Environment Committee MEPs said on Monday 11 October, during a discussion with the institution on the legislative initiatives to be expected, that It is time for the European Commission to act quickly on the EU’s “Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability”.
This strategy was adopted in October 2020, as part of the European ‘Green Deal’, to better protect people and the environment from hazardous chemicals and to encourage innovation to develop safe and sustainable alternatives (see EUROPE 12678/13).
The Commission is currently reviewing two key pieces of legislation: the REACH Regulation and the CLP Regulation on the classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals. The consultation was launched in May (see EUROPE 12713/10). “These two revisions are the core of the strategy. We want to reduce the use of the most harmful products”, said Commission representative Kestutis Sadauskas.
He highlighted that the Commission has also started to review certain legislation for products such as cosmetics and toys, with a view to preventing the use of the most harmful substances in these products. “Studies have been launched to support our work. We are constantly consulting with stakeholders. We intend to adopt the revision proposals next year”, the Commission representative assured.
With regard to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), he indicated that he had asked the Chemicals Agency for a file for each of these products with a view to phasing them out, without indicating a precise short-term deadline. Some Member States, including Belgium, are working on this file to make further progress (see EUROPE 12807/9).
The Commission will present guidelines next year on two cross-cutting concepts: essential uses - “a concept that will allow us to phase out the most harmful products” - and products that are safe by design.
The horizon of 2023, 2024 or 2025 for eliminating non-essential PFAS is too far away for Frédérique Ries (Renew Europe, Belgium) “whereas the evidence of their dangers has been accumulating for 40 years”. She pleaded for the process to be accelerated.
Jytte Guteland (S&D, Sweden) took the same stance, both on PFAS and on endocrine disruptors.
Mr Sadauskas confirmed a legislative proposal for 2022 on products free of endocrine disruptors or similar substances, but several MEPs felt that an impact assessment was not necessary. Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, Netherlands), for his part, stressed that it would be good to know when chemicals in the EU will no longer contain carcinogens or other toxic substances, and when the approach for the mixture or cocktail factor, announced for 2022, will be operational.
Jens Gieseke (EPP, Germany) warned against a sustainable chemicals policy based on potential or “possible” dangers to human health and an “overly precautionary approach, which could lead to relocation”. He called for the Member States’ expertise in risk prevention to be taken into account.
Jutta Paulus (Greens/EFA, Germany) reminded him that “new chemical substances are a grey area” and that in the absence of knowledge and expertise to assess them, “we must apply the precautionary principle to minimise the risks”.
Michèle Rivasi (Greens/EFA, France) expressed surprise that the Commission, after announcing that it would propose a model to prevent the production of chemicals banned in the EU solely for export by amending the relevant legislation by 2023, is now only considering revising the prior informed consent regulation.
Anja Hazekamp (The Left, Netherlands), concerned that Member States continue to allow animal testing even though it has been banned since 2013 under the Cosmetics Directive, called for a ban on animal testing for all chemicals, and their ingredients, to prevent the exposure of consumers and workers to harmful products.
The ID and ECR groups did not make statements. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)