legislation to ensure that before substances (chemicals) are put on the market, their possible effects, especially on human health, are thoroughly evaluated. Unfortunately, after intense lobbying and obstructionist tactics especially by the European Peoples’ Party (PN allies), these new rules in the diluted form adopted by the European parliament will largely fail to protect human health or the environment.
A deal between socialist and conservative MEPs has ensured that the heavy hand of mega-industry, especially the German one, can be seen all over this legislation, which has been redrafted to pander to cost-cutting and self-interest at the expense of European citizens’ health. The so-called Nassauer Compromise, adopted by the parliament, slashes the number of chemicals to be covered by the directive. It even weakens existing legislation for new chemicals by excluding chemicals produced in quantities of between 10kg and one tonne from its scope.
Last May the Greens in the European parliament criticised the EPP, including the three Nationalist members of parliament, of losing all independent judgment and adopting the position of the chemicals industry. So much for concern for human beings and the value of human life!
Obviously, we, as consumers, take advantage of the multiple benefits different chemicals used in the manufacture of various consumer products. However, the widespread use of certain chemicals, especially those which are persistent (meaning that they do not break down easily into simpler substances) or bio-accumulative (building up in the body without being excreted), just because they make a product look better or for purely economic benefits is a cause for concern.
Every substance can be classified as “a chemical”. Industrial processes and the market (e.g. a demand for brighter colours in certain products like children’s toys), however leads to the addition of substances to which the human body is not normally exposed to regularly.
Some chemicals do not even have to be present in high concentrations to be detrimental to health or the environment. Chemicals are truly beneficial when their use does not pose danger to human health and the environment.
Obviously not all substances pose such a danger – far from it. The purpose of REACH as originally proposed, was exactly that to ensure that the most dangerous, persistent and bio-accumulative substances are phased out of commercial use, encouraging their replacement with other substances. It does in fact accept the principle that the most toxic substances must be replaced with safer alternatives where available, but it creates exemptions for thousands of chemicals about which little is known.
Burden of proof should lie squarely on the companies who choose to use any particular substance in their manufacturing process, whatever the amount. It is only fair that companies making huge profits selling their consumer products provide a certain level of assurance that their products are safe. Industry should have an obligation to report that it has the necessary safety data to show that the intended uses of its chemicals do not adversely affect human health or the environment.
Three weeks ago Competitiveness and Communications Minister Censu Galea, on this newspaper, spoke of the need to strike a balance between competitiveness and safety. From when do economic considerations override everything else? Fortunately for us, case law of the European Court of Justice states that protection of public health must take precedence over economic considerations.
Safety should be our topmost priority while competitiveness vis-a-vis non-EU countries can be maintained by ensuring that chemicals in imported products are also subjected to the same rules as for those in EU-made products, ensuring a level playing field. It is also imperative that the necessary support to meet the new requirements of REACH chemical legislation be offered to small and medium enterprises. The strengthening of services the Malta Standards Authority can offer to SMEs, as the competent authority on REACH is one such means of support.
The prime target of REACH should remain the primary manufacturers of chemicals, that is the multi-national chemical companies. Looking at the estimated costs of the “original” REACH, it is crystal-clear that the costs are well worth it.
The chemical industry spends E8 billion a year in research and development. The cost of implementing the original REACH proposals to industry is estimated at 2.6 per cent of the annual research and development budget. Would it not be a good and very wise investment for the chemical industry to spend 2.6 per cent of its annual R&D budget into researching the properties and uses of the very chemicals they want to sell?
There have been other calculations based on savings from healthcare costs avoided by the future implementation of REACH. But the fact that only 2.6 per cent of the annual R&D budget of a billion dollar industry will be spent to better protect consumer and worker safety is enough justification for me. For those who consider economic benefits more important, another benefit will most probably have been re-investment of some profits into new jobs in technical areas necessary to implement REACH.
The proposals adopted last Thursday are so watered- down they could fail to deliver health or environmental benefits at all. Those who want weak “no data, no worries” legislation have won for the time being. Responsibility towards ourselves and our children however demands “no data, no market” legislation – those who introduce substances into consumer goods should carry the responsibility of declaring their properties. There is nothing wrong with reaping profits, nothing whatsoever, but social and environmental costs must be put into the equation; shirking responsibility is not on.
Ralph Cassar BSc, MBA is the spokesperson for Energy, Industry and IT and a member of the executive of Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party.
Email: [email protected]