Study on life cycle assessments relaunches PVC debate 

• comparisons of life cycle assessments of PVC should be undertaken at the level of applications (windows, roofing, flooring, packaging, pipes, cables, toys, medical etc) rather than at material level;
• LCAs should be complemented by risk assessments as LCAs themselves do not evaluate the effects of exposure and hazard related data;

The study points to mixed specific conclusions for the different PVC products under review:

• when comparing materials used for window frames, the study does not identify a "winner" in terms of preferable material; the most promising potential to reduce the environmental impact of windows lies in the optimisation of the design;
• when comparing materials used for flooring, linoleum has fewer environmental impacts than PVC floors;
• polymer solutions for roofing on the other hand have lower environmental impacts than bitumen systems;
• the results on pipes are very heterogeneous.

The European PVC industry hailed the PE Europe study and said that the review confirmed "that PVC is as good as any other material". In a press release by Vinyl 2010, it urges the Commission to "conclude the horizontal initiative on PVC" and states that "the PE Europe report demonstrates once more as the industry has always maintained that there is no need and no reason to discriminate against PVC".

Greenpeace issued a press release claiming the commission report "shows alternative materials are preferable to PVC". The environmental organisation also stated that the review proves that PVC recycling does not work. "Instead of looking for justifications to keep PVC on the market, the Commission should be seeking substitution of all PVC applications whenever safer alternatives are available".