Brussels, 14/09/2005 (Agence Europe) - Work on the EU's future policy for chemical products has now entered a decisive phase with votes at first reading in the parliamentary committees on industry and research and on the internal market and consumer protection on the proposed REACH Regulation (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals in the EU). In both committees, there was a comfortable majority on some of the 110 compromise amendments to which the EPP-ED, ALDE and PES rallied, all in agreement that the procedure for registration of the substances should be simplified and that the burden for industry should be lightened, especially for SMEs. In both cases, the Greens/EFA voted against the compromises judged far too favourable for industry to respect the initial REACH goals of protection of public health and the environment.
The Internal Market Committee (Rapporteur Harmut Nassauer, CDU) took a stance on Wednesday for: - a system of pre-registration of all substances in a public register during the eighteen months following entry into force of the regulation; - a system for the registration of substances combining the volume produced and imported each year and the risk level of substances per category of use and exposure, as criteria to determine the degree of requirements for information to be provided throughout the chain of use of these substances; - application of the principle “one substance, one registration” (OSOR) allowing companies to form consortia for sharing data and costs, on a voluntary base; - a system of simplified registration for substances produced or imported at volumes between 1 and 10 tonnes (i.e. 2/3 of the 30,000 substances covered by REACH) and between 10 and 100 tonnes. For such substances, the information required (physicohemical data provided for the Commission proposal, completed by two toxicity tests) would be information available and voluntarily communicated by companies/importers according to computerised procedure. Automatic control would be carried out by the European Agency for Chemical Products which is empowered to call for more information or tests if it considers this to be necessary. For the substances produced at volumes of between 1 and 10 tonnes, the information should be provided within 11 years; for those produced at volumes of 10 to 100 tonnes, within 9 years. Exemptions would be possible in cases where the producer considers a test useful depending on the category of exposure or use of the product. The authorisations delivered would be issued for a duration of no more than 7 years. Mr Nassauer told the press he was pleased with the result that would allow a more practical registration procedure that is far less costly.
Following its rapporteur, Lena Eke (ALDE, Sweden), the committee on industry and research took a stance on Tuesday (43 votes for, 4 against) in favour of similar guidelines, with just a few differences. Simplified registration procedure would be limited to substances produced between 1 and 10 tonnes a year and substances excluded from REACH would include waste, tobacco products, batteries, recycled products, iron, mineral ores; and the seat of the chemical products agency would be Ispra (and not Helsinki).
The vote caused an outcry among environmental protectionists. The Greens in Parliament immediately denounced the choice of their colleagues to ”destroy” REACH in favour of industry. If one follows the vote of the internal market committee, the REACH leitmotiv would no longer be ”no data, no market” but “no data, no worries” as the industry would only have to present the data in its possession for 25,000 of the 30,000 substances covered by REACH, and this would amount to rewarding companies that have not tested whether their products are dangerous, the Greens/EFA indignantly say. They express anger that a clear scientific and legal framework is replaced by a mini à-la-carte REACH.
For the environmental NGOs (WWF, Friends of the Earth and the EEN-Epha network), the amendments voted will result in the REACH project being dismantled to return to the current situation in which most chemical products on the market have not undergone any prior assessment regarding their safety.
These amendments risk undermining the very idea behind REACH, explain the NGOs in a joint press release slamming intense pressure from industry on MEPs and the Commission for the past two years. The NGOs criticise the two Committees for voting to boost short-term profits for the chemical industry by relieving them of any responsibility to the detriment of protecting the environment, consumers, workers and public health. Users downstream would end up paying a heavy price for this policy because they will not have the information they need to be able to make informed choices about the least hazardous chemicals to use in their own products, explain the NGOs, hoping that the European Parliament's Environment and Public Health Committee (chaired by Guido Sacconi, PES, Italy) will redress the balance when its gives it opinion on REACH on 4 October.