European regulation: Less toxic

Date: 01/11/03

Europe's proposed chemicals regulations are less nasty than feared

MAMMON has won a victory of sorts over the tree-huggers. Plans to regulate the chemicals industry in Europe approved by the European Commission on October 29th amount to a minor triumph for industrial lobbyists over environmental campaigners. “I can live with it,” was the less-than-warm endorsement from Margot Wallström, the environment commissioner, who had wanted something far more ambitious. Her colleague, Erkki Liikanen, the commissioner for enterprise, was happier, claiming that the right balance had now been struck between growth and employment on the one hand and health and the environment on the other.

Underlying the Commission's proposal is the fear that the world is awash with unknown chemicals doing untold damage to health and happiness. It proposes that any business making or importing more than one tonne per year of a chemical must register safety information on a central database. About 30,000 chemicals will be involved. Those deemed riskiest to health or the environment, or produced in the greatest quantity, will be subject to evaluation by the authorities. Nasties, such as carcinogens and toxins, will need special authorisation before they can be used.

The Commission gave in too easily to industry, say the greens. Pro-industry lobbyists had included Gerhard Schröder, Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair, who jointly wrote to Romano Prodi, the Commission president, giving warning of the dangers of excessive regulation.

How far did the Commission retreat from its draft proposals? A requirement to provide safety information has been softened for some 20,000 chemicals produced in quantities of less than ten tonnes per year. A requirement to switch to alternative chemicals is now less binding. Firms will have the right to keep some information about products confidential. There will be fewer constraints on imports into the EU.

Still, the chemicals industry continues to complain that European producers will be put at a competitive disadvantage by the regulatory demands. Restrictions are much less onerous elsewhere, particularly on chemicals that have long been in widespread use.

The lobbying battle will now move into the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers from national governments, and may drag on into 2005 and beyond. Meanwhile, the Commission would do well to reflect on the downside of its recent embrace of rampant pro-consumerism. Increasingly, it justifies intervention in all manner of things on the grounds of protecting consumers. The fight over regulating chemicals has demonstrated that consumer protection comes at a price. For Europe's three biggest economies, the price proposed was much too high.

Europe's proposed chemicals regulations are less nasty than feared.

• Primary Source