Parliament modifies White Paper on chemicals policy

It's a major victory for the chemical industry and, according to its lobbyists, for European industry as a whole.

The European Parliament's vote on the White Paper on chemicals policy late last year removed many of the contentious calls for increased regulation and testing of chemicals, which industry had argued would prove so expensive and time-consuming that it would render manufacture of many chemicals almost impossible.

The approach to registration of chemicals enshrined in the White Paper - Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals, or REACH - remains intact. However, the MEPs voted that substances produced in amounts below 1tonne per year should be exempt from registration; that the authorisation systems already in place for persistent, toxic and bioaccumulative materials may not need further strengthening; and that toxicity studies need not be independently peer-reviewed.

CEFIC, like the CIA, welcomed the European Parliament's vote. 'The chemical industry appreciates that the European Parliament has taken major amendments on board in order to keep the future system workable,' said Director General Alain Perroy. The moves toward avoiding the creation of 'a wide and unworkable scope for registration and authorisation' were particularly welcome, he added, as was 'Parliament's view that science must remain the essential basis for regulatory action.'

Although the European Parliament voted for the amendments to the White Paper, it remains concerned about the issues raised in the legislation, according to MEP Emilia Müller. A German Christian Democrat and member of committees covering the environment - and both a qualified chemical technologist and former biochemist - Müller told a recent conference that the Parliament had to respond to public concerns.

Quoting historian Eric Hobsbawm, she said that the public has four separate negative views on science: it's seen as incomprehensible; its practical and ethical consequences are seen as unforeseeable and likely to be disastrous; it makes individuals helpless and undermines authority; and it disrupts the natural order of things.

The White Paper aims to allay these fears by ensuring that chemicals in the environment are safe, but Müller acknowledges that this is difficult. 'A good balance struck between economics and environment improves the quality of life,' she stated. 'Industry, science and government therefore have to work together to increase knowledge of chemical substances and products and give the consumer adequate information and instructions for their use.

'Looking at the demands the new chemicals policy places on the risk evaluation of substances and therefore on the chemical industry, I think it is very important that we should evaluate substances not only by their properties, which often stigmatises them, but also by the uses to which they are put, thereby assessing any risk in accordance with the application,' she said. The business aspect and the environmental aspect go hand in hand, she indicated - 'it is all too easy to want dangerous substances to be replaced, restricted or banned, but I don't think this has much to do with sustainability,' she said.

Müller says that MEPs voted 'solidly against' a report compiled by the Green group of MEPs, which would have brought in even more stringent testing regimes. This 'over-the-top' report would have confronted Europe's chemical industry and control authorities with serious challenges it could scarcely have met,' she commented. 'Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) would be overwhelmed by extensive risk assessments. Substances made only in small quantities would be pushed off the market.' As SMEs make up 96 per cent of Europe's chemical industry, this is not a prospect which the Parliament could accept.

Replacement and banning of chemicals was one of the major arguments in the debate, she said. But the safety standards demanded by some are unrealistic. 'There is no such thing as zero risk, so we have to tackle what risk there is in a responsible way.'

Alain Perroy notes that CEFIC is preparing a pilot trial of the REACH system 'to test the feasibility and practicability of such a system.' But elsewhere, work is already underway on risk assessments. The Hera (human and environmental risk assessment) programme, for example, is aiming to screen products used in household detergents and make the results public 'in a transparent way'.

Established by CEFIC and the AISE (International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products) two years ago, Hera was the first joint voluntary risk assessment project between chemical producers and their downstream users.

Currently, the organisation is reviewing risk assessments for a fluorescent brightener and a zeolite.