Industry’s message to MEPs: ‘REACH must not cripple us’

Date: 13/01/05

THE chemical industry has already warned that the legislation could mean direct costs of up to €15 billion over the 11-year implementation period rather than the €5.2bn maximum estimated by the European Commission.

But the three committees that will scrutinise the proposal - environment and public health (lead committee), industry and research, and internal market and consumer protection, will host a hearing at which manufacturers, retailers, small businesses, chemists, consumer groups, environmentalists and scientists will put across their points of view in more detail.

"Although the philosophy is sound, the regulation needs to be simpler and more workable for the industry," says Judith Hackitt, director of the UK Chemical Industries Association.

Reducing the scope of the proposal from all chemicals produced in the EU to only those marketed would be more reasonable, she says. Chemical manufacturers also want to strip out any mandatory data-sharing from the proposal, which they claim could force companies to reveal sensitive business intelligence that could harm their competitiveness.

Smaller manufacturers are particularly worried about the cost of the proposal. The European Association of Chemical Distributors estimates that up to 50% of substances could be lost because companies will not be able to afford to test them.

"Major European manufacturers have large research and development facilities to deal with the registration," says the distributors' spokesman Hendrik Abma, "but a small importer requires specialised expert staff to prepare and execute their registration of hundreds of substances, including every substance of every preparation which is thousands of substances." Abma also warns that the cost of substituting harmful chemicals could be even higher than the cost of testing the chemicals themselves.

At the end of the business line, EU retailers are worried that raising awareness among consumers could harm imports of articles from largely unregulated regions such as south east Asia. All the chemicals used in any consumer product such as clothing or mobile phones will have to be registered under the proposal.

"Consumers don't yet associate chemicals with articles that they purchase but we suspect this will change with the legislation," warns Mike Barry, environment manager at UK clothing retailer Marks & Spencer. "People will become increasingly aware of their exposure and we will be in the front line."

Barry says that as a result retailers will push for the EU's Chemical Agency, which will oversee the registration process, to develop guidelines on how to control chemicals in imported products.

Swedish Liberal deputy Lena Ek, who is in charge of drafting the view of the Parliament's industry committee, says that she will work to reduce the burden on smaller companies (SMEs), particularly via the role of the Chemical Agency.

"In the agency there should be a special part, whose role would be to help and guide SMEs through the registration process," she says. Another way to cut costs for SMEs would be to consider the 'One substance, One registration' proposal from the UK and Hungary, under which all companies would have access to a list of the substances to be registered to avoid doubling up. This proposal, debated at last November's Competitiveness Council, is already backed by several member states.

"But if we take steps in that direction we must work out how to split the bill for those companies which are sharing their knowledge in order to get it as fair as possible," Ek says.

German centre-right deputy Hartmut Nassauer for the internal market committee thinks that there will be a shift towards prioritisation, where the registration of a chemical will depend on the risk it poses rather than the amount produced.

The internal market committee will debate his working document on this at the end of January. "I'm convinced that it is not the amount but the potential risk that should be the decisive factor for our registration system," says Nassauer. "Otherwise a small quantity of chemical will not be able to be produced profitably."

In Nassauer's view, the Commission will back this approach after the results of its risk assessment study are published in March.

But Italian Socialist Guido Sacconi, who will examine the proposal for the lead environment committee, rejected any change in prioritisation. "This is just trying to reduce the number of chemicals registered," he said. "We must remember that the long term objective is to include all the 100,000 chemicals that we don't know about in this system."

Ek points out that REACH already includes different levels of risk within the tonnage classification but adds that the risk principle could be extended. "Using quantity is a practical solution that's easy to work with," she explains.

On the eve of the hearing, on 17 January, the employer's federation UNICE will present its position on REACH. It will call for the evaluation of substances to be based on risk-priority setting rather than volume. It will also insist that data-sharing must remain voluntary for companies. UNICE is in the process of finalising a wider impact assessment study on REACH.

Environmentalists are opposed to any further reduction in the scope of the regulation. "There are already 70,000 chemicals that have been left out of this proposal," said Stephan Scheuer from the European Environmental Bureau. "If the industry comes up with any more restrictions they are really playing with fire." The top priority, he said, was for the regulation to close its loophole on the most dangerous substances. As it stands, companies can still use a chemical as long as they control the risk. "This is not only a threat to human health and the environment but it will hit those modern industries that are developing safe alternatives," said Scheuer.

One thing all sides agree on is that Parliament must move quickly. "Uncertainty is no good for business," says Hackitt. "The process is starting. It's already taken a long time to get to this point."

The rapporteurs are expected to submit their reports by the end of February and the first reading is planned for September or October.

Article reports that the chemical industry has warned that the proposed EU legislation on the registration of chemicals, REACH, could mean direct costs of up to €15 billion over the 11-year implementation period rather than the €5.2bn maximum estimated by the European Commission.

European Commission: DG Environment: Chemicals: REACH http://ec.europa.eu/comm/environment/chemicals/reach.htm

---