DISCUSSION ON NEW EU CHEMICALS LEGISLATION PICKS UP SPEED

The review and consultation period on the proposed European chemicals legislation, which ended on 10 July 2003 (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 5 March 2003), attracted a large number of comments from a wide range of stakeholders. European and American civil society groups welcomed the draft. In a rarely seen constellation European and US based industry dismissed the proposal, while British scientists proposed a compromise approach. However all groups agree that the current legislation urgently needs revision.

Termed REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restrictions of Chemicals), the 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.

Civil Society Applauds Draft Legislation

As part of the consultation process a major coalition of European civil society groups -- including consumers, trade and women's groups -- handed in a declaration on 8 July to support the draft legislation of the European Commission. In the declaration "For a Toxics Free Future" groups are calling on the Commission to ensure that the REACH legislation includes, inter alia, an obligation to phase out and substitute chemicals that accumulate in wildlife, humans or the environment and those that disrupt hormones; the right-to-know of consumers and business, including knowing what chemicals are present in products; and that products imported into the EU have to conform to the same safety standards as those made in the EU.

In addition to the European Declaration, 60 organisations based in the United States together with several thousand US citizens handed in a separate declaration also supporting the EU draft legislation and at the same time criticising the US government, which has rejected the proposed legislation. The US-based groups argue that the new legislation will offer a unique opportunity to control the spread of chemicals worldwide, in particular when taking into account that Europe is globally the largest producer of chemicals.

Industry and US government: Draft Is Unacceptable

While non-governmental groups are very much in favour of the new draft legislation, the international chemicals industry is greatly concerned and argues that the proposed new laws will cost jobs and will be far too expensive. Although the industry acknowledges that new legislation is needed, acknowledging that the previous laws had failed to prevent the release of hazardous chemicals on the market in the 1980s, they strongly resist the shift in the burden of proof. Under the new draft legislation the burden of proof would lie with the industry for testing and risk assessment of some 30,000 chemicals and no longer with authorities. The European Commission has estimated that this assessment could cost up to EUR 7 billion, while industry is estimating that it will cost between EUR 14 and 26 billion to carry out tests and related administration. In addition Eggert Voscherau, Deputy Chairman of BASF -- one of the world's biggest chemicals companies -- warns that approximately 2 million European jobs would be in danger if the new legislation were approved. He added that in particular small and medium sized firms would be heavily affected by the proposed legislation. In a rarely seen coalition US industries supported their European colleagues saying that the plans "would be difficult, if not impossible to implement in an efficient and effective way."

Scientists Propose Alternative System

A recently released report by the British Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution supports the need for a stricter chemicals legislation stating that the current legislation was "a gigantic experiment with all living things". Sir Tom Blundell the Chairman of the Commission said that: "Current approaches to assessing and managing the risks of man-made chemicals in the environment are cumbersome, unsound and rely heavily on animal testing. We want to see a government strategy to achieve a steady, measurable reduction in the use of hazardous chemicals." However, the report also notes that the current proposal by the European Commission would take more than 50 years to implement, and would be financially too expensive and include a too high amount of animal testing. Instead the report recommends a "quick check" system which would test all 30,000 chemicals within the next three years. Under this system chemicals would be tested according to their toxicity, how long they last in the environment before being broken down, and their tendency to accumulate in the bodies of animals. These data should be made publicly available and a charging-system should be developed related to the level of risk associated with using the particular chemical, which would help finance the new system. The Royal Commission expects most chemicals to be of no particular concern.

It is now up to the European Commission to consolidate the inputs by the various groups, finalise the proposal and forward it to a first hearing in the European Parliament and Council within the next five months.

WTO Members highlight trade concerns

The EC chemical legislation was also discussed on the 2 July meeting of the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). The EU had submitted information on its draft chemical legislation to the TBT Committee in late May (G/TBT/W/208) and informed Members on the current consultation process. The US, Australia, Mexico, Japan, China, Malaysia, Korea, Ecuador and Australia outlined a number of concerns relating to the legislation, including its complexity and cost of compliance. Some Members also questioned why the EU was taking a unilateral approach on this issue, as work was ongoing under the OECD to create harmonised principles on chemicals.

Additional Resources

Further information on the EU Directives and Regulation can be found on the EurActive website.

"Chemical groups set to reject EU environment laws," FT, 9 July 2003; "Protect us from hazardous chemicals, say European citizens," WWF, 8 July 2003; "Americans Declare Independence From Hazardous Chemicals," WWF-US, 1 July 2003; "Reducing the Risks," Process Engineering, 30 June 2003. ICTSD internal files.