A possible way forward for evidence-based and risk-informed policy-making in Europe: a personal view

European regulatory policy, especially in the chemicals and environmental sectors, is not as predictable, evidence-based, risk-informed, or clear as it could be. There are a number of reasons for this, all somewhat related to the new more adversarial model of regulation. This includes the involvement of influential environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and member states (such as Denmark and Sweden) that are highly active in environmental and chemical control. In addition, we see the rise of the campaigning journalist or newspaper that often bases their articles on emotions rather than scientific facts - the UK <italic>Daily Mail</italic> newspaper is a typical example. Finally, a number of academics, think tanks, and stakeholders tend to amplify their research findings if there is a nice 'news hook' (such as this chemical may cause cancer, or this pharmaceutical is unsafe) without presenting their research findings within a wider context. In this article, I first briefly outline the history of environmental policy-making in Europe then discuss the rise of the new model of adversarial regulation. Secondly, I provide evidence of some of the unintended consequences of the new model, and give a couple of case study examples. In the concluding part of the essay, I offer possible solutions that could aid in helping to make chemical and environmental control policy in Europe more evidence-based and risk-informed.