Brussels, 08/03/2004 (Agence Europe) - Opponents and supporters of REACH, the system proposed by the European Commission for the registering, evaluation, authorisation and limitation of chemical products on the EU market, had a fresh opportunity to voice their opinions at a public hearing last Thursday in Brussels. The hearing was organised by the EPP/ED at the European Parliament on the initiative of Werner Langen (CDU). The views of industry (vastly over-represented at the hearing) are now well known and include the bureaucracy and impracticability of an over-complex and costly system and the potentially disastrous impact on European competitivity. NGOs defended the environmental line and trade union representatives opposed the top priority of protecting public health and the environment.
"What we have to do now is reconcile the need do away with excess bureaucracy whilst maintaining the competitivity of the European chemical industry against American and Asian competitors, plus the legitimate interests of the environment and consumers. The conflicting interests of industry and environmental protection are not easy to resolve. But if the European Union intends to move closer to the Lisbon objectives and maintain the chemical industry as a source of employment in Europe, the new regulation on chemical products must not be a hindrance," said Werner Langen at the hearing. As the First Reading of the text in Parliament is scheduled for the second half of this year, under the Dutch Presidency, the new European Parliament resulting from the June elections will have to work at double speed to take up this challenge.
During the discussions, Dr Cristanius de Rooij, expert in safety and toxicology at Solvay, called for an evaluation procedure of chemical products that prioritises the most dangerous substances, like the system in place in his company. The extremely ambitious target of REACH - to evaluate 30 000 substances in 11 years manufactured or imported at over one tonne a year - "prioritisation of substances" is in his opinion "the only way to speed up the process". He considers that the ECETOC (European Centre for ecotoxicity and toxicology of chemicals) approach used at Solvay has the benefit of identifying the use conditions of chemical products and the most exposed users to define the potentially most risky scenarios for public health and the environment, which enables tests adapted to needs and proportional to the risks (the substances presenting no danger as they are used in isolation, are exempt from these tests). "REACH should focus on efficiency. Let's not write an encyclopaedia. We should reserve the detailed evaluation for the most worrying substances" said Dr de Rooij.
Willem van Loo, technical director at Cebureau, the European cement association, umbrella for 12 industry sectors (ceramics, glass, plaster, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, concrete), which employs 2 million people, considered that raw materials should be exempt from registration as these are the result of a mineral or physical transformation, or either refined natural materials whose chemical composition is not changed. Furthermore, some are already covered by other Community legislation (IPPC directive and legislation on workers' health and security for gas and crude oil, the directive on construction products, legislation covering products in contact with foodstuffs. Dr van Loo was also unable to understand why the production volume took precedence over risk. "We need to take into account the specific nature of our products. Each double use is an extra burden" he insisted, calling for a "system that is practically useful".
Bruno Stephan of the FECC (European Federation of Chemical Trade) was highly critical of the insurmountable barriers that REACH would create by forcing importers to register not only hundreds of chemical substances, but also thousands of ingredients that go into the composition of chemical preparations. He said that this would entail hiring specialised staff and effectively outlaw the importation of half of the substances or preparations currently on the market, with severe economic consequences for the sector. He considered that the trial transition periods for registering (3 to 11 years) attenuate the problem but in no way resolve it and stressed the need for "simplicity and proportionality" of the procedures for SMEs.
Pierre-Yves Le Borgn, lawyer for Rohm & Haas, underlined the importance of a predictable, comprehensive, and pragmatic regulatory framework, based on Article 95 of the Treaty (Internal Market), full harmonisation of national legislations and a "European agency for strong chemical products". He believes that REACH still, as it stands, presents weaknesses. He considers a solution would involve: only registering substances in a database and imposing administrative sanctions where this obligation was not fulfilled rather than banning unregistered substances; extending the transition period (11 years being too short); entrusting industry with the preliminary risk evaluation so that only priority substances are registered. "If we want to meet the REACH objectives, let's go back to the findamental rules of the internal market" he said.
Hans Nacke, legal and fiscal Director of the Association of Chemicals, highlighted that REACH is a complex management tool, both from the point of view of the quantity of substances covered, as in terms of quality required. To meet these aims, the future Euopean Agency for chemical products must be a decision-making authority, and thus a regulatory agency. The success factors of REACH are, in his opinion, the practical implementation, legal security and appropriate recourse mechanisms. "I ask for the right to a hearing, the right to a second opinion and the right to have the case heard before a court" he said, underlining that the Community rules transposing the International Convention of Arhus on public access to justice awards NGOs this path of action for administrative ommissions, whereas the appeal procedure provided for in REACH is "limited to those affected by only a small number of decisions".
"REACH is not the instrument we need. The devil is in the detail! We need an agency with a clearly-defined competency, to complement the role of the state and the internal market. We need a decentralised system and an Agency that brings added value" added John Neis, Director of the Product Safety and toxiclogy department (Royal DSM). Patrick Wegerdt, legal advisor to CEFIC, (European chemical industry confederation), considered that the provisions on the protection of data and confidentialty should be improved, in line with international law (Arhus Convention and WTO TRIPS agreements).
Opposing indsutry arguments, Nata Haima Neurohr of Greenpeace was at pains to demonstrate the need for a "strong REACH" to protect human health against the many sources of pollution (such as phthalates in toys) and the hundreds of dangerous chemical substances that people are exposed to in their everyday lives, found in trace amounts in the human body. "Some of these substances are carcinogenic, harmful to the reporoductive system, cause thyroid and growth problems and upset the immune system. 32 thousand deaths a year are due to the exposure to the substances in the workplace" she said. Recalling that the Lisbon strategy aims to make the EU competitive knowledge-based economy, she highlighted that when it comes to chemical prducts, it is currently "the ignorance economy", as the vast majority of the 100 000 substances currently sold on the market have not been duly assessed.
Michael Nasterlach, Director of the health protection department at BASF was quick to undermine this theory, using his perspective as a doctor. He considered that the statements of Commissioner for the Environment, Margot Wallström, according to whom the projected benefits of REACH in terms of economics and healthcare will far outstrip the costs of REACH, were "biased" as they are based on a premise of 32,000 occupational cancers per year, which sould be 'treated with caution'. He believes that "noone has been able to prove that new legislation would bring health or safety benefits. The University of Düsseldorf predicts a lose-lose situation. We are discussing pseudo-scientific arguments with a purely emotional basis here. Bureaucratic accreditation does not improve safety. What we need is safe risk management" he insisted. These statements did not stop Oraldo de Toni, political secretary for EMCEF (European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers' federation) calling for the involvement of key social partners in improving REACH, in order to safeguard public and environmental health in the workplace. EMCEF priorities are to guarantee that employees and their trade union representatives receive all relevant information issuing from safety assessments of registered substances or preparations, and to ensure necessary training to improve management systems for prevention, safety in the workplace and environmental protection.