- The debate on EU’s chemical regulation has been postponed by a year according to the EC 2023 work programme.
- Celtic association commented on the situation by saying that they first need to find potentially harmful chemicals.
- The REACH program will allow manufacturers to remove 12,000 compounds that cause potential cancer, infertility and many serious health problems.
Following a postponement of talks in Europe last month, industry and environmental groups have joined forces to demand clarity on toxic chemical reforms, reported by Financial Times.
End game
The European Environment Bureau (EEB), a Brussels-based network of environmental groups, has called the rescheduling of the discussions a “betrayal”.
And says it could spell the “end game” for reforms to Europe’s chemical regulation.
The debate has been postponed by a year, according to an EC 2023 work programme leaked in October.
Potentially harmful
According to the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), a trade association, the potential delay adds to an already confusing scenario.
“What we really need to know is where to start and which [chemicals] are the most potentially harmful,” says Sylvie Lemoine, Cefic’s executive director of product stewardship.
“Then we’ll know what to do for the next five years.”
Categorizing
Currently, proposed changes to the EU’s chemical registration system, known as Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).
Would require manufacturers to remove from the market up to 12,000 compounds that have the potential to cause cancer, infertility, and other serious health problems.
Further reforms include categorizing chemicals based on their risk and use, and eliminating the use of “very high concern” substances in certain consumer products.
Supply disruptions
Cefic estimates that the proposals could cut €70 billion, or 12%, from the annual revenues of chemical groups in an industry already dealing with rising energy prices and supply disruptions.
According to Business Market Research, the global chemicals market is expected to grow at an annual rate of 8.4 percent to $6.37 trillion by 2026.
Industrial position
Cefic also warns that over 40,000 jobs could be lost from Europe’s 1.2 million-strong workforce as companies seek cost-cutting measures to offset rising costs elsewhere.
Furthermore, many chemical manufacturers are concerned that a blanket consumer ban will make it more difficult to use hazardous chemicals in non-consumption processes.
BASF, the world’s largest chemicals company by revenue, warns that the EU must ensure that any rule changes do not “harm industrial production.”
Failed reform
However, campaign groups argue that such concerns are moot if the reforms fail, citing the short legislative window now available before European Parliament elections in 2024.
“Relegating REACH to the end of the [European] parliament’s current mandate is the same as taking it off the agenda,” says Tatiana Santos, EEB’s policy manager for chemicals.
Belgian MEP Maria Arena, a member of the EU parliamentary intergroup on cancer, believes that delays in REACH revisions are “unacceptable.”
“It is clear that the chemical lobbies have won, and that the commission’s profits from the chemical industry are more important than protecting European citizens from hazardous chemicals,” she says.
However, the European Commission rejects such criticism and maintains that reform plans remain unchanged.
Sustainability
Updating REACH, which has been discussed for over a decade, is seen as a critical step in delivering on the EU’s Chemical Strategy for Sustainability, which is a key component of the EU’s Green Deal.
When a chemical is designated as very hazardous and no viable substitute exists, chemical manufacturers are expected to develop alternatives under the new regime.
According to Kevin Hoban, director of chemical consultancy group H2 Compliance, this would be “expensive and challenging” for producers due to the required research and development, or it would result in certain chemicals being “removed from the EU market entirely.”
The industry accepts regulatory change as unavoidable, but Cefic believes the transition to less-toxic products should be supported by the government.
“The next generation of chemicals, which are safe and sustainable by design, are set to be a growth engine for Europe,” says Cefic director-general Marco Mensink.
High regulated market
REACH aims to align the EU with other highly regulated markets, such as China and Korea.
Nonetheless, Cefic is concerned that its members will face unfair competition from rivals subject to less stringent rules, such as those in the United States.
Chemical manufacturers are concerned about implementation rather than specific rule changes, according to Mensink.
“The commission needs to clearly say, ‘this is what is coming your way in the next two or three decades,’ and then sequence this transition logically.”
Next generation
“The next generation of chemicals is poised to be a growth engine for Europe,” says Marco Mensink, Cefic director-general.
Reform supporters argue that businesses should view a cleaner, safer future as a market opportunity.
According to Andy Walker, director of technology markets insights at Johnson Matthey, a UK-based specialty chemicals maker.
A growing number of large-scale clients of chemical groups already use sustainability “checklists” at the design stage and when procuring raw materials.
Walker adds that this way, problematic materials are avoided “from day one.”
“Clearly compelling if a chemical company comes to us and says this product is better because the alternative product is likely to be regulated out of use.”
Hesitant information
Nonetheless, most manufacturers are hesitant to share anything but the most basic information about the chemistries of their products.
Such reluctance creates a problem for regulators. A recent EU evaluation of company dossiers submitted to the European Chemicals Agency.
The body in charge of registering substances — 93% lacked the critical hazard information required by law.
Data sets submitted to the ECA are also kept private, so investors and industry clients are unaware of any toxicity risks.
“This makes determining which companies are actively reformulating their products or replacing hazardous substances “very difficult,” according to Sonja Haider, senior business and investment adviser at research firm ChemSec.
Risky investment
Investors are beginning to consider the risks posed by hazardous substances.
This shift, according to Haider, is explained in part by a rash of lawsuits in the United States concerning dangerous “forever chemicals” — per- or poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFASs).
In everyday consumer products ranging from laundry detergents to paints and nonstick pans.
For example, DuPont and two of its spin-off companies were fined $4 billion last year for using PFAS substances in Teflon and other nonstick products in the past.
“If you’ve invested in these companies in the last few years, you’ve already lost a lot of money, so investors are realising there’s a risk here and they should look at it,” says Haider.
Vulnerable litigation
Apolline Roger, chemicals lead at the environmental law charity ClientEarth, warns that consumer companies are increasingly vulnerable to such litigation.
“But, even if they wanted to know precisely what hazardous substances are in their supply chains, they would have difficulty doing so in the current system.”
The chemicals industry has at least shown a growing willingness to co-operate on wider sustainability issues.
Joint commitment
Groups including BASF, Dow Chemical, Sabic, and Solvay, have committed to sharing knowledge.
To reduce investment risks in green technologies as part of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Low-Carbon Emissions Technologies (LCET) initiative.
The challenge now is to apply the same model to other sustainability areas, reckons Charlie Tan, LCET’s lead at WEF.
“Companies coming together to do joint research will always have a competitive nature, but now there is an appetite to expand the space for collaboration.”
Did you subscribe to our Newsletter?
It’s Free! Click here to Subscribe.
Source: Financial Times
