Earlier this month, I was at the CARACAL 54 meeting in Brussels where members of the EU Commission presented ideas on how to improve the REACH regulation in the future.
But what they were really talking about was something else — how to deregulate it.
To be honest, it was a poorly kept secret; everyone knew what was coming. But still, when I heard their plans for REACH, my heart sank.
I’ve worked with EU chemicals policy all my career, but I still couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Policymakers were ready to throw all of the progress that had been made right in the bin — setting EU chemicals policy back at least 20 years. In one single sweep, the EU Commission would drastically weaken the ability to phase out the worst chemicals, increase the burden on Member States and reduce the protection of human health and the environment.
“Hello!? Self-regulation doesn’t work — don’t be naïve, you know this!”
“Hello!? Self-regulation doesn’t work — don’t be naïve, you know this!”
My mind was screaming. Companies have proven over and over again that they do not manage to self-regulate their use of chemicals. Global PFAS crisis, anyone?
Companies already have an obligation to minimise exposure and take responsibility for their actions, but they continuously fail to do so. In order to get rid of the worst chemicals, we need strict regulations and phase-out deadlines.
I guess the most objectionable aspect of what was presented at the meeting is that the aim to phase out Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) seems to have been completely lost.
This is the very core of REACH. In what universe does a “regulation improvement” overlook this fact??
The EU Commission’s proposal suggests weakening two of the main elements used to phase out harmful chemicals. It removes the push for safer alternatives from the Candidate List and limits the Authorisation process to… well, almost nothing, which leaves us unprotected from the threat of the SVHCs that are widely used.
As some kind of reverse cherry on top of everything, the promised expansion of the Generic Risk Approach (GRA) now seems to be shrinking.
That’s right, they promised to make it bigger but now they want to make it smaller. This goes directly against the goals set in the EU’s Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability.
That leaves the Restriction process as the only way to phase out the worst chemicals. But this route is very slow, puts too much pressure on individual countries, and requires a lot of extra scientific analysis — often delaying real action.
In fewer words, IT’S NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH.
Get the latest news in your inbox!
Subscribe to our newsletter.
Chemical laws as weak as this will lead to confusion and unfair competition across the European single market. Bye-bye predictability! Bye-bye level playing field!
Not to mention the fact that we will no longer have even the most basic protection against harmful chemicals. This is simply unacceptable.
Theresa Kjell
Head of Policy at ChemSec
