Ministers soft on substitution rules for dangerous chemicals

Enterprise Commissioner Günter Verheugen was pleased with the vote, saying "we succeeded in maintaining the competitiveness of EU industry," including SMEs. According to the Commission, the use-specific authorisations agreed for the most dangerous chemicals "will encourage substitution of unsafe substances by safer ones". 

CEFIC, the European Chemical Industry Council, welcomed the fact that substitution will not be introduced as a mandatory procedure. It also welcomed the Council's decision to review authorisations for dangerous substances on a case-by-case basis rather than the time-limited authorisation that Parliament had voted for.  

European SME organisation UEAPME said that the Council position makes chemical rules "less damaging for small businesses". "The possibilities to opt-out from the One Substance One Registration (OSOR) seem to be more limited than those proposed by the European Parliament's proposals, which is an improvement for small formulators," UEAPME said. However, UEAPME continues to call for more extensive data sharing under OSOR. "Ultimately, providing for the compulsory sharing of all testing data will be the most effective way to avoid the duplication of testing and counteract the disproportionate cost burden", it said.

"It seems that we will need a REACH 2," declared BEUC, the European consumer organisation, who said the Council further watered down a draft bill that had already been weakened by Parliament. "The Council succeeded in making things even worse than the European Parliament by weakening the registration of chemicals, the substitution principle and foreseeing even less information available for consumers," said BEUC Director Jim Murray. Consumers, Murray underlined, need a strong REACH. "We will relentlessly continue to raise politicians' awareness as they must now take their responsibility to protect the health of future generations," Murray added. 

A coalition of eight environmental, women's, health and consumer NGOs expressed their "disappointment" at the outcome of the Council's vote. The group, which includes the likes of WWF and Greenpeace, said member states rejected calls to substitute hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives whenever possible. "Although chemical producers would be required to 'assess' substitutes for a hazardous chemical, decision-makers will still have to grant an authorisation under an 'adequate control' procedure, even if safer alternatives are available," the NGOs said. The Council's strengthening of the substitution principle for persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals "represent only a fraction of all hazardous chemicals," it added. The coalition concluded that "it is essential that the Parliament reaffirms its support for 'mandatory substitution' at the Second Reading, next year".

In her blog, Commission Vice-President and former environment chief Margot Wallström expressed disappointment with the new emerging text on REACH. "I cannot hide the feeling that the proposal could have been more far-reaching and that I would have wanted to see a more ambitious chemicals management regulation," she writes.

Wallström admits that REACH "will not be free". But she adds that "the alternative (paying for damage to health and environment)", would be "even more costly".  "If REACH succeeds in reducing chemicals-related disease by only 10%, which is a conservative estimate, the health benefits will amount to more than €50 billion over 30 years," she writes.