REACH further

Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
475,
Pages:
139–140
Date published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/475139b
Published online

Europe's plan for a comprehensive chemical register needs more effort from all involved.

There are good reasons why European leaders supported moves to tighten the regulation of chemicals by approving the REACH (registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals) legislation, which became law in 2006.

The lack of information on how even commonly used substances might harm people and the environment is an internationally recognized problem. REACH is Europe's bold attempt to comprehensively fill this knowledge gap and regulate substances accordingly.

Under the first phase of the legislation, companies from around Europe had to file comprehensive safety data on more than 3,000 substances by December last year. But as we reveal in our News story on page 150, the first independent analysis of the filed data shows that REACH is unlikely to work as planned.

Central to the problems identified by Costanza Rovida, a consultant chemist based in Varese, Italy, is that chemical companies have failed to fill gaps in safety data as required.. What's more, European regulators seem to have little leverage to force them to do better.

“Is burdensome and ineffective regulation better than no regulation at all?”

REACH is often touted as Europe's most complex piece of legislation, but at the moment it looks toothless. Rovida's analysis raises an urgent question: is burdensome and ineffective regulation better than no regulation at all?

There are some parallels with, and perhaps lessons to be drawn from, the difficult birth of Europe's carbon-emissions trading scheme, which, like REACH, has lofty goals — in this case to reduce Europe's carbon footprint. Flaws in the design of the scheme resulted in farce, ridicule and zero reduction in carbon emissions in its first phase, from 2005 to 2007. But subsequent reform made for a stronger second phase, which is now drawing to a close. Details of the third phase are currently being hammered out.

Like REACH, the success of the emissions-trading scheme largely depends on self-reporting by companies — in this case of their annual carbon emissions, for which they get carbon allowances of a corresponding size. Honest participation is encouraged by independent third parties and national authorities that check each submission for accuracy. Hefty fines lurk for those who stray too far from the truth.

It is still early days for REACH, but there are few signs that Europe has the appetite to improve on its dismal first phase in the way it did with emissions trading, or that it will do more than encourage chemical companies to play by the new rules.

Jukka Malm, director of regulatory affairs at the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the body responsible for REACH, says he hopes that industry will up its game, but he can do little more than finger wagging to spur it on.

The companies know, as does the ECHA itself, that the agency's biggest weakness is that it has resources to check only a fraction of all data submissions for accuracy and compliance. To deny the regulator the muscle it needs to properly police submissions is a major flaw of the present design of REACH. In addition, there is no immediate threat of legal and financial sanctions against companies that fail to comply.

Nevertheless, REACH has not been a complete flop. It has motivated companies to dig around in their archives and make public old safety data that they had lying around on the substances they produce. It has also got companies to work together and share data.

But these gains are modest in comparison with the new laws' failures. Notably, they have resulted in only small improvements in filling gaping holes in the available data about potentially serious effects of substances on reproduction and development.

And it is also disappointing that the regulations have failed to encourage companies to explore alternatives to animal testing in response to the demand for more data.

What now? If European leaders allow business as usual, they will find themselves under pressure to scrap REACH completely. It will quickly reach a point where its costs, in terms of time and money, heavily outweigh the meagre gain in information.

That would be a missed opportunity. The legislation rightly aims to correct some serious problems, even though Rovida's analysis has identified real difficulties. Europe has until the 2013 deadline for the next phase of submissions to admit that it has a problem, and to reach a little further to solve it.

Comments

  1. Report this comment #26402

    A J said:

    Good Editorial. REACH (registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals) legislation will certainly help to safe guard the environment from pesticides from harmful effects.There is indiscriminate use of pesticides in developing countries.In a major change of position, India on Friday accepted at a world convention in Geneva that the pesticide Endosulfan is a health hazard. India is currently the largest exporter of Endosulfan in the world and it is used extensively in many states. It has now agreed to a phased out ban with an exemption for some crops.

    It is a paradox that First Pesticides are promoted in a big way and later some of them are banned. For Example DDT:

    The abbreviation DDT stands for dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. DDT is a synthetic chemical compound once used widely in the United States and throughout the world as a pesticide (a chemical substance used to kill weeds, insects, rodents, or other pests). It is probably best known for its dual nature: although remarkably effective in destroying certain living things that are harmful to plants and animals, it can also be extremely dangerous to humans and the environment. At the time people where afraid of getting malaria from mosquitoes. People thought DDT did not hurt any animals because it did not affect humans, but they were wrong as it affected many animals other than mosquitoes. The birds ate the insects, small birds and fish that contained DDT.

    DDT was first produced in the laboratory in 1873. For more than half a century, it was little more than a laboratory curiosity?a complicated synthetic (produced by scientists) compound with no apparent use. Then, in 1939, Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Müller (1899?1965) discovered that DDT was highly poisonous to insects. The discovery was very important because of its potential for use in killing insects that cause disease and eat agricultural crops. For his work, Müller was awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1948. DDT's environmental problems arise because of two important properties: persistence and lipid-solubility. The term persistence refers to the fact that DDT does not break down very easily. Once the pesticide has been used in an area, it is likely to remain there for many years. In addition, DDT does not dissolve in water, although it does dissolve in fatty or oily liquids. (The term lipid-solubility is used because fats and oils are members of the organic family known as lipids.) Since DDT is not soluble in water, it is not washed away by the rain, adding to its persistence in the environment. But since DDT is lipid-soluble, it tends to concentrate in the body fat of animals. The following sequence of events shows how DDT can become a problem for many animals in a food web.

    Later DDT was banned throughout the world except in few countries to control mosquitoes and the tsetse fly.

Subscribe to comments

Additional data