One of the wonders of the industrial era is the staggering number of chemicals we have created. For making our furniture, cars, milk cartons, drugs and hair dye - all the items that make our consumer world possible - more than 100,000 substances have been at our disposal. How many toxins do you encounter each day? The EU believes it's too many, and wants reform. Iva Pocock reports
What's also amazing is how little we know about the risks they pose, especially as our bodies now carry hundreds of man-made chemicals and the United Nations Environment Programme says that "manufactured chemicals are widespread in the air, soil, water, sediments and biota of Europe's environment".
Of the tens of thousands of chemicals used in Europe, only 140 have been singled out for risk assessment, and of these only a very limited number have completed the process. Even then analysis is based on the effects of exposure to one chemical at a time - it's almost impossible to predict the effects of exposure to combinations of them, as there are so many in our daily cocktail.
The European regulatory system has encouraged the use of thousands of unassessed chemicals, as only "new" substances, introduced since 1981, have had to be tested by the authorities. The 100,106 "existing" unassessed chemicals, about which no health or environmental data exist, make up 99 per cent of chemicals on the market. There are only 3,000 "new" substances.
For years environmental and health activists have been calling for an overhaul of the system, which Stefan Scheuer of the European Environmental Bureau says has led to "a generation of ignorance" about everyday chemicals.
Five years ago serious discussion began in the European Commission about drafting reforms; last month Erkki Liikanen and Margot Wallström, the competition and environment commissioners, presented the latest draft of their proposed Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals policy, or Reach. Wallström described it as a "ground-breaking proposal" that "will create a win-win situation for industry, workers and citizens, and our ecosystem".
Under the new system producers and importers of more than a tonne of chemicals a year will have to register them in a central database with information on their properties and uses and safe ways of handling them. Information will be required in proportion to the volumes in which a substance is produced and the risks it may pose, unlike present regulations, which require data for substances at a production level of just 10 kilograms.
Use-specific authorisation will be required for substances of very high concern, such as CMRs (carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction), PBTs (persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic) or hormone disruptors. And public authorities will no longer have to prove a substance is unsafe before they impose restrictions. The burden of proof will now rest with industry, which will have to demonstrate a substance is safe.
But the latest 1,200-page draft of Reach has been met with fierce opposition by industry and its supporters on the one hand and environment and health campaigners on the other. The industry position remains highly critical, even though environmental organisations such as the European Environment Bureau say they are "a mere shadow of plans drafted earlier this year, having been watered down to suit many unjustified industry demands".
Industry representatives from throughout Europe, and from as far afield as Brazil and Singapore, say the system will be too costly, threaten competitiveness and jobs and prove unworkable. The main representatives, including the Irish Pharmaceutical and Chemical Manufacturers Federation, say the commission has ignored its calls for "a more pragmatic and cost-efficient approach" to Reach.
"I think everyone agrees that as a concept it's a good idea," says Matt Moran of the federation. "But where the problem arises is whether it'll work. If it won't work nobody is going to win: not industry, consumers or the commission."
Stefan Scheuer says industry associations such as IBEC, to which Moran's federation belongs, have been manipulated by a few chemical giants that control the European market. He says the pharmaceutical industry is very different from primary chemical producers, with a much more sophisticated understanding of consumer awareness, and also that many pharmaceutical substances (and cosmetics) are excluded from Reach.
Scheuer also mentions the influence of the US chemical industry, which Moran agrees is "not very happy" with the European proposals. Indeed, the US Environmental Health Fund published a report describing the Bush administration's efforts to weaken Reach. It claims US industry is afraid Reach might serve as a model to update chemical regulatory policy in its country.
The Government was also highly critical of the initial draft: the Tánaiste, Mary Harney, lobbied against the original proposals. Moran says his federation welcomed the Government's Reach position paper, "a good balance between protection of the environment and maintaining competitiveness".
In an effort to hammer home the urgent need for new chemical-safety rules, Wallström last week revealed that her body contains many potentially toxic man-made chemicals. She was checked for 77 substances found in everyday products such as televisions, carpets, furniture and food, testing positive for 28. Dr Vyvyan Howard, a British toxins pathologist, said her result was average: most of the chemicals are persistent, bio-accumulative and hormone-disrupting.
She had a number of PBDEs, or polybrominated diphenyl ethers, used as flame retardants in many household textiles, such as curtains and material used in sofas, cushions and mattresses. They are mainly stored in body fat and are thus passed from mother to child during pregnancy and breastfeeding, so Wallström's levels would have been higher before she had her two sons, says Howard.
Wallström's blood also featured PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, which used to be widely used in electrical equipment, as paint additives and as flame retardants in plastics. The main source of exposure is contaminated fish. Once in the body they can be stored for years in fat and the liver, and, like the brominated flame retardants, they can be passed on to babies in the womb and through breast milk. Excessive exposure to PCBs may affect many bodily functions and cause cancer. Under the Reach system the authorities would be able to ban these substances by issuing no authorisations for their use. Organochlorine pesticides were also found in Wallström's blood, in particular DDT, which was banned for agricultural use in the EU in 1983.
The environment commission says that had Reach been in place 30 years ago, it would have identified the substances and made sure they were used only with appropriate risk-management measures; if the risks were unmanageable, their use would have been restricted or banned. But environmental-health campaigners say this doesn't go far enough: if there is any hint a substance is toxic, bio-accumulative, persistent or hormone disrupting, we should not even be contemplating its authorised use, says Howard.
Others are equally critical of complaints about the costs of implementing Reach. Industry has estimated it at €12 billion over 10 years; the commission says it will be a maximum of €5.2 billion. Sylvia Altamira of Women in Europe for a Common Future points out that the estimated occupational-health benefits alone will add up to at least €18 billion, and perhaps as much as €54 billion, over 30 years.
Moran is critical of the proposed focus on the hazard of substances, which may lead to some substances being taken off the market. "Take a common substance like petrol. If you apply a truly hazard-based approach to that material and look at its potential hazard in terms of toxicity and flammability, you'd ban the use of it," he says. "Unfortunately, you're always going to have to strike a sensible balance."
But the driving force behind these reforms is our ignorance of chemical facts - how much is used, where they end up, how they affect human and environmental health - an ignorance that includes Ireland, as researchers in Cork discovered when they set out to track dangerous substances here. Noel Duffy, co-ordinator of the EPA-funded research, says they concluded it was impossible to produce an inventory because of a "lack of relevant data of a large proportion of dangerous substances". Reach is about trying to plug that gap.
Parabens They've been detected in human breast tissue and, although not yet conclusively linked to breast cancer, there's evidence they mimic oestrogen. This family of compounds is used as preservatives in cosmetics such as shampoo, make-up and deodorants. One, propyl paraben, has been shown to decrease male sperm counts.
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers Indoors you're bound to inhale these chemicals as they slowly release from the products they're found in: fabrics, furnishings, computers and new cars, for example. They tend to accumulate in your body when you inhale or touch them. Their levels in human breast milk have been doubling every five years for the past 25 years. They've been shown to affect foetal development.
Chlorinated phenols These suspected carcinogens are formed when water containing naturally occurring phenols is chlorinated. They're present in all chlorinated tap water. Most phenolic pesticides have been banned.
Phthalates Three million tonnes are produced a year as PVC softeners, used in shower curtains, toys, wall coverings, water pipes and cosmetics. Of 239 people in the US tested for traces of phthalates, all tested positive. They are linked to reproductive damage.
Nitric oxide Urban air contains very high concentrations of this compound, especially at rush hour. It's thought to be harmless, but it's a short-term chemical messenger in the body and regulates blood flow. Levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air, which are much lower than those of nitric oxide, are regulated.
