08 Dec
2006 - The European Parliament Second Reading
vote on the proposed EU chemical legislation REACH
(Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of
Chemicals), will take place on 13 December in
Strasbourg. The last and most controversial issues
at stake were sealed in the deal agreed by Parliament,
Council and Commission on 30 November.
WWF presents here its overall
assessment of what is likely to be the final REACH
legislation.
Phasing out of hazardous chemicals
(Authorisation)
Crucially, two groups of chemicals
will be replaced whenever safer alternatives are
available: those that are persistent, bio-accumulative
and toxic (PBT) and those that very persistent
and very bio-accumulative (vPvB). Examples for
these categories are chemicals with DDT or PCB
like properties, but also some brominated flame
retardants (used in textiles and electronic goods)
and perfluorochemicals such as PFOS used in the
manufacture of kitchenware or textile finishings.
However, chemicals that are
known to cause cancer or birth defects, that affect
DNA or disturb the hormone system or cause other
serious illnesses (so-called CMRs and hormone
disrupting chemicals) will continue to be put
on the market even if safer alternatives are available.
Authorisation will be granted when the producers
can claim that exposure to these hazardous chemicals
can be ‘adequately controlled’ (i.e. kept below
a certain threshold) so as to pose no danger to
human health and the environment. New methodologies
for setting such thresholds will be developed
for continued use of such chemicals instead of
replacing them.
An example of a CMR chemical
that would fall under “adequate control” is the
phthalate DEHP (used as plasticizer in many consumer
articles), which is toxic to reproduction. An
example of a hormone disrupting chemical is Bisphenol
A, which was found in the blood of many participants
– including Ministers and Members of the European
Parliament - in WWF’s bloodtesting survey.
The claim that chemicals of
very high concern can be adequately controlled
has been refuted by numerous scientific studies
showing that hazardous industrial chemicals used
in consumer products are widespread in house dust,
rainwater, wildlife, in our own blood and that
of unborn infants. With the substitution principle
only applying to a small minority of chemicals,
many substances of very high concern will stay
on the market even when safer alternatives are
available. This loophole represents little change
from the current flawed system, which has failed
to control the most dangerous chemicals and hinders
safe, innovative products from entering the market.
Substitution plans
Some politicians may claim that it is a key step
forward that applicants are required to always
consider if safer suitable alternatives are available
and then provide a substitution plan. Unfortunately
a serious flaw is built into the system: substitution
plans will only be submitted when an applicant
company itself identifies a safer alternative.
Third party contributions will not be taken into
account until the review. This is therefore an
incentive for chemical companies to continue ignoring
the existence of safer alternatives.
Providing sufficient safety
information (Registration)
Further major weakening of the
registration requirements have been avoided in
this second round of negotiations in spite of
strong pressure from industry.
It is important, however, to
keep in mind that safety data required for registration
of chemicals have been drastically reduced at
first reading, in particular for chemicals produced
in 1-10 tonnes per year. As a result thousands
of chemicals could thus stay on the market, despite
no health information being available.
Access to information for consumers
REACH was supposed to give EU
citizens access to information about chemicals
to which they are exposed. However, the final
REACH text only allows the public to request information
about the presence of a limited number of hazardous
chemicals in products (those of very high concern).
Therefore, constant vigilance
by European consumers will be crucial to push
companies to give more guarantees on the safety
of their products in spite of the poor regulatory
requirements of REACH.
Conclusion
REACH means ‘work still in progress’
for a long time – not only for implementation
but because the last trade off in the negotiations
resulted in future reviews of many core elements
of the legislation, including whether or not to
substitute hormone disrupting chemicals, and whether
to provide a chemical safety report for 1-10 tonnes
per year CMR chemicals. Moving on from business
a usual to securing safer products and safer chemicals
is still a battle to be won.
Given all the loopholes and
legal uncertainty built up in the final REACH
text, effective improvements on the current situation
will largely depend on the tight scrutiny of the
European Chemical Agency, political will of Member
States and market pressure for safer products.
The very short term perspective taken in the REACH
reform is a missed opportunity for the European
Union to take a strong leadership in the global
market for safer chemicals and products.
REACH, a deal too far
01 Dec 2006 - European environmental,
women’s, health and consumer groups today denounced
a deal struck behind closed doors between representatives
of the European Parliament and the Council of
Ministers on the ‘REACH’ chemicals legislation.
If adopted at the plenary vote,
the deal will allow many chemicals of very high
concern - including many that cause cancer, birth
defects and other serious illnesses - to stay
on the market and be used in consumer products
even when safer alternatives are available. The
groups call on Parliamentarians to strengthen
REACH when they vote on the proposal in mid-December.
Last night, Parliament negotiators
accepted a deal based on cosmetic changes to the
Council’s flawed approach of ‘adequate control’.
This approach, championed by the chemicals industry,
is founded on the claim that our exposure to hazardous
chemicals can be controlled so as to pose no danger
to human health and the environment. This claim
has been refuted by numerous studies showing that
hazardous industrial chemicals used in consumer
products are widespread in house dust, rainwater,
wildlife, in our own blood and that of unborn
infants.
The deal confirms the Council’s
position of last December that substitution would
apply to persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals.
It also allows the public to request information
about the presence of a limited number of hazardous
chemicals in products.
The groups call on Members of
the European Parliament to close the loopholes
that will allow chemical companies to continue
using very hazardous substances even where safer
alternatives are available. The decision that
substitution plans will only be submitted when
the applicant company itself identifies a safer
alternative is an incentive for chemical companies
to continue ignoring safer alternatives.
REACH was originally conceived
to close the knowledge gap on chemicals and establish
an effective and coherent system for chemicals
management. However, with thousands of chemicals
already exempted from the requirement to provide
any health and safety information, and with no
systematic substitution for chemicals of very
high concern, this overly compromised REACH will
provide no real improvement to the current legislation.
Besides a missed opportunity
for Europe to take the lead in safer chemicals,
a REACH that fails to protect human health and
the environment will only further decrease public
trust in the chemical industry and in European
regulators.
