16/1/2005
- Environmental, health, women's and consumer groups warned
today that the Parliament risks turning REACH from a pro-environment
and health legislation into just the opposite. If
the Sacconi Nassauer deal on registration is adopted by
plenary and, at the same time, the authorisation package
agreed in the environment committee is rejected, REACH
will not only fail to benefit human health and the environment
but would threaten them, the groups said. This will not
improve the bad image of the chemicals industry.
AUTHORISATION - weakening existing
protection levels - The door will be wide open for the
continued and legal use of identified dangerous chemicals
if producers are allowed to continue marketing the most
hazardous substances by claiming they are ‘adequately
controlled’. Unless the authorisation package adopted
in the environment committee is supported, an identified
carcinogen or reproductive toxin for which safe alternatives
are available would be allowed to stay on the market and
could be used in consumer products, contrary to existing
legislation.
REGISTRATION - The registration package
supported by the main political groups would let companies
supply only little and low quality safety information
on chemical substances:
• Almost no safety data will be required for 70-90% of
substances produced in 1-10 tonne volumes per year – beyond,
for example, details of boiling point. (Current legislation
requires health-relevant information for all new chemicals
produced in volumes above 10 kilos a year.)
• Tests for chemicals produced in all volumes above 10
tonnes per year will fall below international (OECD) guidelines
for high volume chemicals, which industry has long committed
to respect.
• Large chemicals producers will be permitted not to share
data with SMEs.
Without obtaining basic safety information,
there is no way of identifying which chemicals pose a
threat to health and the environment, or of banning their
use.
The NGOs warned the Parliament not
to mislead the public by calling a decision that is likely
to damage human health and the environment a pro-environment
vote. |