Samuel Loewenberg, a former Knight-Bagehot Fellow in Business and Economics at Columbia University, covered lobbying in Washington for four years. He has written for, and magazine, among others.
BRUSSELS-If the European Union (E.U.)
gets its way, toxicology will soon be
booming in Europe. And, to hear chemical
manufacturers tell it, their industry will be
in decline.
Last week, officials from the European
Commission, Europe's executive body, met
with industry and environmental groups
here to discuss proposed legislation that
would require chemical manufacturers to
run extensive safety tests over 11 years on
the 30,000 most common chemicals on the
market, many of which have been used for
decades. The proposal would also severely
restrict the use of an estimated 1500 chemicals
considered the most hazardous to humans
and the environment. "The new policy
introduces a radical paradigm shift,"
E.U. environment commissioner Margot
Wallström told the conference. "It is high
time to place the responsibility where it belongs,
with industry."
The chemical industry, understandably, is
up in arms. It estimates that testing will cost
at least $7.5 billion, and the policy could
"impose a regulatory stranglehold on our industry,"
says Alain Perroy, director-general
of the European Chemical Industry Council.
At the root of this ideological fight is the
so-called "precautionary principle." This concept,
codified in the E.U. charter, states that
governments should base regulatory policy
on the significant possibility of risk, taking
action even before all the data are compiled.
In contrast, U.S. regulations are not imposed
until there is concrete evidence of harm. "The
United States is usually reactive when it takes
steps to protect citizens against toxic chemicals,"
says Mary Graham, co-director of the
John F. Kennedy School of Government's
Transparency Policy Project in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. The E.U. chemicals legislation,
she adds, "is a remarkable effort because
it is very expensive and it isn't in response to
a public crisis."
Perroy maintains that industry already
has safety data on its products and that if the
E.U. legislation goes too far, it will be a "totally
bureaucratic approach to build a knowledge
base without use." Industry also predicts
that the increased costs of testing, and
the possibility that hundreds of chemicals
could be taken off the market, could result in
major job losses. Lobbyists cite a study
commissioned by the Federal Association of
German Industry, which predicts that in
Germany alone more than 2 million jobs
would disappear, a figure that E.U. officials
say is hugely overblown.
The proposed legislation does, however,
contain some good news for the
research community: It would significantly
loosen existing regulations on
R&D. Under the current system, quantities
of experimental substances of less
than 1 metric ton are exempt from registration
with the E.U. for a year. The
proposed rules would lift the weight restriction
and waive registration for 5
years, with the possibility of a 5-year
extension. "This is good news," says
Patrick Peuch, a director of product
stewardship at BP Chemicals-Europe.
The existing deadlines are often so
tight they constrain evaluation and
testing, he says.
Some in the industry do see a positive
side to the legislation. Horst
Mensel, a lobbyist at Bayer AG, believes
that the new policy will encourage innovation
by forcing companies to develop
substitutes for chemicals deemed hazardous.
Michael Warhurst of the environmental
pressure group World Wide Fund for Nature
argues that the proposed rules will create
new markets for safer products and spur the
creation of innovative safety testing and risk
assessment tools.
A final draft of the proposed legislation is
not expected before the end of this year, so
industry is still lobbying hard. But the European
Parliament, which must approve the
new directive, has a strong environmental
leaning so will likely try to strengthen it. Final
approval by a council of ministers from
E.U. member countries is expected in 2005
at the earliest, and individual members must
then incorporate it into their national laws.
Copyright by Samuel Loewenberg and/or the publication in which it first appeared
Do not reprint without permission