Citizens’ opinions on (non-)essential uses of persistent chemicals
A survey in seven European countries
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12666358 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Annika K Karinen (0000-0002-6995-2195, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment), Hilde Tobi (0000-0002-8804-0298, Wageningen University & Research), Jeroen Devilee (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment), A T de Blaeij (0000-0002-6019-3874, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment), Silke Gabbert (0000-0001-6684-9486, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 153 |
| Pages | 103666-103666 |
| Publication date | 2024-01-16 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Environmental Science & Policy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1462-9011 • E-ISSN: 1873-6416 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103666 |
| OpenAlex | W4390904179 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 18 |
In accordance with the European Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability towards a Toxic-free Environment, the European Commission plans to phase out persistent chemicals, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), except for uses classified essential for society. Until now, empirical research on what is considered an essential or non-essential chemical use has been lacking. Furthermore, as such criteria are bound to be subjective, different parties can have different views. In this study we explored which uses of persistent chemicals citizens from seven EU countries consider (non-)essential for society. As EU citizens are directly impacted by policy decisions based on (non-)essentiality criteria, we also investigated the influence of emphasis on the consequences of banning vs. allowing persistent chemicals, the association with demographics, and of having heard of persistent chemicals or PFAS prior to the study. We found substantial variation in essentiality ratings within and between use categories and between countries. Uses related to safety were frequently considered essential, whereas uses related to recreation, household, and personal care were frequently considered non-essential. Emphasis on different consequences did not influence essentiality ratings. Gender, age, education, and political orientation were to some extent associated with essentiality ratings. People who had not heard of persistent chemicals or PFAS prior to the study rated uses of persistent chemicals less frequently as non-essential or essential. Our findings offer insight into EU citizens’ opinions on (non-)essential uses of persistent chemicals, and provide empirical input to the scientific and public debate on framing the concept of essential use
Biology · Business · Commission · Economics · European commission · European union · Framing (construction · Geography · International trade · Political science · Public economics · Recreation · Sustainability · Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols · Law · Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research · Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
On a Least Squares Adjustment of a Sampled Frequency Table When the Expected Marginal Totals are Known
Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning
The politics of zero-sum thinking
The Concept of Essential Use
Covid-19 risk governance
A Multidimensional Study of Ideological Preferences and Priorities among the American Public
Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk
Common concern for the global ecological commons
Explaining public risk acceptance of a petrochemical complex
| Citations per year | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Highly cited | No |