Symphony did not win its case for compensation in the EU court because the EU officials and politicians can ignore the rules and get away with it.
The case shows that:
- they can legislate without an environmental impact assessment.
- they can circumvent all the safeguards against arbitrary banning of products, provided by the REACH Regulation
- they can ignore industry standards, written by experts.
- they do not need to make as thorough a scientific risk assessment as possible,” and their “scientific assessment need not be based on the best scientific data available.
- expert evidence paid for by the EU and others is compelling, but expert evidence paid for by the Claimant has “little or no probative value” in their courts, no matter how eminent the expert. This fatally undermines the credibility of the whole judgement.
- they can even disregard their own scientific experts – (The EU Chemicals Agency had said after ten months study that they were not convinced that microplastics are formed by oxo-BIOdegradable plastic). ECHA are independent scientists, and have disclosed that they had been under intense political scrutiny.
- The court cited the difference between oxo-degradable and oxo-BIOdegradable defined by CEN, and did not rule that they were the same.
If the court had accorded due weight to all the evidence, (including their own scientific experts ECHA, and including evidence which post-dated the Directive), we are confident that they would have found that Symphony’s d2w oxo-BIOdegradable plastic:
- Does properly biodegrade and does not leave microplastics behind
- Does biodegrade in compost .
- Can be recycled without separation.
- Does deliver an environmental benefit.
Categories
- News (102)
- Audio & Video (19)
- Corporate Interviews (13)