www .p anda .o rg /d etox
Greening the supply chain:
protecting consumers - and
retailers - through an improved
REACH
Michael Warhurst
EU Chemicals Policy
WWF European Policy Office, Brussels
www .p anda .o rg /d etox
Contents
•
Why is WWF interested in chemicals?
•
Problems with greening the supply chain
•
REACH - how can it help?
•
Optimising REACH - improvements needed
•
Realism on impact assessment of REACH
•
REACH priorities for retailers and the supply
chain?
www .p anda .o rg /d etox
Why is WWF interested in
chemicals?
•
The problems caused by toxic chemicals are a global
priority for WWF
•
Wildlife - and humans - throughout the world are
contaminated by industrial chemicals
• And there is considerable evidence of wildlife (and human)
impacts.
•
WWF is working to support a more sustainable production
and use of chemicals
• We consider that REACH is a key part of this work
•
WWF has therefore launched an international campaign in
favour of a strong REACH:
http://www.panda.org/detox
www .p anda .o rg /d etoxContamination - part of the problem
•
A growing number of industrial chemicals are known to
contaminate wildlife and people, for example:
•
Brominated flame retardants
• Contaminating people and wildlife across the world
• Two phased out in Europe (penta and octa)
• Deca is in increasing use, despite contamination of polar
bears, birds of prey and people
• Even though industry claimed it wouldn’t accumulate • The EU decided in May not to phase out Deca, in the face of
aggressive industry lobbying
•
Perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs)
• Including PFOS (Scotchguard) PFOA (used in teflon
manufacture and telomers (used in coatings, break down into PFOA)
• Contamination by PFOS and PFOA exists across the world
• PFOS has been voluntarily phased out, PFOA and telomers are
in widespread use
www .p anda .o rg /d etox
My perfluorinated chemicals
•
From WWF’s sampling of the blood of 47
people for 101 chemicals.
•
All 45 samples (including mine) analysed for
PFCs contained these 7 PFCs:
•
PFHxS, PFOA, PFNA, PFOS
•
PFOSA, PFDA, PFUnA
•
All unregulated in EU
•
A liability in future?
Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) F F F F F F F F F F F F O-F F O FPerfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F S O O O www .p anda .o rg /d etox
My PDBEs
34%of samples contained ‘Deca’, including one with the highest concentration ever published. O Br Br Br Br Br Br Br 2,2',3,4,4',5',6-Heptabromodiphenyl ether (BDE183)O Br Br Br Br Br Br
2,2',4,4',5,6'-Hexabromodiphenyl ether (BDE154)
O Br Br Br Br Br Br O Br Br Br Br O Br Br Br Br Br O Br Br Br Br Br
2,2',4,4',5,5'-Hexabromodiphenyl ether (BDE 153) 2,2',4,4',6-Pentabromodiphenyl ether (BDE 100) 2,2',4,4',5-Pentabromodiphenyl ether (BDE 99) 2,2',4,4'-Tetrabromodiphenyl ether (BDE 47)
www .p anda .o rg /d etox
Current problems with
greening the supply chain
•
Poor information flow
•
Difficult for downstream users and retailers to find put
what chemicals are in the products they buy
•
Difficult for producers to find out how their chemicals
are used
•
Lack of good quality safety information on chemicals
•
Lack of information on alternatives
•
Hard to make decisions on substitution due to
pervasive lack of safety data on existing chemicals
•
Even if information exists, it may be difficult to get hold
of, as there is no single source
•
A system biased against new substances
•
New substances require safety data, existing
substances don’t, so new substances are penalised.
•
Slow regulatory action on the worst chemicals
•
Very slow processes to evaluate and restrict existing
chemicals do not protect consumers or users
www .p anda .o rg /d etox
REACH - how can it help?
•
Improved transparency and communication through the
supply chain:
• On chemical properties flowing down the supply chain,
creating a more educated market
• On chemical uses, flowing up the supply chain, giving
suppliers a better understanding of what services are needed
•
Easier introduction of new chemicals onto the market, and
removal of the perverse subsidy on older chemicals
•
An authorisation system which will promote - and
sometimes oblige - substitution of chemicals with the
worst properties
• Strengthening this will increase the driver for green chemistry
• REACH will ensure safety information is available on
alternatives
•
Producer responsibility on the chemical industry, providing
protection for downstream users
•
Improved public confidence in the use of chemicals,
leading to improved investment and recruitment.
www .p anda .o rg /d etox
Optimising REACH
-improvements needed
•
Our highest priority is to improve the authorisation
procedure
•
We must ensure that it is an
effective
method to
identify
the worst chemicals
and then
push for their phase out
wherever safer alternatives are available
.
•
An increase in openness and transparency
•
Provision for information flow in the article supply
chain
• In current REACH text information flow ceases once
chemical or preparations enter article, e.g. fabric
•
Consumer Right to Know
•
Improved control of chemicals in imported articles
•
See next page
•
A restoration of recently removed safety tests for
1-10t chemicals, and independent auditing of
registration dossiers
www .p anda .o rg /d etoxChemicals in imported articles
(
comes in at REACH+11 years
)
•
The current text will allow articles to be imported into
Europe containing unregistered chemicals.
• It only requires notification if there is a known release of a
dangerous chemical which is present in more than 1 tonne per ‘article’, and which “may cause harm to human health or the environment”.
•
This approach will be unworkable
• E.g. Enforcement will be tied up in arguments about the
definition of individual articles
• E.g. red chairs vs blue chairs
•
A more workable and enforceable approach:
• Importers must register if >1 tonne in all the articles they
import
• consistent with legislation on imported substances and preparations
• We would expect importers to operationalise this in a
straightforward way:
• Specifying to suppliers to use chemicals registered in REACH (& listed in internet database)
• If not possible, should start dialogue with importer re registration
• This solution could also resolve concerns in current text re
www .p anda .o rg /d etox
Realism on impact
assessment of REACH (I)
•
Which policy would cause:
“
very large
” costs leading to “
redesign and
re-equipping of large sectors of vital industry...,smaller
firms going out of business...and an effect on inflation
and employment nationally and internationally
”
•
According to CEFIC ???
•
Answer:
•
Phase out of CFCs in order to protect the ozone layer
•
These impacts did not happen
•
Industry has a long history of exaggerating impacts
of future legislation
•
see WWF “Cry Wolf” report, on the DetoX campaign
web site:
• http://www.panda.org/detox www .p anda .o rg /d etoxRealism (II)
•
Many claims have been made about the costs of
REACH
•
Notably by BDI/ADL (Germany) & Mercer (France)
• These studies have been heavily criticised by economists,
and are extremely misleading.
• They have been extremely politically effective, and are still
used
•
Commission impact assessment:
• Direct costs of REACH to the chemicals industry of €2.3
billion over an 11 year period – €0.5 per person per year for the EU
– the amount the European Chemical Industry spent in 1999 on environmental improvements relating to waste.
• Costs to downstream users are estimated to be between
€2.8-5.2 billion, including €2.3 billion passed on from the chemical industry.
•
Many other assessments now exist too
•
some even mention health and environmental benefits!
•
general message - REACH costs are small compared
with other cost variabilities e.g. oil, exchange rates
www .p anda .o rg /d etox
REACH priorities for retailers
and the supply chain?
•
Ensure producer responsibility remains in place
•
With no data no market - CEFIC is undermining this:
• CEFIC paper: “Do: ensure that the registration system
becomes a pure database, with no banning of substances”
•
Ensure decision making is not captured, and
enforcement capacity exists at Member State level
•
Ensure balance maintained between Agency and
Member States
•
Improve Authorisation:
•
So it can deal with all chemicals of very high concern
•
So it pushes substitution
•
Improve information flow, including from substances
in articles
•
Improve process for dealing with substances in
imported articles
•
Don’t lobby for them to be ignored
•
Remember your interests are not the same as the
chemical industry’s
www .p anda .o rg /d etoxConclusions
•
The current regulatory system makes it very difficult to
green the supply chain
• E.g. Lack of information flow, new substances penalised
•
REACH has the potential to improve this, but needs to be
improved to ensure that:
• The worst chemicals are identified and then phased out if
safer alternatives are available.
• Improving controls on chemicals in imported articles
• To create an more open and transparent system, maximising
information flow to all parties.
• E.g. information flow on substances in articles
