Establishment politicians in Belgium had been aware of a problem since at least 2017, but it was only when local residents became involved that the pollution caused by chemical company 3M in Zwijndrecht, near Antwerp, came to light. Now local residents and workers at 3M and other chemical companies are very concerned. What is still in the ground? What does this mean for our health? And above all: can we do anything about it?
What is perfluorooctane sulfonate?
PFOS, or perfluorooctane sulfonate, is a chemical belonging to the broad family of PFAS (poly — and perfluoroalkyl substances). There are around 6,000 such substances. They have such a strong molecular structure that they are barely degradable. They only disintegrate when heated to 1200 to 1500 degrees. Although it is possible to filter soil and water, it is still necessary to burn the substances at these extreme temperatures. It is still unclear what ends up in the air during combustion… In this sense, these ‘eternal chemicals’ are comparable to radioactive waste.
Workers at 3M are represented by the Algemene Centrale Antwerpen-Waasland (General Union Antwerp-Waasland) of the ABVV. We spoke to union secretary Levi Sollie.
How do 3M employees feel about the discussion about pollution?
“Of course, they feel they are used as emotional playthings. Their company has been at the centre of media attention for weeks now. There is also a lot of uncertainty about the substances that many of them have worked with for years.”
There is an investigation by 3M itself, the Flemish Parliament is doing an investigation. What are the trade union proposals on this?
“3M’s central position is that ‘there is no scientific evidence that PFOS damages health’. Yet there are many scientific studies and reports that claim the opposite. 3M stopped production of PFOS at the beginning of this century. In Zwijndrecht that happened in 2002. Today, of the 168 workers who were here before 2002, about 70 are still employed.”
“We demand that any consequences of exposure to PFOS continue to be monitored and followed up. This applies to both workers who are still employed and to those who have left the company in the meantime.”
“The legislation provides that workers exposed to chemical agents can continue to benefit from monitoring of their health status after the end of exposure. The employer is responsible for this. The only problem is that this legislation is still a dead letter today.”
“We therefore call for urgent action to be taken now to ensure continued health surveillance for all workers. This should also be done for former employees. We also demand that this be done independently of 3M. If necessary, the government must write to the ex-workers and invite them to participate in annual health surveillance checks.”
“There should also be clarity for the workers regarding their blood levels. 3M started a new blood test in September. Many of the current and a limited group of ex-employees are participating. We want the analysis and reporting of these samples not to be left solely to 3M. An independent government agency should be involved.”
How can the labour movement exercise more control?
“Companies should be required to share the knowledge they have about chemicals and production processes much more with the community. We remain too much in the dark about the possible effects of chemical substances on people and the environment. This argument applies even more to the many new substances that have come onto the market in recent years.”
“The government must ensure that the inspection services are given more resources. They must again do what they were set up to do: carry out frequent inspections in the field. It is important that they also have the necessary expertise. More doctors, chemists, physicists and engineers should be recruited to be able to inspect efficiently.”
“Trade unions and union representatives must also be able to call on the expertise of the inspection services. The threshold for contacting inspection services must be lowered.”
“The powers of the CPBW (Committee for Prevention and Protection at Work, in which elected representatives of the workers participate) must be increased. The law states that we are entitled to all documents on safety and welfare, but in practice shop-stewards often do not receive them. The facilities for shop-stewards must be expanded. Many are now signalling that they are practically unable to leave the shop floor because of ever-tighter shift patterns and the rising work pressure in general.”
“Their task in the committee therefore becomes much more difficult to perform in practice. They hardly have the time and space to go deeper into issues such as legislation on chemical agents or environmental legislation. Performing your job as an elected committee member means that you should have the time to discuss and consult with colleagues about safety and welfare. It means that, for example, you should be able to go to the scene of an accident at work. That possibility is often not there now. The role of shop-stewards in safety and welfare policy must once again become central. We will have to work harder to achieve this, because the employers will not do it for us.”
To make us pay more for energy or transport, the ‘polluter pays’ argument is used. How about the real polluters like 3M?
“In the US, 3M has already made several settlements or been ordered to pay large damages. Analysts at Merrill Lynch estimate that the damage claims still awaiting 3M could run into the billions of dollars.”
“It is an important principle that the polluter pays, but above all we must ensure that environmental damage is not done. We cannot continue to tolerate pollution. Chemical companies must follow the rules in force and be transparent about what they produce and what products they work with.”
These chemicals are used in products such as raincoats, fire extinguishing foam, packaging, cleaning products, and non-stick pans. They are water-repellent and heat-resistant, which means there is much interest in their use. To date, there are no fully-fledged alternatives to PFAS.
Until 2002, PFOS was used by 3M. The company stopped using it at that time, probably because of the health risks it posed. Management had denied the fact, but since the 1970s it had known that PFOS was dangerous. As Harvard professor Philippe Grandjean, who specialises in the health effects of PFAS, explained:
“Had we known in the late 1970s what 3M knew at the time, we as scientists would have paid attention to this issue much sooner.”
3M did nothing. In the late 1990s, the company’s environmental specialist resigned in protest at the failure to address the safety issues surrounding PFOS. The company preferred to jeopardise the health of its own staff rather than touch the profits of its shareholders.
In 2004, research showed that PFOS contamination levels in the area around 3M in Zwijndrecht were too high. In 2010, the company was sued in Minnesota for similar pollution. That lawsuit ended in 2018 when 3M settled for $850 million. Also in 2018, 3M made a settlement with Lantis, the building company on the large infrastructure project Oosterweelverbinding (to construct a tunnel under the Schelde river in Antwerp), over PFOS pollution in Zwijndrecht. This cost the chemical company 75,000 euros. Pollution in Belgium is much cheaper than in the US…
PFAS are everywhere in the environment, and to a greater or lesser extent they are also in our blood. It is now clear that some of these substances have negative effects on health, including the risk of cancer, a weakened immune system, and hormonal imbalance. The PFOS contamination in a radius of 15 kilometres around the 3M factory in Zwijndrecht is the worst in the world.
All political authorities knew about it, nobody did anything
Since PFOS production began in the 1960s, 3M executives have systematically withheld knowledge of the harm it does. Only when that became no longer possible, its production was stopped. In 2017, at the latest in 2018, almost all political authorities in Belgium knew about the contamination in Zwijndrecht. Those Flemish ministers who were responsible for the sector including the Christian-democrat Joke Schauvliege and the Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (N-VA) Ben Weyts knew about this, as did Lantis, in which the N-VA of Antwerp’s mayor and party chairman Bart De Wever plays a key role.
The authorities knew about the problem, but only worried about how they could manage any information, in fact mainly about how to keep the news out of the public eye. Why? The Oosterweel project could not be delayed; excavating the most heavily contaminated soil would have meant moving several thousand cubic metres, and any publicity about the contamination would have brought out the role of both the 3M management and the authorities. 3M management undoubtedly thought they could get away with it. For years too, the authorities either took no action or implemented extremely lax measures, even when permissible pollution levels were exceeded.
Only recently has Flemish minister Zuhal Demir (N-VA) found 3M and the company’s directors in default. Yet the government, through Lantis, had earlier reached an agreement with 3M whereby the company was largely exonerated. Moreover, the Flemish government has been responsible for years of austerity on environmental controls. The agency responsible for issuing permits and assessing environmental effects has been stripped of its human and financial resources. As a result, lifetime permits have been introduced allowing companies to determine the standards themselves. 3M, for example, managed to double the permissible level of 1 microgram of PFOS in discharge water to 2 micrograms. Otherwise, they would have had to purchase a new €300,000 analytical device. The company, which last year paid out 3.4 billion euros to its shareholders, thought this was too much.
In the absence of environmental inspectors, under the EU’s “SEVESO Directive” (supposedly to prevent a repeat of the horrific chemical accident in 1976 in the Italian city of Seveso) companies that produce, process, treat or store hazardous substances are allowed to inspect themselves. A proposal by the Environment Department in 2015 to introduce a database, to which companies had to upload their reports was swept off the table by the Flemish government in consultation with the employers’ federations. Control was not to be too easy either …
When the PFOS scandal was initially leaked, people living within a radius of 15 kilometres of the plant were urged not to eat eggs from chickens in their own garden. At the same time, it was decided that the construction workers who were digging into the polluted soil every day during the construction of the Oosterweel tunnel simply had to keep on working. The ‘building site of the century’ came first. We cannot count on the bosses and their politicians to protect our health!
Jobs and environment go hand in hand
Sometimes, attempts are made to create a conflict between measures to protect the environment and employment. If polluting companies are tackled, this will cost jobs, is the argument. We do not agree: standing up for healthy working conditions does not mean less work, on the contrary. A green transition would require millions of jobs worldwide in the reconversion of polluting companies and sectors, scientific research on sustainable production, green energy, public transport … Major changes are urgently needed, which cannot be implemented without employing millions of workers. Measures to control the escalating climate crisis are necessary to safeguard human life on the planet, and thus the jobs that go with it.
The labour movement has always been at the forefront of the fight against pollution. Prevention and protection at work must be enforced. For polluting companies, there is an urgent need for thorough medical and scientific monitoring by independent public bodies. Such monitoring must not be limited to the current employees, but must also extend to cover the health of former employees and pensioners.
The reconversion of polluting industries is needed. This must be done without redundancies. Staff must remain in employment while maintaining their working and pay conditions. The workers know what to produce, and how to do it and are therefore well placed to suggest alternatives. If these are focused not on increasing the profits of the shareholders, but on meeting the social benefits of production, many companies and sectors can undoubtedly rapidly switch to safer production. This would benefit both workers and the environment. The know-how of the personnel in polluting companies and sectors is crucial for organising a green transition.
Today, the profit motive stands in the way of transparency about the extensive pollution scandal in Zwijndrecht. It goes without saying that this pursuit of profit is an obstacle to more fundamental change. To eliminate it, large companies and key sectors (such as energy, finance, chemicals, etc.) must be taken into public hands. In a nationalised sector under the control and management of the sector’s workforce and the community, a planned approach can be developed to meet the needs of people and the planet. For this, we should not count on the established politicians, but build with the labour movement a balance of forces that will enable us to put an end to capitalism.
