ChemSec and its partner organisations are continuing the fight against the use of two chemicals of high concern in paints.
2018 – ChemSec’s year in review
The turn of the year is approaching fast and all over the world media outlets are reviewing the year that went by.
Who says chemicals can’t be interesting? Not us, anyway.
So without further ado, here’s ChemSec’s year in review, listing some memorable events of 2018.
The European Parliament votes against authorisation
Today, the European Parliament voted on the matter in plenary, and a great majority voted in favour of a resolution – in other words, against granting an authorisation.
For the first time ever, an authorisation could be rejected in the EU
Recently, the European Parliament Environment Committee voted in favour of a resolution against the draft decision from the EU Commission to grant an authorisation for using sodium dichromate, which is classified as cancerogenic, mutagenic and toxic for reproduction.
Letters to Hansen
Letters to Hansen Note: This is the third letter in an on-going discussion between ChemSec's Executive Director Anne-Sofie Andersson and her counterpart at Echa, Björn Hansen. You can read the first letter from Ms Andersson here and Mr Hansen's response...
How a hazard-based approach and grouping of chemicals can pave the way for circular economy
Prioritization is a well-used term in chemicals management. It builds on the idea that instead of trying to deal with all hazardous chemicals in products and supply chains at the same time, you should focus on the worst offenders first. The problem is that many professionals connected to chemical regulation focus too much on prioritization. They spend their time forever prioritising instead of keeping their eyes on the ultimate goal, which is of coursing dealing with the hazardous chemicals.
The world’s biggest cosmetics brands say NO to PFCs
A year ago, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation started an internet campaign called Surfejs aiming to remove perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) from cosmetics. More than 1,500 consumers sent e-mails to eight of the biggest cosmetics producers in the world, encouraging them to remove PFCs from their products. Until recently, five of these companies had announced that they would begin phasing out these toxic chemicals as soon as possible. Now, another company has announced that they will do the same thing.
You’ve got mail, Björn Hansen
Dear Björn, I hope that you have settled in well in Helsinki and that you are beginning to find your feet at ECHA. In your new position I expect that you will focus on making the agency’s work more efficient. I also hope that you will guide the agency towards a greater focus on human health and the environment.
REACH could learn a thing or two from other legal frameworks
When applicants in the authorisation process claim there are no safer alternatives for them to use, regulators take their word for it.
But the authorisation process is not the only area of EU law where companies apply for some kind of permit and include a market analysis together with the applications. For example, there is a very similar legal process for companies applying for merger clearance.
EU chemicals approval process stifles safer alternatives
PRESS RELEASE Analysis by ChemSec and ClientEarth shows the chemicals approval process gives undue influence to companies producing dangerous chemicals and stifles information on safer alternatives, limiting the market for companies that produce them. Under EU chemicals law REACH,…