Walking the tightrope to ensure safety and profits

The European Commission has an unenviable task in compiling its new White Paper on chemicals policy. 'One of the most important initiatives the Commission has taken in the context of sustainable development,' says environment commissioner Margot Wallström.

In devising the proposals, the Commission had to satisfy both the environmentalists' desire to curb the chemical industry, and the industry's clarion calls to protect its competitiveness. Not so much a political exercise, more a tightrope walk over a pirhana-infested, rock-encrusted, fast-flowing river, in a high wind.

The final result appears to have pleased nobody. Which probably indicates that the commission did a pretty good job.

The industry is one of the largest manufacturing sectors in Europe, a major export earner and one of the largest employers, but the increasingly high profile of environmentalists and the recent alarms over pollution and the effects of chemical products such as pesticides in foods, additives in plastics and oestrogen mimics in the environment have led to the industry's 'licence to operate' in the eyes of the public coming under threat.

It's no wonder, then, that the issues are proving contentious. And the ensuing slanging match is one of the most colourful in memory, with comments worthy of Prime Minister's Question Time. Friends of the Earth has called the White Paper 'pathetic' and claimed that the EC has 'rolled over and allowed the chemical industry to tickle its tummy,' as the proposals 'will do nothing to tackle the increases in hormone-related diseases such as testicular cancer and prostate cancer, nor the disturbing reductions in sperm count and accelerating puberty in girls.'

Meanwhile, the CIA has responded by claiming that the 'multi-billion-Euro bureaucratic control system panders to [the environmentalists'] scaremongering' and asserting that 'the proposals would lead to a serious migration from Europe of one of our most successful industries, while achieving no more than the industry's proposals for a targeted risk-based approach to chemicals management.'

Unlike parliamentary debate, however, this cannot be dismissed as good clean knockabout name-calling. It's no exaggeration to say that the issues tackled in the White Paper are matters of life and death, particularly where they concern the long-term effects and environmental fates of chemicals. And, of course, the livelihoods of millions depend on the chemical industry.

It's fortunate, then, that there is common ground between the sides. For example, the international effort by the chemical industries of Europe, the US and Japan to determine the safety profiles of thousands of common industrial chemicals should aid the EC's insistence on registration and authorisation of toxic and hazardous substances.

The White Paper is not yet law. We no doubt have many months of acrimonious discussion in Brussels ahead of us. But all sides should ensure that their discussions centre around the issues and do not descend into abuse. Far too much is at stake.