As the EU’s draft REACH law on chemical safety reaches the European Parliament for a second reading on 12 December, greens and industry are still at loggerheads and tensions are fast resurfacing.
REACH – Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals – has been described as the most important EU legislative proposal in 20 years. It proposes that manufacturers and importers of chemicals produce health and safety tests for substances currently on the EU market. Additionally, enterprises that manufacture or import more than one tonne of a chemical substance per year would be required to register it in a central database over an 11-year period.
The European Commission believes that REACH will improve the protection of human health and the environment while maintaining the competitiveness and enhancing the innovative capability of the EU chemicals industry. Industries in Europe use thousands of chemicals for different products, ranging from shampoos to cars, which have never been tested for their effect on human health and the environment, despite evidence that they may cause cancer, damage the body’s hormone system or harm the environment.
Allergies, asthma, certain types of cancer and reproductive disorders are all on the increase in Europe and many believe that chemicals may be one of the major causes for this. The problem is that, due to very little knowledge about the effects, uses and handling of chemicals, this connection cannot be established clearly.
Under REACH, any chemical produced or imported in significant quantities has to be tested, unless sufficient safety information already exists, and the cost of this should be born by the producer or the importer. This applies also to the greater part of the 100,000 or so old chemicals placed on the market pre-1981, which have never been tested, except for those produced or imported in quantities under one metric tonne.
At present, it is up to the national public health authorities to test those chemicals they think might be hazardous, but statistics show that only 140 chemicals have been selected to undergo risk assessments. With the REACH directive in force, businesses can still make use of substances of very high concern, but only if the newly-set up European Chemicals Agency grants its authorisation under specific conditions and subject to continuous monitoring. The agency will also be encouraging companies to seek safer alternatives.
Current rules discourage industries from developing new chemicals, given that they are obliged to test new chemicals even if in small quantities of 10kg, but are exempted from testing pre-1981 ones. Thus, it is easier and cheaper for industries to stick with the old and untested chemicals than develop new ones. Statistics show that only 3,000 chemicals have been introduced since 1981. It is for this reason that under REACH, many of the old chemicals will also have to be tested, so that there are more opportunities for innovation.
One has to admit, however, that notwithstanding the benefits this legislation might bring about in terms of human health and the environment, it could also have repercussions on the European economy. The EU’s chemical industry its the third largest, encompassing 31,000 companies that employ 1.9 million people, making the EU the leading chemicals-producing area. Therefore, while health organisations, environmentalists and trade unions are arguing strongly in favour of the legislation, industries are trying to water it down, arguing that it increases red tape and production costs and leads to job losses, as it jeopardises Europe’s competitive edge.
The European Commission itself estimates that registration of chemicals and testing could cost companies up to e5.2 billion, but on the other hand it argues that if REACH succeeds in reducing chemical-related diseases by just 10 per cent, the health benefits are estimated to be ten-fold over a period of 30 years.
The REACH proposal had its first reading by the European Parliament in November 2005, where MEPs backed the so-called “substitution principle”, which requires companies to cease using dangerous chemicals and replace them with safer alternatives when these are available – a provision that had been fought hard by industry. At the extraordinary meeting of the Competitiveness Council that followed, ministers adopted a softer approach, allowing a number of exemptions to the replacement of toxic chemicals with harmless alternatives – a decision that led consumer and health groups to call for a stronger law.
The two decisions led to both plaudits and disappointments. CEFIC, the European Chemical Industry Council, welcomed the fact that substitution will not be introduced as a mandatory procedure and it also welcomed the council’s decision to review authorisation for dangerous substances on a case-by-case basis rather than time-limited authorisation that Parliament had voted for.
On the other hand, environmental, health and consumer, as well as women NGOs, expressed their disappointment at the outcome of the Council’s vote, slamming the Ministers’ decision to reject calls to substitute hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives. The NGOs argued that, despite chemical producers being required to assess substitutes for a hazardous chemical, decision-makers will still have to grant an authorisation under an “adequate control” procedure, even if safer alternatives are available.
And as the European Parliament, Council and Commission try to find a possible cost-effective and workable REACH before the plenary session of the Parliament, tensions are again running high, with greens and industry standing firm. Furthermore, leading medics are now also denouncing the law as incomplete, since it does not protect unborn children against possible brain development disorders caused by industrial chemicals such as pesticides and solvents.
How far will REACH go?
Ronald Mizzi is a research analyst at Forum Malta fl-Ewropa
[email protected]