European Diary:An eight-year battle over an EU law to require chemical firms to test and register up to 30,000 substances used in everyday household items enters its end game this week.
MEPs will vote on Wednesday on Reach, a controversial regulation that has pitted the green lobby against industry in a titanic struggle for the hearts and minds of EU legislators. First mooted back in 1998, Reach has steadily grown to become arguably the most divisive and bitterly fought-over initiative handled by Brussels to date.
For environmental campaigners, it promises to introduce proper controls on the use of potentially hazardous substances for the first time while for industry it threatens to undermine its competitiveness vis-a-vis foreign competitors.
Both groups have lobbied furiously to influence the legislation, a final draft of which was agreed at a tripartite meeting of MEPs, the Finnish presidency and the commission last week. Since then, everyone's been thumbing through the text to find out which side won the argument.
"I think it is a genuine compromise," says Chris Davies, MEP and Reach co-ordinator in the Liberal group in parliament.
"Crucially, this regulation places the burden of proof on companies to make sure their chemicals are safe and will subject thousands of existing chemicals to rigorous testing, where virtually none existed before."
The current regulatory regime for chemicals is a mish-mash of 40 regulations, which does not require firms to provide safety information on the 100,000 chemicals that were placed on the EU market before 1981. It also makes public authorities responsible for testing the safety of chemicals, a task they have clearly not relished.
Since 1993 they have subjected just 39 chemicals to a full EU testing process, even though 1,500 potentially dangerous substances are still widely used in Europe.
Industry claims these substances are adequately controlled and pose no threat to health while green campaigners claim many are carcinogenic and leach into the environment from household objects such as furniture, food packaging and even babies bottles.
"We need a new chemicals directive because the current system just isn't working," says Avril Doyle, the Fine Gael MEP who sits on the industry and environment committees. "We need more testing and more transparency to be sure."
The draft Reach regulation will force chemical firms to file safety information on all chemicals produced or imported in quantities of more than 10 tonnes a year with a new chemicals agency based in Helsinki. It is expected that in the first 11 years, 30,000 substances will be registered and industry will face additional R&D costs of between €2.8 and €5.2 billion to comply with the new requirements.
The data provided by firms will then be evaluated by the agency to determine whether a chemical needs to be restricted, withdrawn or substituted by a safer alternative.
For years, industry has criticised Reach as costly and bureaucratic, but it has broadly welcomed the revised text agreed last week, which removed some of the more onerous requirements on firms, yet promises to create a more coherent regulatory system for industry.
"We hope in the medium term it will help to restore confidence in the chemicals industry, which at the moment, let's be honest, doesn't have the best image," says Franco Bisegna of the European Chemical Industry Council.
However, the deal hammered out by MEPs and the council has angered environmentalists.
"This is an early Christmas present for the Germany chemicals industry," says Caroline Lucas, a British MEP in the Green group. "The compromise will continue to see hazardous chemicals used in everyday products when safer alternative exist." Ms Lucas also strongly criticises a decision not to make public the financial interests of officials who will work in the agency that will implement the new Reach regulations.
Under the compromise, chemical firms will be obliged to substitute potentially cancer causing chemicals that are persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic and those that are very persistent and bioaccumulative when safer alternatives exist.
They will also have to outline the research they will undertake to find alternatives for these chemicals, which are often found in flame retardants in textiles and electronics.
Campaigners such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) point out a loophole in the text: substitution plans will only be submitted when an applicant company itself identifies a safer alternative. It doubts firms will begin looking for alternatives due to the extra costs involved.
In addition, chemicals linked to cancer and birth defects called CMRs and hormone disrupters will continue to be used by firms even if safer alternatives are available. "Firms will be able to get these chemicals authorised for use if they prove that they can adequately control the use of these substances, but studies show you can't control these chemicals," says WWF campaigner Justin Wilkes. He points to his own blood test carried out by WWF that shows 27 potentially dangerous chemicals in his system.
Despite objections from the Greens and the European United Left, the legislation is likely to pass into law following Wednesday's vote at a second reading in Strasbourg when an absolute majority of 367 votes is required. Member states have already signalled they will support the legislation, which should see the chemicals agency in Helsinki become operational in 2008.
Then responsibility for ensuring the safety of the chemicals surrounding us passes over to industry, which campaigners hope will implement the spirit of the law and not just comply with the text.