Document MM3K88z5XYq50w6mb4jMnG2na

From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: FW: Follow up ChemSec meeting jeudi 10 septembre 2020 10:38:05 image001.png image002.png Chemicals strategy ChemSec view 2020.pdf From: Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 4:57 PM To: Cc: Subject: Re: Follow up ChemSec meeting Dear Thank you for your mail. Regarding your questions on what substances to consider to apply stricter regulation- at ChemSec we have identified a number of substances of very high concern (SVHCs). To do this we have used the criteria set out in REACH to define SVHCs and contracted scientists (experts in respective field) to evaluate chemicals against these criteria. The chemicals fulfilling the criteria for SVHC have been listed by ChemSec on our so called SIN List (Substitute It Now List). This list was first launched over 10 years ago and have during these years gained a lot of interest all over the world. The list is now used in many different companies along the global supply chain - brands, retailers, manufacturers, chemical producers, suppliers, and so forth. The SIN List is also used by the Dow Jones Sustainability Index product stewardship criterion. Many investors and financial analysts are using the SIN List to avoid investing in companies producing hazardous substances and the financial risk that this implies. Regulators and authorities use the SIN List in legislative processes, in the EU but also beyond. Other users include scientists and researchers, consultants and NGOs who use the SIN List as a tool when prioritising individual chemicals or groups of chemicals to campaign for safer products and stronger chemicals regulations. In our view all substances on the SIN List should be included in the REACH Candidate list (since we apply the same criteria as in REACH). We also believe it would be useful to include following properties in the criteria for identifying Substances of very high concern in REACH since these pose a threat to both human health and our environment and have an equivalent level of concern to other SVHCs: PMT (Persistent, mobile and toxic) vPvM (very persistent and very mobile) Endocrine disruptive chemicals (EDCs) Today chemicals with these properties have been added to the SIN List via the so called "equivalent level of concern" criteria for SVHCs, REACH 57f. If you like to read more about the SIN List and search the chemicals on the list you find it all here: https://sinlist.chemsec.org To strengthen the regulation further it's also important to strengthen the implementation, enforcement as well as to adjust REACH to apply same regulation to imported articles as to articles produced in the EU. On the issue to support the frontrunners and not the slow movers there are a number of important issues to be done. I have listed a few below. To effectively protect people from hazardous chemicals it's important to prioritise elimination of substances of concern instead of focusing on managing the risks with hazardous chemicals. The toxic- free hierarchy suggested by DG ENVI for the chemical strategy is in line with this. This would also give a clear message from policymakers to all parts of industry that the aim is to phase out the most hazardous substances. That message creates incentive for innovators to find alternatives, for users of chemicals to push for development of alternatives or search for alternative ways to produce products without the hazardous chemical. It helps industry to direct their innovation potential in the right direction. Our experience tells us that if the policymakers focus on each company and their economic interest there is a tendency to support the slow movers instead of the future-proof companies. A very concrete example is REACH Authorisation process where the economic possibility for the applicant for authorization to phase out a substances of concern is evaluated instead of focusing if alternatives are available to produce the product in question on a more general level. This has led to continued use of Substances of very high concern even when alternatives have been available. ChemSec has had numerus discussions with very frustrated companies producing alternatives to substances of very high concern not being able to expand their market share since the hazardous substances have been giving green light for continued use (a so-called authorization) which means that the incentive to shift to the alternative is much less than if the hazardous substances had not been giving the green light. On a more general level, any financial support to industry should be given to companies moving away from hazardous chemicals or producing alternatives to hazardous chemicals. We have written a lot about how to improve the authorization processeverything found on our website: https://chemsec.org/publication/authorisation-process/ For example "Lost at SEA*" (*socioeconomic analysis) where we have analysed the socioeconomic evaluation done in the authorization process and give suggestions to improve the same: https://chemsec.org/publication/authorisation-process,reach/lost-at-sea/ We have also written "The bigger picture" where we bring forward arguments economic growth and phase out of hazardous chemicals can go hand in hand: https://chemsec.org/publication/authorisation-process,chemicalsbusiness,reach/the-bigger-picture-assessing-economic-aspects-ofchemicals-substitution-2016/ I have also attached a paper in which we have summaries our 5 main points for the chemical strategy. Hope you find all of this useful. Please do not hesitate if you have further questions or comments. Kind regards, ChemSec | Frsta Lnggatan 18, SE-413 28 Gteborg, Sweden | chemsec.org Frn: Datum: mndag 7 september 2020 12:01 Till: Kopia: mne: RE: Follow up ChemSec meeting Dear We thank you very much again for the discussion and for your follow up e-mail. As discussed last week, do not hesitate to come back on the list of substances you would consider to apply a stricter regulation ("the generic risk approach") and on what could be concretely changed to support "the frontrunners and not the slow movers". All the best, From: Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 7:47 AM To: Cc: Subject: Follow up ChemSec meeting Dear , Thank you for a very nice meeting last week. Below I have summarised our main points from the meeting and also provided you with some links if you are interested to dig more into some issues. Aim of Green deal The Green del sets out the aim of the Chemical Strategy - to generate more action to prevent pollution. What we saw from the leaked version from DG Grow, the suggested changes would directly undermine the Green Deal. There is an urgency We recognize that the regulation of chemicals in the EU is ambitious. Nevertheless, numerous studies in recent years have shown that it is insufficient to protect EU citizen and our environment and action to ensure this is needed from policy makers. The urgency and momentum we see reflected in the studies performed last years corresponds well with the strong ambition from a growing number of industries and expectations from consumers to minimize the use of hazardous substances when possible. Regulation drives innovation Our experience is that if industry is given clear limits and frames they are able and willing to adapt to stricter regulation. However, if regulators are weak in implementation or fail to stand firm in their message, parts of industry will start to stretch the boundaries and it becomes unclear for everyone where the boundaries are. We conclude that there is no contradiction between stronger regulation and competitiveness. This has also been supported by a recent report from ECHA. According to the agency, regulation is the main driver for innovation in the chemicals industry. This is also something that can be seen in the ChemScore ranking of 2020, where the worlds 35 largest chemical producers are ranked on their work on sustainability. All of the top-ranking producers are European, and this is not a coincidence. You might be interested to know that the biggest French chemical producer, Air Liquide, ranks sixth on the ChemScore ranking of 2020. Another important aspect to consider when discussing the ChemScore ranking is that European chemicals industry is in fact better prepared than any other in the world for a transition to a more sustainable economy. And as European policy does not only have a big impact on the local effect, but indeed even on the global level, an ambitious chemical strategy will create a competitive edge globally for the European chemicals industry. To facilitate for the chemical industry to be able to focus its innovation resources in the right direction it needs clear directions from policymakers as well as support when moving ahead. Additionally, many internationally well-known brands, users of chemicals, are asking for stricter regulation. ChemSec PFAS movement is one example. Support the frontrunners not the slow movers We need to ask ourselves - What industries do we want in the future? The innovative frontrunners or the slow movers? To support the transition towards more sustainable alternatives the EU need to support the innovative companies and the frontrunners, the futureproof industry. Supporting them will facilitate for them to develop hazard free sustainable solutions. But this also means that all companies should not be saved at every cost. Our experience tells us that if the policymakers focus on each company and their economic interest there is a tendency to support the slow movers instead of the future-proof companies. Decision makers in the EU must accept that not all companies will survive the necessary changes, but need to assure that the frontrunners do. Specific points suggested by DG GROW we find particularly problematic The 'toxic-free hierarchy' introduced by DG ENV is in line with the Green Deal's pollution prevention goal. The toxic-free hierarchy prioritizes avoiding toxic chemicals all together, rather than control of chemicals. The hierarchy is inspired by the existing EU hierarchies for waste and occupational health risk management that prioritizes elimination and prevention over control measures. In its comment, DG GROW reverses this hierarchy (calling it SMART regulation), so that control measures go first, in effect prioritizing the use of toxic chemicals. To effectively protect people from hazardous chemicals the toxic-free hierarchy is the most effective method. Hazard vs risk approach (or the Generic risk assessment vs Specific risk assessment) Hazard refers to the intrinsic properties of a chemical, its potential to do harm. The risk is the combination of hazard and exposure (risk = hazard x exposure). Hazard assessments are complex, but exposure assessments add even more levels of complexity to the equation. Both elements are used in REACH and have their pros and cons. But when identifying if a chemical is hazardous or not it is crucial to use the hazard approach exclusively. We have written more in detail about this here: https://chemsec.org/policy-and-positions/hazardrisk/ DG GROW is also questioning the concept on non-essential uses of toxic chemicals. DG GROW claims, incorrectly, that the concept has not been sufficiently discussed or agreed upon. It is a part of the Montreal Protocol to the Geneva Convention, to which the EU is a signatory. Another issue we find important to add to the Chemical strategy is the "Mixture assessment factor" (MAF) which is a concrete way to consider combined exposures from unintended mixtures during risk assessment and management activities. DG GROW is proposing to postpone the adoption of it and claims there is not enough scientific data, which is a weak argument. DG GROW wants to introduce a Risk management option analysis (RMOA) system as a prerequisite to be performed by the authorities before any restriction or ban could take place. This system would place the burden of proof back to the authorities, and would in turn risk crippling the legislation through bureaucracy, making the process of banning harmful chemicals more inefficient. This is what we call paralysis by analysis. DG GROW paradoxically claims to be working for a simpler system, but it is evident that it proposes a more complex model for regulatory action in the EU. Conclusion There is an urgency to protect EU citizen from chemicals of concern. EU industries are well prepared for this but need the support from regulators to be able to move towards the phase out of hazardous chemicals. We look forward to take part of an ambitious Chemical strategy in line with Green deal. If we in any way can support you with information or examples related to our arguments above, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, ChemSec | Frsta Lnggatan 18, SE-413 28 Gteborg, Sweden | | chemsec.org