Dryade VZW published an opinion in De Standaard on 10 November 2021. Below is the full text:
It is unacceptable to simply unleash new chemical products on the world, writes Dries Verhaeghe.
On Monday, it was Dirk Dewolf's turn in the PFAS committee, the head of the Agency for Care and Health. He criticized 3M's approach: ‘Developing in the lab, releasing it, and then waiting for health damage and processes before correcting course. I really don't think that's a method of the 21st century.’ (DS 8 November).
Dewolf is absolutely right. But this approach arises from our legislation that regulates the market access of chemicals: the REACH regulation. REACH is an acronym that stands for ‘Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals’. The regulation came into effect on 1 June 2007, when the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) was established in Helsinki.
Any company that produces or imports a new type of chemical in quantities of one tonne or more in Europe must notify the agency. During registration, the company provides documents that clarify the molecular composition, applications, and toxicity. The ECHA then gets to work on this. It conducts a literature review, consults the industry, and comes up with a draft decision on approval, prohibition, and possible restrictions. Ultimately, it is the member states that decide.
At first glance, this seems like a logical procedure. If it weren't for the fact that the company can start using the new type of chemicals as soon as it is registered. There can be years between registration and approval. By the time member states impose a ban or restriction, the chemicals are already in use.
Ed Hardy
The reason is that the REACH regulation intervened in an existing market when it came into force in 2007. At that time, huge quantities of thousands of chemicals were imported and produced by thousands of chemical companies in Europe. It was obviously impossible to bring the entire European chemical industry to a standstill until Helsinki had done its homework. For pragmatic reasons, it was stated that the registered chemicals could be used until a decision was made. Meanwhile, we are fourteen years on and ECHA has cleared the backlog. Currently, there are two important dossiers in the pipeline: tattoo inks and, indeed, PFAS.
There are few chemicals that have immediate and prolonged intimate contact with the human body like tattoo inks. And if you can go by the number of tattoos you see on a summer's day, these chemicals are also widespread. Now ECHA is coming up with a draft decision to ban a number of colour inks due to health risks. For those who have been proudly sporting a colourful Ed Hardy tattoo for years, this is obviously disappointing. But that's just how the regulation works.
Nail biting
A second sensitive issue pending at the ECHA concerns PFAS. From the large group of 6,000 different PFAS, the ECHA filtered out the 400 to 500 PFAS that are effectively used in the EU. Given their toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative nature, it goes without saying that some PFAS will be banned and that there will be strict restrictions on others. But that will also feel like figs after Easter.
The approach under the Reach regulation contrasts sharply with the operation of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in Amsterdam. Who does not remember how politicians and the public were biting their nails until the green light was given for the ordered coronavirus vaccines? The pharmaceutical industry was prohibited from delivering even one dose of the vaccine before the EMA gave its blessing.
It is, as Dewolf states, unacceptable to simply release a new chemical product and consider the global population as one large guinea pig. But it is our responsibility and that of our Members of the European Parliament to ensure that our legislation makes this impossible. So change the Reach regulation, and quickly: no market access without white smoke from Helsinki.