[Estimated reading time: 5 minutes]
NGOs in favor of increased regulatory rigor
Whilst some states Declare themselves in favor of more stringent regulations In terms of chemical risks, Brexit and the issue of immigration remain at the heart of the European Union's concerns. In this delicate political and social context, the Commission seems reluctant to put in place new regulations. It is not without saying that the REFIT programme for “smart, sharp and efficient” regulation (aimed at making legislation simpler and less expensive) does not facilitate initiatives. Indeed, each regulatory proposal must be approved by the meticulous regulatory review committee.
These conditions do not seem conducive to more stringent regulation, yet many NGOs and national agencies are speaking out to ask strengthened assessment and control of chemical substances. These organizations are in favor of a preventive regulation for a non-toxic environment. During 2016, ECHA (the European Chemical Agency) and the Danish Environmental Protection Agency submitted a proposal to ban certain toxic substances. This proposal is intended to be innovative because it advocates the idea of grouping which should limit “regrettable substitutions”. La substitution strategy Aims to replace prohibited substances with other authorized substances, however no less toxic. The desire of organizations is to see the emergence of a real regulatory response for the environment and human health.
Manufacturers want to defend their economic interests
Les undertakings As for them, they would like reducing the burden of regulation which is putting some SMEs in difficulty. In the long run, these companies fear being eliminated from the market. They also highlight their difficulties in implementing the REACH regulation and call for support from the Commission to deal with the costs involved.
Finally, businesses would like the regulations to meet their expectations in terms of increasing competitiveness, innovation and reducing costs.
The challenges of the REACH report
The REACH report, conducted every 5 years by the European Commission, is therefore part of this dual dynamic. Despite the apparently divergent interests of the various parties, numerous consensuses are nevertheless emerging between the participants in this report and ECHA.
Indeed, many companies do not keep their REACH files up to date, which does not make it easy for ECHA to develop appropriate regulatory measures. Thus, the REACH report proposes to empower ECHA to reject inadequate applications, to require companies to update their applications and to require information on substances. In addition, the authorities and industrial groups agree on the need to optimize the REACH authorization procedure Who is too slow and complex.
NGO proposals and the challenges of substitution
Faced with the problems raised, proposals are emerging. In order to limit the number and use of chemical substances within European territory, more extensive restrictions should be put in place with a notification process. It would also be essential to better identify SVHC substances by 2020 in order to include them in the candidate list. This measure could make it possible to better limit the risks of exposure of dangerous substances andencourage the use of alternative substances.
Substitute products are therefore fully in line with the Commission's strategy, which wishes to encourage alternatives to dangerous chemical substances. However, the REACH regulation does not implement concrete action to push manufacturers to change their means of production. This change can only happen with the use ofeconomic instruments, R&D and government research programs. The debate on substitution continues to rage and some academics are asking themselves the question of the limits of the measures to be taken: should ECHA refuse the REACH authorization request of certain companies? Are substitute products really less toxic to the environment and human health?
What will the Commission's strategy be?
The European Commission's policy is currently focused on the establishment of a non-toxic environment. This desire is particularly integrated into the circular economy strategy which aims to promote the recycling and recovery of materials. However, NGOs and industries remain stuck in their antagonistic positions since the former want a ban on dangerous substances while the latter emphasize the careful use of these substances by recycling agencies.
The companies concerned should invest in the establishment of systems to ensure the traceability of chemical substances within their supply chain (such as software). SVHC Factory for example) in order to be able to regularly specify whether their articles contain SVHCs. This information could then be communicated to the organizations in charge of recycling in order to remove items containing too high a dose of SVHC in advance. Finally, ECHA recommends, for items on the European market, a better communication With regard touse of chemical substances and associated exposure. Once the 2018 deadline for REACH Registration has passed, the Agency intends to work onimproving the examination of registration files and to the procedure ofhazard assessment substances.
Do you want to know more about the subject?
Do not hesitate to consult our page onREACH registration. Our experts can also be reached by This form.
[Estimated reading time: 5 minutes]
NGOs in favor of increased regulatory rigor
Whilst some states Declare themselves in favor of more stringent regulations In terms of chemical risks, Brexit and the issue of immigration remain at the heart of the European Union's concerns. In this delicate political and social context, the Commission seems reluctant to put in place new regulations. It is not without saying that the REFIT programme for “smart, sharp and efficient” regulation (aimed at making legislation simpler and less expensive) does not facilitate initiatives. Indeed, each regulatory proposal must be approved by the meticulous regulatory review committee.
These conditions do not seem conducive to more stringent regulation, yet many NGOs and national agencies are speaking out to ask strengthened assessment and control of chemical substances. These organizations are in favor of a preventive regulation for a non-toxic environment. During 2016, ECHA (the European Chemical Agency) and the Danish Environmental Protection Agency submitted a proposal to ban certain toxic substances. This proposal is intended to be innovative because it advocates the idea of grouping which should limit “regrettable substitutions”. La substitution strategy Aims to replace prohibited substances with other authorized substances, however no less toxic. The desire of organizations is to see the emergence of a real regulatory response for the environment and human health.
Manufacturers want to defend their economic interests
Les undertakings As for them, they would like reducing the burden of regulation which is putting some SMEs in difficulty. In the long run, these companies fear being eliminated from the market. They also highlight their difficulties in implementing the REACH regulation and call for support from the Commission to deal with the costs involved.
Finally, businesses would like the regulations to meet their expectations in terms of increasing competitiveness, innovation and reducing costs.
The challenges of the REACH report
The REACH report, conducted every 5 years by the European Commission, is therefore part of this dual dynamic. Despite the apparently divergent interests of the various parties, numerous consensuses are nevertheless emerging between the participants in this report and ECHA.
Indeed, many companies do not keep their REACH files up to date, which does not make it easy for ECHA to develop appropriate regulatory measures. Thus, the REACH report proposes to empower ECHA to reject inadequate applications, to require companies to update their applications and to require information on substances. In addition, the authorities and industrial groups agree on the need to optimize the REACH authorization procedure Who is too slow and complex.
NGO proposals and the challenges of substitution
Faced with the problems raised, proposals are emerging. In order to limit the number and use of chemical substances within European territory, more extensive restrictions should be put in place with a notification process. It would also be essential to better identify SVHC substances by 2020 in order to include them in the candidate list. This measure could make it possible to better limit the risks of exposure of dangerous substances andencourage the use of alternative substances.
Substitute products are therefore fully in line with the Commission's strategy, which wishes to encourage alternatives to dangerous chemical substances. However, the REACH regulation does not implement concrete action to push manufacturers to change their means of production. This change can only happen with the use ofeconomic instruments, R&D and government research programs. The debate on substitution continues to rage and some academics are asking themselves the question of the limits of the measures to be taken: should ECHA refuse the REACH authorization request of certain companies? Are substitute products really less toxic to the environment and human health?
What will the Commission's strategy be?
The European Commission's policy is currently focused on the establishment of a non-toxic environment. This desire is particularly integrated into the circular economy strategy which aims to promote the recycling and recovery of materials. However, NGOs and industries remain stuck in their antagonistic positions since the former want a ban on dangerous substances while the latter emphasize the careful use of these substances by recycling agencies.
The companies concerned should invest in the establishment of systems to ensure the traceability of chemical substances within their supply chain (such as software). SVHC Factory for example) in order to be able to regularly specify whether their articles contain SVHCs. This information could then be communicated to the organizations in charge of recycling in order to remove items containing too high a dose of SVHC in advance. Finally, ECHA recommends, for items on the European market, a better communication With regard touse of chemical substances and associated exposure. Once the 2018 deadline for REACH Registration has passed, the Agency intends to work onimproving the examination of registration files and to the procedure ofhazard assessment substances.
Do you want to know more about the subject?
Do not hesitate to consult our page onREACH registration. Our experts can also be reached by This form.
