Has Commission over-reached itself?

Date: 13/11/03

In the first of a series of head-to-head debates on topical issues focused on special reports in European Voice, two German MEPs offer their differing perspectives on the impact of proposed new safety rules for chemicals

NO - but chemicals industry has seriously weakened the REACH package, argues Hiltrud Breyer

WHY should we be concerned about chemicals? Our knowledge about thousands of chemicals and their uses in millions of products is often insufficient or totally lacking, despite the fact that 99% of them have been produced for more than 20 years. Either the chemicals industry does not have the data, or it does not disclose it. I will leave it to the reader to decide which is worse.

Add to this the fact that chemicals are produced in hundreds of millions of tonnes every year, that they turn up in places where they were never originally used (in the Arctic, in groundwater, in breast milk) and that many diseases linked to chemical exposure are on the increase - and you get an idea of the scale of the uncontrolled experiment in which we are all involved.

Current legislation requires a full risk-assessment before any restrictive action can be taken. As a result, ignorance concerning a certain chemical is actually rewarded with non-action. The key reason why Europe's environment ministers initiated the legislative overhaul five years ago was due to the combination of a major lack of knowledge about chemicals, the structural failure of the existing system to provide adequate protection, and hence the immediate concern that man and the environment are exposed to a large number of potentially dangerous substances.

This year, however, industry has been successful in shifting the focus of the debate. It has commissioned various studies predicting that the legislation known as REACH - to register, evaluate and authorize chemicals - would be catastrophic for business.

The fact that these studies defied all economic reality - extrapolating "snowball" effects from alleged bans, ignoring the flexibility of markets and the effect of substitution - did not seem to matter. REACH was increasingly discussed in the restricted context of costs to industry. The initial reasons behind the proposal got lost along the way and the potential benefits appeared as a footnote at best.

The European Commission's extended impact assessment estimated the total costs of REACH to industry and downstream users at between €2.8-€5.2billion over 11 years. Health benefits alone would total €50 billion over the next 30 years. Yet, despite knowing better, the Commission continued to weaken its proposal under intense industry opposition.

The real "coup" of industry scaremongering came when several government leaders [Chirac, Schröder and Blair] said they wanted REACH to concern itself mainly with competitiveness. We Greens believe that the competitiveness of the chemicals industry does indeed matter, but it should not be competing at the expense of human health and the environment.

The major question about REACH as proposed is whether it will do the job it set out to do. For my group in the European Parliament, it has to be measured against two key objectives. Firstly, chemicals that have no base data by a certain date must be taken off the market - "no data, no market". Secondly, action must be taken to prevent exposure to the most dangerous chemicals.

REACH in its current form would largely meet the first objective, except for the 20,000 substances produced in quantities below ten tonnes. We, however, fail to see how the second objective would be met, as the authorization system for chemicals of very high concern is full of loopholes. It seems to be designed to ensure authorization of these dangerous chemicals rather than pushing for their substitution.

The Commission's chemical package is a good basis for revision by the Parliament, but it needs to be greatly modified to protect us against the most dangerous chemicals, especially those in everyday products.

• Hiltrud Breyer is a Green MEP and member of the Parliament's environment, public health and consumer policy committee.

YES - by obsessing over the scope instead of sticking to its primary aim, the Commission has lost sight of the original objective, says Karl-Heinz Florenz

THE reform of the European Union's chemicals legislation is a milestone towards establishing producer responsibility and consumer protection in the single market.

Having concentrated mainly on single products or certain groups of goods, including their supply chains and the necessary treatment at the end of their life-cycle, now the European Commission is undertaking a new approach by subjecting a whole sector of European industry to reform.

The approach behind this ambitious project was heavily under fire from all stakeholders long before the Commission closed its consultation on the proposed REACH system. Whereas the idea of REACH as a tool to reform Europe's chemical laws was accepted from the start, the fact is there has been a lack of consensus over its scope.

Therefore the tool itself, rather than how to use it, became the focus of the discussion.

Instead of exchanging views on how to achieve the political goals of this project - generally speaking, ensuring a more secure handling of chemicals while at the same time fostering innovation and competitiveness - a whole series of questions have come to the fore. There have been discussions over how many tests are needed, how many substances or mixtures should be covered, and what quantities per year are necessary in order to establish a sufficient level of information about the possible risk from exposure to the chemicals.

Still, I feel that one aspect of the new chemicals legislation was not properly addressed. I believe that the question of responsibility shifting from national authorities to the producers or importers of chemicals, and the consequences following this shift, have not been discussed sufficiently.

I stress this point because, within this shift, lies the success of the proposal. If the industry is to be made responsible for the safety of their products, confidence in the capacities and the competences of each single producer or importer of chemicals and their commitment towards this legislation will become a crucial pillar in this whole proposal.

As the industry is constantly repeating its commitment, I presume that it is also aware of the consequences that will inevitably follow.

All producers have an interest in selling safe and tested goods, as safety and knowledge of possible hazards play a double role in the market.

It is an argument for the seller to promote his product, but, even more importantly, it is also an argument to buy it. This applies to the final consumer as much as it counts for downstream users inside the supply-chain.

Therefore, it lies within the shift of burden of proof that we accept that the chemical industry has its own interest in the safety of its products and, moreover, that industry could have more competences in determining the size of the tool named REACH.

While we are focusing on the necessary amount of data to be generated, at the same time we are constantly blurring the political aim of this proposal.

The central question therefore should be whether the route we are taking is actually leading to the finish line of this run.

Instead of reaching the aims of REACH, I fear that we will get lost navigating our way through a jungle of data.

We need a compass to get back on track and that compass should be the original purpose of this project: to make chemicals safer for consumers through producer responsibility.

• Karl-Heinz Florenz is a Christian Democrat and coordinator for the European People' Party on the environment, public health and consumer policy committee.

In the first of a series of head-to-head debates on topical issues focused on special reports in European Voice, two German MEPs, Hiltrud Breyer and Karl-Heinz Florenz, offer their differing perspectives on the impact of proposed new safety rules for chemicals.