Together with Emmanuel Wauters, Dryade VZW published an opinion in De Standaard. Below is the full text:
The employees of 3M have also been exposed to PFOS. Did the company protect them sufficiently, Emmanuel Wauters and Dries Verhaeghe wonder.
In the 3M dossier, various perspectives have been discussed over the past month. It was about the impact on the Oosterweel connection, the settlement of Lantis, political responsibility, local residents, the statements from 3M…
We have heard nothing about the employees. In the squabble over a bridge and political responsibility, we have lost sight of them. The American chemical company has 565 employees in Belgium, spread across the headquarters in Diegem and the factory in Zwijndrecht.
They were on the front line of exposure to the toxic PFOS substances. It is therefore essential to investigate whether their employer has fulfilled its duty to protect them.
The facilities in Zwijndrecht were started up in 1971 and ceased production of PFAS, the group of chemicals to which PFOS belongs, in 2002. This newspaper has shown that 3M has known since the 1960s that PFOS are toxic (DS 19 June). In the 1970s, the company misled researchers from the University of Chicago about this. It was only when a researcher resigned in 1999 and the American Environmental Protection Agency started an investigation that 3M stopped production.
Prevention plan
The different types of PFAS are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative. This means that both humans and animals store them in their bodies. The more PFAS they ingest through food or air, the higher the PFAS concentration in the body and the greater the chance of a health impact. The substance affects, among other things, the liver, memory, and reproductive organs. To make matters worse, it is said to be carcinogenic.
Research from the University of Antwerp that started in 2002 (DS 5 July 2021), shows that mammals and birds in the Blokkersdijk nature reserve contain exceptionally high concentrations of PFOS. The nature reserve is located right next to the 3M site. The further away from the 3M site, the lower the concentration of PFOS.
Environmental association Dryade vzw filed a complaint with civil party status with the investigating judge in Antwerp on 23 June. The complaint focuses on environmental criminal law and the damage to nature and the environment, but the perspective of employees also deserves attention.
The obligations resting on the employer are listed in the Welfare Act and in the Code on welfare at work. They stipulate that the employer must guarantee the safety and health of employees. To this end, they conduct a risk analysis, take measures to prevent and remediate the identified risks, and inform their employees about it. These measures are listed in a global prevention plan and specified in an annual action plan.
The employer is assisted in this by the internal and external prevention services and the occupational physician. The trade unions provide advice in the committee for prevention and protection at work.
Criminal offences
In the chemical sector, to which 3M belongs, employees are potentially exposed to particularly harmful substances, such as chemical, carcinogenic or mutagenic substances, which can damage human DNA. In that case, a specific risk analysis is necessary, which provides for special protective measures for the staff.
This risk analysis also had to determine how to protect employees from contamination on 3M's sites after the cessation of PFOS production in 2002. Violations of this regulation are reported to the labour auditor and may lead to criminal sanctions.
Since 3M has been aware of the harmful effects on humans and animals for decades and the highest concentrations are measured on and around its sites, it must be investigated whether the company sufficiently protected the health and safety of its staff. Has it effectively taken all preventive measures? Have the prevention service, the occupational physician, the committee for prevention and protection at work, and the works council properly fulfilled the role assigned to them by law? Has 3M taken into account the specific requirements in the event of exposure to particularly harmful substances?
The PFOS investigation committee in the Flemish Parliament is the appropriate forum to answer those questions. The research questions were formulated broadly enough. If criminal violations come to light, the public prosecutor's office must be involved. That is the least our elected representatives can do for the employees of 3M.