The socio-economic analysis (SEA) plays a too influential role in the authorisation process. This was ChemSec’s main message at yesterday’s workshop in Brussels, where a number of stakeholders met to discuss the benefits and challenges of SEA in REACH.
Furthermore, ChemSec is of the opinion that the SEA, as it’s done in the REACH context today, have a very narrow view, focusing only on the implications of the applicant. Instead it should look at the bigger picture and how potential authorisation will affect society as a whole, including societal costs, impacts and human health and the environment as well as implications for alternative providers.
“To just present ‘a good business case’ shouldn’t automatically mean authorisation should be granted”, says Frida Hök, ChemSec policy advisor, and continue:
“More emphasis should be put on the alternatives assessments by the ECHA committee and more efforts should be aimed towards screening the market and third parties for viable, existing alternatives. According to REACH, if an alternative exists for a non-threshold substance authorisation should not be given, regardless of how high the socio-economic benefits are.”
Fact sheet: 3 steps to support ECHA committee experts
Report: The Bigger Picture