Aktivisten im Chemiesektor stellen wissenschaftliche Risikobeurteilung der EU in Frage[en] 

The official launch of the REACHforLIFE  campaign on 10 September in Brussels saw two US and an Israeli company attempt to initiate a debate on the role of scientific risk assessments in the EU's chemicals policy.

Presenting their campaign objectives, spokesperson Willem Hofland called for science-based policymaking, asking the EU to respect the assessments of its own scientific committees. Indeed, the three campaigners Albemarle, Chemtura and ICL-IP are using the recent (as of 1 August) EU-wide ban of Deca-BDE, a brominated flame retardant, from electronic appliances as an example of how "decision-makers are putting consumers in danger through bans of safe chemicals". 

They believe the ban was introduced despite recommendations to the contrary from the bloc's own scientific committees, and hope debate on the issue will prevent further bans. 

Cefic, the main EU chemical industry lobby, told EurActiv that it does not support the campaign because of "the style and tone" adopted by the venture, but recognises that scientific risk assessment as such is an issue.

The launch event on 10 September saw lively discussion in a debate which was moderated by EurActiv. Greens/EFA group political advisor Axel Singhofen hit back at the companies, stating that they "just can't accept" the recent ban and are motivated by a desire to avoid any future bans on the use of Deca-BDE in other goods. He underlined that the ban reflected the opinions of EU scientific committees and was a result of a thorough process involving all EU institutions. 

The committees' opinions (see CSTEE and SCHER ) indeed revealed a number of uncertainties concerning Deca-BDE's possible health and environmental effects and strongly recommended the introduction of further risk reduction measures for the substance.

Martin van den Berg, professor of toxicology and deputy director of the Institute of Risk Assessment Sciences of the University of Utrecht, argued that discussions on chemical safety are ruled by emotions rather than real risks and that in particular NGOs use the precautionary principle to scare the public and gain new membership. "NGOs don't respect the fact that the dose makes the poison," he said, referring to the fact that even if a substance is proven to be hazardous, it does not necessarily lead to a risk, which depends on the exposure to the substance.

Meanwhile, Singhofen defended the precautionary principle, saying that "in the face of scientific uncertainty" and as long as a substance is not proven safe, "politicians have to take the responsibility" and decide on the authorisation of substances which can end up in breast milk, for example.

As a candidate list of chemicals that present the most cause for concern over public health and the environment is currently being finalised, more chemicals are to be debated under the REACH regulation in the coming months. This will provoke a surge in lobbying activity from both chemical manufacturers and environmental groups.

Chemicals are not the only field where the precautionary principle is under scrutiny. The authorisation of GM products has become a major political battlefield between member states favourable to the technology and those opposing it, bringing the validity of the bloc's own scientific expert opinion into question.