About Chemicals Policy

• U.S.
  • U.S. Federal
  • U.S. State
• Europe
  • Europe Current
  • Europe REACH
  • Member States
• Canada
• Other Americas
• Asia-Pacific
• Africa
• Global

• Chemicals & Chemistry
  • Chemical Hazards
  • Green Chemistry

• Alternatives Assessment

• News and Events

• LCSP Publications

• Other Links
  • Key Reports
  • Organizations

• Archive

Archive: REACH Stakeholder Positions

REACH was an intensively controversial proposal, with a large number of interests involved, from chemicals producers to retailers, from environmental groups to animal rights groups, from the US Government to the Chinese Government.

For links to the  actual decision-makers on REACH, see:

• The Council
• DG Environment REACH web site
• DG Enterprise REACH web site
• European Parliament and Environment Committee

Areas of Dispute Within the REACH Proposal

One Substance, One Registration (OSOR): This proposal, from the UK and Hungarian governments, was extensively debated among member state experts in the Ad Hoc Working Group. It would have the effect of forcing registrants to share all hazard data on their chemicals (not just data from tests on vertebrate animals), and oblige them to agree a core set of hazard data for registration. The goal of this proposal is to avoid multiple registrations of the same substance, thus simplifying the registration process and reducing the cost.

Changes to Prioritization in Registration: Registration was prioritized by tonnage produced or imported and by certain properties – CMRs. There was much discussion on whether it is feasible to further prioritize, while trying to avoid the outcome of rewarding those chemicals with less safety data. A potential option from the Council debate was to accelerate registration for substances with vPvB and PBT properties. The chemical industry (CEFIC and VCI) called for a system that will reduce the amount of data they must submit on registration, though their suggested option has been criticized in analyses by both the German and Swedish Governments. It was also noted (e.g. by WWF, pages 49-50) that the industry proposals tended to result in a substantial reduction in producer responsibility.

Changes to Data Requirements in Registration. The chemical industry pushed for reduced data requirements in registration, in particular for low volume substances. This approach was echoed in a proposal from Malta and Slovenia, but was been strongly criticized by other stakeholders, with NGOs producing a response. In addition, Unions and Environmental NGOs have criticized the REACH proposal for note requiring sufficient safety data for those chemicals produced or imported at 1-10 tpa.

An Increased Role for the Agency in Evaluation. There was some discussion, led by France in Council, on whether the Agency should have a greater role in evaluation. However, it was also clear that Member States wish to retain their expertise on chemicals (not least to be able to enforce the system).

Changes to the Way Chemicals in Articles are Dealt With. Many parties were unhappy with the way substances in articles are dealt with in the REACH system, in particular two issues: (i) The procedure for dealing with unregistered chemicals entering the EU in imported articles; and (ii) Lack of information flow about chemicals in the article supply chain. Options for the former range widely from removing the current procedure to strengthening it. For the latter, there is some focus on labeling of articles containing chemicals of very high concern, and on creating a “Right to Know” within the article supply chain, for example see the Swedish Government proposals.

Increased Focus on Substitution in Authorisation. A number of stakeholders, including NGOs and some governments (see statement produced for Environment Council in June 2004), supported a strengthening of the role of substitution in authorisation. Most NGO groups were calling for a system which would allow the regulator to consider availability of substitutes and socioeconomic justification when considering all applications for authorisation, rather than just those which are not considered ‘adequately controlled’.

More Flexibility in the Scope of Authorisation. Many NGOs wished to remove the requirement for substances of equivalent concern to be “identified as causing serious and irreversible effects to humans or the environment”, arguing that this was too high a burden of proof (e.g. see WWF Policy paper)

More Limited Scope for Authorisation. Other stakeholders, such as the European Chemical Industry Association, CEFIC, were less convinced by Authorisation, and had argued that it was overly bureaucratic, and should be limited to CMRs, and not cover vPvBs and PBTs and substances of equivalent concern.

Costs and Benefits of REACH

The costs and benefits of REACH have been intensively debated ever since REACH was first proposed, with industry tending to claim much higher costs than any other party.

When the REACH proposal was published in 2003, it included an “extended impact assessment”. This assessment estimated that REACH would cost the EU chemical industry around €2.3 billion over 11 years, with a maximum total cost on industry of €5.2 billion, with health benefits of at least $50 billion.

The Commission's figures contrasted with studies from industry, in particular two studies, one done by Arthur D Little (ADL) for the German Industry Association (BDI), and the other done by Mercer consulting in France, both of which claimed that REACH would create a huge financial impact, knocking several percent off GDP growth. The industry studies were, however, soon criticized by other economists in a number of reports by the German Environment Agency UBA, the German Advisory Council for the Environment and the Science Policy Research Unit in the UK.

Meanwhile, a few studies where investigating the benefits of REACH, including a WWF-EEB discussion paper “A new chemicals policy in Europe – new opportunities for industry”, a study on health benefits of REACH commissioned by WWF from the Environmental Economist David Pearce, and a study on REACH and innovation commissioned by WWF from the Science Policy Research Unit in the UK.

At the end of 2004 the impact assessment debate began to quiet down. In October 2004, The Nordic Council published an impact assessment of REACH which calculated that the changes in costs as a result of REACH will not be significant when compared with other variable business costs such as oil price and exchange rates. This study also heavily criticizes the ADL and Mercer studies, stating that they are “implausible... , based on numerous errors and exaggerations”.

Later on in October, the Dutch Presidency of the EU held a three day workshop on impact assessment for Council experts, with the conclusions emphasizing the importance of moving on from the impact assessment debate, and focusing instead on ensuring workability. As part of the preparation for this workshop they publish a summary report of 36 impact assessments.

However, another impact assessment process was already underway at this point, a study funded by CEFIC and UNECE, examining REACH impacts on supply chains, commissioned from the consultants KPMG. The final report was published in April 2005. along with a Commission note; This study did not, however, provide evidence to back the immense impacts that industry had been predicting. The environmental NGOs WWF and EEB issued a joint statement, emphasizing that the study found that “The cost impacts on the individual companies remain moderate, even under the assumption of worst case effects.”; CEFIC's statement, in contrast, emphasizes the changes in REACH that they consider are necessary to minimize its impacts.

A meeting of Competitiveness Council (EU Industry Ministers) in June 2005 concluded that sufficient work had been done on the impact assessment of REACH, and the priority was to move forward with the political process of finalizing REACH.

The European Commission's Enterprise Commissioner, Günter Verheugen, has since said in an interview that "the figures used in the past were – to say the least – a little bit exaggerated. In terms of costs, REACH is not ‘that monstrum’ as it was described".

WWF and the European Environment Bureau have since published an analysis of the impact assessment of REACH.

International Impacts of REACH

REACH will clearly have considerable impacts beyond the European Union, for example:

• Companies exporting chemicals and preparations into Europe will have to follow the new rules, as will (to a lesser extent) those exporting articles into Europe.
• REACH will generate new safety information on chemicals and recommendations for their safe use, much of which will be made available on the internet, where it can be used by non-EU governments, companies, unions and individuals.
• The confidential data in the REACH system can be used by non-EU governmental regulators, provided that confidentiality is retained. This will give regulators across the world more information on the chemicals used in their countries.
• REACH will lead to the identification of new hazards for chemicals in everyday use, which in some cases will lead to legal restrictions or authorisation, controls which may be followed by other countries.
• Other jurisdictions are also facing the problem of how to deal with the lack of data on existing chemicals. The REACH approach is likely to catalyze changes in chemicals policies in many other countries.

REACH and the WTO

One focus of external lobbying around REACH has been the World Trade Organization, which attempts to create a level playing field for trade around the world.

A number of Governments, notably the USA, and industry groups have claimed the REACH violates the WTO agreements, however the European Commission has defended the proposal in a detailed paper published in October 2004.

More support for REACH’s WTO compliance comes from an analysis produced by FIELD for WWF UK. Other Civil Society NGOs have also backed the EU in the WTO debate, for example the Trans-Atlantic Consumer Dialogue produced a paper on REACH and the WTO, and the US NGO Environmental Defense sent a letter criticizing claims made by the USA government.

Industry Stakeholders

• Note: Industry stakeholders at Member State level are listed on the Member State page

There are a huge number of different industry stakeholders involved in the REACH debate. A few of them are listed below, for more see the Euractiv REACH web page, which links to many reports from industry stakeholders.

The Chemical Industry in Europe is represented by CEFIC; the REACH section of their web site is here. A simple summary of their view on REACH is given on this site:

"We therefore fully support the objectives of REACH, and welcome the desire to produce an effective regulatory framework for the safe management of chemicals. REACH has the potential to simplify legislation for chemical manufacturers, and deliver significant benefits to downstream industries, consumers and the environment.

We believe, however, that some crucial workability issues remain to be solved before the system can work in practice and achieve its objectives."

The Metals Industry is represented by Eurometaux, their views of REACH are summarized in the REACH section.

The overall industry association in Europe is UNICE.

Retailers and traders are represented by Eurocommerce. Their position on REACH, which focuses particularly on chemicals in imported articles, is available here.

Electronics producers are represented by EICTA, they also have a REACH page.

The NGO, The International Chemical Secretariat, has produced a report compiling the views of companies who are looking for strengthening of REACH.

Non-Government Organizations

Environmental Groups

All the main environmental NGOs have REACH campaigns — WWF Detox, Greenpeace "Chemicals out of Control" and Friends of the Earth's Safer Chemicals Campaign. Each of these campaign web sites includes policy reports, research on chemical problems etc. The Chemical Reaction site is a joint NGO campaign on REACH.

The European Environmental Bureau is a Brussels-based NGO that works exclusively at EU, and helps in coordinating environmental NGO work at EU level. Their web site has a REACH section with many publications. It also lists the 5 key demands that environment and health NGOs are making from the REACH process:

1. An authorisation for the use of ‘chemicals of very high concern' should only be granted if no safer alternatives are available and the use is essential to society. We believe the substitution principle must be mandatory in this process.

2. Registration procedures must close the existing gap in safety information.

3. Industry information needs independent quality control.

4. Chemicals used in imported articles must have the same information requirements as those in EU-made articles.

5. There must be a public right to know and improved procedures on access to information throughout the supply chain.

Consumer, Women's and Health Groups

Consumer groups across Europe are represented at EU level by BEUC, and they have section of their web site devoted to REACH.

Health groups across Europe are represented by the European Public Health Association, and their Environmental Network works on REACH.

Women's groups working on sustainability are represented by Women in Europe for a Common Future.

Unions

Trade Unions in the EU are coordinated by the European Trades Union Confederation (ETUC), and their site also has a REACH section.

Animal welfare and animal rights groups

The animal rights coalition European Coalition to End Animal Experiments and the animal welfare coalition Eurogroup for Animal Welfare are both campaigning for REACH to use non-animal tests.

REACH Stakeholders From Outside the EU

Many governments and other stakeholders outside the EU have commented on REACH. Here is a small selection:

• The US Government mission to the EU has a number of comments on REACH on its web site. In 2002 the US government also distributed a 'non paper' on REACH. Representative Waxman produced a report that was heavily critical of the US government response to REACH.
• The US chemical industry trade association, the American Chemistry Council, has been very critical of REACH.

Many non-EU parties commented in the internet consultation on the draft REACH proposal - their contributions are available from the DG Enterprise site.