Urban areas are
constantly transforming, with construction and development shaping the cities
of tomorrow. But amid this progress lies a hidden danger: the presence of
hazardous substances in the very materials used to build our homes and cities.
The NonHazCity 3
project is tackling this issue head-on, aiming to reduce the risk of harmful
substances infiltrating our urban spaces. Through targeted screening
activities, the project sheds light on the areas that require deeper
investigation, paving the way for a healthier, safer urban future.
The Scope of
NonHazCity 3’s Screening Investigations
Focusing on five
cities in the Baltic Sea region—Tallinn, Helsinki, Turku, Västerås, and
Stockholm—NonHazCity 3 set out to understand how construction materials
contribute to contamination in both indoor and outdoor environments. By
examining five key matrices—construction materials, stormwater, indoor dust,
indoor air, and residential wastewater—the project uncovered significant
findings regarding hazardous substances in urban spaces.
While not every city
screened all five matrices, the results revealed several harmful substances
commonly found in construction materials, offering valuable insights for both
policymakers and the construction industry.
Common Hazardous
Substances Found in Urban Spaces
Here are some of the
most problematic substances identified:
Phthalates: Often found in PVC flooring, cables, and
roofing membranes, phthalates make plastics more flexible but disrupt
hormones in living organisms.
PFAS: Known for their extreme persistence, PFAS are widely used in
products like non-stick coatings and water-resistant fabrics but pose
long-term health risks.
Bisphenols: These endocrine disruptors are commonly
found in plastics.
Organophosphate Esters (OPEs): Used as flame retardants and
plasticizers, OPEs are linked to adverse health effects.
Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs): These substances can cause neurological
and hormonal disruptions and linger in the environment.
Biocides: Widely used to prevent mold growth, biocides contribute to
microbial resistance.
Chlorinated Paraffins (CPs): Persistent in the environment and
potentially carcinogenic, CPs are often used in building materials.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Found in paints and adhesives, VOCs can
cause a range of health problems.
Metals: Toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, and mercury are present in
construction materials and pose serious health risks even in small
amounts.
Key Findings: The Reality of Hazardous
Substances in Our Cities
Indoor Dust: The investigation showed that indoor
dust closely reflects the hazardous substances found in the materials used
within the building. In homes with PVC flooring and treated surfaces,
higher concentrations of organic pollutants, like plasticizers, PFAS, and
chlorinated paraffins, were detected.
Stormwater: Stormwater serves as a major conduit for
pollutants, transporting contaminants like biocides, organophosphate
esters, metals, and PFAS from buildings into natural environments. Cities
with newer constructions, particularly those with wooden claddings, showed
high levels of biocides like diuron, propiconazole, and mecoprop.
PFAS: The concentration of PFAS varied significantly between cities,
underscoring the widespread use of these harmful substances in a range of
products, despite their severe environmental and health impacts.
TCPP Contamination: This pervasive flame retardant was found
in stormwater runoff, wastewater, and indoor dust, highlighting its
widespread contamination in urban areas.
Emerging Substances: The research also found evidence of new
hazardous substances replacing older ones in construction materials,
pointing to the need for ongoing monitoring and research.
Recommendations for
a Safer, Healthier Urban Future
For
Regulators: Strengthen
regulations on hazardous substances in construction materials and promote the
use of safer alternatives.
For
Public Authorities: Enforce
compliance with current regulations and enhance monitoring for emerging
contaminants. Public awareness campaigns can help citizens understand the
risks, while improved waste management ensures recycled materials are
hazard-free.
For
Constructors: Avoid materials
treated with harmful chemicals and demand transparency from suppliers regarding
the substances used. Replace the most harmful chemicals with safer
alternatives, and ensure robust waste management practices to prevent hazardous
substances from re-entering the environment through recycling.
Conclusion:
Collaboration for Safer Cities
The NonHazCity 3
project highlights the urgent need for continuous monitoring, stricter
regulations, and the promotion of safer construction materials. By following
these recommendations, cities in the Baltic Sea region—and around the world—can
protect both the environment and public health.
Collaboration across
cities and countries is crucial. By sharing knowledge and best practices, we
can collectively tackle pollution caused by hazardous substances in
construction materials and make our urban environments safer for everyone.
If you are interested in this article, if you would like to find out more about hazardous substances in your environment – you can find interesting information on our websites and social media, but you can also make your contact in the form and we will regularly inform you about our materials (articles, reports, training courses, meetings) in which we will deepen this topic and suggest safe and proven solutions. In this form you can also declare your willingness to actively participate in our project, which will be of benefit to us (feedback) but also to you (concrete support).
Let’s work together to
build healthier, greener cities for future generations.
The End-of-Waste Criteria (EoW) represent a crucial
regulatory element in the European Union’s (EU) waste management framework.
Their purpose is to ensure that materials that cease to be considered waste
meet certain quality and safety standards, essential for promoting the circular
economy. A review of the literature in this area offers insights into the
mechanisms behind the implementation of these criteria and the challenges
associated with their practical application.
Regulatory Framework and Implementation Principles Numerous publications address the regulatory frameworks related to EoW conditions. The main reference point is the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, which defines the core principles of waste management in the EU, including EoW criteria. Works such as the European Commission’s White Paper (2011) and commentary on this directive emphasize the importance of these regulations in promoting recycling and minimizing waste disposal. In Polish legislation, the issue of End-of-Waste is covered in Chapter 5 of Part I of the Waste Act. According to legal frameworks (Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC) and literature (Delgado Sancho et al, 2009), the core of the EoW system is four general conditions that must be met for a material to no longer be considered waste:
Material Use – The material must be commonly used for specific purposes, similar to other market materials. This means that the material, which has lost its waste status, should have a real and practical use recognized in the economy (according to Art. 14 Sec. 1. 1) a) of the Waste Act: “the object or substance is to be used for specific purposes”).
Existence of a Market or Demand for the Material – There must be a market or demand for the material, ensuring that it will not be treated as waste again. The material should have commercial value, and its recipients must be able to purchase or reuse it in compliance with regulations (according to Art. 14 Sec. 1. 1) b) of the Waste Act: “there is a market for such objects or substances or demand for them”).
Meeting Technical and Legal Standards – The material, which ceases to be considered waste, must meet certain technical standards and legal requirements related to quality and safety, to be used without adverse effects on the environment or public health (according to Art. 14 Sec. 1. 1) c) of the Waste Act: “the object or substance meets the technical requirements for use for specific purposes and the requirements specified in the regulations, in particular concerning chemicals and products applicable to that object or substance, and in the applicable product standards”).
No Harm to the Environment or Health – The material must undergo a recovery or recycling process, and its further use should not pose a threat to the environment or human health. This includes control over hazardous substances and potential contaminants that may be present in the waste (according to Art. 14 Sec. 1. 1) d) of the Waste Act: “the use of the object or substance does not lead to negative consequences for human life, health, or the environment”).
National Differences in Implementing EoW Criteria
The previous chapter addressed the general conditions that need to be met in order to achieve EoW status. The revised Waste Framework Directive (WFD) includes a provision by which certain specified waste shall cease to be waste when it has undergone a recovery operation and complies with specific criteria developed in accordance with a number of conditions. Those detailed criteria shall ensure a high level of protection of the environment and human health and facilitate the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources. They shall include:
permissible waste input material for the recovery operation;
allowed treatment processes and techniques;
quality criteria for end-of-waste materials resulting from the recovery operation in line with the applicable product standards, including limit values for pollutants where necessary;
requirements for management systems to demonstrate compliance with the end-of-waste criteria, including for quality control and self-monitoring, and accreditation, where appropriate; and
a requirement for a statement of conformity.
At EU level we have several waste stream, for which the EoW criteria have been developed. These are: a) iron, steel and aluminium scrap (see Council Regulation (EU) N° 333/2011); b) glass cullet (see Commission Regulation (EU) N° 1179/2012), c) copper scrap (see Commission Regulation (EU) N° 715/2013). Recently, stakeholders and policymakers have been calling for identification of further possible material streams for which to develop end-of-waste criteria. JRC has started developing new scientific proposals for end-of-waste criteria for plastics and plans to do the same for textiles.
In addition, some publications, such as López-Portillo et al. (2021) and COM (2023), highlight national differences in the implementation of directives and the challenges of harmonizing these regulations across EU member states. Despite the common EU framework, the implementation of EoW criteria varies between member states. Harmonizing these regulations faces challenges, particularly due to differences in infrastructure, technological resources, the development level of waste management, and national regulations in individual countries.
Differences in Recycling Infrastructure: Some countries, especially those with more advanced waste management systems, have better-developed recycling infrastructure, allowing for more effective implementation of EoW criteria. For example, countries like Germany or the Netherlands have advanced sorting, separation, and processing systems that facilitate control over the quality of materials obtained from recycling. On the other hand, in countries with less developed infrastructure (e.g., some Central and Eastern European countries, including Poland), limited availability of technology and investment in the recycling sector may hinder the fulfillment of these criteria.
Different Regulatory Approaches: The introduction of EoW in some countries may be more restrictive than in others, depending on national regulations concerning environmental protection and public health. COM (2023) indicates that countries such as Denmark or Sweden apply stricter standards for recycling and waste processing, which increases the certainty that materials that cease to be considered waste are safe for the environment and health. Meanwhile, in other countries, where regulations may be less stringent, there is a risk that materials that formally meet EoW criteria may contain hazardous substances or not meet the appropriate quality standards.
Harmonizing Regulations: One of the key challenges authors highlight is the need for harmonizing regulations across the EU. López-Portillo et al. (2021) points out that differences in the approach to implementing EoW criteria may lead to problems in the EU’s internal market, where materials considered non-waste in one country may be treated differently in other member states. This, in turn, may lead to issues related to the trade of secondary materials and their cross-border flow.
Challenges of Harmonizing EoW The harmonization of EoW faces several challenges, which include:
Technological Issues: Differences in waste processing and recycling technology can make it difficult to ensure uniform quality standards for recovered materials in different countries. Countries with more advanced technologies may implement EoW regulations more quickly and effectively.
Regulations on Hazardous Substances: There could be differences at national level whether wastes are classified as hazardous or not. This can, in consequence impact how waste is treated and which materials can achieve non-waste status. COM (2023) notes that varying standards for chemicals may cause materials considered safe in one country not to meet the standards in another.
Management of Transboundary Waste: The flow of waste and secondary materials between EU member states presents an additional challenge. Problems may arise when materials considered non-waste in one country are transported to another, where regulations may be more restrictive. The need to adapt to different standards and regulations in individual countries complicates the creation of a single market for secondary materials.
The
Importance of a Circular Economy
Literature on EoW criteria often links them to the concept of the circular
economy (CE). Studies such as Renfors (2024) and Geissdoerfer et al. (2017)
analyze how EoW integrates into broader efforts to reduce the use of primary
raw materials and promote recycling. Authors emphasize that effective
implementation of EoW can contribute to reducing pressure on natural resources
and cutting CO₂ emissions, which directly relates to the achievement of the
EU’s climate goals.
Challenges
with Hazardous Substances
One of the main concerns raised in the literature on EoW criteria is the
presence of hazardous substances in recycled materials. Articles such as
Pivnenko & Astrup (2016) and Xu Pan (2022) highlight that chemical
contaminants, including hazardous substances, can hinder the recycling and
reuse process. Authors suggest that effective identification and elimination of
these substances before the material is deemed “non-waste” is crucial
for ensuring environmental and health safety.
Implementation in Poland Poland, as an EU member, implements EoW criteria according to EU regulations, though the literature on how these principles function in the Polish context is limited. Hryb and Ceglarz (2021) and IOŚ-PIB (2021) analyze the implementation of the Waste Framework Directive in Poland, pointing out issues related to recycling infrastructure, law enforcement, and low public awareness regarding the circular economy. The literature also emphasizes challenges related to the control and monitoring of materials deemed to meet EoW criteria, particularly in the context of hazardous waste. Several authors suggested that the EoW regulation in Poland will be an empty provision, without a significant impact on waste management practices (den Boer et al., 2017). Recently, additional EoW criteria have been developed in Poland for asphalt rubble waste (MCE, 2021) and waste generated in the process of energy combustion of fuels (MCE, 2022).
Future
Challenges and Perspectives
The literature on the future of EoW criteria and their role in the circular
economy highlights the need for further harmonization of regulations within the
EU and the improvement of recycling-related technologies. Hahladakis and
Iacovidou (2018) suggest that modern technologies, such as automatic waste
sorting and better material processing techniques, could contribute to more
effective implementation of EoW criteria.
Summary/Conclusions
The End-of-Waste Criteria are an essential tool in promoting sustainable
development and the circular economy. A key element of effective implementation
of EoW criteria is the harmonization of regulations within the EU. The
literature and experiences indicate key challenges, such as managing hazardous
substances and differences in the implementation of regulations across various
EU countries, including Poland. Despite these difficulties, further
harmonization of regulations and the development of technology may contribute
to the more efficient realization of these principles in the future.
This and other issues are being discussed in the Life Fit for Reach 2 project. Would You like to find out how our project can help You with REACH – fill in the form and we will contact You shortly.
Bibliografia:
Geissdoerfer, Martin, Paulo Savaget, Nancy M.P. Bocken, i Erik Jan Hultink. 2017. “The Circular Economy – A New Sustainability Paradigm?” Journal of Cleaner Production 143: 757-768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.
Hahladakis, John N., i Eleni Iacovidou. 2018. “Closing the Loop on Plastic Packaging Materials: What is Quality and How Does it Affect Their Circularity?” Science of the Total Environment 630: 1394-1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.330.
Xu Pan, Christina W.Y. Wong, Chunsheng Li, 2022, Circular economy practices in the waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) industry: A systematic review and future research agendas, Journal of Cleaner Production, 365, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132671.
López-Portillo, M.-P., Martínez-Jiménez, G., Ropero-Moriones, E. Saavedra-Serrano, M. C., 2021, “Waste treatments in the European Union: A comparative analysis across its member states” Heliyon, 7(12): 1-11, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08645.
COM(2023) 304 final; REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS identifying Member States at risk of not meeting the 2025 preparing for re-use and recycling target for municipal waste, the 2025 recycling target for packaging waste and the 2035 municipal waste landfilling reduction target, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2023%3A304%3AFIN&qid=1686220362244 .
Renfors, S.-M. (2024), “Education for the circular economy in higher education: an overview of the current state”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2023-0270
E. den Boer, A. Gawłowski, K.
Godlewska, M. Górski, R. Szpadt, B. Środa, H. Marliere, M. Kruś, A. Piotrowska,
J. Bujny, T. Mądry., 2017, “Utrata statusu odpadu – rzeczywiste ułatwienie
czy recyklingowa fikcja?” Logistyka
Odzysku nr 2 (23), str. 23-33,
COM(2023)
304 final; REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL,
THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
identifying Member States at risk of not meeting the 2025 preparing for re-use
and recycling target for municipal waste, the 2025 recycling target for
packaging waste and the 2035 municipal waste landfilling reduction target, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2023%3A304%3AFIN&qid=1686220362244 .
Geissdoerfer,
Martin, Paulo Savaget, Nancy M.P. Bocken, i Erik Jan Hultink. 2017. “The
Circular Economy – A New Sustainability Paradigm?” Journal of Cleaner Production 143: 757-768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.
Hahladakis,
John N., i Eleni Iacovidou. 2018. “Closing the Loop on Plastic Packaging
Materials: What is Quality and How Does it Affect Their Circularity?” Science
of the Total Environment 630: 1394-1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.330.
López-Portillo,
M.-P., Martínez-Jiménez, G., Ropero-Moriones, E. Saavedra-Serrano, M. C., 2021,
“Waste treatments in the European Union: A comparative analysis across its
member states” Heliyon, 7(12): 1-11, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08645.
MCE, 2021,
Regulation of the Minister of Climate and Environment of December 23, 2021, on
specifying detailed criteria when certain types of asphalt rubble waste cease
to be waste.
MCE, 2022,
Regulation of the Minister of Climate and Environment of October 27, 2022, on
specifying detailed criteria when certain types of waste generated in the
process of energy combustion of fuels cease to be waste.
Renfors,
S.-M. (2024), “Education for the circular economy in higher education: an
overview of the current state”, International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2023-0270
Xu Pan,
Christina W.Y. Wong, Chunsheng Li, 2022, Circular economy practices in the
waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) industry: A systematic review
and future research agendas, Journal of Cleaner Production, 365, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132671.
The health impacts of chemical exposure can be categorized
into local and systemic effects. Local effects are typically
immediate and involve irritation or damage to the point of contact, such as the
skin, eyes, or respiratory tract. Systemic effects, on the other hand, may
result from the absorption of chemicals into the bloodstream, affecting
internal organs over time.
For instance, exposure to solvents like benzene can cause
both acute effects, such as dizziness or headaches, and chronic effects,
including bone marrow damage and leukemia (Smith, 2010). Some chemicals, like
asbestos, are known to cause cancer after prolonged exposure, while others may
have teratogenic or mutagenic effects, impacting reproductive health or causing
genetic mutations in offspring.
Risk
Assessment and Control Measures
The risk assessment process is a critical component
of managing chemical hazards in the workplace. It involves identifying
hazardous substances, evaluating the potential for exposure, and implementing
control measures to reduce or eliminate the risk to workers. According to
European Union directives and the United States Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) guidelines, employers are required to conduct regular
risk assessments to ensure a safe working environment.
Employers must also ensure that employees are equipped with
adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), such as gloves,
respirators, and protective clothing, to minimize direct exposure to harmful
chemicals. Additionally, engineering controls such as ventilation systems,
chemical storage protocols, and spill containment measures are essential to
maintain a safe workplace.
For over 500 chemical substances, permissible exposure
limits (PELs) have been established to regulate workplace exposure and
protect workers from long-term health consequences. Employers must monitor the
air quality and ensure that these limits are not exceeded.
Regulatory
Guidelines and Best Practices
Compliance with safety regulations and standards is
essential for mitigating the risks associated with chemical exposure. Safety
Data Sheets (SDS) provide critical information on the properties of
chemicals, their hazards, and recommended protective measures. Employers must
make these documents available to all employees who work with or around
hazardous substances.
It is the responsibility of the employer to:
Ensure that employees are informed about the
risks associated with chemical use.
Provide appropriate training on the handling and
disposal of chemicals.
Establish emergency procedures in case of
accidental spills, leaks, or exposure.
In addition to workplace safety regulations, international
guidelines such as the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and
Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) aim to standardize the communication of
chemical hazards globally.
Conclusion
Ensuring the safe handling of chemical substances is a shared responsibility between employers and employees. Through comprehensive risk assessments, proper use of protective equipment, adherence to regulatory standards, and regular monitoring, it is possible to significantly reduce the dangers posed by chemicals in the workplace. By fostering a culture of safety and compliance, we can protect workers from the short- and long-term health risks associated with chemical exposure.
Would You like to find out how the Fit for REACH project can help You with safe handling of chemicals – please fill in this contact form shortly and we will contact You very soon.
Exposure to harmful
factors at work can negatively affect workers’ health. Therefore, it is crucial
to adhere to the applicable regulations. Through proper protection of health
and life in hazardous working conditions, it is possible to reduce the occurrence
of occupational diseases and workplace accidents.
Employers are
responsible for ensuring safe and hygienic working conditions.
One of the elements of
protecting workers from the negative effects of harmful factors is adhering to
the established permissible occupational exposure levels for health-hazardous
factors, known as hygienic norms. These norms are based on scientific data
regarding a specific harmful factor and its health effects.
Hygienic norms have
been defined for harmful chemical and dust factors present in the work
environment (expressed by the maximum allowable concentrations – MACs, maximum allowable
short-term concentrations – MASTCs, and maximum allowable ceiling
concentrations – MACCs), as well as harmful physical factors (expressed by
maximum allowable intensities – MAIs) . All these terms are defined in the
Regulation of the Minister of Family, Labor, and Social Policy of June 12,
2018, regarding the maximum permissible concentrations and intensities of
harmful factors for health in the work environment (Journal of Laws 2018, item
1286, as amended):
MACs – Time-weighted average concentration, the
impact of which on a worker during an 8-hour workday and a weekly work
schedule, as defined by the Labor Code, should not cause negative health
changes for the worker or future generations over their professional career.
MASTCs – Short-term average concentration that should
not cause adverse health changes if present in the work environment for no more
than 15 minutes and no more than twice during a shift, with an interval of at
least one hour.
MACCs – A concentration that, due to health or life
risks, must not be exceeded at any time in the work environment.
MAIs – The highest permissible intensity of a
physical harmful factor for health, established as exposure levels that should
not cause adverse health effects for workers or their future generations
throughout their professional career.
In Poland, the system
of setting MACs, MASTCs, MACCs, and MAIs values has been in place since 1983.
The main body responsible for this is the Interministerial Commission for
Maximum Allowab le Concentrations and Intensities of Harmful Factors for Health
in the Work Environment, appointed by the Prime Minister. Members of this
commission develop proposals for hygienic norms based on expert documentation,
considering health criteria and risk assessment. These proposals are submitted
to the Minister of Family, Labor, and Social Policy. Once approved, the maximum
allowable concentrations and intensities are published in the Official Journal
of the Republic of Poland in the form of a regulation. These values are legally
binding for all sectors of the national economy .
Currently applicable MACs,
MASTCs, and MACCs values are included in the annex to the July 2024 regulation
of the Minister of Family, Labor, and Social Policy from June 24, 2024,
amending the regulation on maximum permissible concentrations and intensities
of harmful factors for health in the work environment (Journal of Laws 2024,
item 1017). This annex replaces Annex 1 to the June 12, 2018, regulation and
has been in force since August 10, 2024, except for positions listed in §2 of
the regulation, which have different effective dates. One example is the
popular preservative “Post-reaction mass of
5-chloro-2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one and 2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one
(3:1)” (CAS 55965-84-9), for which the MACs and MASTCs values take effect
from April 5, 2024. The MAIs values have not been changed in the June 24, 2024,
regulation, meaning that the MAIs values listed in Annex 2 of the June 12,
2018, regulation remain in effect.
Would You like to find
out how our project can help You with REACH – fill in the form and we will
contact You shortly: https://forms.gle/ySzqcv6mKmCeb7Sx7
🌍💼 Professionalization of public procurement – under this theme, a conference on State Procurement Policy was held at the Ministry of Development and Technology. This is the latest event focused on the professionalization of public procurement. The Ministry emphasizes the importance of professionalization, which supports the increase of green 🌱 and innovative 💡 procurement.
📢 Deputy Minister Jacek Tomczak highlighted that further support for the professionalization of public procurement market participants will be a key issue for both the Ministry and the Public Procurement Office in the coming years. Dr. Mariusz Filipek, the Plenipotentiary for Deregulation and Economic Dialogue, reminded that a few days ago, the first meeting of the Interministerial Team for Green Public Procurement took place, with the goal of increasing the number of green public procurements in government administration. 🏛🌱
📢 The discussion touched on the use of standards in public procurement (Prof. Włodzimierz Dzierżanowski), practical aspects and benefits that can be gained from conducting preliminary market consultations (Ms. Katarzyna Woźniak), as well as the potential for shaping new standards through green procurements (Ms. Klaudia Mańka). Selected regulations of public procurement law were also discussed, with a focus on how their appropriate use can contribute to greater flexibility in conducting procedures and smoother contract execution (Ms. Izabela Fundowicz).
During the conference, participants had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the World Bank’s 🌍 guidelines on implementing ProcurCompEU – the European Competency Framework for Public Procurement Specialists in Poland, along with reflections from a Polish participant of the program (Ms. Anna Krasińska).
🏆 Awards were also presented in the second edition of the “Public Procurement Expert” competition. The winners are: 🏅 SME-Friendly Procurer: 🥇 Włocławek County, Special Mention: Stępnica Municipality
🏅 Green Procurement: 🥇 Central Statistical Office
🏅 Highly Professional Procurer: 🥇 Koszalin City Hall
In Poland, public
procurement is governed by a network of institutions, each with a specific role
in regulating, managing, or implementing procurement procedures, including the
promotion of Green Public Procurement (GPP). Green Public Procurement refers to
public purchasing that takes into account environmental sustainability and in
the ChemClimCircle project we focus on the criteria related to reducing Chemicals,
minimizing Climate impact and promoting Circularity.
Key Challenges and
Developments in GPP in Poland:
Awareness and Capacity Building: Public authorities in Poland are working
to increase awareness and expertise on GPP through training, workshops,
and guidelines.
GPP Implementation: The integration of GPP in Poland is
still evolving, with some sectors (e.g., waste management, energy) seeing
more success than others. The Public Procurement Office(UZP), Ministry
of Development and Technology (MRiT) and local governments are focusing on
creating more standard templates and criteria for green procurement.
EU Influence: Poland’s green procurement policies are
heavily influenced by the EU, especially with the growing emphasis on the
European Green Deal. This is pushing national and local authorities to
adopt more ambitious GPP strategies.
Distribution of responsibilities among
many institutional actors:
In Poland there are many institutions that play more or less significant
role in promoting and implementing GPP. Sometimes synergies may be a
benefit of the system, however, shared responsibility may dilute the strength
of the measures implemented.
Here is a map of
key institutions involved in Public Procurement in Poland, with special
attention to their role in fostering Green Public Procurement:
1. Ministry of
Development and Technology (Ministerstwo Rozwoju i Technologii, MRiT)
Role in Public Procurement: This ministry oversees national
development strategies, including sustainable development and innovation
policies. It coordinates the implementation of EU funds and procurement
policies.
Green Public Procurement: The ministry encourages GPP as part of
Poland’s national strategy for sustainable development. It supports
integrating eco-friendly solutions into public procurement by aligning
national policies with EU goals on sustainability and climate change.
2. Public Procurement Office (Urząd
Zamówień Publicznych, UZP)
Role in Public Procurement: The Public Procurement Office (UZP) is
the main governmental body responsible for the overall regulation,
monitoring, and enforcement of public procurement laws and policies in
Poland. It plays a crucial role in ensuring that public contracts are
awarded fairly and transparently.
Green Public Procurement: UZP promotes sustainable public
procurement practices, including Green Public Procurement (GPP). The
office provides guidance on how to integrate environmental criteria into
tender procedures, offers training, and supports public authorities in
adopting sustainable practices in procurement.
3. Ministry of
Climate and Environment (Ministerstwo Klimatu i Środowiska, MKiŚ)
Role in Public Procurement: The Ministry of Climate and Environment
provides guidance and oversight on public procurement in sectors like
energy and infrastructure, ensuring that these activities comply with
national environmental regulations and sustainability strategies.
Green Public Procurement: The Ministry promotes the integration of
environmental criteria in public contracts, focusing on renewable energy,
energy efficiency, and sustainable infrastructure to reduce the
environmental impact of government procurement.
4. Ministry of Health (Ministerstwo Zdrowia, MZ)
Rola w zamówieniach publicznych:
Ministerstwo Zdrowia zarządza zamówieniami na potrzeby systemu opieki
zdrowotnej, w tym na leki, sprzęt medyczny i infrastrukturę szpitalną.
Zielone zamówienia publiczne:
Ministerstwo dąży do wprowadzenia bardziej zrównoważonych praktyk w
sektorze zdrowia, w tym zmniejszenia zużycia energii w szpitalach oraz
stosowania ekologicznych materiałów w placówkach medycznych. Dąży także do
ograniczenia zużycia jednorazowego plastiku w szpitalach oraz promowania
bardziej ekologicznych technologii w opiece zdrowotnej.
5. Ministry of Funds and Regional Development (Ministerstwo Funduszy i Polityki Regionalnej, MFPR)
Rola w zamówieniach publicznych:
Ministerstwo Funduszy i Polityki Regionalnej nadzoruje wdrażanie funduszy
unijnych i regionalnych, w tym duże projekty infrastrukturalne, budowlane
oraz inwestycje wspierające rozwój regionalny.
Zielone zamówienia publiczne:
Ministerstwo aktywnie wspiera GPP poprzez kierowanie funduszy unijnych na
projekty oparte na zrównoważonym rozwoju, w tym inwestycje w energię
odnawialną, transport ekologiczny i modernizację infrastruktury pod kątem
zwiększenia efektywności energetycznej.
6. Ministry of Agriculture (Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi, MRRW)
Role in Public Procurement: The Ministry of Agriculture manages
public procurement related to agricultural services, food safety, and
rural development projects. This includes contracts for infrastructure
supporting rural areas, agricultural technologies, and public food
procurement programs.
Green Public Procurement: The Ministry has a key role in promoting
sustainable agricultural practices through GPP, focusing on the procurement
of eco-friendly agricultural inputs, sustainable food production
methods, and reducing the environmental impact of rural development
projects. Their role is critical in driving the transition to sustainable
farming, aligned with EU agricultural policies.
7. Ministry of Infrastructure (Ministerstwo Infrastruktury, MI)
Role in Public Procurement: The Ministry of Infrastructure handles
procurement related to transport infrastructure, such as roads,
railways, ports, and public transportation systems. It is responsible for
large-scale infrastructure projects, including public tenders for
construction and maintenance.
Green Public Procurement: GPP initiatives within the Ministry
focus on reducing the environmental impact of infrastructure projects by
incorporating sustainable construction materials, energy-efficient
transportation solutions, and eco-friendly designs for public
infrastructure. This aligns with EU standards for sustainable transport
and climate goals, especially under the European Green Deal.
8. Ministry of Digital Affairs (Ministerstwo Cyfryzacji, MC)
Role in Public Procurement: The Ministry oversees the procurement
of digital technologies, IT infrastructure, and telecommunications
systems for the public sector. This includes e-government services,
digital security, and cloud services.
Green Public Procurement: The Ministry promotes GPP by focusing on
the procurement of energy-efficient IT systems, environmentally
friendly data centers, and the reduction of e-waste. It also encourages
the adoption of sustainable digital solutions in government
services, such as paperless offices and low-energy consumption data
storage systems.
9. General Directorate for National Roads and Motorways (Generalna Dyrekcja Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad, GDDKiA)
Role in Public Procurement: GDDKiA is responsible for managing the
construction, maintenance, and expansion of Poland’s national road
infrastructure. It conducts large public tenders for road construction,
repairs, and associated services.
Green Public Procurement: GDDKiA increasingly focuses on GPP,
prioritizing the use of eco-friendly road construction materials, energy-efficient
lighting systems, and minimizing the environmental footprint of
road construction projects. It is also involved in promoting sustainable
transportation infrastructure like electric vehicle charging stations
along highways.
10. General Directorate for Environmental Protection (Generalna Dyrekcja Ochrony Środowiska, GDOŚ)
Role in Public Procurement: GDOŚ oversees procurement related to environmental
conservation projects, biodiversity protection, and environmental impact
assessments. It is responsible for projects that ensure compliance
with national and EU environmental regulations.
Green Public Procurement: GDOŚ plays a leading role in
implementing GPP by integrating strict environmental standards in
public tenders, focusing on nature conservation, sustainable land
use, and environmentally responsible project execution. It ensures
that all public procurement aligns with national environmental protection
goals.
11. National Centre for Research and Development (Narodowe Centrum Badań i Rozwoju, NCBiR)
Role in Public Procurement: NCBiR handles the procurement of research
and innovation projects, funding research institutions, universities,
and enterprises engaged in cutting-edge technologies. This includes
research contracts and public tenders for technological innovation.
Green Public Procurement: NCBiR promotes innovation in green
technologies, funding projects that aim to reduce environmental
impacts, improve energy efficiency, and develop renewable energy sources.
Its GPP focus is on sustainable innovation, such as funding
research on eco-friendly technologies and climate-resilient
infrastructure.
12. The National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Środowiska i Gospodarki Wodnej, NFOŚiGW)
Role in Public Procurement: This organization manages environmental
funds and provides financial support for environmental projects. It is
responsible for environmental protection initiatives across Poland.
Green Public Procurement: NFOŚiGW plays a supporting role in GPP
by financing projects that include sustainable procurement practices,
especially in sectors like water management, energy, and waste management.
The fund encourages public entities to include green criteria in contracts.
13. The Energy Regulatory Office (Urząd Regulacji Energetyki, URE)
Role in Public Procurement: This office regulates the energy market
in Poland, overseeing electricity and gas sectors.
Green Public Procurement: URE supports the inclusion of green
energy requirements in public procurement, especially in energy-related
contracts. They help public bodies meet the requirements for renewable
energy sourcing and energy efficiency, key components of GPP.
14. The Polish Agency for Enterprise Development (Polska Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości, PARP)
Role in Public Procurement: PARP supports the development of small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Poland, including their
participation in public procurement.
Green Public Procurement: PARP promotes GPP by helping businesses
develop green products and services that can be offered in public tenders.
The agency also educates SMEs on how to meet green criteria to participate
in eco-friendly procurement opportunities.
Role in Public Procurement: NIK is responsible for auditing public
institutions, including their public procurement practices.
Green Public Procurement: As part of its audits, NIK ensures that
public institutions follow both national and EU regulations on GPP. It
assesses the integration of green criteria and monitors how sustainable
procurement policies are applied in practice.
16. National Appeal Chamber (Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza, KIO)
Role in Public Procurement: KIO is an independent institution that
reviews appeals related to public procurement procedures. It ensures the
legal correctness of procurement processes, resolves disputes, and ensures
fair competition.
Green Public Procurement: While KIO does not directly implement
GPP, it plays an important role in upholding environmental regulations
in public procurement processes. It ensures that any procurement-related
disputes concerning environmental or green procurement criteria are fairly
adjudicated, supporting the broader GPP goals.
17. Government Administration Service Centre (Centrum Obsługi Administracji Rządowej, COAR)
Role in Public Procurement: COAR manages procurement for government
offices, handling contracts for administrative services, office
supplies, technology, and building management.
Green Public Procurement: COAR implements GPP by focusing on sustainable
office management, including the procurement of energy-efficient
buildings, eco-friendly office supplies, and reduced energy
consumption in administrative services. It aligns with government
goals to create greener workplaces across public institutions.
18. Interministerial Team for Green Public Procurement (Międzyresortowy Zespół do spraw Zielonych Zamówień Publicznych, MZZZP)
Role in Public
Procurement: This
team coordinates GPP initiatives across different ministries, ensuring
that green public procurement strategies are integrated into national
procurement policies.
Green Public
Procurement: The
Interministerial Team promotes the adoption of green criteria in public
tenders across all sectors, aligning them with EU sustainability goals.
The team works to standardize GPP practices and ensure that ministries
adopt eco-friendly procurement strategies, enhancing Poland’s efforts
toward sustainability. Their role includes developing guidelines,
providing training, and ensuring that green procurement is widely
implemented in both national and local public procurement processes.
19. Local Government Units (Samorządy, JST)
Role in Public Procurement: Local governments in Poland, such as
municipalities and regional councils, are responsible for public
procurement at the local level, particularly in areas like construction,
transportation, and public services.
Green Public Procurement: Local authorities are increasingly
incorporating GPP into their procurement practices, especially in projects
related to transportation, building energy efficiency, and waste
management. Many local governments work with the Ministry of Development
and UZP to align with national GPP strategies.
20. Public Sector Institutions (Organizacje Sektora Publicznego, OSP)
Role in Public Procurement: Public Sector Institutionsin Poland,
such as universities, museums and other not controlled by local
authorities, are responsible for large portion of public procurement at
the local level, particularly in areas like construction, transportation,
and services.
Green Public Procurement: Public Sector Institutionsare
increasingly incorporating GPP into their procurement practices,
especially in projects related to transportation, building energy
efficiency, and waste management. Many public institutions work with the
Ministry of Development, Ministry of Science, Ministry of Climate &
Environment and UZP to incorporate GPP into their procurement strategies.
21. Environmental NGOs and Civil Society Organizations (Organizacje Pozarządowe i Społeczeństwo Obywatelskie, NGO)
Role in Public Procurement: Although not formal government bodies,
NGOs and civil society organizations often influence public procurement by
lobbying for greener policies and practices.
Green Public Procurement: These organizations advocate for
stricter environmental standards in procurement processes and work with
governmental bodies to ensure that GPP is a priority in national and local
procurement strategies.
22. European Union (EU)
Role in Public Procurement: Poland is a member of the EU, which
plays a critical role in shaping public procurement regulations. EU
directives, such as the 2014 Public Procurement Directives,
influence Poland’s national procurement laws.
Green Public Procurement: The EU sets targets and provides
guidelines for GPP across member states, including Poland. EU funding
programs, like those under the European Green Deal, often
require green criteria in public procurement projects, especially when
financing infrastructure, energy, and public transportation.
23. World Bank
Role in Public
Procurement: The World Bank supports public
procurement through financing large-scale projects in infrastructure,
education, and environmental protection. It provides guidelines and
frameworks to ensure that procurement processes are transparent,
competitive, and aligned with international best practices.
Green Public
Procurement: The
World Bank plays a pivotal role in encouraging sustainable procurement in
Poland by financing projects that integrate environmental sustainability.
It promotes the use of GPP by offering technical assistance and resources
for projects that focus on climate
resilience, renewable energy, and sustainable development.
Through its Green
Procurement Framework, the World Bank supports the
integration of eco-friendly practices into public tenders, particularly in
large infrastructure and environmental projects.
In conclusion, Poland’s public procurement ecosystem
involves several key institutions that manage, regulate, and promote GPP. The
government’s focus on sustainability, combined with EU directives and funding
incentives, is driving progress toward integrating environmental concerns into
public contracts.
For more information about the ChemClimCircle project and how it can help, or how you can get involved fill in the contact form here, visit our website and follow us on social media. Let’s work together for a sustainable future! 🌍🌿🔄
The global food industry, dominated by ultra-processed foods
(UPFs), is increasingly recognized as a significant threat to public health.
These foods are linked to a variety of non-communicable diseases (NCDs)
including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer (Fiolet et
al., 2018; Srour et al., 2019). Another critical, yet often overlooked
dimension of this problem is the declining quality of agricultural products due
to poor soils. Modern agricultural practices, which prioritize the use of
synthetic fertilizers rich in nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K),
neglect other essential nutrients. Also the structure & content of the soil
carbon has been degraded. This exacerbates further the nutritional deficiencies
of both raw and processed foods, compounding the global health crisis (Lal,
2009; Davis et al., 2004).
The Proliferation and Health Impacts of Ultra-Processed Foods
Ultra-processed foods have become a dominant feature of
diets worldwide. These foods, characterized by their high content of sugars,
unhealthy fats, and sodium, coupled with a lack of essential nutrients, are
produced through extensive industrial processes. The convenience and
palatability of these foods have made them popular, but their overconsumption
is closely linked to a surge in obesity, metabolic disorders, cardiovascular
diseases, and certain types of cancer (Monteiro et al., 2019; Fiolet et al., 2018).
Moreover, ultra-processed foods (UPFs), rich in sugar,
unhealthy fats, and additives, are designed to be hyper-palatable, triggering
addictive responses similar to those seen with drugs by activating the brain’s
reward system, particularly through the release of dopamine (Schulte et al.,
2015). This addiction is particularly concerning in children, whose developing
brains are more susceptible to forming strong food preferences and habits that
can persist into adulthood (Gearhardt et al., 2011). The habitual consumption
of UPFs, reinforced by aggressive marketing, especially to children, leads to a
cycle of cravings and overconsumption, contributing to obesity and related
health issues (Ziauddeen, & Fletcher, 2013). This addiction increases the
risk of chronic conditions like type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and
mental health disorders (Fiolet et al., 2018). Addressing UPF addiction
requires public health interventions that limit exposure, particularly among
vulnerable populations like children.
1. Obesity and Metabolic Disorders
The consumption of ultra-processed foods is a major driver
of the global obesity epidemic. The high-calorie, low-nutrient content of these
foods leads to excessive caloric intake without providing the essential
nutrients needed for health. According to Fiolet et al. (2018), higher
consumption of ultra-processed foods is strongly associated with obesity and
related metabolic disorders, a trend that is exacerbated by the declining
nutrient density of agricultural products (Davis et al., 2004).
2. Cardiovascular Diseases
Cardiovascular diseases are another significant concern
associated with ultra-processed foods. These foods are typically high in trans
fats, sodium, and sugars, all of which contribute to heart disease and stroke.
Research by Srour et al. (2019) indicates that diets high in ultra-processed
foods are linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular events. This risk is
further compounded by the low levels of heart-protective nutrients, such as
magnesium, found in crops grown in nutrient-depleted soils (Rengel &
Graham, 1995; White & Broadley, 2005).
3. Diabetes and Insulin Resistance
The high glycemic load of ultra-processed foods, coupled
with low nutrient density, contributes to the growing prevalence of type 2
diabetes. As detailed in a study by Mendonça et al. (2017), diets rich in
ultra-processed foods are associated with an increased risk of insulin
resistance and type 2 diabetes. The poor nutritional quality of these foods,
derived from crops grown in depleted soils, further aggravates this condition,
as the body struggles to manage blood sugar levels without adequate micronutrient
support (Zhao et al., 2007).
4. Cancer Risk
Emerging evidence links the consumption of ultra-processed
foods to an increased risk of cancer. A study by Fiolet et al. (2018) found
that higher intake of ultra-processed foods correlates with a higher risk of
overall cancer and breast cancer. The presence of carcinogenic compounds formed
during food processing, along with the low levels of protective nutrients in
the base ingredients due to poor soil quality, may contribute to this elevated
risk (Beach RH, et al., 2019; Fan et al., 2008).
5. Risk of mental disorders
A Harvard study, assessed the impact of dietary habits on
mental health. People who consumed the most processed foods – which include
items such as sodas, chips, cookies, white bread and ready-to-eat meals – at
nine or more servings a day were 50% more likely to develop depression than
those who consumed no more than four servings a day. Consumption of many foods
and drinks containing artificial sweeteners was associated with a particularly
large increase in the risk of depression. The study was observational, meaning
that it could not absolutely prove that processed foods cause depression, only
that there was an association. Ultra-processed foods can disrupt the proper
balance of gut bacteria, which affects how the brain works, the study authors
said. Artificial sweeteners can interfere with chemicals in the brain that help
nerve cells communicate normally (Samuthpongtorn C, et al.,2023).
The Impact of Soil Degradation on Food Quality and Health
Modern agricultural practices have contributed significantly
to the decline in soil health. The focus on maximizing crop yields through the
application of NPK fertilizers has led to the neglect of other vital
micronutrients such as magnesium, zinc, iron, and selenium, which are crucial
for human health (Gupta & Gupta, 2000; Cakmak & Marschner, 1988). Over
time, soils become depleted of these nutrients, leading to crops that are less
nutritious. Moreover, deterioration of carbon content and structure in soils causes
the lover water retention and decreases yield. This soil depletion is not only
a concern for raw agricultural products but also for the ultra-processed foods
derived from them, further deteriorating the nutritional quality of the global
food supply (Davis et al., 2004; Mayer, 1997).
1. Nutrient Depletion and Food Quality
Studies have shown that the nutritional content of crops has
been declining over the past several decades. For instance, a comprehensive
study by Davis et al. (2004) found significant reductions in the levels of
essential nutrients in fruits and vegetables since the 1950s. This decline is
attributed to soil depletion caused by modern agricultural practices focused on
high yields rather than nutritional quality (Fan et al., 2008). The resulting
crops, which are used as raw materials for processed foods, are inherently less
nutritious, compounding the health risks associated with UPFs (Welch &
Graham, 2004).
2. Degradation of Soil Structure and Carbon Content
The degradation of soil structure and carbon content is a
critical issue that exacerbates the declining quality of agricultural products
and, consequently, global health. Healthy soil structure is essential for
maintaining water retention, nutrient availability, and root growth. However,
intensive agricultural practices, such as over-tilling, monocropping, and
excessive use of chemical fertilizers, have led to the breakdown of soil
aggregates, resulting in soil compaction and erosion (Lal, 2004).
Moreover, these practices deplete the organic carbon content
in the soil, which is crucial for soil fertility and microbial activity. Soil
organic carbon acts as a key component of soil health, influencing nutrient
cycling and the soil’s ability to sequester carbon dioxide, thereby mitigating
climate change. The loss of soil carbon not only diminishes the soil’s capacity
to support healthy crop production but also contributes to higher atmospheric
carbon levels, intensifying the global climate crisis (Smith et al., 2015; Lal,
2004).
Addressing soil structure degradation and carbon loss
requires adopting sustainable farming practices, such as reduced tillage, cover
cropping, and organic amendments, to restore soil health, increase soil water
retention, improve crop quality, and enhance global food security (Lal, 2015).
3. Impact on Public Health – Malnutrition
The combination of poor soil health and the proliferation of
ultra-processed foods creates a “double burden” on global health.
Populations are not only consuming foods that are high in unhealthy components
but also low in essential nutrients due to soil degradation (Smith et al.,
2016). This scenario exacerbates micronutrient deficiencies, leading to
increased susceptibility to chronic diseases. For example, the lack of zinc in
soils, and consequently in crops, has been linked to higher rates of immune
deficiency and infectious diseases, as detailed by Brown & Wuehler (2000)
and discussed in The Lancet (Swaminathan, 2003).
Global Health Implications and Industry Response
The global health implications of the widespread consumption
of ultra-processed foods, compounded by declining soil health, are severe. The
rise in non-communicable diseases, driven by these factors, presents a major
challenge to public health systems, particularly in developing countries where
both undernutrition and overnutrition are prevalent (Barrett, 2010; Cordell et
al., 2009).
The food industry’s response to these challenges has been
largely superficial, focusing on the introduction of “healthier”
product lines without addressing the underlying issues of soil degradation and
nutrient depletion (Glanz & Yaroch, 2004). While some companies are
beginning to explore more nutrient-dense food options, the scale of the problem
requires a more fundamental shift in both agricultural practices (including
innovative organic fertilizers) and food processing methods (van der Wiel et
al., 2023).
Societal Response to Global Health Implications
The global health implications of widespread consumption of
ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and the degradation of soil health present a
multifaceted challenge that requires coordinated action from governments, the
private sector, civil society, and individuals. The societal response must
address both the immediate health impacts and the underlying environmental and
economic drivers that exacerbate these issues.
1. Policy and Regulation
Governments play a crucial role in shaping the food
environment and mitigating the negative health impacts associated with UPFs and
soil degradation. Effective policy and regulatory measures can include:
Nutritional
Guidelines and Public Awareness: Governments can promote dietary
guidelines that emphasize the consumption of whole foods and reduce
reliance on ultra-processed products. Public health campaigns can raise
awareness about the health risks of UPFs and the importance of
nutrient-rich diets, particularly in vulnerable populations such as
children and low-income groups (Monteiro et al., 2019; Fiolet et al.,
2018).
Taxation
and Subsidies: Implementing taxes on unhealthy foods, such as sugary
beverages and high-fat snacks, can discourage their consumption.
Conversely, subsidies for fruits, vegetables, and other whole foods can
make healthier options more accessible and affordable. For instance,
Mexico’s sugar tax, introduced in 2014, has shown promising results in
reducing the consumption of sugary drinks (Colchero et al., 2016).
Food
Labeling Requirements: Clear and informative food labeling can help
consumers make healthier choices. Mandatory front-of-package labels that
indicate high levels of sugar, fat, and sodium can deter the purchase of
ultra-processed foods. Some countries, like Chile and Brazil, have already
implemented such labeling systems with positive outcomes (Taillie et al.,
2020).
Regulation
of Marketing Practices: To protect vulnerable groups, particularly
children, stricter regulations on the marketing of ultra-processed foods
are necessary. Limiting advertising during children’s programming and
restricting the use of cartoon characters and celebrities in marketing
unhealthy foods can reduce children’s exposure to these products
(Sadeghirad et al., 2016).
2. Agricultural Practices and Soil Management
Improving agricultural practices is essential to address
soil degradation and enhance the nutritional quality of food. This requires a
shift towards sustainable farming practices that prioritize soil health and
biodiversity:
Sustainable
Farming Techniques: Promoting techniques such as crop rotation, cover
cropping, reduced tillage, and the use of organic fertilizers can help
restore soil structure, increase soil organic carbon content, and improve
water retention (Lal, 2004; Smith et al., 2015). These practices can
enhance the resilience of agricultural systems to climate change and
improve the nutritional content of crops (Bouis & Welch, 2010).
Support
for Small-Scale Farmers: Governments and NGOs can support small-scale
farmers in adopting sustainable practices by providing access to
resources, education, and financial incentives. These farmers often face
barriers to implementing sustainable methods due to limited access to
technology, knowledge, and capital (Altieri, 2009).
Agroecology
and Agroforestry: Integrating trees and other perennial plants into
agricultural landscapes (agroforestry) can improve soil health, sequester
carbon, and increase biodiversity. Agroecology, which emphasizes the
ecological management of farming systems, can also play a critical role in
creating more resilient and sustainable food systems (Gliessman, 2015).
3. Private Sector Initiatives
The private sector, particularly food manufacturers and
retailers, has a significant influence on the food environment and consumer
choices. Companies can contribute to the societal response by:
Reformulating
Products: Food companies can reduce the levels of sugar, fat, and salt
in their products and remove harmful additives. Reformulating UPFs to make
them healthier while maintaining taste and affordability can help reduce
the public health burden associated with these products (Mozaffarian et
al., 2018).
Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR): Companies can engage in CSR initiatives
that support sustainable agriculture, improve food security, and promote
healthy eating. For example, investing in sustainable sourcing of
ingredients or supporting educational programs about nutrition can enhance
a company’s reputation while contributing to public health (Hartmann et
al., 2015).
Innovating
Healthier Products: The development of new, healthier food products
that cater to the growing consumer demand for nutritious and convenient
options can drive industry change. This includes increasing the
availability of minimally processed foods and creating alternatives to
highly processed snacks and meals (Pereira-Kotze C, et al., 2022).
4. Community and Civil Society Engagement
Civil society organizations, community groups, and NGOs play
a crucial role in advocating for healthier food environments and supporting
grassroots initiatives that promote sustainable agriculture and healthy eating:
Community-Led
Initiatives: Local initiatives such as community gardens, farmers’
markets, and food cooperatives can improve access to fresh, local, and
nutritious foods. These initiatives also strengthen community ties and
empower individuals to take control of their food choices (Wakefield et
al., 2007).
Educational
Programs: NGOs and community organizations can provide education on
nutrition, sustainable agriculture, and cooking skills, particularly in
underserved communities. These programs can help people understand the
importance of healthy eating and how to prepare nutritious meals on a
budget (Drewnowski et al., 2010).
Advocacy
for Policy Change: Civil society organizations can advocate for
stronger government action on food policy and environmental protection. By
mobilizing public support and engaging in policy dialogue, these
organizations can influence decision-making and drive systemic change
(Lang & Rayner, 2012).
5. Individual Actions and Consumer Choices
Ultimately, individual choices play a significant role in
shaping the demand for ultra-processed foods and the sustainability of
agricultural practices. Consumers can contribute to societal change by:
Making
Informed Choices: Educating oneself about the health impacts of
ultra-processed foods and the importance of soil health can lead to more
informed purchasing decisions. Choosing whole, minimally processed foods
and supporting sustainable agricultural products can drive demand for
healthier options (Lal, 2009; Monteiro et al., 2019).
Reducing
Food Waste: Reducing food waste is another important individual action
that can contribute to global sustainability. By planning meals, using
leftovers, and composting organic waste, consumers can reduce the
environmental impact of their food consumption (FAO, 2011).
Supporting
Sustainable Brands: Consumers can choose to support brands that
prioritize sustainability, ethical sourcing, and healthy products. By
directing purchasing power towards companies that align with these values,
individuals can encourage the broader food industry to adopt more
sustainable practices (Hartmann et al., 2015).
In Summary: Addressing the global health implications
of ultra-processed food consumption and soil degradation requires a
comprehensive societal response that involves coordinated action from
governments, the private sector, civil society, and individuals. By implementing
policies that promote healthy eating, sustainable agriculture, and consumer
education, society can mitigate the health and environmental impacts of these
challenges and move towards a more sustainable and equitable food system.
Conclusions
The convergence of soil degradation and the proliferation of
ultra-processed foods represents a significant threat to global health. The
depletion of essential nutrients in soils, coupled with the rise of
nutrient-poor processed foods, exacerbates the global burden of
non-communicable diseases. Addressing this issue requires a multi-faceted
approach, including:
adoption of sustainable innovative agricultural
practices (including organic fertilization),
stricter regulation of food processing and
innovative agricultural practicies,
incentives for less processed food,
greater public awareness of the nutritional
quality of foods.
Beach RH, et al. (2019). Combining the effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on protein, iron, and zinc availability and projected climate change on global diets: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Health. Jul;3(7):e307-e317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(19)30094-4.
Bouis, H.E. and Welch, R.M. (2010), Biofortification—A Sustainable Agricultural Strategy for Reducing Micronutrient Malnutrition in the Global South. Crop Sci., 50: S-20-S-32. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2009.09.0531
Cakmak, I., & Marschner, H. (1988). Zinc-dependent changes in ESR signals, NADPH oxidase and plasma membrane permeability in cotton roots. Physiologia Plantarum, 73(1), 182-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1988.tb09214.x
Colchero, M. A., et al. (2016). Beverage purchases from stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages: observational study. BMJ, 352, h6704. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6704
Cordell, D., Drangert, J. O., & White, S. (2009). The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 292-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.009
Davis, D. R., et al. (2004). Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 23(6), 669-682. https://doi.org/10.1080/07315724.2004.10719409
Drewnowski, A., & Darmon, N. (2010). The economics of obesity: dietary energy density and energy cost. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 82(1), 265S-273S. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/82.1.265S
Fan, M. S., et al. (2008). Evidence of decreasing mineral density in wheat grain over the last 160 years. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, 22(4), 315-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtemb.2008.07.002
Fiolet, T., et al. (2018). Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. The BMJ, 360, k322. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k322
Glanz, K., & Yaroch, A. L. (2004). Strategies for increasing fruit and vegetable intake in grocery stores and communities: policy, pricing, and environmental change. Preventive Medicine, 39(Suppl 2), S75-S80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.01.004
Gliessman, S. R. (2015). Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17881
Gupta, U. C., & Gupta, S. C. (2000). Selenium in soils and crops, its deficiencies in livestock and humans: Implications for management. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 31(11-14), 1791-1807. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103620009370538
Hartmann, M., & Siegrist, M. (2015). Consumer perception and behavior regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 44(1), 2-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.12.006
Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 304(5677), 1623-1627. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396
Lal, R. (2015). Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation. Sustainability, 7(5), 5875-5895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7055875
Lang, T., & Rayner, G. (2012). Ecological public health: the 21st century’s big idea? An essay by Tim Lang and Geof Rayner. BMJ, 345, e5466. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e5466
Mayer, A. M. (1997). Historical changes in the mineral content of fruits and vegetables. British Food Journal, 99(6), 207-211. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070709710181540
Mendonça, R. D., et al. (2017). Ultra-processed food consumption and the incidence of hypertension in a Mediterranean cohort: The SUN Project. American Journal of Hypertension, 30(4), 358-366. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajh/hpw137
Monteiro, C. A., et al. (2019). Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutrition, 22(5), 936-941. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018003762
Mozaffarian, D., et al. (2018). Role of government policy in nutrition—barriers to and opportunities for healthier eating. BMJ, 361, k2426. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2426
Rengel, Z., & Graham, R. D. (1995). Wheat genotypes differ in zinc efficiency when grown in the chelate-buffered nutrient solution. I. Growth and zinc uptake. Plant and Soil, 176, 307-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00011795
Sadeghirad, B., et al. (2016). Influence of unhealthy food and beverage marketing on children’s dietary intake and preference: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Obesity Reviews, 17(10), 945-959. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12445
Schulte, E. M., et al. (2015). Which foods may be addictive? The roles of processing, fat content, and glycemic load. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0117959. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117959
Smith, P., et al. (2015). Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415416.017
Srour, B., et al. (2019). Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé). The BMJ, 365, l1451. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1451
Taillie, L. S., et al. (2020). An evaluation of Chile’s law of food labeling and advertising on sugarsweetened beverage purchases from 2015 to 2017: A before-and-after study. PLOS Medicine, 17(2), e1003015. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003015
van der Wiel, B.Z., Neuberger, S., Darr, D. et al. (2023). Challenges and opportunities for nutrient circularity: an innovation platform approach. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-023-10285-x
Wakefield, S., et al. (2007). Growing urban health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promotion International, 22(2), 92-101. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dam001
Welch, R. M., & Graham, R. D. (2004). Breeding for micronutrients in staple food crops from a human nutrition perspective. Journal of Experimental Botany, 55(396), 353-364. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erh064
White, P. J., & Broadley, M. R. (2005). Historical variation in the mineral composition of edible horticultural products. Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology, 80(6), 660-667. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2005.11511995
Introduction to REACH: REACH is a key tool for chemical management in companies operating within the European Union. The introduction of this regulation aims to protect human health and the environment through better management of risks associated with chemicals (ECHA, 2020, Barlow et al., 2015; Fisk, 2013).
Benefits of Implementing REACH: REACH is a mechanism that not only helps companies comply with legal requirements but also offers long-term benefits such as improved workplace safety, health protection, and enhanced company reputation (Ciatti et al., 2021, Hammerschmidt & Marx, 2014, ECHA, 2016 ).
Improved Workplace Safety and Health Protection: There is broad consensus in the scientific literature that implementing REACH positively impacts workplace safety. Research shows that reducing exposure to harmful chemicals leads to fewer accidents and occupational diseases (Bodar et al., 2018; Frick, 2011, Wachter & Yorio, 2014, Godderis et al., 2024).
Compliance as a Risk Management Strategy: Compliance with REACH regulations is crucial to avoiding legal sanctions, as emphasized in scientific studies. This compliance is also seen as a strategic element of risk management in companies, which can lead to an increase in their market value (Ramos et al., 2020; Black & Baldwin, 2012, Vogel, 2010).
Increased Competitiveness and Sustainable Development: Implementing REACH can contribute to increased competitiveness by improving the company’s reputation for sustainable development. Studies suggest that companies adhering to REACH are perceived as more socially and environmentally responsible, which can attract new customers and partners (Hale et al., 2015; Kontogiannis et al., 2017, Worthington, 2013).
Challenges of Implementing REACH: While the benefits are usually highlighted, it’s also important to address the challenges associated with implementing REACH, which are discussed in the literature.
Implementation Costs: One of the main challenges is the high costs associated with implementing REACH, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Research indicates that these costs may include not only the registration of substances but also risk assessments and compliance monitoring (Salguero-Caparrós et al., 2020; Sutton, 2014).
Complexity and Bureaucracy: REACH is often criticized for its complexity and administrative demands. The process of registering and evaluating substances is time-consuming and requires significant resources, which can be challenging for SMEs (Li & Guldenmund, 2018; Robinson et al., 2020).
Recommendations: Given the challenges posed by implementing REACH, it is recommended to take steps such as identifying the chemicals used, conducting risk assessments, training employees, and regular monitoring (Pidgeon, 1991).
Importance of Training: Studies show that regular employee training in the safe handling of chemicals is crucial for the effective implementation of REACH. These training sessions should cover both theoretical and practical aspects to increase awareness and preparedness among employees (Gander et al., 2011; Walters et al., 2011).
Monitoring and Auditing: Regular monitoring of REACH compliance and conducting internal audits are essential to maintaining compliance and minimizing risk (Bahr, 2014; Reese, 2018).
Conclusion: The article rightly emphasizes that REACH is not just a legal obligation but also a tool for improving workplace safety and health protection within an enterprise. While implementing REACH comes with certain challenges, the long-term benefits, such as better employee health protection, compliance with regulations, and increased competitiveness, outweigh these difficulties. Therefore, it is worth investing in the REACH implementation process to ensure the safety and sustainable development of the company (Black, 2010; Majone, 2010).
Would You like to find out how our project can help You with REACH – fill in the form and we will contact You shortly: https://forms.gle/6YJgSAJiPpmSQbJW6
Bibliography (with
links to original publications)
Bahr, N. J. (2014). System safety engineering and risk assessment: A practical approach. Available here.
Barlow, S. M., Boobis, A. R., Bridges, J., Cockburn, A., & others. (2015). The role of hazard-and risk-based approaches in ensuring food safety. Trends in Food Science & Technology, Volume 46, Issue 2, Part A, Pages 176-188 Available here.
Gander, P., Hartley, L., Powell, D., Cabon, P., & others. (2011). Fatigue risk management: Organizational factors at the regulatory and industry/company level. Accident Analysis & Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.11.007
Godderis L, et al., 2024, Towards a more effective REACH legislation in protecting human health. Toxicol Sci. 2024 May 28;199(2):194-202. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfae025.
Hale, A., Borys, D., & Adams, M. (2015). Safety regulation: The lessons of workplace safety rule management for managing the regulatory burden. Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.11.012.
Kontogiannis, T., Leva, M. C., & Balfe, N. (2017). Total safety management: principles, processes, and methods. Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.09.015.
Pidgeon, N. F. (1991). Safety Culture and Risk Management in Organizations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22(1), 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022191221009
Ramos, D., Afonso, P., & Rodrigues, M. A. (2020). Integrated management systems as a key facilitator of occupational health and safety risk management: A case study in a medium-sized waste management firm. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121346
Robinson, C., Portier, C. J., & Čavoški, A., et al. (2020). Achieving a high level of protection from pesticides in Europe: Problems with the current risk assessment procedure and solutions. European Journal of Risk Regulation. 11(3):450-480. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2020.18.
Salguero-Caparrós, F., Pardo-Ferreira, M. C., & others. (2020). Management of legal compliance in occupational health and safety: A literature review. Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.08.033.
Sutton, I. (2014). Process risk and reliability management. Available here.
Wachter, J. K., & Yorio, P. L. (2014). A system of safety management practices and worker engagement for reducing and preventing accidents: An empirical and theoretical investigation. Accident Analysis & Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.07.029 .
Walters, D., Johnstone, R., Frick, K., Quinlan, M., & others. (2011). Regulating workplace risks: A comparative study of inspection regimes in times of change. Available here.
Worthington, I. (2013). Greening Business: Research, Theory, and Practice. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780199535224, Available here.
In the ever-evolving landscape of sustainability, the circular economy stands out as a promising solution to many of our environmental challenges. By focusing on reducing waste and making the most of resources, the circular economy can significantly mitigate environmental degradation. However, implementing circular principles in food delivery presents unique challenges that require innovative solutions.
The Complexity of Food Delivery Systems
Food delivery systems are intricate networks involving multiple stakeholders, including suppliers, restaurants, delivery services, and consumers. Transitioning from a linear to a circular model in this sector is complex due to the diverse and interconnected nature of these systems. Each stakeholder has different priorities and capabilities, making it difficult to implement uniform circular practices. For instance, while some restaurants might easily adopt reusable packaging, delivery services need to manage the logistics of returning these packages. This complexity necessitates a coordinated approach, where each stakeholder’s role and responsibilities are clearly defined and supported by robust infrastructure and policy frameworks.
Consumer Behavior and Mindset
One of the most significant challenges in promoting circularity in food delivery is changing consumer behavior and mindset. Many consumers are accustomed to the convenience of single-use packaging, which offers quick disposal without the need for cleaning or returning items. Shifting this mindset towards a more sustainable approach requires a cultural change, driven by awareness and incentives. Educational campaigns highlighting the environmental impacts of single-use plastics and the benefits of reusable alternatives are essential. Moreover, providing incentives such as discounts for using reusable containers or penalties for opting for single-use items can nudge consumers towards more sustainable choices. However, these measures need to be carefully designed to avoid inconvenience that might discourage adoption.
Infrastructure and Logistics
The infrastructure required to support circular food delivery systems is another significant hurdle. Establishing a system where reusable packaging is collected, cleaned, and redistributed involves considerable logistical challenges. This requires investment in cleaning facilities, efficient collection routes, and partnerships with delivery companies. Moreover, urban environments vary greatly in their capacity to support such systems. Cities with dense populations might find it easier to implement centralized cleaning facilities and efficient collection systems, while smaller or more spread-out areas may struggle with the logistics and cost-effectiveness of such solutions.
Regulatory and Policy Frameworks
Effective implementation of circular economy principles in food delivery also depends on supportive regulatory and policy frameworks. Governments play a crucial role in setting standards, providing incentives, and enforcing regulations that promote circular practices. However, developing and enforcing these policies can be challenging. Regulations need to balance the interests of businesses and consumers while ensuring environmental benefits. Policies might include bans on single-use plastics, mandates for reusable packaging, and incentives for businesses that adopt circular practices. However, without proper enforcement and support, such policies might not achieve their intended impact.
Technological Innovation
Technological innovation is key to overcoming many of the challenges associated with circular food delivery systems. Advances in materials science can lead to the development of more durable and sustainable packaging options. Digital platforms can streamline the logistics of collecting and redistributing reusable containers, making the process more efficient and user-friendly. However, adopting new technologies requires investment and willingness to experiment. Small businesses, in particular, may find it difficult to allocate resources towards such innovations without support from larger companies or government initiatives.
Economic Viability
The economic viability of circular food delivery systems is a critical consideration. While the long-term benefits of circularity include reduced waste management costs and environmental impact, the initial investment can be high. Businesses need to see a clear economic benefit to invest in reusable packaging systems, infrastructure, and technology. Creating a business model that balances environmental sustainability with economic viability is essential. This might involve collaborative approaches where costs and benefits are shared among stakeholders, government subsidies or incentives, and innovative pricing strategies that reflect the true cost of single-use versus reusable packaging.
Conclusion
The transition to a circular economy in food delivery presents numerous challenges, from changing consumer behavior and developing infrastructure to creating supportive regulatory frameworks and ensuring economic viability. However, these challenges are not insurmountable. With coordinated efforts from all stakeholders, technological innovation, and supportive policies, the food delivery sector can move towards a more sustainable and circular model. By addressing these challenges head-on, we can create a food delivery system that not only meets our convenience needs but also aligns with our environmental and sustainability goals. This transition requires a collective effort, but the benefits for our planet and future generations make it a journey worth undertaking.
Contact:
Would You like to find out more about our activities, please follow us on Internet and Social Media (Facebook, LInkedIn, X (formerly Twitter)). Would You like to find out whether there is a possibility to join the project as an associated partner: please fill in the short questionnaire (5 questions) here or contact coordinator for Poland (Dr inż. Andrzej Tonderski) here.
In the quest for sustainability, the public sector plays a crucial role. Through Green Public Procurement (GPP), municipalities and governments can set a powerful example by choosing goods and services that have a reduced environmental impact. However, achieving true sustainability requires more than just a focus on green products; it requires a holistic approach that integrates chemicals, climate, and circularity. This is where the ChemClimCircle project steps in.
What is ChemClimCircle?
ChemClimCircle is an innovative project designed to address the complex interplay between chemicals, climate, and circularity in public procurement processes. The project’s primary aim is to ensure that materials procured by municipalities are not only circular and climate-neutral but also free from harmful toxins. This integrated approach is crucial for creating a truly sustainable and safe circular economy.
The Need for Integration
Public procurement is a powerful tool for driving environmental change. However, traditional procurement practices often overlook the interconnectedness of chemical safety, climate impact, and material circularity. For instance, a product might be climate-neutral but contain harmful chemicals, or it might be free of toxins but contribute to greenhouse gas emissions during its lifecycle. To address these gaps, ChemClimCircle focuses on developing a comprehensive procurement concept that assesses the interlinks, conflicts, and dependencies between these three critical aspects. By doing so, it aims to provide municipalities with the guidance and tools needed to make informed, sustainable procurement decisions.
Key Components of ChemClimCircle
Concept Development: • Assessing the interconnections between circularity, chemical risks, and climate neutrality. • Identifying potential conflicts and dependencies in procurement processes. Guidance and Training: • Creating detailed guidance documents and training modules for procurement specialists and decision-makers in municipalities. • Ensuring these materials are practical and applicable to real-world scenarios. Internal and External Management Strategies: • Developing internal strategies for municipalities to coordinate ChemClimCircle aspects. • Providing external support for municipalities, particularly in the Eastern Baltic Sea Region, through round tables and collaborative efforts. Stakeholder Engagement: • Mapping target groups and initiating dialogues with stakeholders. • Creating platforms for larger collaborative actions and networking opportunities. International Collaboration: • Organizing international think tank workshops to discuss findings, share best practices, and receive feedback from a diverse group of experts.
Transforming Public Procurement
ChemClimCircle aims to transform public procurement by embedding the principles of chemicals safety, climate neutrality, and circularity into the procurement processes. This involves:
Assessing Procurement Processes: Municipalities need to evaluate their current procurement practices to identify areas where improvements can be made in terms of sustainability.
Developing Comprehensive Criteria: Establishing procurement criteria that ensure products and services are circular, climate-neutral, and free from harmful chemicals.
Training and Capacity Building: Providing ongoing training for procurement officials to keep them informed about the latest sustainable procurement practices and standards.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Continuously monitoring procurement outcomes to ensure they align with the ChemClimCircle principles and making adjustments as necessary.
Benefits of Integrated Green Public Procurement
By integrating chemicals, climate, and circularity into public procurement, municipalities can:
Reduce Environmental Impact: Lower greenhouse gas emissions, decrease waste, and minimize the use of toxic substances.
Enhance Public Health: Promote the use of non-toxic materials, leading to healthier environments for residents.
Promote Innovation: Encourage the development and adoption of sustainable products and services.
Lead by Example: Set a standard for sustainable practices that can inspire other sectors and regions to follow suit.
The Road Ahead
As ChemClimCircle progresses, it aims to create a ripple effect, influencing more municipalities and regions to adopt integrated procurement practices. By addressing the critical links between chemicals, climate, and circularity, the project sets a new standard for sustainable public procurement. For those involved in public procurement, the ChemClimCircle project offers invaluable insights and practical tools to navigate the complexities of sustainable procurement. By adopting these practices, municipalities can not only reduce their environmental footprint but also lead the way towards a safer, healthier, and more sustainable future. Stay tuned for more updates on our journey towards integrating chemicals, climate, and circularity in Green Public Procurement. Together, we can make a difference!
For more information about the ChemClimCircle project and how you can get involved (fill in the formular here), visit our website and follow us on social media. Let’s work together for a sustainable future! 🌍🌿🔄
