Chemicals Regulation

How Current Regulations Fail to Protect Us

Chemicals are currently regulated on the basis of a costly, time-consuming and wholly inefficient process of chemical-by-chemical 'risk assessment'. If the regulators suspect a chemical might be dangerous, they have the burden to prove it before any measure can be taken to reduce our exposure. Current regulations are based on levels of "safe exposure" Regulators have to try to work out how much of a chemical we can be exposed to and still be safe. Yet it's impossible to determine everyone who might be exposed, for how long or at what level and the individual impacts. What, for example, is the safe level of exposure for an unborn child in rapid development? What are the effects of one toxic substance when in combination with all the other substances we are exposed to? Today there are so many sources of chemicals that no one knows the cumulative dose we're getting.

Regulation based on the risk assessment process is moreover extremely complex, slow and has proved to be inefficient. This is also due to the fact that public authorities are the only body responsible for assessing the properties and uses of chemicals, with no responsibility on the producers and importers of the substances. The so-called "Existing Substances Regulation" set up in 1993 to evaluate risks prioritised only 141 substances from the tens of thousands on the market and yet, in the 12 years since then, has delivered final assessment conclusions on only half of these. Furthermore, the current system allows companies to continue to use dangerous chemicals even when we can avoid them by using safer alternatives.

Brominated flame retardants are added to electronic equipment, furnishings and automobiles, for example. These flame retardants are fast becoming a new chemical concern. Tests show that some of these chemicals, which can interfere with the proper functioning of the important thyroid gland, are found to accumulate in women's breast milk. Incredibly, current regulations force governments to try and determine 'safe' levels of exposure to these hazardous chemicals. But lengthy risk assessments may take years before governments can act to restrict the use of such chemicals.

Another group of chemicals - phthalates - are added to many PVC products to make them soft and pliable, even though we know they're hazardous and that there are alternatives, including alternative non-PVC materials. Instead of enforcing the use of safer chemicals or materials when the problems of phthalate toxicity and exposure in children first came to light, EU officials, in sympathy with the chemicals industry, wasted valuable time inventing machines to mimic babies chewing on soft PVC toys in order to estimate how much of these hazardous chemicals they might swallow and determine a 'safe' phthalate dose. It took the EU eight years to come to the conclusion that the only responsible approach was to avoid such exposure altogether by banning the use of several phthalates in toys and childcare products. Even now, however, these harmful chemicals can be still used elsewhere in a whole range of products around the home, and will thus still end up in the environment and in our bodies.

Substitution - It's Common Sense

The EU has admitted its failure to control chemicals under the laws we have today. And is now proposing an opportunity to change the system with new legislation called REACH - Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals. Environmental, health, consumers, women's and labour groups are joining together to defend a proposal that could effectively control hazardous substances and substitute many of them with safer alternatives. This proposed law is under heavy attack by the chemicals industry lobby and has already been substantially watered down by their political allies.

For REACH to work it must insist on:

Substitute with safer alternatives
The most important part of the proposed REACH legislation is the idea of substitution: companies would have to replace the most hazardous chemicals whenever possible. If a company were to make a chemical that has hazardous properties it would first have to show there was no safer alternative and that there was a real need for the chemical. In this case the chemical would only be allowed for specific uses and only for a limited time until a safer alternative is developed.

Reverse the burden of proof:
Under current law, governments must prove a chemical is harmful before taking it off the market. The new chemical reform offers a chance to reverse the burden of proof, by making chemical producers prove that their products are safe before they are put on the market. If a company can't provide basic information on the properties and uses of a chemical, it should not be allowed to market it.

Prevention of risk:
The best approach to hazardous chemicals is a precautionary approach - preventing risk by avoiding it, rather than trying to manage it. This "better safe than sorry" approach looks directly at inherent dangers in a chemical. If it is persistent and doesn't break down easily in the environment, for example, or it bioaccumulates and builds up in the food chain, it automatically carries a certain risk to health and the environment, irrespective of whether or not that risk can be quantified. Rather than trying endlessly to analyse the risk we should avoid it in the first place, by not licensing such chemicals for use.

Help us to ensure that REACH protects us from hazardous chemicals. Act now!