The ideal formula does not exist. Happy, is he who believes to holds the ideal formula to regulate the chemicals sector! In reality, we should accept that this formula does not exist. What we can make, us poor mortals stuck between protecting nature and the demands of economic life, are compromises. In the past, when the damage to the environmental balance was smaller or simply less understood, the balance of support leaned towards the inventors and manufacturers of chemical products, practically free to do as they pleased. Today, the dangers are better assessed, we know it could lead to making life impossible for the human race, and the balance now leans the other way. However, all regulations will always stem from a compromise. This is because chemistry has two sides. Chemical fertilisers have allowed for dramatic increases in agricultural production saving millions of humans from starvation, but their use is excessive and the quality of water is compromised. From the outset, DDT protected crops, but it was abandoned due to its negative effects on breathing. These are but banal examples. Today, the two aspects, benefits and dangers, are finally taken into consideration. But how do we define the right balance? No absolute rule can exist.
Global balance. Whatever the difficulties, once more Europe is at the vanguard. The European Commission's work to develop the Reach project (see, among others, our bulletin of 30 October, page 9) represents a unique example of global chemical legislation taking into account all facets, which are extremely complicated when we move from broad principals to the practicalities of enforcement. The fact that Reach has been presented both by the Commissioner for the Environment Margot Wallström and the Commissioner for Industry Erkki Liikanen indicates that the Commission feels it has managed, after no less than five years work, to find a generally satisfactory balance to the different requirements. Of course, this is not the opinion of those concerned. In answer to a request for information formulated in practically the same manner, Greenpeace and the Chemical Industry Federation argue the exact opposite: for the environmental NGO, Reach does not go far enough while, in the opinion of industry, it goes too far (see yesterday's bulletin, pages 15 and 16, for a global view of reactions). This is normal, as the battle is far from over, and the two parties will continue to fight to achieve, firstly within the European Parliament and then within the Council, changes favourable to their respective positions. The final adoption is only expected in 2005, which means that neither the present Parliament, nor the present Commission will take part in the final phase of the works. It will be the new European Parliament that will emerge from the elections in July 2004, and the new Commission that will start next autumn, formed of 25 members in accordance with the provisions of the Nice Treaty, in which the small countries that do not have a chemical industry will have more Commissioners of their nationality than the large countries whose chemical industry is a world leaders. This will be an interesting test for the effectiveness and balance of the enlarged Commission.
As for the various reactions, the ecological movements and the political groups holding similar positions initially call for the 'principal of substitution' to be made binding. As soon as an alternative exists, the original toxic product must be removed. Manufacturers must be forced to move towards healthy and safe products. As for the chemical industry, it calls for a hierarchy of dangers, in order to avoid testing tens of thousands of chemical products. It argues that only those than need testing should be tested. These are important issues, but they do not question the foundations of the project, which are now accepted. Industry accepts the crucial innovation, that is to say what we call, generally speaking, the 'reversal of the burden of proof.' It will not longer be for the state authorities to prove that a chemical product is dangerous in order to ban it, but for the manufacturers to prove its safety in order for it to be marketed. However, industry challenges the Commission's impact assessments, which in its opinion fail to take into account the true additional costs. As for the environmental movements, despite their criticism, they recognise that the project 'goes in the right direction,' and that it is necessary to support all efforts attempting to wrestle improvements within the Parliament and Council.
The meaning of Reach exceeds the specific case of the chemical sector, as it would represent a pillar of the mythic European industrial policy. Mythic in the sense that certain political forces do not realise that this policy is day-by-day developing before our eyes, through concrete initiatives. By continually deploring Europe's inability to provide itself with an industrial policy and by calling for a global doctrine, these forces risk having no influence over the reality being built.
(F.R)