REACH - EU cautious in removing dangerous chemicals[fr][de] 

Parliament and Council negotiations in the final stage of REACH are set to focus on the circumstances under which a chemical substance can be authorised and placed on the market - even when it is a known toxic.

In a first reading last year, the Parliament adopted an ambitious stance on the so-called 'substitution principle', saying that dangerous chemicals such as those causing cancer or reproductive problems should be replaced with harmless alternatives whenever possible.

Under the Parliament's text, such chemicals may still be authorised under strict conditions, if all the following conditions are fulfilled at the same time:

1. There is no suitable and safer alternative available;
2. the benefits of the substance for society or the economy outweigh the risks, and;
3. the risks can be 'adequately controlled'.

The Council's stance is not so different except that it takes the principle of adequate control as the starting point. In other words, if it can be demonstrated that the substance is adequately controlled, it will be allowed on the market. Only then will the substitution route be considered, meaning that substances of concern would stand a second chance of being authorised if:

1. The benefits of the substance for society or the economy outweigh the risks, and;
2. there is no suitable safer alternative available;

Precisely under which circumstances toxic substances could be considered "adequately controlled" would be defined at a later stage under the Council's agreed text. But the Parliament's rapporteur on REACH, Guido Sacconi MEP, believes that the definition needs to be refined already in second reading if it is to be taken on board.

The European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) says that Parliament is "well intentioned" in trying to force substitution of dangerous chemicals for safer alternatives. "This sounds progressive but we're worried it could do more harm than good."

According to CEFIC, the problem with the Parliament's approach is that it would end up banning substances "even when alternatives do not exist". At worst, CEFIC says, mandatory substitution would merely replace an old risk with a new one. "Because of the legal requirement to prove that no alternatives are available, resources will be diverted away from managing the new risks and towards developing alternatives to the alternatives."

"It is the regrettable truth that many of society's needs today bring risks to health or the environment," says CEFIC.

In addition, CEFIC says consumers could still be exposed to a banned substance through imported products. And the more stringent safety standards would only harm European businesses by generating unfair competition from outside the EU.

On the whole, CEFIC says that it prefers the "philosophical commitment to substitution" expressed in the Council's common position where decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis.

WWF, the global conservation organisation, supports the Parliament's first reading position on substitution, saying that it clearly puts safety as the top priority and "ensures substitution becomes the first choice". 

It says the Council's position contains "a loophole" because it gives priority to the continued use of dangerous substances in cases where they can be 'adequately controlled'. According to WWF, this means the agency will be required to authorise a substance "even if a safer substitute exists" and allow the continued use of chemicals which cause cancer, are damaging to reproduction or accumulate in the environment.

WWF believes that "the effective implementation of the substitution principle will be decisive in assessing whether REACH has been a real improvement over the current system".

Moreover, it says the basic concept of "adequate control" raises "serious scientific questions" related to the health effects of long-term exposure to low-levels of chemicals. 

"Toxicology is evolving and the detection of adverse impacts of chemicals at lower and lower doses is a consistent trend".

Recently, the WWF published  the results of analysis carried out on food samples taken in various supermarkets across the EU. The 27 samples of meat, fish, dairy products and other food items analysed, all showed the presence of man-made synthetic chemicals.

Professor Jan-Åke Gustafsson, from CASCADE - a scientific network studying chemicals as contaminants in the food chain - said: "Being at the top of the food chain, humans are particularly exposed to chemicals in food. As some of these chemicals are similar to hormones, they interfere with our endocrine system and may be a risk factor for diseases like obesity, different forms of cancer and diabetes as well as reduced fertility."

In a statement, the WWF said it is "not implying that by eating these foods people will become ill. However, WWF is seriously concerned over the potential effects of long-term, low-level exposure to chemicals in the diet, especially on the developing foetus, infants and young children".

However, the interpretation of the study is contested  by CEFIC. "Yes, there are trace levels of chemicals in our food." But it adds: "Just because people have an environmental chemical in their blood or urine does not mean that the chemical causes disease. The fact is people are living longer, safer and healthier lives through the essential benefits provided by chemistry".

"The WWF report indeed only gives us a snapshot picture, but it clearly demonstrates that more research and a strong REACH is needed if we're to avoid hazardous chemical residues in our food in the future," says Ingemar Pongratz, from CASCADE. 

"Consumer products can contain a lot of chemicals - up to a hundred," says Demosthenes Papameletiou from the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. "What we know is that we are exposed and what we try to do is quantify that with certainty".

However, he says that little is known about the combination of exposure - which, he admits, are "many" - and their effects on health. One of the questions, he says, is whether the effects are acute or long term. "If it is long term, it becomes difficult to make interpretations about the causal association," says Papameletiou.

According to CEFIC, health issues of low-level chemical contamination should be tackled elsewhere. "REACH is an important step but does not address some of this musing about possible combinations of many things over very long periods. The important thing to do is to take practical action to understand … what the risks are." [For more on this, see our related LinksDossier on Biomonitoring]

It even describes the dissemination of such information to the public at large as "inappropriate and misleading".

Asked whether information should indeed be disseminated, Papameletiou is evasive: "This is a policy issue, this is less scientific."