From: Robina Suwol
Date: 11 Mar 2004
Time: 03:38:44
Remote Name: 68.189.216.41
REPORT FROM EUROPE: PRECAUTION ASCENDING
by Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D.*
The Precautionary Principle -- those two little words that start conference room
brawls on this side of the Atlantic -- is enshrined in the Treaty of the
European Union (EU) (also known as the Maastricht Treaty) of 1994.
The idea that we should act to forestall irreversible environmental disasters
even before there is strong proof of harm has a long, rich history on the
European continent. The Germans first articulated the concept in the 1970s when
trying to halt the ongoing death of their forests before all the details about
the role of air pollution as a causative agent had been worked out. It was
subsequently invoked in the effort to save the North Sea's marine mammal
population in the days before zoologists understood how low levels of persistent
pollutants can disrupt endocrine systems and suppress immunity.[1]
Not surprisingly, then, the precautionary principle played a starring role in a
conference on chemical regulation convened recently in the chambers of the
European Parliament. Its audience was the members of parliament
themselves. Held on Dec. 11-12, 2003 and entitled simply "Chemicals: Cleaning
Up," this conference was hosted by a coalition of parliamentarians known as the
European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL) group, which is the fourth
largest political group in the EU. Serving as a backdrop to the conference was
the revolutionary new policy proposal for the regulation of chemicals within the
European Union (EU) member states. (Fifteen nations make up the European Union,
with ten more to join this summer.) This proposal is called REACH, and its
ultimate objective is to create a chemicals policy that is protective of public
health and the environment. The seeds of REACH were planted in 1998 when the
governments of the EU member states renounced the previous chemicals policy -- a
patchwork of 40 different laws -- as "unable to protect people and the
environment in a satisfactory way against negative effects."[2] The EU
Commission, which is the executive branch of the European Union, was given the
task of coming up with an entirely new legislative framework, and in 2001 they
did.[3]
At the time of the GUE/NGL conference, a revised version of the REACH proposal
had just been submitted by the Commission, and, as members of the GUE/NGL group
had feared, many of its original precautionary elements had been largely gutted.
Thus,
the stated aim of "Chemicals: Cleaning Up" was to examine the draft
legislation's new, diminished incarnation, discuss ways in which it needed to be
reformed, and strategize about how to achieve these changes. The GUE/NGL group
believes that "this new legislation must be in line with the precautionary
principle and put health and environmental concerns first."[4]
Because the European Union is the world's second largest economy, the stakes for
REACH could hardly be higher. It will, most in attendance agreed, set the agenda
for global chemicals policy for the next 15-20 years.
Presenting an historical perspective on the REACH initiative was Per Rosander of
the International Chemical Secretariat. (See web addresses at the end of this
article.) His organization, headquartered in Sweden, serves as a citizen
watchdog for the REACH legislative process. As explained by Rosander, the
original REACH proposal has several defining features. One is shifting the
burden of proof from regulators to industry. The European _expression for this
concept is "no data, no market." That is, all producers or importers of
chemicals must have sufficient data about their chemicals' safety. To sell the
product, the data must be reported. (And thus, the "R" in REACH stands for
"registration.") This information is to be shared between producers and users.
And the same rules apply for old and new chemicals.[5]
For chemicals sold in large volume and for those of "very high concern," all
data must be evaluated by government experts, who
may choose, for example, to limit the uses that such chemicals are turned to.
(Thus, the "E" is for "evaluation.") For certain chemicals, the evaluators may
also decide to require an authorization procedure, by which companies must
demonstrate that no safer alternative exists to the material they wish to make,
use, import, or sell. This "substitution principle" is, therefore, also a
defining characteristic of the original REACH, as is the blacklisting of
hazardous substances. (The "A" is for "authorization," which is EU terminology
for being granted a permit. REACH thus stands for Registration, Evaluation and
Authorization of CHemicals.)
Much of Rosander's presentation was dedicated to explaining the myriad little
loopholes and exemptions that have been added to
REACH in the last two years and which dilute some of its key provisions to the
point of meaninglessness. For example, the provision that compels the
substitution of less toxic alternatives for blacklisted chemicals has been all
but eliminated. Rosander emphasized that industries are not united in opposition
to REACH, as media stories have suggested. Indeed, some companies openly support
the proposal, particularly the construction industry, for whom PCBs and other
toxic chemicals have been a recurring nightmare of liability and worker hazard.
Some industries, however, are staunchly opposed and, together with the U.S.
government, have lobbied aggressively against the proposal.[6] REACH, said
Rosander, is currently like a house with a strong foundation that has just been
burglarized. "The furniture robbed from the house needs to be brought back in."
Rosander was optimistic that such restoration was still possible.
Another conference speaker was David Gee of the European Environment Agency,
whose charge it is to provide information for public decision-making when the
precautionary principle is relevant. Gee gave a very useful overview of what the
Precautionary Principle is NOT. One popular misconception, for example, is that
the precautionary principle ignores economic costs. Not so, said Gee, but it
does factor in externalized costs and the eventual costs of inaction. (Example:
screening previously untested chemicals will cost at least $1.6 billion. But the
elimination of toxic substances from consumer products is projected to save at
least $20 billion in health-care costs over a 30-year period.[7])
Precaution is also not the same as prevention, argued Gee. Prevention is action
taken when substantive proof of harm is available. Precaution is a process of
decision-making used when substantive proof is not available. Bicycle helmets
prevent head injuries. Ending the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) was a
precaution against ozone depletion. Gee pointed out that the first warning about
the ozone-eroding effects of CFCs -- which came as a theoretical argument that
was openly ridiculed when it was published in 1974 -- became the basis of a U.S.
ban on CFCs in spray cans three years later, well in advance of the discovery of
an actual ozone hole in 1985.
(As Gee's good report, Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary
Principle 1896-2000, further elaborates, a traditional risk assessment conducted
in, say, 1965, would almost certainly have concluded that CFCs were perfectly
safe. They are inert, non-flammable, and non-toxic. They had already been
released to the atmosphere for more than 30 years without any apparent injury to
it. Huge gaps in understanding atmospheric processes -- which have since been
partially filled in -- would have prevented mid-century CFC risk assessors from
accurately predicting and forestalling harm.[8])
A third speaker, Anja Leetz described the work of Chemical Reaction, an activist
group in Belgium dedicated to the proposition that the best chance of
reinserting precaution into REACH is by stirring up a public debate. Chemical
Reaction provides a website (http://www.chemicalreaction.org)
that follows the twists and turns of the legislative process (in six languages)
and alerts citizens of member states to take action when needed. This group is
also engaged in outreach work, lobbying at the European Parliament and the
Commission as well as within the eastern European nations that are soon to join
the EU.
Underscoring the message of Leetz was a speech by Mette Boye of the Danish
Consumer Council. She focused on hair dye as a case study of abject failure to
protect consumers against toxic chemicals in everyday products. Not only are its
ingredients typically held as trade secrets but allowable levels of toxic
substances, in some cases, exceed that permitted for paint. Ironically, said
Boye, one of the biggest obstacles impeding a robust REACH agreement is the
widespread belief that REACH-like protections already exist. Most people in
Denmark assume, she said, that chemicals that reach the market must have been
already tested and proved safe. In fact, 95 percent of them have never been
tested
Other speakers from around the continent provided first-hand accounts of
precaution in action. Svitlana Slesarenok of Odessa told the story of Mama 86, a
group of grandmothers who closed down a death-dealing Ukrainian petrochemical
plant through a combination of blockades and lawsuits and, in so doing, created
new systems of local regulation. Engineer Roberto Carara described lawsuits
against PVC manufacturers in Italy: the verdicts were not what the plaintiffs
had hoped, but the publicity generated by the trial educated an entire community
about the hazards of vinyl production, and the legal investigation revealed
previously hidden data on carcinogenicity.
Later discussion focused on political strategy. Parliamentarians will have
opportunities to strengthen the REACH proposal, as there are more rounds in the
re-drafting process still to come. But upcoming elections in both the parliament
and in the commission this June, as well as the almost simultaneous accession of
ten new member states to the EU, made some members ask if passing REACH in its
current, weakened state might be preferable to waiting. (Current indications are
that the quick-approval option is unlikely, as the political skirmishing over
REACH has intensified further since December and threatens to drag on well into
2005.[9])
Whatever the ultimate fate of REACH, it is clear that the precautionary
principle is on the political ascent in Europe. It is already the "hot potato
issue" in the ongoing campaigns of EU parliamentary candidates, as one
conference presenter observed. Moreover, the principle was invoked freely a few
days later at another international conference that brought together European
environment and health ministers, officials from the World Health Organization,
and member organizations of the European Public Health Alliance. This group
convened in the Belgian Ministry of Health to plan for the Fourth Environment
and Health Ministerial Conference to be held in Budapest in June 2004. With the
title of this upcoming summit as "The Future of Our Children," the case for
environmental precaution is sure to be made there.[10]
___________
*Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D., is a biologist and author (see Rachel's #565, #658,
#776, #777, #784, #785). She is currently
a Distinguished Visiting Scholar in the Interdisciplinary Studies Program at
Ithaca College in Ithaca, New York.
Useful web sites:
International Chemical Secretariat:
http://www.chemsec.org (for the latest developments on REACH)
Chemical Reaction:
http://www.chemicalreaction.org (for citizen action alerts on REACH)
Chemicals Policy Initiative, Lowell Center for Sustainable Production,
University of Massachusetts at Lowell:
http://sustainableproduction.org/proj.chem.publ.shtml
NOTES
[1] European Environment Agency, Late Lessons from Early Warnings: the
Precautionary Principle 1896-2000 (Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001). Available
at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=301 .
[2] International Chemical Secretariat, New Chemicals Policy in the EU: Good or
Bad for Companies (Goteborg, Sweden, Report 1:03, May 2003), p. 3.
[3] Read the proposed legislation at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/chemicals/whitepaper.htm
[4] MEPs and GUE/NGL members Pernille Frahm of Denmark and Jonas Sjostedt of
Sweden in an Aug. 28, 2003 letter to the
author.
[5] Holding new and old chemicals to the same standard marks one of the biggest
points of departure between the proposed EU
policy and the current U.S. one. The United States permits the use of some
30,000 untested chemicals that came on the market
before the testing requirements under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. For
an excellent overview of the differences between U.S. and EU chemical policies,
see T. Herrick et al., "U.S. Opposes EU Effort to Test Chemicals for Health
Hazards,"
Wall Street Journal, 9 Sept. 2003. See
http://www.transnationale.org/offsite.asp?URL=http://www.mindfu lly.org/WTO/2003/US-Opposes-EU-Chemicals9sep03.htm
[6] Investigative work by Joseph diGangi, Ph.D. of the Environmental Health Fund
has revealed the depth and extent of the U.S. government's campaign to undermine
REACH, including the efforts of Secretary of State Colin Powell. Read diGangi's
full report on the website of Clean Production Action:
http://www.cleanproduction.org/library/USIntervention.pdf. For a summary,
see R. Weisman, "Politics of Chemistry 101," Multinational Monitor vol. 24, no.
10 (Oct. 2003), pg. 6 -- see
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03october/october03front
html or Herrick, 2003 (see note 5 above).
[7] Herrick, 2003 (see note 5 above).
[8] EEC, Late Lessons (see note 1).
[9] P. Reynolds, "EU Council Review Could Drag on for Up to Two Years," Chemical
News & Intelligence, 8 Jan. 2004.
[10] For more information on the upcoming Budapest Conference, see
http://www.epha.org/a/903 and
http://www.euro.who.int/budapest2004.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf@rachel.org