Abstract
The primary process established by the European Commission to address the science needed to define key REACH concepts and to help rationally implement REACH's ambitions is enshrined in a series of activities known as the REACH Implementation Projects (RIPs). These are projects that aim to define the methodology that could be used, and present the basis for guidance on the actual principles and procedures that may be (are proposed to be) followed in the development of the required documentation that ensures the safe use of chemicals. In order to develop soundly based and equitable regulation, it is necessary that science governance using established and accepted scientific principles must take a leading role. The extent to which such governance is embraced will be determined by many factors, but notably the process adopted to enable scientific discussion to take place. This article addresses the issues of science as they have impacted on the exemplification of the Exposure Scenario concept under REACH. The current RIP activities have created a non-adversarial process in which the key stakeholders are able to discuss the key REACH challenges. But the RIP activities will be finalised before REACH comes into force. A suitable mechanism should perhaps now be identified to ensure that this positive spirit of scientific discussion and collaboration can continue to benefit REACH and those that it serves well into the future.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 6 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $43.17 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Attias L., Boccardi P., Boeije G., Brooke D., de Bruijn J., Comber M., Dolan B., Fischer S., Heinemeyer G., Koch V., Lijzen J., Muller B., Murray-Smith R., Rikken M., Tadeo J., and Vermeire T. European union system for the evaluation of substances: the second version. Chemosphere (2005): 59: 473–485.
Bodar C.W., Berthault F., de Bruijn J.H., van Leeuwen C.J., Pronk M.E., and Vermeire T.G. Evaluation of EU risk assessments existing chemicals (EC Regulation 793/93). Chemosphere (2003): 53: 1039–1047.
Bradbury S.P., Feijtel T.C., and Van Leeuwen C.J. Meeting the scientific needs of ecological risk assessment in a regulatory context. Environ Sci Technol (2004): 38: 463A–470A.
Briggs D., and Crumbie N. Characteristics of People Working With Chemical Products in Small Firms, Health & Safety Executive Contract Research Report 278, HMSO: Norwich, 2000.
Christensen F.M., de Bruijn J.H.M., Hansen B.G., Munn S.J., Sokull-Kluttgen B., and Pedersen F. Assessment tools under the new European Union Chemicals Policy. Green Manage Int (2003): 41: 5–19.
ECETOC. Targeted Risk Assessment. Technical Report No. 93, European Centre for the Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals: Brussels, Belgium, (2004).
European Commission Technical Guidance Document in Support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for New Notified Substances and Commission Regulation No. 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for Existing Substances, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 1996 (and as revised, 2003).
European Commission. The European exposure assessment toolbox, Papameletiou D., Hakkinen P., Zenié A., Schwela D., and Reina V. (Eds.), European Commission: Ispra, Italy, 2006.
Flyvholm M-A., Andersen P., Beck I.D., and Brandorff N.P. PROBAS: The Danish product register data base - a national register of chemical substances and products. J Hazardous Mater 1992: 30: 59–69.
Fryer M., Collins C.D., Ferrier H., Colvile R.N., and Nieuwenhuijsen M.J. Human exposure modelling for chemical risk assessment: a review of current approaches and research and policy implications. Environ Sci Policy 2006: 9: 261–274.
IPCS. Glossary of Exposure Assessment Related Terms: A Glossary. International Programme on Chemical Safety: Geneva, Switzerland, 2001.
JRC. REACH and the need for Intelligent Testing Strategies. EU Joint Research Centre (IHCP): Ispra, Italy, 2004.
JRC. RIP 3.2-1 Scoping report “Technical Guidance Document on preparing the Chemical Safety Report under REACH – Scoping Study – Phase 1 A (REACH Implementation Project 3.2-1A)” Service Contract Number 22551-2004-12 F1SC ISP BE, 2005.
OECD. Descriptions of Selected Key Generic Terms Used in Chemical Hazard/Risk Assessment, Series on Testing and Assessment No.44, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: Paris, France, 2003a.
OECD. Guidance document on reporting summary information on environmental, occupational and consumer exposures, Document JT00156125, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: Paris, France, 2003b.
Van Hemmen J.J., Auffarth J., Evans P.G., Rajan-Sithamparanadarajah B., Marquart H., and Oppl R. RISKOFDERM: Risk assessment of occupational dermal exposure to chemicals. Ann Occup Hyg 2003: 47: 595–598.
Van Veen M.P. ConsExpo v3 consumer exposure and uptake models, RIVM Rapport 612810011, RIVM Bildhoven, 2001.
Walters D.R, and Grodzki K Beyond Limits. Elsevier: Den Hague, 2006.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Money, C., Van Hemmen, J. & Vermeire, T. Scientific governance and the process for exposure scenario development in REACH. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 17 (Suppl 1), S34–S37 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jes.7500564
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jes.7500564
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
From workplace air measurement results toward estimates of exposure? Development of a strategy to assess exposure to manufactured nano-objects
Journal of Nanoparticle Research (2009)
