REACH vote: the right decision

MEPs must get it right in the votes on REACH this week. Lena Ek MEP makes her case.

After more than two years of discussions, it is finally time for MEPs to vote on a new chemicals legislation.

I hope that the compromises that are on the table can be supported by a big majority in the European Parliament so that we as a parliament can have a strong position before it moves to council.

REACH is an important part in achieving the goals of the Lisbon agenda. The increased knowledge about chemicals will pave the way for new technologies, new substances and even new companies.

It gives us the opportunity to create new, environmentally driven technology and should spur innovation.

An improved and workable chemicals legislation will play an important part in creating jobs and growth in a knowledge-based economy.

But to do all that, REACH needs to be strengthened, clarified and simplified.

One worry that I have heard from many retailers is that they won’t get the information about chemicals in the products they are selling.

When there are public outcries about chemicals in products, it is the retailers who are most likely to be in the line of fire, not chemical producers.

Consumers should have the right to know whether a dangerous chemical is present or not in the product that they are about to buy.

To simplify and make REACH more workable, steps should be taken towards a ‘one substance, one registration’ (OSOR) system.

Sharing test data would reduce the number of tests that have to be performed. And the cost to companies would also be reduced.

It must, however, be possible for small companies to opt out and registration for SMEs needs to be simplified.

REACH should ask for more information from companies registering of dangerous substances in the range one to ten ton range; here the European Commission proposal is not strong enough.

For other substances in this tonnage range, the testing requirements could be lowered. The compromise on registration of one to ten tonnes is a good, but not perfect, proposal to achieve this.

One of my proposals is also to clarify that the burden of proof always rests with the industry.

This, together with a duty of care, would be strong foundations on which to build some of the fundamental elements of the REACH legislation. A too-rigid REACH would undermine the very purpose of the legislation.

Exemptions should be granted for recycled materials, as these are indispensable to sustainable development and their use should not be restricted under REACH.

Minerals and ores should also be exempted. Industry fears that REACH will require that every single load from European mines be analysed and registered.

It must be clarified that this won't be the case. Pulps used in paper manufacturing should also be exempted, as there is no added value in demanding expensive testing and registration of such harmless materials.

One of the changes that has been discussed intensively in the parliament is the inclusion of a substitution principle.

With such a change, dangerous chemicals would have to be replaced if a a less-harmful alternative exists. I think this would be a very important change, not least since the council proposal is very weak in this area.

This would strengthen health and environmental protection and increase innovation and research in the chemicals industry in Europe.

This has also been supported by companies such as Marks and Spencer, H&M and IKEA.

There are plenty of challenges facing Europe: the constitutional treaty, the services directive, the EU budget and REACH, to name just four.

The rejection of the constitution by voters in France and the Netherlands left Europe in confusion over its future development.

The services directive is in a mess. Negotiations over the long-term budget have been postponed, further adding to the gloom. The value of European cooperation must be clearly shown to citizens – we need to give value to voters.

REACH is our chance of doing this. Stakeholders have been discussing a new chemicals regime in Europe for almost seven years and parliament has had the dossier on its agenda for two years.

I hope that we, as members of the parliament, will give a clear message to the European voters by shaping a REACH that will increase the protection of human health and the environment and at the same time ensure the competitiveness of the industry.

This article originally appeared in the November 14 edition of Parliament Magazine.

• Previous article
• Next article