Toggle high contrast

Exporting risks doesn't protect European workers, consumers or environment

Issue date

New European Chemicals Strategy

TUC response to the

Government position statement: January 2003

The TUC wants to see a thriving, sustainable chemicals industry in Europe which protects its workers without degrading the environment or harming consumers. This objective is unchanged from our response to the EU Chemicals White Paper, Missing from the Mixture, June 2001.

This briefing paper responds to the December 2002 Government position paper on the new European chemicals strategy (references to ‘sections’ are to that document) and in particular the proposals for regulating on the basis of ‘Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals’ (REACH). It has been developed in consultation with unions in the chemicals industry and downstream users, and in discussion with our social partners, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Chemical Industries Association (CIA).

Overall objectives

The TUC believes that the current structure for managing chemical risks - in Britain encapsulated in the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations, the Chemical Hazards Information and Packaging Regulations etc (COSHH, COMAH and CHIP) - is adequate and fit for purpose. There will always be room for improvement in health and safety standards, but we believe that these Regulations provide an adequate framework for managing risk. The EU chemicals strategy goes beyond the protection of workers, but in doing so, introduces the danger that workers’ health and safety will be ignored or downgraded.

The TUC is therefore concerned that the overall objectives for the chemicals strategy summarised in the Government position paper (section 2) do not refer specifically to protecting the health of people working with chemicals, but only to human health and the environment. While ‘human health’ remains undifferentiated, it will probably be taken to be a reference to consumer or public health, and therefore exclude workers’ health. The TUC would like to see protecting workers’ health made an explicit objective for the EU’s overall chemicals strategy, although we do not consider substantial changes are necessary in current Directives or regulations to achieve that.

We note and welcome the Government’s support for maintaining and enhancing the competitiveness of the chemical industry - but there should also be a commitment to supporting downstream industries using the products of that industry. We also welcome:

  • the reference to the Globally Harmonised System (GHS) for classification of chemicals agreed by unions and employers through the UN - we would like to see this implemented at the same time as the REACH system; and
  • references to increased transparency, although there are no indications about how this will make it easier for users (workers and consumers) to use the information produced by the new strategy.

Implementation issues

The TUC continues to oppose the suggestion (in 'a phased approach' - section 3.2) that chemicals should be prioritised for classification or regulation by tonnage. Whilst we accept that bandings like ‘wide dispersive use’ are more logical, our view is still that the most sensible approach is to prioritise according to risk. It is even more ludicrous that the system proposed will see one producer of large quantities of a virtually inert chemical being addressed before a highly toxic substance produced in small quantities by a multitude of producers. The strategy should be risk based, not bulk-based.

We support the proportionate approach to minimising animal testing in section 3.3, which recognises the need actively to develop alternatives, and the need to balance risks to animal and human and worker health.

In terms of innovation, we note the references to the chemical industry producing safer alternatives, but we can see no incentive in the proposed strategy for doing so. There should be specific incentives within REACH for the creation of safer substitutes.

Throughout, the TUC has been concerned to ensure not just that the European chemical industry is protected from unfair competition, but also that workers in other parts of the world are not adversely affected by risks being transferred from workplaces where they are currently fairly well controlled to workplaces where controls are poor. We are not arguing against exporting jobs, but no one benefits from exporting risks. We therefore welcome the references to protecting the position of the European chemicals industry in sections 3.4 and 3.8 but we feel they do not go far enough. In particular, we are opposed to allowing importers simply to claim that they have complied with the REACH system. The strategy needs to deal explicitly with any incentive to outsource chemical industry processes (for example, where only the end product has to pass through REACH where imports to the EU are concerned, but if produced entirely internally, several intermediate stages need to pass through REACH).

We disagree with the Government’s view (section 3.9) that a new central body is needed. The TUC believes that the European Chemicals Bureau (ECB) could handle the new system, but that it should be transformed into a tripartite institution.

The REACH system

We do not comment in depth here about the Government’s views on REACH, as there is still a lot to be decided at European level. However, we believe that the system needs to include the possibility of complete bans on the use of certain chemicals, and that there should be more clarity about how the information gathered through REACH is made available to the public and workers’ representatives. We are sceptical of the way commercial confidentiality has been used in the past to prevent openness, and would urge that at the very least, those claiming commercial confidentiality should be required, on a case-by-case basis, to justify that claim, rather than simply accepting it.

Other issues

We welcome the Government’s commitment that the new chemicals strategy should be implemented on an EU-wide basis, minimising the chance for conflicting or inconsistent decisions at the level of individual countries. We believe that any regulatory impact assessments conducted under the new strategy should be conducted by independent bodies, funded by the European Commission.

For further information, contact

Owen Tudor

TUC Senior Policy Officer

T: 020 7467 1325

F: 020 7467 1265

E: otudor@tuc.org.uk

Enable Two-Factor Authentication

To access the admin area, you will need to setup two-factor authentication (TFA).

Setup now