To ban or not to ban: The case for and against flame retardants and PVC

 EDN (Nevison) - The ROHS (restriction of hazardous substances) directive is currently being reviewed with extensive discussions by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. The European Parliament environment committee had proposed that all brominated and chlorinated flame retardants and PVC should be banned by ROHS. However, due to overwhelming opposition, this has been dropped and replaced by a requirement that the European Commission considers as a high priority: whether it is necessary to restrict these substances, as well as several others.

Some consumer electronics manufacturers have policies of not using halogenated flame retardants or PVC. This is partly in response to pressure from green groups and may also give a marketing advantage - a “greener” image. These manufacturers would benefit from these substances being banned as this would make it easier for them to force their suppliers to change the materials used in components that they use.

Most manufacturers however are opposed to banning these substances. The health and environmental benefits of such as ban are uncertain and appear to be limited, whereas the cost of substitution would be extremely high. A recent report found that the cost of replacing PVC could be as much as €20 billion (about $24.7 billion) per year, although this may be an over-estimate. Many of the possible alternatives have not been tested as extensively as the most common organohalogen flame retardants and PVC, and although most are probably safe, this cannot be known with certainty...