Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 3 • Number 17 • 3rd October 2003
Fierce Battle over Review of EU Chemical Policy Continues
Fierce Battle over Review of EU Chemical Policy Continues
In response to comments received during the public consultation period (see BRIDGES Trade, BioRes, 11 July 2003), the European Commission is in the process of revising its proposal for the EU’s new chemicals legislation REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restrictions of Chemicals). The revised (and as yet unofficial) proposal introduces some key changes regarding, inter alia, the scope of the system, safety assessment requirements, substances in articles, and substitution with less dangerous chemicals. The revision is fast becoming one of the most fought over policy developments in EU history, pitching civil society groups and industry against each other in an effort to strike a balance between safety and competitiveness concerns.
Some key changes
The May proposal attracted severe criticism from industry groups for being overly burdensome and harmful to industry competitiveness. These concerns found strong backing from the governments of the UK, Germany and France. In a joint letter to European Commission President Romano Prodi, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder noted that the proposed legislation was “still a long way from being the fast, simple and cost-efficient procedure that was promise”. They called for less bureaucratic and complicated rules, a complete assessment of the proposal’s potential effects on industrial competitiveness, and a decisive role for the EU’s Competitiveness Council.
To address some of these concerns, the revised proposal would no longer apply to polymers — a wide range of plastics used in packaging, bottles, toys, pipes, CDs and other products — thereby removing an estimated 30,000 substances from the system (although registration might be required for “certain” polymers at an unspecified date). Moreover, the requirements for undertaking chemical safety assessment have been considerably reduced in the revised proposal. Also, the obligation to prepare chemical safety reports and pass them down the supply chain have been abandoned for quantities of less then 10 tons per year and for downstream users (expect when their use of the substance is not known to the upstream supplier).
In an effort to address concerns expressed by the EU’s main trading partners, the previously vague provisions for chemicals in imported articles have been clarified and softened. Thus, importers must now register substances in articles only if the substances have hazardous properties, are intended to be released from the products, and are present in the “article type” in quantities over 1 ton per year. For substances that are released incidental to the use of the article, a simple notification is required, provided that the quantity of the substance released “may adversely affect human health or the environment”. In the previous proposal, importers were required to register chemical substances “if during normal use and disposal they are released in quantities of over 1 tonne [per article type] and may adversely affect human health or the environment”.
In a response to environmentalists’ complaints that the May proposal did not incorporate a strong substitution test to assess whether dangerous substances could be substituted by less dangerous ones where suitable alternatives are available, the revised proposal now includes a clearer reference to substitution in the provisions on authorisation. Companies will be encouraged to present substitution plans that will influence the authorisation decision.
Civil society groups reject revised proposal
Environmental and consumer groups — including the European Consumers Association (CEUC), the European Environmental Bureau, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and WWF — strongly criticised the revisions, which they said revealed the European Commission’s plan “to make far-reaching concessions to industry”. They called on the Commission to “stand up to member state interference and industry pressure and take the necessary measures to protect European citizens, wildlife, and the environment from harmful chemicals”. Specifically, the criticised the watering down of requirements for providing safety data for “two-thirds of all chemicals”, excluding chemicals in consumer products from any effective control, continuing to allow the use of hazardous chemicals even when safer alternatives are available, and granting businesses new and excessive confidentiality rights. “REACH is a once-in-a-generation chance to tackle [the impacts of chemicals on wildlife and people] and restore confidence in chemicals,” said Tony Long, Director of WWF’s European Policy Office.
The Commission is expected to finalise its proposal by 29 October. Further changes might still be introduced into the (unofficial) proposal discussed here. The legislative proposal will then have to be discussed by the Council and the European Parliament in a co-decision procedure.
Background
The REACH legislation, which is based on a White Paper adopted by the Commission in June 2001, would replace 40 different pieces of current legislation. Among the most fundamental changes are provisions that would shift the burden of proof for the safety of chemicals from public authorities to companies that produce, import and use chemicals. The legislation would be administered by a new European Chemicals Agency. Direct and indirect costs for industry and society could amount to ca EUR 15-33 billion, while the occupational health benefits are estimated to reach EUR 18-54 billion over the next 30 years. Registration and approval procedures would vary depending on the amount of chemicals manufactured or imported, and the level of risk. While the vast majority of all chemicals would only need to be registered, authorisation would be required for substances of “very high concern,” such as carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxicants, subject to a risk assessment. To obtain authorisation for a specific use, the applicant would have to show that the risk from the use was adequately controlled or that socio-economic benefits outweighed the risks.
“Chemicals: Commission modifies legislative plans after successful consultation,” EURACTIV, 25 September 2003; “European Chemicals Authorization Plan Changed to Suit Industry,” ENS, 24 September 2003; “WWF slams Chirac-Schroeder-Blair letter against draft EU chemical law,” WWF, 23 September 2002; “NGOs call on European Commission to stop reversing on chemicals reform,” NGO PRESS RELEASE, 25 September 2003.