willingness to pay to prevent death, range from $510 billion to $3.74 trillion, far exceeding the plastics industry’s revenue of around $500 billion per year. Just based on this one endpoint, the disease burden exceeds the industry’s revenue, which is profoundly concerning. Regarding the 15 conditions already mapped, the cost in the US was $340 billion and in Europe €163 billion, these didn’t include mortality due to phthalate exposure. Globally, it is about tens of trillions of dollars in lost economic productivity due to pesticides and phthalates.
• Kids are uniquely susceptible: they breathe more air, eat more food, and have developing organ systems. Adults are not invulnerable, but the stage of life influences which systems are affected and which disease outcomes arise.
• As science-policy frameworks are developed, and hopefully an ambitious plastic treaty is finalized, frameworks are needed to quantify disease burden in low- and middle-income countries, and measure chemical exposures that we are only beginning to track even in developed countries.
• As Dr. Vandenberg noted, there is a chemical whack-a-mole problem: old chemicals are replaced by new ones, and if the new chemicals are not measured as they appear, problems may remain.
• There is already sufficient information to take action. While Sir Austin Bradford Hill introduced the concept of causality in his landmark lecture during the tobacco wars of the 1960s, this concept has often been misinterpreted or misapplied. The focus here is not on proving causation, it is on using the available evidence to justify timely action.
• Action on the Zika virus has been made with very limited causal inference to prevent children from being born with birth defects. There is the same urgent need for action when it comes to pesticides, plastics, and chemicals used in those materials. Solutions are needed and solutions go to sources.
• In framing endocrine-disrupting chemicals, the problem has been hidden indirectly. Hormones are critical to many biological functions, including temperature, metabolism, salt, sugar, and even sex, but the sources were not pointed out, and sources are where solutions begin.
• Solutions require multi-sectoral engagement, including companies. A symposium will be hosted around the 80th United Nations Environment Assembly, around solutions in the context of a global plastics treaty. Companies that act now and show true leadership are rewarded with customer revenue and market share. If companies are held accountable for doing the right thing, the market should reward them and shift consumer behavior in the right direction.
• The finance sector must also be heavily involved. In some countries, it will be harder to overcome the “activation energy” needed to do the right thing. Support for green and sustainable chemistry is also needed.
• Regulatory and legal infrastructure are needed. In the United States, many actions did not occur without legal pressure, lawsuits, for example, are one tool that has to be part of the system. Catalysts for change are needed as well as broad education, including healthcare providers, who are part of the discussion. Healthcare is a driver of many exposures. Some materials are essential, and that must be recognized, but there is no exclusion for the healthcare sector. This has been reinforced by Healthcare Without Harm and leaders in that space.
• Finally, aligning solutions with values is needed. Science is not value-free; it is inherently value-laden. Healthcare is value-laden, as are many aspects of life. But in this case, the science aligns with the values of preventing disease and disability from cradle to grave, womb to tomb. The economic data simply reinforces that there is a misbalance of trade-offs.

Valentine PYTHON | Environmental Science Expert and Climatologist, Former National Council Member, Switzerland

• The Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is calculated for each pollutant using a method developed in the 1930s and revised in the 1960s for synthetic pesticides and food additives. While the 2018 European definition of endocrine disruptors and the 2012 requirement to reevaluate synthetic pesticides under this definition was a step forward, it is not enough. We are still stuck in the logic of substance-by-substance evaluation. For example, in Switzerland, it will take until 2080 to reevaluate the roughly 300 synthetic pesticides on the market under the new standards, almost four decades after the concept of endocrine disruption first appeared.
• Specialists such as endocrinologists, toxicologists, and epidemiologists understand the mode of action of EDCs on the human body. The main point is that it is not the amount of pollutant present that is decisive, but the timing of exposure, its recurrence, and the interactions between multiple chemicals. Furthermore, not everyone is equally affected: pregnant women, young children, and adolescents are particularly vulnerable.
• National regulations, which continue to rely on substance-by-substance assessments, cannot account for chronic and multiple exposures to chemicals acting at very low doses. Switzerland has no national prevention policy on this subject. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals are not mentioned in the federal strategy for the prevention of chronic diseases, and vulnerable individuals are given no special attention. This must change. Independent science-based governance would enable progress in this area.
• There are countless examples. Sometimes this leads to bans, as in some cases, but more often, private industry interests prevail. Glyphosate is a prime example: classified as a probable carcinogen in 2015 and recognized as an endocrine disruptor by independent science, it was reauthorized in 2023 under pressure from industrial lobbies. Other examples include aspartame, antioxidant E321, and various pesticides. The list of chemicals with proven EDC properties ignored by authorities is endless.
• This situation prioritizes polluters over public health and biodiversity. Chronic hormone-dependent diseases—cancer, diabetes, obesity, developmental disorders, infertility—are increasing worldwide, affecting younger populations. Chemicals like synthetic pesticides, phthalate-based plastics, and PFAS contaminate the environment, freshwater, and living organisms. They are key drivers of biodiversity collapse in Europe and exceed planetary boundaries.
• Independent science has long established causal links between these exposures and health and environmental impacts. Yet national policies continue to rely on industry data, even when conflicts of interest are proven. Powerful industry actors exert financial influence on decision-making, disseminate misinformation, and minimize chemical risks. Common strategies include comparing highly toxic chemicals to harmless substances to dilute perceived risk.
• The aim of this misinformation is to create doubt and give the illusion that current regulatory systems protect public health. Instead, it protects industry interests, while independent scientists, doctors, environmentalists, and journalists face pressure, discrediting, harassment, and sometimes even threats to their lives.
• It is time to stop denying the facts, determine responsibility, and enforce the precautionary principle. Victims of this organized pollution deserve recognition and support.

Kay WILLIAMS | Head, Global Framework on Chemicals

• In September 2023, the Community of Chemicals and Waste adopted the Global Framework on Chemicals and Waste, which significantly differs from its predecessor, SAICM. Key points include:
  • Structure and targets: The framework sets 28 political targets under five strategic objectives, offering a measurable and actionable structure across a wide range of themes and sectors.
  • Value chain and multi-stakeholder approach: It emphasizes engagement with businesses, companies, and the finance sector, recognizing their role in driving sustainable change while protecting health, the environment, and supporting economies.
  • Focus on implementation: Unlike SAICM, the new framework prioritizes urgent implementation at global, regional, and national levels, ensuring necessary structures and coordination are in place.
  • Global Implementation Programs: Designed with common components and flexibility, these programs allow collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders and international organizations to exchange knowledge, co-create guidance, and address multiple topics.

• The Global Framework on Chemicals and Waste includes several implementation programs:
  • Institutional structures and regulation, key for addressing endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in coordination with legally binding conventions like BRS.
  • Sectoral focus that targets chemically intensive sectors (textiles, electronics, healthcare, construction) and engages the finance sector via organizations like UNEP-Finance Initiative to drive sustainable change.
  • Partnerships for sustainable development to ensure coordinated decision-making across ethe nvironment, health, labor, and other sectors.

• Additional mechanisms include the potential Global Alliance on Highly Hazardous Pesticides, particularly for pesticides with endocrine-disrupting properties.
• The framework is multisectoral, multistakeholder, and voluntary, providing incentives rather than regulatory force. Its effectiveness depends on choosing issues where this approach adds value, while some gaps may require scientific panels like the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution or biodiversity science-policy
• At the national level, the framework emphasizes capacity-building, training, and coordination among environment, health, labor, and business sectors to ensure effective implementation on the ground.
• The negotiations to strengthen the new science-policy panel began, and the conclusion was that rather than create a scientific subsidiary body under the Framework, it should be intergovernmental to have more authority in terms of the science around chemicals and waste and to become a fully functioning panel.
• The current Global Framework does not have its own scientific body to support it. Unlike the Stockholm Convention, which has the POPs Review Committee, or the chemical review committee under Rotterdam, the Framework is hugely dependent on science from elsewhere to inform its discussions and negotiations.
• One of the operating principles agreed was to avoid overlap and duplication, so we have to be mindful of that. The Global Framework may participate in the plenary of the panel as an observer, and it is foreseen that there will be communication among all scientific bodies and international instruments to ensure access to the best available and relevant information on chemical issues.
• Moving forward, creating a close partnership between the Global Framework on Chemicals and the Intergovernmental Panel would be ideal. While it would retain its independence, such a partnership would allow us to secure the best possible science and provide platforms to get that science out through our channels to the national level.

Closing remarks

Jane MUNCKE | Managing Director and Chief Scientific Officer, Food Packaging Forum | Moderator

• The science is undeniable and is the most important point.
• Regulations need a 21st-century overhaul for EDCs, but also for other chemicals in plastics, over 16,000 chemicals have been identified. How can hazard data be assessed for all of them with a chemical-by-chemical approach? Creative and impactful strategies are needed.
• Finally, capacity building is essential for regulators, politicians, and citizens to understand what is truly at stake with chemicals. We need to communicate more effectively, and perhaps even inspire fascination—so that people can confidently pronounce scientific names like PFOA.
• Importantly, the finance sector must be part of this conversation. Money makes the world go round, as we all know. If investors understand that their long-term investments may be creating long-term problems, hopefully, we can steer things in a better direction.

Mickaël REPELLIN | Co-founder and Executive Director, Interdisciplinary Institute for Environmental Health Research and Information (IEHRI-PIRSE) and University of Lausanne | Moderator

• On the policy side, the Global Framework on Chemicals (GFC) and the new science-policy panel on chemicals and waste are unprecedented new institutional frameworks. This gives an opportunity to strengthen ties and establish clear links between these two institutions.
• However, there is still room for improvement, and much work remains. At every stage, stronger governance is needed. The health costs of EDC exposure are enormous, far exceeding the revenue of the plastics industry, as was clearly explained.
• At the national level, this international governance is needed to help accelerate EDC policies. For that to happen, policymakers require clear, actionable information to trigger concrete action.

Photo Gallery

Links

• Geneva addressing Hazardous Substances
• Seventh session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-7)
• Fourth High-level Meeting of the UN General Assembly on the prevention and control of NCDs