Policy makers need to take a broad approach in their assessments of whether to regulate a chemical or not. Since the ultimate aim is to protect human health and environment, while stimulating economic growth at the same time, one must include the costs and benefits for all involved parties. Failing to do so will cause regulation to misfire and favour laggards instead of frontrunners, as well as create barriers to innovation and weakened protection for the environment.
The Chemical Footprint Project’s second annual report reveals chemical footprinting moves to the mainstream. A diversity of companies across sectors, sizes, and the globe participated in the 2017 Report – demonstrating its relevance and application to a broad array of companies that sell and/or manufacture apparel and footwear, building products and furnishings, packaging, medical devices, household and personal care products, toys, and electronics. Participating companies had annual revenues totaling over $670 billion.
In the case of chemical legislation, the REFIT process can have two possible outcomes: either it will iron out any inconsistencies in different chemical frameworks, making it easier for companies to comply, but also reducing protection from hazardous chemicals for the environment and citizens. Or, it will make it easier for businesses to comply and heighten the level of protection at the same time.
This paper will show you that the latter is the most rational way forward. Not only from the standpoint of citizen health and the environment, but also from an economic perspective.
Applications for authorisation are submitted in a way that severely complicates the work of the SEA committee experts. To facilitate the work of SEAC, ChemSec urges ECHA and the Commission to consider three changes to the process.
1. Include a wider perspective on costs and benefits in the socioeconomic analysis.
2. Require applicants to specify the use and function of chemicals in more detail.
3. Make procedural changes to smoothen the process.
Download the full document to read the entire proposal.
In the light of “fitness check”, streamlining of REACH Authorisation process and “better regulation” in general, there is an ongoing debate around the legislation for Occupational Safety & Health (OSH) and REACH. There have been calls to exclude substances from REACH Authorisation that are also covered by limit values under OSH to avoid overlap between these two sets of legislation. ChemSec is very concerned, since REACH in synergy with OSH provides important protection for workers.
A select group of 24 leading-edge businesses both small (millions in annual revenue) and large (tens of billions in annual revenue) stepped forward to participate in the Chemical Footprint Project and to receive a score on their corporate chemicals management practices. Participants included: Levi Strauss & Co.; Seagate Technology, PLC; Johnson & Johnson; GOJO Industries; Becton, Dickinson and Company; Beautycounter; and California Baby, among others.
This report analyzes participants’ responses to a 20-question survey regarding chemicals management across four categories: Management Strategy, Chemical Inventory, Footprint Measurement, and Disclosure & Verification.