“The political aspects are not our responsibility”. “We want to have the best scientific advice to pass on”. “It’s not for me to prejudge scientific opinion” etc. When invited to talk to MEPs at the European Parliament’s Environment Committee on Wednesday 4 June, the Executive Director of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Sharon McGuiness, did not answer the substance of the questions put to her by the MEPs.
She barely mentioned the future of ECHA, whose forthcoming review of its budgetary and organisational structure will allow greater flexibility in “the deployment of [its] resources”. Sharon McGuiness explained that by establishing a basic regulation, ECHA would be able to adapt to the addition of new tasks.
The Executive Director has given assurances that ECHA will ensure that it provides “maximum support and advice” to industrial companies in the sector, which will have to prove that the chemicals they use do not pose a problem. This will form part of the information added to the shared data platform that is due to be part of the ‘One substance, one assessment’ package, which has not yet been adopted (see EUROPE 13612/3).
Meanwhile, MEPs engaged in the usual battle over vision. Massimiliano Salini (EPP, Italian) was concerned about the potential introduction of a registration requirement for polymers – because of the “risk for certain industrial sectors (plastics, textiles, etc)” – and the “extension of the criterion of a generic approach to risk management for the assessment of chemical substances”. In his opinion, applying generic risk to ‘PFAS’ (forever chemicals) would mean “destroying certain sectors” when only around thirty of them are “genuinely dangerous when assessed in their context”.
Christophe Clergeau (S&D, French) then “reminded his EPP colleague that PFAS have already destroyed the quality of water in Europe”. Marie Toussaint (Greens/EFA, French) also asked Mrs McGuiness, but to no avail, for clarification on the decisions that are expected on the subject of polymers: “Do you think it would be constructive for Europe to include polymers in the revision of the REACH regulation?”
“We absolutely must have restrictions on PFAS based on the precautionary principle”, said Lynn Boylan (The Left, Irish), while Stefano Cavedagna (ECR, Italian) called for “an economic and social impact study” to be carried out prior to any decision being taken.
The reply from the Director of the ECHA was simply: “We are looking at the risks and the socio-economic impact”. (Original version in French by Florent Servia)