Archive for the ‘Politics and policy’ Category

Retirement Heist by Ellen E. Schultz.

Death Benefits: An Insurable Interest

Over time, life insurance began morphing from a tax shelter into a finance tool for executive pay. For decades, if an individual or company wanted to buy life insurance on someone, they had to have an “insurable interest in the person,” that is, the beneficiary of the policy would be directly affected by the insured’s death. This rule existed for obvious reasons: a skydiver, race car driver, or coal miner–and profit from his demise. And if he didn’t die soon enough, the policyholder would have an incentive to push him over a cliff.

Initially, companies bought policies to protect them from the deaths of certain executives, or “key” employees. It made sense for partners in law and accounting firms to buy life insurance on each other. But encouraged by insurance brokers, companies began buying it on broad swaths of their employees, because by insuring thousands of employees, not just “key men,” the companies can place greater sums in life insurance contracts.

Dow Chemical, the Midland, Michigan, company known for its manufacturing of napalm, breast implants, and Agent Orange, was initially skeptical. An internal memo noted that, except for top-paid executives, it was “doubtful that Dow has an insurable interest in any of its employees.” But it overcame its qualms and by 1992 had purchased life insurance policies on more than 20,000 employees.

Congress had no idea how widespread this practice had become until someone ratted on them. In 1995, a brown envelope was left on the desk of Ken Kies, chief of staff at the Joint Tax Committee. The envelope contained a list of companies that had bought life insurance on employees–along with the calculations showing that a company might take in $1.2 billion over ten years by insuring 50,000 of its employees. It also noted that from 1993 to 1995, Wal-Mart had taken out insurance on 350,000 workers.

Lawmakers did the math and were appalled. They weren’t concerned about whether Wal-Mart had an insurable interest in its stock clerks and store greeters, but they did care a lot about the loss of tax revenue. Companies were borrowing money from policies and deducting the interest. The IRS deemed that the leveraged COLI (corporate-owned life insurance) taken out by seven hundred companies were sham transactions with no business purpose other than to score tax breaks. It filed a flurry of tax court cases, and companies subsequently took big charges for the disallowed deductions for interest on policy loans; among them were American Greetings, the Brooklyn, Ohio, maker of Tender Thoughts brand greeting cards and owners of Holly Hobbie and Care Bears licenses, and W.R. Grace, the Columbia, Maryland, manufacturer of building materials, which took out life insurance policies on its workers while defending thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits.

Within minutes of the interest-deduction phase-out, companies found a way around it. Instead of borrowing money from insurance companies, they simply borrowed it elsewhere. This was called “indirect leverage.” The practice was especially appealing to banks, which can borrow money cheaply. Banks bought fresh policies on employees and in 1997 were floating the idea that they could buy life insurance on depositors and credit card holders as well. Fannie May, the giant mortgage buyer, proposed to insure the lives of home-mortgage holders, but the plan didn’t go far. Congress nixed those ideas and tried to plug the indirect-leverage loophole in 1998. The Joint Tax Committee’s Ken Kies, in classic revolving-door fashion, had quit his government job and was now lobbying for the COLI industry, which led a campaign that blanketed Congress with more than 170,000 letters and faxes and ran a radio and newspaper ads targeting lawmakers as anti-business. The effort to close the loophole failed. Former House Ways and Means chairman Bill Archer, who had criticized janitors insurance as a tax shelter in 1995, joined the board of Clark/Bardes, the most influential COLI provider, in 2001.

pages 123

If the investments weren’t wrapped in an insurance policy, the company would have to sell the investments, then pay taxes on the gains, if it wanted to be able to report the income. Bottom line: Even though companies aren’t supposed to get tax breaks for funding executive deferred comp and pensions, they get essentially the same tax breaks—and accounting benefits—by taking out life insurance on workers.


Though the investments are essentially locked up in the insurance policies, companies receive tax-free cash when employees and former employees die whether in car accidents, in plane crashes, or from illness. Even people who are murdered or accidentally killed at work produce death benefits for their employers.

Companies report the death benefits as income, though they usually refer to them by opaque terms. The St. Louis–based Panera Bread Company calls them “mortality dividends” and refers to a death benefit as a “mortality income receivable” in its filings.

Banks have the largest obligations for executive pay and pensions, so it’s not surprising that they are also the biggest buyers of life insurance on workers, which they call “bank-owned life insurance,” or BOLI. Industry consultants estimate that over the coming decades, banks will receive more than $400 billion in death benefits as their retirees and former employees die. Financial filings occasionally disclose income triggered by deaths. Pacific State Bancorp, of Stockton, California, reported $2.6 million in income from a death benefit in 2008. A subsidiary of Conseco, Bankers Life and Casualty, bought life insurance on employees in 2006 and got an almost immediate payout of $2.7 million that year after an employee died.

Most families have no clue that their relatives are covered. Irma Johnson certainly didn’t. Her husband, Daniel, had been a credit-risk manager for Southwest Bank of Texas, which was a predecessor to Amegy Bank. He was diagnosed with two cancerous brain tumors in 1999 and underwent two surgeries and radiation treatment that initially impaired his speech and left him unable to walk. He eventually returned to work, but in 2000 the bank criticized his communication skills and job performance and demoted him.

Despite the demotion, in May 2001, a manager took Daniel aside and told him that the compensation committee of the board of directors had selected him to be eligible for supplemental life insurance of $150,000. All he had to do was sign an agreement to receive the coverage, and a consent form authorizing the bank to purchase an insurance policy on his life. Four months later, the bank fired him. When Daniel died in August 2008, his family received no life insurance death benefits, because the company had terminated the family’s policy when it fired him.

Irma Johnson says her husband didn’t have the “necessary capacity” to make financial decisions when he signed the agreement in 2001, and that the bank should have told him how much it would get when he died. She sued in state court in Houston in February 2009; under Texas law, material omissions can constitute a form of fraud. During the proceedings, Irma learned that the bank, which maintained that it had bought the policies to offset the cost of providing “employee benefits,” had received $4.7 million when her husband died…


Initially, insurance agents touted the death benefits as the most appealing feature of their plans, and some employers were disappointed when employees didn’t die quickly enough to generate the anticipated “mortality dividends” for that year. In a confidential memo in 1991, an insurance agent wrote to Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. that American Electric Power (20,441 employees covered), American Greetings (4,000), R.R. Donnelley (15,624), and Procter & Gamble (14,987) were “acutely aware” that mortality was running at only 50 percent of projected rates.

The Procter & Gamble plan covered only white-collar employees, which might explain its poor death rate (34 percent of projected mortality), the memo noted. But the disappointing death rate at card maker American Greetings was a puzzle, since the plan covered only blue-collar employees, who are expected to have higher mortality rates. (The white-collar employees were covered by a separate policy with Provident.)

Diebold, the agent wrote, had been expecting $675,300 in death benefits since adopting the plan; so far, it was expecting only one “mortality dividend” of $98,000. “Do you think that a mortality dividend of that size relative to their current shortfall will give them comfort?” the memo said.

A company the agent called NCC had a better death rate, he noted: People were dying at 78 percent expected mortality. “However, this includes three suicides within the first year which is highly unusual”—NCC had not had one suicide in twenty-five years until 1990. “Without these suicides, NCC would be running at 33% expected mortality. This fact highly concerns me.”

To keep track of when employees and retirees die, employers regularly check the Social Security Administration’s database of deaths. That’s how CM Holdings monitored its dead former employees. Page after page of a 1990 document called a “Death Run” lays out the names, ages, and Social Security numbers of more than 1,400 who would be worth more dead than alive. Also included was the amount of money the company was to receive when each employee died, even if the death occurred long after he or she left the job. Older workers would bring the company about $120,000 to $200,000 each, while younger workers would generate $400,000 to almost $500,000 each, the document said. (Younger workers yield bigger payouts because, based on actuarial calculations, they are less likely to die soon, so the premium amount buys more coverage for them.)

One of these workers was Felipe M. Tillman. Born in 1963, Tillman was an unlikely source of revenue for CM Holdings. A music lover whose taste ran from opera to jazz and even country music, he played keyboards and drums, sang, and was choral director at his Tulsa, Oklahoma, church. To make ends meet, he took part-time jobs in record stores, including a brief stint at a Camelot Music outlet owned by CM Holdings. As a minimum-wage, part-time employee, he didn’t have health coverage or other benefits. But CM Holdings nonetheless took out a policy on his life. It didn’t have to wait long for a payoff. Tillman died in 1992, of complications from AIDS. He was twenty-nine years old.

CM Holdings used the $168,875 death benefit it received when Tillman died to pay for executive compensation, among other things. Company documents also show that $280 went to Star County Children’s Services to help cover child support payments owed by a nephew of Camelot Music’s founder, who was working at the company at the time.

Another name on the company’s “Death Run” was Margaret Reynolds, of Uniontown, Ohio, born in 1936. Margaret was an administrative assistant and buyer for CM Holdings, making $21,000 a year. In the 1990s, she began deteriorating from the effects of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig’s disease. In her final years, her adult children, who took turns caring for her, begged the company to provide $5,000 to pay for a special wheelchair so they could take their mother to church. “They said it wasn’t covered,” her son John Reynolds recalled bitterly. His mother died in 1998 at age sixty-two. Her family received a $21,000 benefit from a life insurance policy provided to employees by the company; CM Holdings received a death benefit payout of $180,000.


Read Full Post »

Germany’s Master Plan by Joseph Borkin and Charles A. Welsh – 1943. An Introduction by Thurman W. Arnold – Assistant Attorney General heading the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

This book is a brilliant and arresting exposition of the results of the disease of cartelization. In all commercial civilization great industries rise out of initiative and superior efficiency. At a certain stage in their growth, hardening of the arteries takes place. Industrial leaders believe that the time has come to rationalize and stabilize production. Restricted production, high cost, and low turnover become the order of the day. To maintain that order, new industry must be kept out of production and old industry must not produce too much because, according to this order of new ideas, too much goods is not wealth but distress goods and an undesirable surplus. Prices and production become fixed at levels which will pay dividends on an existing capital structure. Industrial progress becomes sluggish and then stops. The productive capacity of the nation is curtailed. It is an order of ideas that can produce neither wealth in peace nor strength in war.

There is no short way of defining a cartel. For present purposes we may describe it briefly as a small ring of producers or distributors who have acquired control of domestic or foreign markets. That control is justified as a rationalization of industry management for the purpose of expert economic planning. It is used, however, to crush new enterprise and to prevent maximum production.

The first symptom of cartelization is an unbalanced exchange between industry which is restricting production and unorganized farmers and small businessmen who are unable to restrict production. The farmer becomes unable to buy enough industrial goods to keep factories running. Labor is laid off, thus restricting purchasing power further. Goods pile up in domestic markets because they cannot be distributed at the artificial levels maintained by the cartel. People begin to talk about over-production, even in the face of scarcity in terms of actual need.

The next symptom is the attempt of the domestic cartels to control foreign markets so that the nation can get rid of this so-called over-production, this inconvenient wealth that threatens an artificial price structure. International cartels are formed, dominated by private groups without public responsibility, who control the foreign economic policy in the interests of international scarcity. With the growth of these international cartels democracy becomes a shell which conceals the power of private groups. Political freedom cannot exist except when it is founded upon industrial freedom. If a private group controls a man’s livelihood it can control both his actions and his philosophy.

And so with the progression of the disease of cartelization. A new political philosophy arises justifying centralized planning of production and distribution. The competitive race for efficiency which is symptomatic of a young and vigorous commercial organization is denounced as waste.

Socialists eagerly advocate this new order. Their only quarrel with industrialists is in the selection of those who will manage the brave new world. Socialists want to recruit the managers from the ranks of the academic thinkers sympathetic with the underdog. Industrialists want to choose them from the cartel leaders. Both groups are ready to abandon industrial democracy. Thus a culture that is willing to embrace a political dictatorship spreads over the thinking of the Nation.

In the first stage of this struggle between socialists and cartel managers the industrialists win because they start out in the seats of power. They fail to maintain that power, however, because their policy of stabilizing prices at home prevents the distribution of goods–creating idle capital and idle labor–want in the midst of plenty. Before Hitler’s rise to power, Germany had reached a stage under private cartelization when agricultural products, though scarce, sold at ruinously low prices. Industrial products, though plentiful, could not be distributed in Germany. The wheels of industry stopped. There was a minimum of 7,000,000 unemployed.

When private industry fails to distribute goods, Government is compelled to step in. Deficit financing, subsidies, and huge relief rolls grow with alarming rapidity. In this stage the writers and thinkers of a socialistic tinge flood into Government with dreams of a new world arising out of the collapse of capitalism. But, unfortunately, for socialistic dreamers the techniques of acquiring and holding power in times of economic chaos require individuals of a tougher and less humanitarian mould. In other words, only a Hitler had the ruthlessness and cold cruel realism to consolidate a position out of the collapse of the German economic structure which the cartels brought about.

And thus the vast centralized cartel organization of Germany became a tool in the hands of a dictator who no longer operated for private profit but solely to serve a ruthless ambition. The cartels of the democracy were easy dupes. Hitler was able to aid them in restricting their own production, while Germany’s production went ahead by leaps and bounds.

The soft opulent business organizations of England and America were intent on the pursuits of their short-run policies of restricted production, high costs and low turnover. They saw in German cartels an ally, not an enemy.

To such international cartels we owe the peace of Munich. To our own cartels we owe the failure to expand American industry prior to Pearl Harbor. To the interests of these cartels in stabilizing prices and restricting production we owe our present scarcity in all basic materials.

To a large extent our present industrial unpreparedness of this war is due to the fact that Germany through international cartels built up its own production and assisted the democracies in restricting their production in electrical equipment, in drugs, in chemicals, in basic war materials such as magnesium and aluminum. International cartels with the active assistance of American interests have operated to deprive us of markets in our own hemisphere by giving them away to Germany.

We are now faced with the necessity of making our industrial democracies so efficient that we can win this war, which is essentially a war of industrial production. Our cartel structure has weakened us spiritually by introducing an alien philosophy which leads us to distrust our own economic traditions. It has weakened us materially by making us afraid of full production because it creates surpluses which cannot be distributed after the war.

We must, if we are to fight this war with enthusiasm for our own way of life, destroy both the philosophy and the private power of domestic and international cartels over foreign and domestic economic policy. At such a time this book should be read by everyone interested in the economic future of America.

No other book that I know of analyzes in such vivid detail the growth and activities of international cartels. The writers have studied the cartel problem not only from books but from first-hand information and observation. Mr. Joseph Borkin has been for many years Economic Advisor to the Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, particularly in relation to foreign international cartels. The fact that the public is now aware of the international cartel structure is in a large measure due to his work. Mr. Welsh is an authority on international trade and finance, and is a cartel expert for the Office of Price Administration. Both of them have shown exceptional ability in this particular field.

While of necessity the emphasis of this book is upon the war problem, I would suggest that the reader consider it in light of the long-run economic policy for America. We cannot turn over our future economic policy to private groups without public responsibility as we have done in the past. We not only must win the war but the peace which follows. We cannot win the peace if the cartel problem remains unsolved.

I must conclude this introduction with a caveat because of my official position. The research and conclusion the writers of this book have been done outside of their official duties in the Government. They have not been checked or approved in any official way.

Thurman W. Arnold

To read this book click here. Germany’s Master Plan

Read Full Post »

Brussels, 27.2.2001 COM(2001) 88 final
WHITE PAPER Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy
(presented by the Commission)


This White Paper presents Commission proposals for a strategy on future chemicals policy in the Community with the overriding goal of sustainable development.

Chemicals1 bring about benefits on which modern society is entirely dependent, for example, in food production, medicines, textiles, cars etc. They also make a vital contribution to the economic and social wellbeing of citizens in terms of trade and employment.

The global production of chemicals has increased from 1 million tonnes in 1930 to 400 million tonnes today. We have about 100,000 different substances registered in the EU market of which 10,000 are marketed in volumes of more than 10 tonnes2, and a further 20,000 are marketed at 1-10 tonnes. The world chemical production in 1998 was estimated at € 1,244 billion, with 31% for the EU chemical industry, which generated a trade surplus of € 41 billion. In 1998, it was the world’s largest chemical industry, followed by that of the US with 28% of production value and a trade surplus of € 12 billion.
The chemical industry is also Europe’s third largest manufacturing industry. It employs 1.7 million people directly and up to 3 million jobs are dependent on it. As well as several leading multinationals, it also comprises around 36,000 SMEs. These SMEs represent 96% of the total number of enterprises and account for 28% of chemical production.

On the other hand, certain chemicals have caused serious damage to human health resulting in suffering and premature death and to the environment. Well-known examples amongst many are asbestos, which is known to cause lung cancer and mesothelioma or benzene which leads to leukaemia. Abundant use of DDT led to reproductive disorders in birds. Though these substances have been totally banned or subjected to other controls, measures were not taken until after the damage was done because knowledge about the adverse impacts of these chemicals was not available before they were used in large quantities.

The incidence of some diseases, e.g. testicular cancer in young men and allergies, has increased significantly over the last decades. While the underlying reasons for this have not yet been identified, there is justified concern that certain chemicals play a causative role for allergies. According to the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment of the Commission (CSTEE), links have been reported between reproductive and developmental effects and endocrine disrupting substances in wildlife populations. The CSTEE concluded that there is a potential global problem. This concern is based on the recent findings of high levels of persistent potential endocrine disrupting chemicals in several marine mammalian species inhabiting oceanic waters3.

The lack of knowledge about the impact of many chemicals on human health and the environment is a cause for concern. Understandably, the public is worried when hearing about the exposure of their children to certain phthalates released from toys and about increasing amounts of the flame retardant pentabromo diphenyl ether in human breast milk. Though these too are the subject of Commission proposals for bans, legislative action takes too long before yielding a result.

These examples expose the weaknesses of the current EU chemicals policy. However, the problem is not unique to the Community. Government agencies in Canada and the United States have recently launched initiatives to acquire testing data for large numbers of chemical substances currently on their markets in high volumes on which little is known about the risks. In fact, not one country has yet been successful in overcoming the huge gap in knowledge of substances.

EU chemicals policy must ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment as enshrined in the Treaty both for the present generation and future generations while also ensuring the efficient functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness of the chemical industry. Fundamental to achieving these objectives is the Precautionary Principle4. Whenever reliable scientific evidence is available that a substance may have an adverse impact on human health and the environment but there is still scientific uncertainty about the precise nature or the magnitude of the potential damage, decision-making must be based on precaution in order to prevent damage to human health and the environment. Another important objective is to encourage the substitution of dangerous by less dangerous substances where suitable alternatives are available.

It is also essential to ensure the efficient functioning of the internal market and the competitiveness of the chemical industry. EU policy for chemicals should provide incentives for technical innovation and development of safer chemicals. Recent experience has shown that innovation (e.g. in developing new and often safer chemicals) has been hindered by the burdens of the present notification system. Ecological, economic and social aspects of development have to be taken into account in an integrated and balanced manner in order to reach the goal of sustainability.


Increasing concern that current EU chemicals policy does not provide sufficient protection led to a debate at the informal Council of Environment Ministers in Chester in April 1998. Recognising that a review of the current policy on chemicals was necessary, the Commission made a commitment to assess the operation of four important legal instruments governing chemicals in the Community5. The report on the findings6 was adopted by the Commission in November 1998 and welcomed by the Council in December 1998.

These four instruments cover a broad range of substances of different origins (e.g. industrial chemicals, substances produced from natural products, metals, minerals etc.). They regulate the testing of these substances and determine risk reduction measures. Furthermore, they establish duties regarding the safety information to be provided to users (labelling, safety data sheets). Beyond these four instruments, specific legislation exists for certain sectors and areas, for example plant protection products or cosmetics or the transport of dangerous goods.

In view of the findings, the Commission held a Brainstorming with more than 150 stakeholders in February 1999 – regulators, scientists, industry, environmental and consumer NGOs as well as representatives from applicant countries – providing the Commission with an all round view of the problems and potential solutions.

In June 1999, the Council adopted a set of conclusions for a future strategy on chemicals in the Community which provided important input to the recommendations in this White Paper, which concerns revision of the above mentioned four legal instruments.

Major problems identified by review

The present system for general industrial chemicals distinguishes between “existing substances” i.e. all chemicals declared to be on the market in September 1981, and “new substances” i.e. those placed on the market since that date.
There are some 2,700 new substances. Testing and assessing their risks to human health and the environment according to Directive 67/548 are required before marketing in volumes above 10 kg. For higher volumes more in-depth testing focussing on long-term and chronic effects has to be provided.

In contrast, existing substances amount to more than 99% of the total volume of all substances on the market, and are not subject to the same testing requirements. The number of existing substances reported in 1981 was 100,106, the current number of existing substances marketed in volumes above 1 tonne is estimated at 30,000. Some 140 of these substances have been identified as priority substances and are subject to comprehensive risk assessment carried out by Member State authorities.

There is a general lack of knowledge about the properties and the uses of existing substances. The risk assessment process is slow and resource-intensive and does not allow the system to work efficiently and effectively. The allocation of responsibilities is inappropriate because authorities are responsible for the assessment instead of enterprises which produce, import or use the substances. Furthermore, current legislation only requires the manufacturers and importers of substances to provide information, but not the downstream users (industrial users and formulators). Thus, information on uses of substances is difficult to obtain and information about the exposure arising from downstream uses is generally scarce. Decisions on further testing of substances can only be taken via a lengthy committee procedure and can only be requested from industry after authorities have proven that a substance may present a serious risk. Without test results, however, it is almost impossible to provide such proof. Final risk assessments have therefore only been completed for a small number of substances.

Under Directive 76/769 on restriction of marketing and use of dangerous substances and preparations, the Commission has committed itself to carry out risk assessments and adequate analyses of the costs and the benefits prior to any proposal or adoption of a regulatory measure affecting the chemical industry. Indications of unacceptable risk (typically arising from notifications of restrictions at national level) are the subject of reports, which are peer-reviewed by the Scientific Committee on Toxicology, Ecotoxicology and Environment (CSTEE) of the Commission.

Current liability regimes are insufficient to remedy the problems found by the review. Liability is usually based on the principle that those who cause damage should pay compensation for that damage. However, in order to be held liable, it is generally requiredthat a causal connection be proven between the cause and the resulting damage. This is often virtually impossible for injured parties if cause and effect occur far apart in time and if adequate test data on the effects of substances are not available. Even if a causal connection can be established, compensations awarded by courts of EU Member States are generally not as high as, for example, in the US, and hence have a limited deterrent effect. In order to improve this situation and to make producers assume responsibility for their products, the Commission has announced its intention to propose Community legislation in this field7.

Political objectives of the proposed Strategy

In order to achieve the overriding goal of sustainable development, the Commission has identified a number of objectives that must be met in order to achieve sustainable development in the chemicals industry within the framework of the Single Market.

– Protection of human health and the environment.

– Maintenance and enhancement of the competitiveness of the EU chemical industry.

– Prevent fragmentation of the internal market.

– Increased transparency. Consumers need access to information on chemicals to enable them to make informed decisions about the substances that they use and enterprises need to understand the regulatory process.

– Integration with international efforts. The global nature of the chemicals industry and the trans-boundary impact of certain chemical substances have made chemical safety an international issue.

– Promotion of non-animal testing. Protection of human health and the environment, including wildlife, should be balanced against protection of the welfare of laboratory animals. The Commission will therefore promote further development and validation of non-animal test methods.

– Conformity with EU international obligations under the WTO. No unnecessary barriers to trade should be created and there must not be discrimination against imported substances and products.

The strategy which is proposed must meet these objectives.

Key elements of the proposed strategy

Protection of human health and promotion of a non-toxic environment

The Commission proposes that existing and new substances should in the future, following the phasing in of existing substances until 2012, be subject to the same procedure under a single system. The current new substances system should be revised to become more effective and efficient and the revised obligations be extended to existing substances. The proposed system is called REACH, for the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of CHemicals. The requirements, including the testing requirements, of the REACH-system depend on the proven or suspected hazardous properties, uses, exposure and volumes of chemicals produced or imported. All chemicals above 1 tonne should be registered in a central database. At higher tonnage special attention should be given to long-term and chronic effects.

Setting deadlines: The Commission proposes to implement a step by step process to address the ‘burden of the past’ and develop adequate knowledge for existing substances that industry wants to continue marketing. Given the vast number of existing substances on the market, the Commission proposes that first priority is given to substances that lead to a high exposure or cause concern by their known or suspected dangerous properties – physical, chemical, toxicological or ecotoxicological. All such substances should be tested within five years and subsequently be properly assessed for their impact on human health and the environment. The other existing substances should follow in accordance with the proposals in Chapter 6.

Making industry responsible for safety: Responsibility to generate knowledge about chemicals should be placed on industry. Industry should also ensure that only chemicals that are safe for the intended uses are produced and/or placed on the market. The Commission proposes to shift responsibility to enterprises, for generating and assessing data and assessing the risks of the use of the substances. The enterprises should also provide adequate information to downstream users.

Extending the responsibility along the manufacturing chain: Downstream users, as well as manufacturers and importers, of chemicals should be responsible for all the aspects of the safety of their products and should provide information on use and exposure for the assessments of chemicals. Producers of preparations and other downstream users will be obliged to assess the safety of their products for the part of the life cycle to which they contribute, including disposal and waste management.

Authorisation of substances of very high concern: Substances with certain hazardous properties that give rise to very high concern will have to be given use-specific permission before they can be employed in particular uses. Evidence demonstrating that the specific use only presents a negligible risk or, in other cases, that the use is acceptable taking into account socio-economic benefits, lack of ‘safer’ chemicals for the same task and measures minimising the exposure of consumers, workers, the general public and the environment will be considered before granting an authorisation. Uses which do not give rise to concern may be subject to general exemptions from the authorisation procedure.

Substitution of hazardous chemicals: Another important objective is to encourage the substitution of dangerous by less dangerous substances where suitable alternatives are available. The increased accountability of downstream users and better public information will create a strong demand for substitute chemicals that have been sufficiently tested and that are safe for the envisaged use.

Maintenance and enhancement of the competitiveness of the EU chemical industry

Stimulating innovation: It is essential to promote the competitiveness of the chemical industry and encourage innovation, and in particular the development of safer chemicals. Regulations are a major factor in shaping the innovation behaviour of firms in the chemical industry. The Commission proposes to increase the current thresholds for notification and testing of new substances, to extend the conditions for derogation for research and development and enable test data to be used and submitted in a flexible way.

Realistic timetable for submission of data: In proposing a timescale for the submission of data, the strategy takes account of resource implications. Together with the measures to increase testing thresholds and more flexible test data, this should limit the cost for enterprises to the absolute minimum needed.

Prevent fragmentation of the internal market

Any Commission strategy on chemicals should aim at ensuring a high level of health, safety and environmental protection while at the same time ensuring the proper functioning of the Internal Market in that sector – as in any other industrial sector within the Union. The achievement of these objectives requires that the new policy be based on full harmonisation at Community level.

Increasing transparency

Providing full information to the public: The public has a right to access to information about the chemicals to which they are exposed. This will enable them to make informed choices and to avoid products containing harmful chemicals, so creating pressure on industry to develop safer substitutes. However, commercially sensitive information will be suitably protected.

A more transparent regulatory system: The creation of a single system to be applied to all chemicals, once the existing substances have been phased in, will improve the transparency of the regulation of chemicals.

Integration with international aspects

Contributing to safe use of chemicals at a global level: A global network of industrialised and developing countries and international organisations has developed over the past decades to promote global safe use of chemicals. The Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) was established to co-ordinate the many national and international activities, to promote chemical safety and to oversee implementation of the programme on environmentally sound management of chemicals as set out in Chapter 19 of Agenda 21, adopted by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) at the Earth Summit in Rio. The recommendations in this White Paper will feed into the international programmes and make a major contribution to achieving safe use of chemicals at a global level.

Testing in a global market: Testing obligations will not only affect the EU chemicals industry. Importers will also be obliged to assess the safety of their chemicals, to deliver information and to share the costs of testing. This avoids distortion of the global market and ensures that the competitiveness of the EU chemical industry is not compromised.

Recognising non-EU test results: The lack of data on existing chemicals is a global concern. For example, the US have recently launched initiatives. The US initiative aims to complete testing of 2,800 high production volume chemicals by 2004 (the Gore initiative). This initiative is regarded as the first approach to systematically obtain toxicological and ecotoxicological information about the most abundant existing chemicals on the US market. Studies on the dangerous properties of chemicals performed in the US will not have to be repeated in the Community and vice versa, since testing must be carried out using globally harmonised testing methodology. Accordingly, test results of the HPV/ICCA SIDS programme of the OECD will be taken into account to reduce the number of tests to be performed in the EU.

Complying with OSPAR: The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic8 aims to prevent and eliminate pollution and to protect the maritime area of the North East Atlantic against the harmful effects of human activities (land-based sources, off-shore sources, dumping and incineration of wastes). The strategy supports this aim, in particular through the proposals for improved controls on downstream users of chemicals.

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs): POPs represent a special threat since they persist in the environment for a long time, they travel over long distances from their sources, accumulate in the tissues of most living organisms and poison humans and wildlife. It has been internationally recognised that there is a need for strict control of these substances. Following a mandate issued by the Governing Council of the UNEP, negotiations on an international treaty to eliminate production, use, emissions and discharges of initially 12 specified POPs – a group of highly stable organic substances – have recently been concluded. Criteria have been developed to identify further POPs among the existing substances. Furthermore, parties to the Convention will be obliged to prevent the production and use of new substances with POPs characteristics9.

Developing countries: One of the Community’ s major objectives is to strengthen developing countries’ capabilities and capacities for managing chemicals. Many developing countries do not have adequate legislation, administrative capacity or infrastructure to ensure the safe use of chemicals. The Rotterdam Convention on prior informed consent (PIC Convention, 1998) for certain hazardous industrial chemicals and pesticides obliged exporters of such chemicals to get the consent of the receiving country before delivery and by bilateral and multilateral programmes of training and technical assistance in respect of particular chemicals.

Developing countries are mostly importers and not exporters of chemicals. The testing requirements in the EU will ensure that imported chemicals, which constitute the large majority of chemicals used in these countries, have been evaluated. This benefit will by far outweigh the potential economic effort, such as for testing, required by chemical companies located in developing countries when manufacturing chemicals for export to the EU.

Promotion of non-animal testing

Maximising use of non-animal test methods: Testing requirements will be met as far as practicable through use of existing non-animal test methods.

Encouraging development of new non-animal test methods: Development of new non- animal test methods will be encouraged.

Minimising test programmes: Measures to increase testing thresholds and more flexible test regimes will limit the need for testing.

Conformity with EU international obligations under the WTO

Trade barriers: The new policy shall not discriminate against imported products. In that respect, the EU should conform with Article 2.1 of the WTO’s Technical Barriers to Trade, which sets out that imported products shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products on national origin. Without a sound scientific evaluation of the potential threats to human health and the environment, the EU will not be able to defend a measure being challenged by third countries. In accordance with Article 2.2 of the TBT, the EU shall ensure that “technical regulations will not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade”.


The principal objective of assessing the risks of chemicals is to provide a reliable basis for deciding on adequate safety measures (risk management) when using them. The risk assessment provides an evaluation of whether a chemical used in a particular way could cause adverse effects. This encompasses a description of the nature of these effects and a calculation of the probability that they will occur, as well as an estimation of their extent.
Any risk assessment on chemicals is composed of two distinct elements, (1) an evaluation of the properties which are intrinsic to the chemical, called hazard assessment, and (2) an estimation of the exposure which depends on the use of the chemical. The hazard assessment identifies the hazardous properties (e.g. sensitising, carcinogenic, toxic for the aquatic environment) and determines the potency of the chemical with respect to these hazardous properties. The exposure assessment identifies the sources of the chemicals which lead to exposure and calculates the dose taken up by an exposed organism or estimates the releases of the chemical into a particular compartment of the environment.

Precise knowledge on the intrinsic properties as well as on the exposure arising as a result of a particular use and of the disposal is an indispensable prerequisite for decision making on the safe management of chemicals. Reliable knowledge on intrinsic properties is important because it also constitutes the basis for the classification of chemicals. A large part of the management measures laid down in sector specific legislation to protect human health or the environment are directly linked to the classification of chemicals:

• it triggers the labelling of the packaging of the chemicals to inform the user about the properties of the chemicals and gives advice for the safe use,

• a chemical classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction currently initiates an examination of restriction measures in the consumer sector,

• it triggers numerous safety measures laid down in sector specific legislation in respect of occupational health, water protection, waste management, prevention of major accident hazards and air pollution.

Intrinsic Properties

The extent of testing required for detecting the intrinsic hazardous properties of a substance is often the subject of controversy. While, at first glance, it would seem reasonable to test chemicals until all hazardous properties (i.e. all adverse effects on all organisms at all potential doses) are known, theoretical and practical considerations reveal that it is neither possible nor desirable to meet this objective. First, the available testing methodology has limitations, as demonstrated by the recent discussion on the identification of endocrine disrupters. The review and the development of our testing methodology must therefore be regarded as a continual challenge. Second, ethical considerations on animal welfare as well as on the costs of testing strongly advocate for a balanced approach to the testing of chemicals so that the acquired knowledge offers proportionate benefits in terms of managing risks. This is particularly important for testing requirements for substances marketed in low volumes where extensive testing is not compensated by the income from sales.

New substances: Current EU legislation on new substances is generally considered to have been successful in testing and assessing chemicals. The testing requirements are tiered according to the volume placed on the market. The lowest volume triggering the need for testing amounts to 10 kg. More extensive testing is required when the volume reaches 100 kg, 1 t, 10 t, 100 t and 1,000 t, respectively. Generally, testing requirements at the lower volumes (10 kg to 1 t) focus on acute hazards (immediate or slightly delayed effects after short term exposure) while those at the higher tonnage levels include more expensive studies on the effects of (sub-) chronic exposure, on reproductive toxicity and on carcinogenicity. The testing package at 1 t is termed ‘base set’ while those triggered by higher tonnage are called Level 1 (100 t) and Level 2 (1,000 t).

Existing substances: In contrast to new substances, existing substances have never been subjected to such a systematic testing regime. When the requirement for testing and notification of new substances was introduced in 1981, substances already on the market were exempted. A study performed by the European Chemicals Bureau on the availability of the data for high production volume existing substances10 (substances exceeding a production volume of 1,000 t) revealed significant gaps in publicly available knowledge about these chemicals. This lack of public knowledge was identified as the major deficiency throughout the entire review process.

Action 3A: Equivalent level of information on new and existing substances
The gap in knowledge about intrinsic properties for existing substances should be closed to ensure that equivalent information to that on new substances is available. According to the timetable presented in chapter 6, existing substances will be subjected to the same procedure as for new substances. The available information should be thoroughly examined and best use made of it in order to waive testing, wherever appropriate.

Action 3B: Testing of new and existing substances
Testing and assessment of the many existing substances will require a substantial effort from industry and authorities. To meet this challenge available resources must be focussed on the most relevant chemicals. The current 10 kg threshold for mandatory testing of new substances should be increased. The following general testing regime for new and existing substances is recommended. Waiving of testing will be acceptable on due justification according to recommendations 3A and 3C. Further testing may be required by the authorities as described in chapter 4.2:

• Substances produced/imported in quantities between 1 – 10 t: data on the physico- chemical, toxicological and ecotoxicological properties of the substance; testing should generally be limited to in vitro methods,
• Substances produced/imported in quantities between 10 – 100 t: ‘base set’ testing according to Annex VII A of Directive 67/548/EEC. Waiving of testing will be acceptable on due justification according to Action 3A. This will in particular apply for existing substances,

• Substances produced/imported in quantities between 100 – 1000 t: ‘Level 1’ testing (substance-tailored testing for long-term effects). The scope of the additional testing will be based on the requirements set out in Annex VIII of Directive 67/548/EEC. Guidelines, including decision trees for the testing strategy will be developed tailoring testing according to the results of the available information, physico-chemical properties, the use and the exposure to the substance.

• Substances produced/imported in quantities above 1000 t: ‘Level 2’ testing (further substance-tailored testing for long-term effects). The scope of the additional testing will be based on the requirements set out in Annex VIII of Directive 67/548/EEC. Guidelines, including decision trees for the testing strategy will be developed tailoring testing according to the results of the available information, physico-chemical properties, the use and the exposure to the substance.

Action 3C: Exposure-triggered testing
The current testing regime for new substances has been criticised for not taking sufficiently into account differences in the exposure to chemicals. Hence, the future system should include sufficient flexibility to waive or extend the needed testing as appropriate on the basis of particular exposure scenarios. For example, testing requirements for strictly controlled and rigorously contained intermediates should be reduced.

Action 3D: Exemptions for substances used in research and development
The volume threshold of 100 kg currently in place for research and development should be increased to 1 t. For substances undergoing process-oriented research and development, the current time period limit should be extended from one to three years. This three-year period should be extendable up to a maximum of five years.

Action 3E: Obligations for substances marketed as constituents of products
Current notification requirements cover substances placed on the market on their own or as constituents of preparations. Substances used and placed on the market as constituents of products (e.g. toys, textiles) other than preparations, however, are exempted. Nevertheless, most of the substances included in such products are covered as they are marketed either as such or as components of preparations before being included into products. However, some products, in particular products where the whole manufacturing process has been carried out outside the Community, may contain untested and unregistered substances. Where such substances may be released during use and disposal in significant amounts thus causing exposure of humans and of the environment, they cannot generally be neglected. The issue needs to be properly addressed.

As regards substances in products that can lead to significant exposure of humans and environment, the Commission proposes to set up a working group which would identify the product categories (e.g. toys or textiles), the relevant exposure situations and all other practical implications. On the basis of this working group’s findings, producers or importers should be requested to identify products containing such substances and provide any information, as appropriate.

Research and Validation

Development of alternative methods

International acceptance of results of animal tests has been a major breakthrough in minimising animal testing. This has been achieved by complying with methods developed by the OECD under its Test Guidelines Programme and obtained in accordance with the principles of Good Laboratory Practice. Once a company has carried out such a test, the results can be used for notification purposes in the Community as well as in Australia, Japan or the USA.

The Community has already taken steps to reduce duplicate testing: both Directive 67/548 and Regulation 793/93 contain provisions which avoid the need for different companies to carry out the same test. Chapter 5 describes actions to develop this approach further.

The Commission is fully committed to the legislation on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes11. According to this legislation, experiments using animals must be replaced by other scientific satisfactory methods not entailing the use of animals, requiring fewer animals or causing less pain to the animals wherever possible.

The following elements of the new system have been developed with a view to keep animal testing to a minimum:
• existing information on the toxicity and ecotoxicity of substances, including epidemiological studies, will be taken into account,
• the general testing requirements will be modified to incorporate exposure-driven testing where appropriate,
• tailor-made testing programmes for substances will be developed under the control of authorities for Level 1 and 2 testing,
• the development of further alternative testing methods using fewer or no animals will be fostered,
• existing substances will be grouped to minimise testing, where appropriate.

One of the major tasks of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) of the Joint Research Centre of the Commission is to validate alternative methods that reduce, refine or replace animal experiments (’3 R approach’). Once these methods are established the Commission proposes their inclusion in the relevant Community legislation. Furthermore it submits them to the OECD Test Guidelines Programme, through which the Commission makes every effort to ensure that the methods are recognised internationally. Some international test methods have already been amended to reduce the number of animals required or the distress caused.

Research to minimise the use of animal tests and develop methods that do not require animal experiments is also a priority within the OECD Test Guidelines Programme, which is actively supported by the Commission.

Action 3 F: To foster research on development and validation of alternative methods both at the Community and at the level of Member States and to enhance the relevant information that can be obtained from testing without simultaneously increasing the number of animals involved.

ECVAM’s central role will be maintained and the development of alternative methods should be accelerated. Further research will be carried out both at Community and national level in order to develop and validate novel testing strategies involving fewer or no animals and enhancing the relevant information that can be obtained from testing without simultaneously increasing the number of animals involved.

Other research priorities

In order to meet the goals of this White Paper, a continuous effort of research has to be made both at the Community and at the national level in order to cover the many knowledge gaps. At the community level, the Commission, through its Framework Programmes for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration, is supporting research in several other areas, like:

• Improvementandsimplificationofrisk-assessmentprocedures.

• Improvementanddevelopmentofnewtoxicologicalandeco-toxicologicalmethods;

• particular research efforts need to be made for developing and validating in-vivo and in- vitro test methods as well as modelling (e.g. QSAR) and screening methods for assessing the potential adverse effects of chemicals on endocrine systems of humans and animals. Research on endocrine disrupters is also – among others – addressing the effect of low doses, long term exposure and exposure to mixtures of chemicals, and the impact of the endocrine alterations on carcinogenesis.

• Development of clean chemical production processes to reduce and to eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances.

• Research on improved Life Cycle Assessment methodologies for chemicals.

Exposure and Use

Adequate knowledge about exposure is an absolute requirement for any reliable risk assessment. However, the process under Regulation 793/93 highlighted a general lack of knowledge on the exposure to the existing substances under review. Furthermore, in many cases, the Member State authorities responsible for the assessment were not able to establish all the relevant uses of these chemicals. This lack of knowledge and restricted access by authorities to these data hampers efficient surveillance of the chemical sector.

Action 3 G: Obligation of manufacturers, importers and downstream users to assess exposure
The general shortage of exposure data must be addressed. Exposure estimates or, if appropriate, analytical determination of the exposure should be obligatory for manufacturers and downstream users (formulators and industrial users) of chemicals. Further detail on this proposal is given in chapters 4 and 5.

Action 3 H: Information system on environmental concentrations
An information system should be established on environmental concentrations and releases. Monitoring data ascertained by the Member States or by industry should be made available in an easily accessible form.

Cost and benefit

It is estimated that base-set testing will cost about € 85,000 per substance. The cost of long- term testing is more uncertain as there is less experience. However, level 1 testing for new substances costs approximately € 250,000 per substance and level 2 testing costs approximately € 325,000 per substance. It would not only be EU industry that has to pay these costs: everyone who imports substances into the Community would make a fair contribution to these costs ensuring a global approach, see section 5.5 below. It is estimated that the testing of the approximately 30,000 existing substances would result in total costs of about € 2.1 billion, over the next 11 years until 2012.12

The administrative costs of the system will be recovered through a fee-based system.

As a result of the systematic testing of new substances about 70% have been identified as being dangerous. On the other hand, as little is known about the intrinsic properties of existing substances it can be assumed that the majority of these chemicals cannot be properly classified today and adequate risk management measures cannot be taken. Introducing mandatory testing for these substances would generate the necessary information to substantially improve the risk management for existing substances. If as a result the adverse impacts could be even slightly reduced, the money spent for these tests would have proven to be well spent.

The potential benefits of this policy would stem from improved risk management, in all likelihood leading to safer handling of substances, and to less exposure of consumers and the environment to dangerous substances. Although it is difficult to estimate accurately and in monetary terms the potential benefits from this change some indications are possible. Indeed, if as a result of this improved risk management some human lives could be saved or the incidence and prevalence of allergic or chronic diseases could be reduced by some percent the money would have been well spent.13 Further details are given in annex I.


The current volume-triggered notification system for new substances has resulted in substantial and reliable knowledge about these chemicals. However, it involves a considerable workload for the authorities requiring a large amount of their resources even though all this effort only addresses a limited part of the chemicals on the market. Existing substances dominate the market over new substances by a factor of 15. The challenge therefore is to establish a system that can cope with the large number of existing substances. The overriding goal must be to ensure adequate information, made publicly available, and appropriate risk management of existing and new substances within the timeframe set out in chapter 6.

Action 4: To establish a single coherent system focussing public resources on those substances, where, according to experience, the involvement of authorities is indispensable and the added value in terms of the provision of safety is substantial.

The system, called REACH, will be composed of the following three elements:

(a) Registration of basic information for around 30,000 substances (all existing and new substances exceeding a production volume of 1 t) submitted by companies in a central database. It is estimated that around 80 % of these substances would only require registration;

(b) Evaluation of the registered information for all substances exceeding a production volume of 100 t (around 5,000 substances corresponding to 15 %) or, in case of concern, also for substances at lower tonnage; the evaluation will be carried out by authorities and include the development of substance-tailored testing programmes focussing on the effects of long-term exposure;

(c) Authorisation of substances with certain hazardous properties that give rise to very high concern (CMR substances14 (categories 1 and 2) 15 and POPs). Authorisation requires authorities to give a specific permission before a substance can be used for particular purposes demonstrated to be safe. The number of substances subject to authorisation is estimated at 1,400 (5% of the registered substances). This estimate is based on

– 850substancescurrentlyclassifiedasCMRsubstances(categories1and2)

– Substances with POPs characteristics16

– 500 additional CMR substances (categories 1 and 2) which may be identified through future testing.

The REACH-system will be applied to new and existing substances. However, in contrast to new substances, a transitional period of 11years is required to phase in the large number of existing substances. In general, existing substances produced in higher volumes will have to be registered first. Yet the system will be flexible enough to allow for earlier registration of substances of concern produced in lower tonnage. The work programme and timetable for the transitional phase is described in detail in chapter 6.


Registration requires a manufacturer or importer to notify an authority17 of the intention to produce or import a substance and to submit a dossier containing the information required by the legislation. The authority puts this information into an electronic database, assigns a registration number and performs spot-checks and computerised screening of the registered substances for properties raising particular concern.

Registration will be obligatory for new and existing (according to the time table set out in chapter 6) substances produced in volumes exceeding 1 t. The currently required general conformity check for new notified substances above 1 t will be replaced by spot-checks and computerised screening. The registration dossier will include the following information:

– Data/information on the identity and properties of the substance (including data on toxicological and ecotoxicological properties as set out in chapter 3),

– Intended uses, estimated human and environmental exposure,

– Production quantity envisaged,

– Proposal for the classification and labelling of the substance,

– Safety Data Sheet,

– Preliminary risk assessment covering the intended uses,

– Proposed risk management measures.


Evaluation requires authorities to carefully examine the data provided by industry. It also requires them to decide on substance-tailored testing programmes, following industry proposals, as set out in chapter 3 .

Substances above 100 t: When the quantity produced or imported reaches 100 t or 1,000 t (or, for existing substances, already exceeds these volume thresholds), the manufacturer or importer will be required to submit to an authority all available information and to propose a strategy for further testing based on the general information requirements defined in the legislation. The authority will evaluate the information and the testing strategy submitted by industry and will decide on the appropriate course of action.

In essence, the current approach for new substances will be maintained for substances above 100 t. The availability of a risk assessment drawn up by the manufacturer or importer will reduce the workload of the authorities. Testing programmes at Level 1 (100 t) and Level 2 (1,000 t) will be substance-tailored as set out in chapter 3.

Substances below 100 t: Substances which are suspected to be persistent and liable to bioaccumulation, substances with certain hazardous properties such as mutagenicity or high toxicity, or substances with molecular structures giving rise to concern (e.g. identified by quantitative structure activity relationships, QSAR) will require an evaluation by the authorities at volume levels below 100 t. Based on this evaluation, immediate safety measures and/or further testing may be needed. Thus, the authorities’ right to request additional information for low volume substances on a case by case basis, as possible under the current notification system, will be retained. Furthermore, authorities should be empowered to require additional testing, when the aggregate volume produced and/or imported by all manufacturers and/or importers exceeds the next higher tonnage threshold for a single producer or importer to a considerable degree.

Authorisation of substances of very high concern

For substances of very high concern, authorities will have to give a specific permission before such a substance can be used for a particular purpose, marketed as such or as a component of a product. The scope will be clearly defined and strict deadlines will be set for both industry and authorities.

Substances subject to authorisation: The following new and existing substances, including those produced in volumes below 100 t, which either have hazardous properties giving rise to very high concern will be progressively subjected to an authorisation regime. However, uses that do not give rise to concern will generally be exempted:

• Substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction (CMR substances categories 1 and 2)

• Substances with POPs characteristics.

Further research: Further research is needed to develop criteria for the identification of PBT and VPVB19 substances other than POPs. The Commission will decide at a later stage how substances with these properties should be treated.

Endocrine disrupters: The majority of the endocrine disrupting chemicals would have to undergo authorisation in the REACH system. Serious human health effects which have so far been associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals are testicular cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, decrease in sperm concentration and semen volume, cryptorchidism, hypospadia and impaired development of the immune system and the nervous system. All these effects would qualify a substance either to be classified as carcinogenic or as toxic for reproduction and so would trigger its submission to authorisation. Furthermore, adverse effects on the endocrine system of wildlife species have been causally linked to certain POPs, which will be subject to authorisation.

Implementation of the authorisation process: A substantial number of substances qualifying for authorisation will be identified only through Level 1 and Level 2 testing when they are already used in substantial amounts. In order to allow for implementation of the authorisation procedure, transition periods to generate the required information and to draw up the dossiers for authorisation are necessary. Also, the time period needed to decide
upon the authorisation needs to be taken into account. A two-step decision-making process is therefore proposed:

• Step 1 – identification of the substances, or particular uses of substances, which will be subject to authorisation. Once identified, a precise date when all unauthorised uses of the substance will be prohibited. Furthermore, step 1 will identify, as appropriate, the scope of the uses to be exempted generally from the requirement for authorisation. Relevant substances will be fed into the system as soon as practicable, with substances of most concern being considered first.

• Step 2 – particular uses of a substance will be authorised on the basis of a risk assessment submitted by the applicant to the authorities. This assessment will cover the whole life- cycle of the substance, including disposal, with respect to the particular use. Manufacturers and importers will be permitted to submit jointly this information and/or to submit simultaneously for the use of several substances (group applications). The authorities will generally not require the applicant to carry out further testing but to establish the required exposure data to allow authorities to take a decision. An authorisation will be granted if the use presents a negligible risk. A conditioned authorisation may be granted if this is justified by the overall socio-economic benefits arising from the use. The authorities will be required to decide upon the authorisation within a reasonable time from submission of the risk assessment to avoid banning of substances by default.

Exemptions: Uses which do not give rise to concern – such as well controlled industrial uses or uses in research laboratories – may be subject to general exemptions from the authorisation procedure.

Pro-active role of industry: The current approach requires authorities to provide convincing arguments, usually in the context of a risk assessment, before restriction measures are taken. Their task is further complicated because the current system does not encourage industry to support the assessment. On the contrary, delaying the process is “rewarded” with an extended marketing period. Industry has usually provided data when such data were deemed suitable to avoid the restrictions under consideration. An apparent lack of data aggravates the situation and often leads to a risk assessment conclusion that ‘further information is required’ before an informed decision on risk management can be taken. Other delays are caused in cases where analytical methods must be developed to check compliance with a potential restriction. Authorities have to carry the main burden of the development of the analytical methodology. Such an approach is not amenable to attaining a high level of safety.

Authorisation, in contrast, requires industry to take a pro-active role in the evaluation process. If analytical tools need to be developed to control exposure, their availability should be a prerequisite for authorisation.

Increased flexibility: At the authorisation stage, a consideration of the socio-economic impact may be required. In contrast to the current system, which requires authorities to carry out cost/benefit analyses, the producer or user of the substance should be obliged to provide information substantiating any claim that the benefits from the continued use of a substance outweighs the potential adverse effects on human health and the environment. The REACH-system offers clear advantages to industry. Currently, Directive 76/769 restricts certain uses of substances without providing a mechanism to reverse such provisions on a case by case basis. In this perspective the REACH-system offers increased flexibility on condition that adequate safety measures are taken. It is more open to technological developments and will lead to a custom-tailored safety net for problematic substances.

Accelerated risk management of other substances

Specific uses of substances which do not have one of the properties listed under the authorisation system but for which restrictions are needed should be addressed in an improved and accelerated procedure.

Accelerated risk assessments: the following four elements will bring about the necessary acceleration of assessments:

(1) Due to the registration requirement of all chemicals above 1 t there will be extensive data available on the health and safety properties of all substances marketed (see chapter 5 below).

(2) The obligation on enterprises to submit a preliminary risk assessment will provide the authorities with valuable and comprehensive information on whether or not the chemical substance in question can be handled safely thereby avoiding unacceptable risks for workers, the population at large and the environment. Thus, for the large majority of substances (estimated at more than 80 %), there would be no need for further assessment. In the minority of cases where there is need for further assessment, it would be clear where the further assessment should be focussed. The gain in time would be substantial compared to the present system.

(3) Under the new system, the industry will be responsible for preliminary risk assessments and will assume responsibility for the safety of its products. It will be under an obligation to co-operate on the establishment of Community Risk Assessments where these are considered necessary. The delays encountered under the present system, where Member State authorities assumed full responsibility for risk assessments without the necessary means at their disposal, will be eliminated.

(4) Targeted risk assessments will in most cases replace the comprehensive risk assessments of the past. The latter were the main cause of delays under Regulation 793/93 as they required consideration of all dangerous effects, all exposed populations and all environmental compartments.

These four factors taken together will substantially reduce the time needed for assessment.

Accelerated legislation: two factors will contribute to an acceleration of the legislative process:

(1) The precautionary principle will be invoked whenever the risk assessment process is unduly delayed and where there is an indication of unacceptable risk. In particular, should a producer of a given substance delay the filing of information or test results, the central entity would be entitled to conclude the assessment. It would then pass the dossier to the Commission with a recommendation to apply the precautionary principle and to proceed to risk management measures to the possible extent of a total ban.

(2) A further acceleration is needed in order to proceed to risk management decisions for other substances in a reasonably short time frame. Thus, the Commission should be authorised to use the Committee procedure under Directive 76/769 more extensively than in the past.

This approach would take account of the full range of implications of possible restrictions; in particular, it would consider whether possible substitutes are more or less dangerous.


There is already legislation in place along the whole manufacturing chain generally allocating the responsibility for the safe use of chemicals to manufacturers and users of chemicals. Directive 92/59/EEC on General Product Safety20 extends the responsibility to products intended for consumer use, which should not present unacceptable risks under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use. The review found that this general allocation of responsibilities has not led to a satisfactory evaluation of the safety of chemicals. Additional legal provisions stating more precisely the obligations of industry are essential. These provisions shall include ensuring that the substances they place on the market are safe for their intended use, irrespective of the tonnage produced.

Data Generation

The current system only established duties for producers and manufacturers to test chemicals, but not for downstream users. The role of downstream users in testing of chemicals needs to be further considered.

Action 5A: Obligation of downstream users to perform testing
Downstream users must assume responsibility for the safety of their products. Authorities should be empowered to require downstream users to carry out additional testing where uses differ from those originally envisaged by manufacturers or importers and the resulting exposure patterns also differ substantially from those evaluated by them. Additional testing programmes should be developed in close consultation with the authorities.

Risk/safety Assessment

Directive 67/548 and Regulation 793/93 oblige the authorities to carry out risk assessment. This imposes a considerable burden on them, particularly in assessing existing substances. As industry is responsible for safe use and disposal of chemicals and risk assessment is the preferred method to assess safety, the current work distribution between authorities and industry is inappropriate. Chemicals are used in millions of products so it is impractical for authorities to perform or be involved in these assessments. Instead, the Commission believes that, as the Council suggested, authorities should focus on areas of major concern.

Action 5B: Manufacturers and downstream users to perform risk assessment
Industry should have responsibility for performing risk assessments. This will require the manufacturer or importer as well as the downstream user to carry out adequate risk assessments for substances and preparations.

Information to be provided by Industry to the Authorities

Industry should provide authorities with information about all substances as set out in Chapter 4. Below the Chapter 4 thresholds, industry should generate the necessary safety data and keep the records available.

Action 5C: Obligation of downstream users to inform authorities
The Commission proposes that the authorities must be informed about any downstream use which has not been envisaged by a manufacturer or importer and which has not therefore been addressed in the preliminary risk assessment.

Information to be provided by manufacturers and importers to downstream users, other professional users and consumers

Information relevant for the safe use of chemicals must be available to all users, including consumers. Fundamentally, the safety system depends on the quality and the comprehensibility of the information passed on down the production chain. Safety data sheets and the Labelling of the packaging are the main carriers of this information. Shortcomings have been identified in both information systems. Safety data sheets are considered below while classification and labelling is addressed in chapter 7.

Action 5D: Information to industrial and professional users through safety data sheets

Safety data sheets are generally considered to be suitable communication tools to provide safety information to users, in spite of the noted shortcomings. The Commission proposes to establish a working group of Member States experts including participation of the European Chemicals Bureau to advise it on:

• ensuring better quality of safety data sheets,

• examining the current information requirements with a view to expand them in order to enable users to carry out risk assessment.

Property rights for test data

The specific provisions in Directive 67/548 and Regulation 793/93 for the sharing of test data and testing costs were designed to avoid duplicate animal testing. However, such provisions also have a benefit for industry because they reduce the overall testing costs. Furthermore, legislation for sharing of test data and the costs of testing is essential to ensure fair competition, otherwise some companies might delay testing in the hope that competitors producing the same substance would be obliged to do it before them and pick up the full costs.

The introduction of exposure-triggered testing and new obligations on downstream users to test could accentuate this problem. For example, if a downstream user carried out additional testing because of substantially different exposure patterns than those foreseen by a manufacturer of the substance, the latter might use these data to enlarge the scope of the uses of the substance. This would increase the number of potential customers and the marketed volumes, in some cases at a disadvantage to the original downstream user. Such a system would encourage the manufacturers to strictly limit the number of intended uses to a minimum, waive testing as far as possible and wait for downstream users to complete the testing. This would be a clear distortion of the market.

Action 5E: Property rights for test data

Anybody who generates testing data under the new system should be encouraged to share them and anyone who uses such data obliged to pay a fair and equitable contribution to the generator of the data.

Action 5F: Discouragement of duplicate testing

Specific provisions should be included in the legislation that duplicate tests involving vertebrate animals should be avoided. Any duplicate testing will not result in an exemption from the duty to reimburse the party who owns the property rights for the first test.


The testing and evaluation of the large number of existing substances on the market requires a phased approach. This chapter describes the necessary provisions and a timeframe for the testing and evaluation of existing substances. It also addresses the future role of the authorities in risk assessment.

Action 6A: Tiered approach for registration

Precise deadlines will be established for the submission of registration dossiers for existing substances. In general, substances produced in higher volumes will have to be registered first. However, the system will be flexible enough to allow for earlier registration of substances of concern (e.g. intended for consumer use or having particular proven or suspected hazardous properties) produced in lower tonnage. Under these presumptions and given rapid progress in adoption of the revised legislation, the suggested deadlines for submission of registration dossiers are basically:

• substances exceeding a production volume of 1,000 t – at the latest by end of 2005,

• substances exceeding a production volume of 100 t – at the latest by end of 2008,

• substances exceeding a production volume of 1 t – at the latest by end of 2012.

Dossiers drawn up in the context of the voluntary initiative on the part of the International Council of Chemicals Associations (ICCA) which comply with the OECD format will be valid for this purpose. However, the information contained in these dossiers will have to be supplemented in order to meet the requirements described in the previous chapters.

Action 6B: Tiered approach for testing and evaluation of high production volume existing substances

There should be a tiered approach for the testing and evaluation of high production volume existing substances. Level 2 testing should be completed for substances above 1,000 t by 2010 and Level 1 testing of substances above 100 t should be completed by 2012.

Action 6C: Establishment of a task force to review available data

An advisory task force composed of around 15 Member States experts, should be seconded to the European Chemicals Bureau in the interim period before the new legislation is implemented. This task force will be assigned the following responsibilities:

An advisory task force composed of around 15 Member States experts, should be seconded to the European Chemicals Bureau in the interim period before the new legislation is implemented. This task force will be assigned the following responsibilities:

– evaluation of the information of the IUCLID database submitted by industry for substances exceeding 1,000 t:

(a) examination of the proposed classification and labelling

(b) assessment of IUCLID information on properties, exposure and uses

(c) proposal of additional testing programmes in co-operation with ECVAM


Current legislation requires that dangerous substances are either classified and labelled in accordance with Annex I of Directive 67/548 (harmonised classification) or, if they are not included in this Annex, in accordance with the principles laid down in Annex VI of this Directive by industry (self-classification). Annex I covers around 5,000 dangerous chemicals and has been established over several decades.

Systematic evaluation of new substances has revealed that around 70 % of them are classified as dangerous (e.g. carcinogenic, toxic, sensitising, irritant, dangerous for the environment). In view of the large number of existing substances and assuming that a comparable percentage of them need to be classified, the establishment of a comprehensive harmonised list of all substances is not a viable option using the current approach.

Classification according to some hazardous properties has automatic consequences for the risk management of these substances (see chapter 3). To avoid ambiguities in respect of the required management measures, the new system must retain parts of the harmonised classification.

Action 7A: Restrict harmonised classification to the most relevant properties

Authorities’ resources should be focussed on the most relevant hazardous properties, such as carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and reproduction toxicity (CMR), where classification gives rise to important risk management measures.

Action 7B: Commission to seek industry list of dangerous substances
The Commission will ask Industry to provide a list containing comprehensive information about the classification and the labelling of all dangerous substances on the market. This list should be made available on the Internet and be publicly accessible free of charge.

Action7C: To simplify the current labelling system and improving comprehensibility through Globally Harmonised System.

The current negotiations on the elaboration of a Globally Harmonised System provides an opportunity to fundamentally review the current labelling provisions, to consider simplification and to improve comprehensibility of the labels.


This chapter summarises the administration of the REACH system presented in chapter 4.

Decision-making in the REACH system

There are basically two different kinds of decision to be taken under the REACH-system: decisions on the information to be submitted following the evaluation of the substances and decisions on risk management in the context of the authorisation procedure.

Decision-making at the Evaluation stage: The system must provide a mechanism to ensure that, on the basis of the preliminary risk assessments provided by industry, decisions on further information or substance-tailored testing programmes can rapidly be taken for a large number of substances. The procedure under Regulation 793/93 to request additional testing for existing substances from industry has proven extremely slow and cumbersome. Under the new system, the approach taken for new substances will be followed: Member State authorities will be responsible for deciding on the additional testing and a committee procedure will only be invoked in cases where agreement cannot be reached between Member States authorities.


Decision making at the authorisation stage: Depending on the anticipated impact of a substance, an authorisation for actual use should either be granted by Member States or by a decision at Community level. Member States should grant authorisations for uses, which mainly need to be considered for their potential impact on workers and on the local environment. In contrast, the authorisation of the use of a substance of concern in products marketed in the Community may have a wider impact on human health or the environment as well as on the functioning of the internal market. This would imply that a Community- wide decision on the actual use of a substance is justified.

As described in chapter 4, the authorisation would encompass a two step procedure:

• Step 1 – the identification of substances or particular uses of a substance which will be subject to future authorisation, establishing a precise date when all uses which have not been authorised will be prohibited;

• Step 2 – the actual authorisation of particular uses.

Given the Community-wide internal market impact of prohibiting the use of a substance, the step 1 decision, together with identification of the uses that Member States may authorise, should be taken at Community level. Step 2, the authorisation of specific uses, would be taken at the appropriate level defined in step 1. Generally, a committee driven mechanism will be applied for all decisions taken at Community level.

Decision making in the accelerated risk management procedure:

The accelerated risk management procedure will work as follows:

• Step 1 – the identification of substances or particular uses of a substance which will be subject to future restriction, defining the scope of the restriction,

• Step 2 – the actual decision restricting or banning the use of the substance.

Given the Community-wide internal market impact of prohibiting the use of a substance, both decisions should be taken at Community level. Step 2 would imply legislation in the framework of a modernised Directive 76/769. Generally, a committee driven mechanism will be applied for all decisions taken at Community level. It would leave present working arrangements intact.

Establishment of a central entity

The Commission proposes at this stage to establish a central entity (an expanded European Chemicals Bureau) for the administration of the REACH-system and the provision of technical and scientific support. Building on its existing experience, the expanded European Chemicals Bureau should be a receiving body for the registration dossier, and forward the copies of the registration dossiers to the Member State authorities, establish and maintain a comprehensive central database on all registered chemicals, perform spot-checks and computerised screening of the registered substances for properties raising particular concern. It will also support Member States authorities in the evaluation of substances.

The central entity will provide access to non-confidential submitted information for the general public and establish an efficient and secure data exchange network with Member States for commercially sensitive information. It should support and co-ordinate the Member States with respect to the decision-making at the evaluation stage in order to ensure a coherent approach. Furthermore, the European Chemicals Bureau would provide the operational framework for the authorisation procedure and seek the views of Member State experts and of the CSTEE . Prior to the establishment of the central entity, the Commission will carry out a feasibility study and a cost/benefit analysis.

Role of Member States

Member States authorities would broadly retain their current responsibilities. They would be collectively responsible for substance registration and evaluation, similar to their current responsibilities for new substances notifications. Better consistency of decisions between Member States authorities would be achieved by the co-ordination through the European Chemicals Bureau and by developing guidelines for substances-tailored testing. The experience gained by the task force (see chapter 6) will help to prepare such guidelines.

To rectify the current unequal workload distribution between Member States authorities, the registered substances will be allocated to Member States on a proportionate basis. Current provisions concerning information exchange and the option to invoke a committee procedure in cases where agreement cannot be reached between Member States authorities should be retained.


The Commission has consulted and involved all stakeholders and in particular the NGOs representing consumer interests. Full openness is essential if the public is to understand the intended benefits of the Strategy and to ensure the Commission has addressed the public interest. The Commission is therefore committed to ensuring the continued involvement of stakeholders representing the full range of interests in the implementation, management and review stages of the Strategy.

EU citizens should have access to information about chemicals to which they are exposed. Information must be presented in such a way that it enables a person to understand the risks and to develop a sense of proportion in order to make a judgement on the acceptability of those risks. Better public access to information on chemicals will increase public awareness and will lead in turn to greater accountability on the part of industry and authorities. The Commission already publishes an up-to-date multi-lingual collection of chemical substances data and this could be further developed. Furthermore, indicators on the risk of chemical use should be established.

The Commission acknowledges consumers ‘right of choice’. Information should enable the consumer to make a judgement on whether alternative products on the market are more favourable in terms of their intrinsic properties and risks.
The findings of the review highlighted the need of consumers for information about the health effects, environmental effects, other serious hazards and safe instructions for use of chemical products. The Commission believes that industry, including downstream users, should mainly be responsible for providing this information to consumers. This will lead to better informed purchasing decisions about such products.

There is currently no central tracking system by which the public can determine whether regulatory measures are in place or in progress for individual chemicals. There is a lack of public awareness of the requirements of current chemicals legislation. The new system should be more easily understood by the general public helping to address this lack of awareness.

Action 9A: Stakeholder access to non-confidential information in the new-system database

All stakeholders, including the general public and SMEs (small and medium sized enterprises employing less than 250 workers), should have access to the non-confidential information on the central system database (see Chapter 4). Easy to read summaries for substances will promote use by the general public. These summaries will include a short profile of the hazardous properties, labelling requirements and relevant Community legislation, including authorised uses and risk management measures.


The Commission proposes to review the effectiveness and the efficiency of the chemicals strategy following implementation of the new legislation. The review will include an element of testing and questioning of all stakeholders.

Member States will be responsible for the enforcement of the new legislation in their territories. However, a number of enforcement projects and studies have highlighted shortcomings in compliance by industry of the current legislation on chemicals and inconsistencies in the level of enforcement activities by the Member States. Even if non- compliance can be demonstrated and damage to human health or environment has occurred, compensations awarded by courts of EU Member States often have a limited deterrent effect. The Community must address these problems by requiring Member States to establish dissuasive, effective and proportionate sanctions.

Recent studies in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom found high levels of non- compliance with the Safety Data Sheets legislation. Flaws in compliance and enforcement activities related to current legislation for new and existing substances were also noted by recent Community-wide enforcement projects (SENSE, NONS and EUREX21).

Action 10 A: Review of the chemicals policy

The Commission proposes to review the effectiveness and the efficiency of the chemicals policy including all the different elements that constitute its information policy, following implementation of the new legislation. The review will include an element of testing and questioning of all stakeholders.

Action 10B: Network of Enforcement Authorities

The Commission proposes to create a network of the Member States and Candidate Countries authorities responsible for enforcement of new legislation on chemicals to spread good practice and to highlight problems at Community level. This will be of increased importance when the current Candidate Countries join the Community, thus enlarging the Internal Market. One of the issues this network will be asked to consider is the need to develop minimum criteria for enforcement of the proposed legislation in the Member States. Such criteria might be set out in a Commission Recommendation in future.


Burden of the Past: The 30,000 ‘existing’ chemicals estimated to be on the EU market, for which little or no information is available, in particular about their long-term effects on human health or the environment.

Chemicals: General term to cover both substances and preparations (see separate entries).

Competent Authorities: A national authority or authorities designated by each Member State to
implement legislation.

CMR chemicals: Chemicals classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction under Directive 67/548 (see ‘legislation’).

CSTEE: Scientific Committee on the Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment of the Commission. Downstream users: Formulators and industrial users of chemicals. ECVAM: the JRC’s European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods.

ELINCS: European List of Notified Chemical Substances. ELINCS, currently contains some 2,700 substances and is an ever expanding list, following notification to Competent Authorities of the placing of a ‘new’ substance on the market.

EINECS: European Inventory of Existing Commercial Chemical Substances, deemed to be on the EU Market between 1 January 1971 and 18 September 1981. It is a closed list of 100,106 ‘existing’ chemicals governed by Regulation 793/93 (see ‘legislation’).

Existing substances: Substances in use within the EU before September 1981 and listed in EINECS. EINECS contains 100,106 entries including chemicals, substances produced from natural products by chemical modifications or purification, such as metals, minerals, cement, refined oil and gas; substances produced from animals and plants; active substances of pesticides, medicaments, fertilisers and cosmetic products; food additives; a few natural polymers; some waste and by-products. They can be mixtures of different chemicals occurring naturally or as an unintentional result of the production process.

‘Existing’ substances do not include: synthetic polymers (which are registered in EINECS under their building block monomers), intentional mixtures, medical preparations, cosmetic preparations and pesticide preparations as intentional mixtures; food; feedstuffs; alloys, such as stainless steel (but individual components of alloys are included); most naturally occurring raw materials, including coal and most ores.

Global Harmonisation: The Community together with its trading partners is committed to developing a global system for managing chemicals. Work is underway with the candidate countries for accession to the EU, in the framework of the OECD and at a global level in the framework of the United Nations.

Hazard assessment: Hazard identification and establishment of dose-response relationship for observed adverse effects in the specified (eco)toxicological endpoints.

Hazard identification: Identification of the adverse effects that a substance has the inherent capacity to cause.

HPV chemicals: High Production Volume chemicals. Chemicals placed on the EU market in volumes exceeding 1000 tonnes per year per manufacturer or importer.

ICCA: International Council of Chemical Associations.

IFCS: Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety.

ILO: International Labour Organisation.

IUCLID: International Uniform Chemical Information Database. A Commission database used to store and distribute information collected under Regulation 793/93.

JRC: Joint Research Centre of the Commission.

Legislation: Reference in the White Paper mainly refers to four legal instruments on chemicals currently in force in the Community:
• Council Directive 67/548/EEC relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, as amended,
• Directive 88/379/EEC relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations, recently replaced by 1999/45/EC,
• Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances,
• Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations.

LPV chemicals: Low Production Volume chemicals. Chemicals placed on the market in volumes between 10 tonnes and 1000 tonnes per year per producer/importer.

New substances: Substances not in use in the EU before September 1981 and so not in EINECS. They must be notified before being placed on the market, after which they are registered in ELINCS. New substances are governed by Directive 67/548, as amended by Directive 92/32.

NGOs: Non-governmental or ganisations representing particular stakeholders’ interests (e.g. consumers, environment).

Notification procedure for a new substance: Submission of a technical dossier by industry to a Competent Authority, containing information specified by Directive 67/548, as amended by Directive 92/32 (see ‘legislation’).

OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OSPAR: Oslo – Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic.

PBT chemicals: Persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic chemicals. POPs: Persistent Organic Pollutants.

Precautionary Principle: This principle is contained in Article 174 of the Treaty and the subject of a Commission Communication of 2 February 2000. It applies when there is a preliminary objective scientific evaluation indicating reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen for the Community.

Preparations: Intentional mixtures or solutions composed of two or more chemicals. They are governed by Directive 88/379/EEC, recently replaced by Directive 1999/45/EC.

QSAR: Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship. Models used to predict the properties of chemicals from the molecular structure.

REACH System: Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals.

Regulatory Committee: A committee composed of representatives from the EU Member States and chaired by the representative of the Commission. Its opinion is delivered by a qualified majority.

Risk Assessment: A process to determine the relationship between the predicted exposure and adverse effects in four steps: hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment and risk characterisation. See also ‘targeted risk assessment’.

Risk characterisation: Estimation of the incidence and severity of the adverse effects likely to occur in a human population or environmental compartment due to actual or predicted exposure to a substance.

SIDS: Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) outlining the minimum data elements for determining whether an existing HPV chemical requires further investigation in the OECD’s HPV/ICCA programme.

SMEs: Small to medium size enterprises employing less than 250 workers.

Substances: Substances are chemical elements and their compounds in the natural state or obtained by any production process, including any additive necessary to preserve the stability of the product and any impurity deriving from the process used, but excluding any solvent which may be separated without affecting the stability of the substance or changing its composition. While ingredients of pesticides, biocides, medicaments or cosmetics might be included in this definition, intentional mixtures or preparations of them for final use would not.

Sustainable Development: Enshrined in Articles 2 and 6 of the Treaty, it was defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission) as development that ‘meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. This objective includes the economic, social and ecological aspects of development as set out in the Final Document of the 19th Extra Session of the UN General Assembly, which was held on 23-27 June 1997. These three aspects are mutually dependent, and in order to achieve sustainable development they must be integrated and taken into account in a balanced manner. These notions are at the core of the Fifth EU Environment Action Program ‘Towards Sustainability’ and the Cardiff Strategy on Integration.

Targeted risk assessment: A less extensive, more specifically focused evaluation (because of a specific concern) than a comprehensive risk assessment.

Tiered Approach: Proportionate effort in relation to the volumes, intrinsic properties, exposure and/or use of chemicals; see chapter 3 for further explanation.

UN: United Nations.

UNCED: UN Conference on Environment and Development at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.

VPVB chemicals: Very persistent and very bio-accumulative chemicals.

WHO: World Health Organisation.


Costs and Benefits of the new Chemicals Policy


• Single coherent system for all chemical substances. REACH model (registration, evaluation and authorisation/rapid restriction of chemicals);

• Management by Member States and European Chemicals Bureau (ECB).


• 30,000 existing substances (= all existing substances above 1tonne/year/manufacturer);

• Acute and long-term toxicity tested. Tailor-made testing for long-term effects (such as cancer,
reproductive effects) for substances above 100 tonne/year/manufacturer;

• Waiving of testing on due justification, all available test data used and registered;

• Reduced testing for low exposure substances and R&D (research and development) substances.

• Limited in vitro testing for substances between 1 and 10 t.


Cost of action. It is very difficult to give a reliable estimate of the “cost of action” implied, such as for the testing of existing substances where availability of test data generated earlier is largely unknown. However, a first estimate is given in the following.

• Testing costs for existing substances. € 2.1 billion over 11 years = € 0.2 billion/year, to be borne by the chemicals industry.

• Human resources for an expanded European Chemicals Bureau (ECB). A staff of 190 people at the ECB to provide the technical and administrative framework.

• Public human resources in the Member States. Member States will reallocate their current staff. Extra resources will be allocated to evaluation of existing substances. These resources will be freed from their current tasks by the following measures:
– Computerised screening and sport checks will replace the current general conformity check for new substances below 100 t
– Risk assessments will generally be carried out by industry rather than authorities
– in view of the expanded ECB and the reduced efforts needed for the authorisation process instead of the current restrictions process under Directive 76/769.

• Industry human resources. An estimate is hardly possible because an increase can be expected for processes such as the authorisation process, but a reduction can be expected because of
– no notification of substances between 10 kg and 1 tonne/year/manufacturer;
– less strict requirements for certain substances such as intermediates with low exposure;
– less strict requirements for R&D substances (research and development).
(The staff for the testing of existing substances is already covered by the above-mentioned testing costs.)


Better protection of the environment and human health through appropriate risk management based on adequate information about the dangerous properties of chemicals. This will reduce the incidence of certain diseases related to chemicals (such as cancer or allergies) and reduce the risks that chemicals can pose to the environment (such as through the accumulation of persistent chemicals in the food chains). The main difficulty is that neither the dangerous properties nor the uses of chemicals are sufficiently known. For illustrative purposes reference is made to allergies.

Allergy costs are estimated at € 29 billion/year in Europe. Chemical substances are considered to play a major role in inducing allergies either directly or by increasing susceptibility to natural allergens (e.g. pollen). For example a US study has shown that asthma cases have risen by 40% since the 1970s. If the new strategy makes even a small reduction in the € 29 billion of allergy costs, this will outweigh the costs of the strategy.

• Improved framework for innovation in the chemicals sector. This will

– contribute to the development of novel chemicals that may substitute current chemicals of concern,
thus decreasing the risks from chemicals;

– strengthen the competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry.

• Increased transparency and better access of the public to information, thus enabling them to make an “informed choice” about the chemicals they want to use.

Direct link is below

Click to access com2001_0088en01.pdf

Read Full Post »

Obama Office Alters More Federal Rules Than Bush

November 28, 2011

Tucked away in a corner of the White House’s Old Executive Office Building, an office that most people have never heard of affects millions of Americans’ lives. It’s the last hurdle that every proposed regulation must surmount before seeing the light of day. And a new study of this obscure part of the government suggests that President Obama is altering more of those regulations than President George W. Bush did.

Health and safety regulations are not born fully formed. They have to run a long marathon first. Once an agency devises a rule proposal, whether to regulate air pollution or food safety, scientists and lawyers study the impact and cost of the rule. Agencies gather public comments. After a process that may take years, the regulation goes through one last gantlet in a place called OIRA (pronounced “oh-EYE-ra”).

OIRA stands for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It’s part of the White House office that manages the entire federal budget. Michael Fitzpatrick has worked there for three years, in an office taller than it is wide. His window looks out over the White House’s West Wing.

“In all of our lives, we have others review our work and make sure we’re doing it as well as possible. And that’s the way I view OIRA’s role,” he said in an interview with NPR.

He compares his role to that of an editor — looking at every proposed rule and asking, “Are you achieving this regulatory objective in the smartest, most effective, most efficient way possible?”

A ‘Killing Ground’ For Protective Rules?

The outcome, according to a new study by the Center for Progressive Reform, is that the office “has served as a killing ground for protective rules.”

“We studied the records of 1,080 meetings that have been held at OIRA over the last 10 years,” said Rena Steinzor, CPR’s president. “And we found that OIRA has changed 84 percent of environmental regulations, and 65 percent of other agencies’ regulations, and the change rate is worse than it was under George W. Bush.”

In other words, her group argues, this president is watering down or undoing a greater percentage of proposed regulations than his predecessor did.

Fitzpatrick, who sits at the center of this debate, argues that his office is improving regulations, not gutting them.

“When you are dealing with the most complex questions of policy, it’s to be expected that there are going to be questions raised and insights gleaned that cause an agency to say, ‘You know what? We should make a change here or there. We can do this in an even better way.’ ”

While the rest of the public might not know about OIRA, lobbyists have the office on speed dial. Industry groups visit OIRA largely for one purpose: to reduce regulation. Steinzor’s analysis found that industry representatives outnumber public health and safety advocates by almost 4 to 1 at OIRA meetings.

Jim Tozzi helped create OIRA and worked on regulations under five presidents. He says the tilt toward industry is to be expected.

Regulations, he says, “increase the cost of industry. So they have more direct skin in the game.” In contrast, he says, environmental groups’ members “don’t have skin in the game, because they just say ‘they’ll cough their lungs out’ or something like that.”

Besides, Tozzi says, “If they meet with you more, it doesn’t mean they’re going to agree with you.” OIRA has an open-door policy of never turning down a meeting with anyone.

Despite these figures suggesting that the Obama White House is altering more regulations than Bush and meeting with industry far more than with public safety advocates, Republicans accuse President Obama of choking the economy with a glut of “job-killing regulations.” Some of that complaint has to do with health care and financial reform — two big laws that include a lot of regulations.

Striking A Balance

Obama always emphasizes the need to strike a balance, saying rules that don’t make sense should die, while others are important.

“I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury. Or laws that prevent the health care industry from short-changing patients,” he said in a September speech to Congress.

People who have spent their careers in this field are not surprised to learn that the Obama White House is changing more draft rules than the Bush White House did.

John Graham ran the regulatory oversight office under George W. Bush. In his experience, Republican presidents tend to put people who don’t like new rules in charge of agencies — so those agencies don’t send a lot of regulations to a Republican-led White House for review.

In fact, “we had to devise an entirely new device called the prompt letter,” Graham recalls. “It says, ‘You really ought to strengthen the food label by putting the trans-fat content of foods on the label.’ But I think what you’ll find in the Obama administration is that there are no shortages of ideas of new regulations to be adopted coming out of the agencies.”

While OIRA staffers try to evaluate those ideas based on the merits of each proposal, many people who’ve worked there in the past say sometimes raw politics comes into play.

Susan Dudley, who worked at OIRA in the Reagan administration and came back to run the office at the end of the George W. Bush administration, recalls a former office head telling her, “Sometimes you have to kiss a pig.” That is to say, “Sometimes politics wins the day.”

Therefore, the person who runs OIRA is tremendously important. If he or she has the president’s ear, OIRA can win arguments at the White House. Otherwise the office can easily be bulldozed by other senior advisers.

The man who runs OIRA today is a legal superstar named Cass Sunstein, who is close friends with President Obama. They taught at the University of Chicago Law School together. People say half-jokingly that Sunstein could have had any job in the federal government, and he chose to run OIRA.

Sunstein’s deputy, Mike Fitzpatrick, acknowledges that senior White House officials sometimes have their say. But he cautions that politics is not always a dirty word.

“I know that there have been times through all administrations of both parties that at the end of the day, in a particularly complex, tough situation, the president or his senior advisers have said, ‘You know what? I don’t want to do this right now.’ And frankly, that’s why we have national elections.”

Ultimately, one of OIRA’s main jobs is to put a dollar value on things that nobody wants to price. The office must ask how much money the country is willing to spend to save an endangered species, or what cost the country is willing to inflict on companies in order to provide veterans in wheelchairs access to restrooms. These are questions that nobody is comfortable asking. So perhaps it should be no surprise that few people are happy with OIRA’s answers.


About OIRA

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA, pronounced “oh-eye-ruh”) is a Federal office established by Congress in the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act. It is part of the Office of Management and Budget, which is an agency within the Executive Office of the President. It is staffed by both political appointees and career civil servants.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, OIRA reviews all collections of information by the Federal Government. OIRA also develops and oversees the implementation of government-wide policies in several areas, including information quality and statistical standards. In addition, OIRA reviews draft regulations under Executive Order 12866.

OIRA Administrator

The Office of the Administrator was created by Congress as part of the establishment of OIRA in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. The Administrator is nominated by the President and requires Senate confirmation. The current Administrator is Cass R. Sunstein.

Cass R. Sunstein

Before becoming Administrator, Cass R. Sunstein was the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Mr. Sunstein graduated in 1975 from Harvard College and in 1978 from Harvard Law School magna cum laude. After graduation, he clerked for Justice Benjamin Kaplan of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court, and then he worked as an attorney-advisor in the Office of the Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice. He was a faculty member at the University of Chicago Law School from 1981 to 2008.

Mr. Sunstein has testified before congressional committees on many subjects, and he has been involved as an advisor in constitution-making and law reform activities in a number of nations. A specialist in administrative law, regulatory policy, and behavioral economics, Mr. Sunstein is author of many articles and a number of books, including After the Rights Revolution (1990), Risk and Reason (2002), Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (2005), Worst-Case Scenarios (2007), and Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (with Richard H. Thaler, 2008).

Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle by Cass R. Sunstein

Laws of Fear
Beyond the Precautionary Principle
Series: The Seeley Lectures (No. 6)

Cass R. Sunstein
University of Chicago

What is the relationship between fear, danger, and the law? Cass Sunstein attacks the increasingly influential Precautionary Principle – the idea that regulators should take steps to protect against potential harms, even if causal chains are uncertain and even if we do not know that harms are likely to come to fruition. Focusing on such problems as global warming, terrorism, DDT, and genetic engineering, Professor Sunstein argues that the Precautionary Principle is incoherent. Risks exist on all sides of social situations, and precautionary steps create dangers of their own. Diverse cultures focus on very different risks, often because social influences and peer pressures accentuate some fears and reduce others. Instead of adopting the Precautionary Principle, Professor Sunstein argues for three steps: a narrow Anti-Catastrophe Principle, designed for the most serious risks; close attention to costs and benefits; and an approach called ‘libertarian paternalism’, designed to respect freedom of choice while also moving people in directions that will make their lives go better. He also shows how free societies can protect liberty amidst fears about terrorism and national security. Laws of Fear represents a major statement from one of the most influential political and legal theorists writing today.


Acknowledgements; Introduction; Part I. Problems: 1. Precautions and paralysis; 2. Behind the precautionary principle; 3. Worst case scenarios; 4. Fear as wildfire; Part II. Solutions: 5. Reconstructing the precautionary principle – and managing fear; 6. Costs and benefits; 7. Democracy, rights, and distribution; 8. Libertarian paternalism with Richard Thaler; 9. Fear and liberty; A concluding note: fear and folly; Index.

Taken from Cambridge University Press


It should be noted that the European Union adapted the Precautionary Principle when creating the legal framework for REACH.

European Union Policy REACH

The EU, acknowledging the absence of a strong chemicals policy in Europe, adopted the REACH Regulation (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restrictions of Chemicals) in 2006. Its core aim is to ensure a “high level of protection of human health and the environment”.

Until very recently, the level of attention given by policy makers to the chemicals issue was insufficient and irresponsible. It led to ‘test-tube environment’ where it was assumed human health and nature would be unaffected by chemical exposure.

Acknowledging the increasingly numerous chemicals-related diseases, decision makers decided to create legislation. However, for many years the frameworks remained poor with only some chemicals regulated and with no global approach.


Acknowledging the flaws of the existing chemicals legislation (see the 1998 evaluation report of the Commission), the European Union decided to move to a single system based on the precautionary principle. In February 2001 the European Commission adopted a White paper for a future European Chemicals Policy.

The REACH Regulation was finally adopted on 18 December 2006, and entered into force in June 2007. It created the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), an executive agency in charge of the REACH implementation. The most innovative aspect of the REACH Regulation is that it gives the industry a greater responsibility to manage the risks linked to chemicals.

Industries are now obliged to provide basic information on their chemical substances properties to the ECHA in order to be allowed to be marketed in the EU (the “no data – no market” principle). It constitutes an important progress as it puts the burden of proof on the producer/importer rather than on public authorities.

REACH also seeks to shed some light on the toxic ignorance problem. New provisions (Art 118, 119) will provide increased access to information about eventual hazards and presence of chemicals. The ECHA is responsible for providing an active dissemination policy, by setting up and maintaining online database(s) with information on chemicals to allow a proper dissemination of information on chemicals substances provided by industries to the public. But the Agency also has the ability to keep information confidential if a party requires it, as long as it considers the request “valid” (for instance if making publicly available the information could potentially be harmful for the commercial interest of the registrant).

Two years after entry into force, NGOs are increasingly concerned about ECHA’s stance regarding information dissemination (see NGOs joint position on REACH Dissemination of information on chemical substances).

Most importantly REACH sets up specific provisions in order to prevent or minimise the adverse effects on human health and the environment from substances of very high concern (SVHC).

Because these substances are considered to be the worst of the worst, these will need to be regulated under the authorisation or restriction route.

A related and key aspect of REACH is the substitution principle. It means that when safer alternatives can be identified the extremely hazardous chemicals should be replaced by safer alternatives. However, substitution is still not mandatory for all SVHC.

So producers will still be allowed to use the worst of the worst chemicals if they can prove that the risks are “adequately controlled” despite safer alternatives being available. However, producers wanting to use SVHC will still have to pay fees to comply.

Although the European Commission identified in its White Paper of 2001 that 1,400 chemical substances were known SVHCs, so far only 30 substances are officially considered as such in early 2010. Those substances need to undergo a lengthy and complex procedure before they are officially subject to controls.

The first step is to have these substances being placed on the so called “candidate list” and to be finally included on the list of substances subject to authorisation (Annex XIV list) or Restrictions (Annex XVII list). Being placed on the “Candidate List” means that the substance is officially identified as SVHC, triggering notification obligations to the whole supply chain which the citizens can benefit from (consumer right to know).

The identification of those substances has to be done either by the Member States, competent authorities or by the European Commission who can task the ECHA. (For more information on authorisation procedure, see ECHA webpage).

Parallel to this official list SVHCs NGOs set up a project to establish the list of substances that meet the official “of very high concern” REACH criteria. With the active involvement of the EEB, the Sin List – Substitute it Now! project was launched in 2008.

The updated Sin List identifies 356 SVHCs that are harmful to human health and the environment (contrasting with the only 30 officially recognised SVHCs).


Read Full Post »

Privatization of the National Cancer Program – An Excerpt – National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest by Samuel S. Epstein

Privatization of the National Cancer Program

In 1998, ACS created and funded the National Dialogue on Cancer (NCD), co-chaired by former President George Bush and Barbara Bush. Included were a wide range of cancer survivor groups, some one hundred representatives of the cancer drug industry, and Shandwick International PR, whose major clients include RJ Reynolds Tobacco Holdings.

Without informing NCD’s participants and behind closed doors, ACS spun off a small legislative committee. Its explicit objective was to advise Congress on the need to replace the 1971 National Cancer Act with a new National Cancer Control Act, which would shift major control of cancer policy from the NCI to the ACS. The proposed Act would also increase NCI funding from this year’s $4.6 billion to $14 billion by 2007. The ACS was assisted by Shandwick in drafting the new Act besides managing the NDC.

Subsequent to von Eschenbach’s appointment, NDC was spun off into a nonprofit organization. NDC then hired Edelman, another tobacco PR firm, following a pledge that it would sever its relations with the industry. Edelman represents the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company and the Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris, the nation’s biggest cigarette maker; Edelman also represents Kraft and other fast-food and beverage companies now targeted by antiobesity litigation. Edelman is also a board member of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention Foundation, which fosters relations between the centers, ACS, and the NCI. Edelman has thus become firmly embedded in national cancer policy making. In July 2003, it was discovered that Edelman had reneged on its pledge and was continuing to fight tobacco control programs from its overseas offices. Attempting damage control, Edelman claimed that this was just an oversight. Once more, it agreed to terminate tobacco support programs and to donate this income to charity.

Equally disturbing was the growing secretive collaboration between the NCI and the ACS-NDC complex as revealed in the August 2003 Cancer Letter. The latest example was the planned privatization of cancer drug trials together with the creation of a massive tumor tissue bank. This would have cost between $500 million and $1.2 billion to operate apart from construction costs in the billions. This initiative would be privatized, rife with conflicts of interest, exempt from provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee and Freedom of Information Acts and free from federal technology transfer regulations.

page 16 – 17

For more information on this critically important book and to purchase a copy please click on the link below.

National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest by Samuel S. Epstein


Read Full Post »

John Warner’s Lecture at the 2010 Bioneers Conference on Green Chemistry & Intellectual Ecology

Nature teaches us that no system is truly isolated and positive synergies are often at work. Yet the isolation of the various technological disciplines in our educational and industrial institutions has limited synergy in the human-built world. These walls are starting to break down.

A seminal founder of Green Chemistry, Dr. John Warner explores the opportunities to learn from nature about materials and the very process of innovation and creativity. He co-founded the Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry, and was formerly a professor of Community Health and Sustainability and of Plastics Engineering at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell. Author of over 100 patents, papers and books including Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice, he serves on the board of the Green Chemistry Institute in Washington DC

John Warner | Intellectual Ecology Part 1

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Green Chemistry: Theory & Practice

3.1 Alternative feedstocks/starting materials

Currently, 98% of all organic chemicals synthesized in the United Sates are made from petroleum feedstocks. Petroleum refining takes up 15% of the total energy used in the US, and its energy usage is rising because the low quality raw petroleum available now requires more energy for refinement. During conversion to useful organic chemicals, petroleum undergoes oxidation, the addition of oxygen or an equivalent; this oxidation step has historically been one of the most environmentally polluting steps in chemical synthesis. As a result of these consideration, it is important to reduce our use of petroleum-based products by using alternative feedstocks….

The exploration of biological sources of alternative feedstocks need not be limited to agricultural products: agricultural waste or biomass, and non-food-related bioproducts, which are often made up of a variety of lignocellulosic materials, may provide important alternative feedstocks.

Other classes of alternative feedstocks are also emerging, such as light. For example, heavy metals, which are often used in petroleum oxidation processes, are also quite toxic and are carcinogens or cause damage to neurological systems. Recently discovered alternative syntheses replace the heavy metal reagents with the use of visible light to carry out the required chemical transformations.

3.3 Alternative Solvents

An important area of green chemistry investigations has centered around the selection of a medium in which to carry out a synthetic transformation. Because the dominant paradigm of chemical synthesis has been around solution chemistry, the question is often phrased as ‘What solvent should be used?’. This phrasing, of course, begs the question, ‘Should a solvent be used at all?’. Many of the solvents commonly used are some of the volatile organic compounds known to cause smog when released to air. These solvents are listed in the United States’ Clean Air Act as substances to be avoided. Research is being is conducted that pursues chemistry that has previously been done in a solvent and discovers a way to do the same chemistry in various solventless systems….

3.4 Alternative product/target molecule

While a synthesis is often driven by the pursuit of a particular target molecule, it is also commonly the case that what is actually being pursued is the ability to make any chemical that can serve a particular function or have a certain performance criterion. For many years the pharmaceutical industry has been doing research into designing safer chemicals. With pharmaceuticals, the object is to maximize the therapeutic benefits of a molecule while minimizing or eliminating the toxic side-effects. These same principles can be applied to the full range of chemical applications.

In the cases where function is the primary motivation, molecular manipulation that preserves efficacy of function while mitigating toxicity or other hazards is the goal of green chemistry. Through these efforts and other toxicological research, it is often possible to identify the part or parts of a molecule that produce toxic effects. Similarly, through chemical research, we are able to identify those parts of a molecule that are required to give the chemical the desired function – to allow it to serve a specific, desired use.

In designing safer chemicals, one identifies the undesirable, toxic portion of a molecule and lessens or eliminates its toxicity, while maintaining the function of the molecule. In many cases, the overlap of the toxic and functional portions creates a worthy challenge for the synthetic chemist….

3.6 Alternative catalysts

Some of the major advances in chemistry, especially industrial chemistry, over the past generation have been in the area of catalysis. Catalysis has not only advanced the level of efficiency but has also brought about concurrent environmental benefits. Through the use of new catalysts, chemists have found ways of removing the need for large quantities of reagents that would otherwise have been needed to carry out the transformations, and would ultimately have contributed to the waste stream. It is true that various classes of catalysts, such as the heavy metal-based catalysts, have been found to be extremely toxic.

excerpts from pages 22 – 27

Click on the link below for sales and additional information regarding this groundbreaking book.

Green Chemistry: Theory & Practice

Read Full Post »

This study is important because it raises questions about drinking water standards. This study was referenced in Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber

The exhaled breath of people who had recently showered contained elevated levels of volatile organic compounds. In fact, a ten-minute shower or a thirty minute bath contributed to a greater internal dose of these volatile compounds than drinking half a gallon of tap water. Showering in an enclosed stall appears to be contribute to the greatest dose, probably because of the inhalation of steam.

The particular route of exposure profoundly affects the biological course of the contaminant within the body. The water that we drink and use in cooking passes through the liver first and is metabolized before entering the bloodstream. A dose received from bathing is dispersed to many different organs before it reaches the liver. The relative hazards of each pathway depend on the biological activity of the contaminant and its metabolic breakdown product, as well as on the relative sensitivity of the various tissues exposed along the way.

The bathing studies raise additional questions about drinking water standards. Once again, we see how narrow the purview of these regulations is. The environmental scientists Clifford Weisel and Wan-Kuen Jo, the authors of the 1996 study, pointedly explained:

Traditional approaches for evaluating exposure to and adverse health effects from contaminants in tap water have assumed that ingestion is the major route of exposure….Furthermore, the ingestion of two liters of water has been used to estimate the health risk associated with waterborne chemical contaminants and the establishment of drinking water standards without quantifying the doses received from other routes. This practice can lead to an underestimation of the potential health risk.

page 198

Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »