Downstream Users Emphasize Focusing On Risk In Europe’s Chemical Strategy for Sustainability
Executive Summary
At European Chemicals Agency’s virtual Safer Chemicals Conference, officials representing the agency, the EC, industry and nonprofits discuss the path forward on Chemical Strategy for Sustainability, which includes concepts intended to spur developing chemicals vetted for human and environmental safety.
The cosmetics industry and other downstream users of chemicals are waging an uphill battle advocating for a risk-based approach to chemical safety as the European Commission’s Chemical Strategy for Sustainability inches toward implementation.
During a roundtable discussion on 6 October at the European Chemicals Agency’s virtual Safer Chemicals Conference, officials representing the agency, the EC, industry and nonprofits discussed the path forward in a session titled “Safe and sustainable products and materials – how to get there?”
The Chemical Strategy for Sustainability (CSS), part of the EC’s Green Deal, was published in October 2020 and calls for an ambitious regulatory overhaul to phase out from the market what the EC sees as harmful chemicals, which will lead to a massive transformation of the chemical industry. (Also see "EU’s Sustainable Chemicals Strategy Lacks Industry ‘Game Plan’ To Support Innovation, Competitiveness" - HBW Insight, 15 Oct, 2020.)
The CSS includes a safe and sustainable-by-design concept intended to spur development of chemicals vetted for human and environmental safety, improve their environmental footprint and “deliver the expected performance and value to stakeholders throughout the value chain,” according to the European Environmental Agency.
Susanne Zänker, director-general of the International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products, laid out the Downstream Users of Chemicals Co-ordination group’s priorities at the CSS implementation conference. Zänker’s association and 10 other trade groups including Cosmetics Europe and the International Fragrance Association comprise the Downstream Users.
Multiple Views Of 'One Substance, One Assessment'
Zänker asked for an examination of the global nature of industry as the CSS moves ahead. “We are not operating only in Europe, but on a global basis and a global discussion and dialogue is absolutely important,” she said.
She also pushed for using science and risk-based approaches and considering entire product lifecycles as the EC moves ahead with the CSS. However, having the EC focus on chemical risk vs. hazard may be a hard sell.
Preliminarily, the CSS lays out a “one substance, one assessment” approach which would not consider different sectors or uses, and a generic approach which would prohibit or restrict certain chemicals based on hazards.
ECHA executive director Bjorn Hansen cast doubt on the risk-based approach favored by industry, and emphasized the need for a clear definition of safe and sustainable chemicals.
While clarity is needed because the chemical industry will need to invest in different chemicals, stakeholders should avoid defining “green” so narrowly “that de facto you end up with nothing.” – Marco Mensink, European Chemical Industry Council
“The issue there is if you look at any restriction done today … look at almost any substance compliance evaluation, there’s a huge difference of view between industry and authorities as to what is safe and what is not safe,” Hansen said.
From Hansen’s viewpoint, clear safety criteria will only come from generic and not specific safety assessments.
“I purposely avoid the hazard vs. risk, because I don’t believe these are two different concepts,” he said. “I believe they are a continuum of the same thing, and it’s much more constructive to sit down and talk about how generic do you want to go and how specific do you need to be.”
Clarity Comes First
All panel members emphasized clarity on how safety and sustainability will be defined under the CSS and how the program will be implemented.
Marco Mensink, European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) director-general, advocated for clarity as soon as possible because the chemical industry likely will need to make extensive investments in different chemicals.
However, Mensink also asked stakeholders to avoid defining “green” so narrowly “that de facto you end up with nothing.”
He noted that the CSS will fundamentally change the chemicals industry, changes which will be very challenging for some companies, especially small and medium sized chemical producers. “For a lot of chemistries we don’t have alternatives today, and you’re going to need long range research programs,” Mensink said.
Cristina de Avila, head of the EC Directorate-General for Environment’s sustainable chemicals unit, floated the idea of issuing certain parameters regarding sustainability while the criteria are hammered out.
Mensink is of the mind that clear direction rather than guardrails would be necessary as industry will need concrete information to guide investments in innovation as the entire structure of the chemical landscape changes.
“We know the ‘what’ more or less, where we need to look at now is the ‘how’,” he said. “We need to start somewhere … What can industry do? Do we have alternatives already or 5-10 years of research ahead?”
Illuminate Consumer Impact
Panelists also discussed how the CSS eventually will affect consumers.
ChemSec’s Anne-Sofie Backar emphasized that new chemicals should be inherently safe. The NGO supports pushing the industry toward the “safest state” for chemicals, which she says the market already demands.
“There’s clear ways that industry can operate with sectors down and up together to help in finding what is safe and sustainable-by-design. Only in collaboration can we do this shift.” – Susanne Zänker, International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products
Zänker suggested Downstream Users group members could be a conduit between consumers, industry and government as everyone navigates through the changes the CSS will bring, as they have experience in liaising and communicating with consumers.
De Avila acknowledged consumers will need to shift toward more sustainable products and that sustainability should be the norm.
It will take a “big societal effort” to get there as chemicals are substituted, she said. “At the end of the day it’s the same discussion. Are we ready to do without certain things? Are consumers ready to?”
From Hansen’s perspective, it boils down to a policy challenge.
“Are you willing to pay more or how much functionality are you willing to accept goes down in order to save the planet?” he asked. “You have to clearly weigh them, and that weighing has to be done publicly, to be able to develop new chemicals by 2050.”
Further complicating the future for consumers will be questions of what is essential from a chemical standpoint. The CSS will establish criteria for which the most hazardous chemicals, such as endocrine disruptors, will be prohibited unless their use is considered essential and there are no acceptable alternatives. (Also see "EU Chemicals Strategy Stands To Transform Cosmetics Regulation" - HBW Insight, 3 Nov, 2020.)
Mensink said in addition to consumer, industrial and professional use of a chemical, the sooner essential use is defined, the better for chemical manufacturers. The EU’s deadline for becoming a sustainable climate neutral and circular economy under the Green Deal is 2050.
“We don’t have too many chances before it’s 2050,” he said.
Different Needs In Different Sectors
The CSS comprises dozens of actions listed in a table listing a planned timeline and including shifting the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and Classification, Labeling and Packaging (CLP) regulations toward safe and sustainable concepts.
Many of the provisions are in early development, and definitions are expected in the coming years for criteria for safety, sustainable-by-design and essential use.
As for the criteria itself, “for me, what makes sense, is we use them across the board,” de Avila maintained. “We don’t have criteria in one area that’s applied in another.”
But Mensink cautioned against a one size fits all approach to criteria, suggesting different answers to what is sustainable-by-design for cosmetics, aviation, automotive, detergents and other product areas.
Zänker also urged stakeholders to consider how CSS provisions will impact users in different sectors, especially regarding the “one substance, one assessment” principle. She emphasized the Downstream Users group's commitment to manufacturing safe and sustainable chemical mixtures, and advocated for definitions and criteria to be decided in concert with industry and downstream users.
“There’s clear ways that industry can operate with sectors down and up together to help in finding what is safe and sustainable-by-design,” Zänker said. “Only in collaboration can we do this shift.”
“Industry has huge value in what we can do, we want to be part of the criteria,” she added.
Hansen acknowledged huge tasks are ahead. He focused on how the CSS will be carried out, urging the EC to quickly determine which agencies will be responsible for specific aspects of the CSS, and to institute legislation to help decision makers decide faster.
It’s important to determine which policies different agencies would regulate better, he explained; for instance, ECHA shouldn’t be tasked with carrying out provisions best suited to the EC’s environmental or climate change divisions.
Hansen is set to retire in March 2022; ECHA has yet to announce his successor.