Rumours are circulating that an important piece of legislation, aimed at protecting citizens and the environment from toxic chemicals, is set to be sidelined.
At this time two years ago, the European Commission announced a major overhaul of EU chemicals regulation as part of the European Green Deal.
At the time, campaigners called it 'transformative' and demanded the swift implementation of its ambitious goals to ensure a toxic-free and zero-pollution environment. The climate crisis, biodiversity loss and the legacy of chemicals in our bodies (and those of our children) are just a few of the reasons why this is urgently needed.
The revision includes various components, and some are already being implemented, including a ban on 'forever chemicals'. However, there is growing doubt about a crucial element – the revision of the 2006 Regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).
Initially, the Commission promised to conduct the REACH revision by the end of 2022, and if it is not included in the Commission's 2023 work programme, MEPs and member states will not have time to work on it before the European Parliament elections.
However, 'sharks are circling' the proposal, and there is talk that it could be removed from the Commission's agenda. If that were true, it would be a major victory for the chemical industry and its political allies. The revision would make the chemical regulatory process more efficient and effective, thereby increasing the chances of restricting or banning toxic chemicals. The German Chemical Industry Association (VCI) recently appealed to German and EU policymakers to 'stop holding us back with ever-new, unacceptable requirements'. It has now demanded a 're-evaluation' of the proposed EU chemicals regulation overhaul.
Meanwhile, in July, the president of the major corporate lobby group BusinessEurope, whose members include German chemical giants Bayer and BASF, said that 'it is a big question whether [the REACH revision] is necessary at this point'.
However, it is hardly for the industry itself to make these demands; right-wing political parliamentarians are actively speaking about their agenda.
In April, the German centre-right parties (Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union) included the REACH revision on their list of EU environmental and social proposals that they believe should be delayed, using the war in Ukraine as a pretext.
In May, a vice-chair of the European Parliament's centre-right European People's Party (EPP) group proposed that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen impose a 'legislative embargo' on new rules that 'burden' businesses. And just last week, right-wing groups in the European Parliament called for a plenary vote on such a moratorium. They lost, but in joining forces with the far-right, they secured the support of nearly 300 MEPs.
Chemical industry in a tight spot?
The EPP argues that delaying the REACH revision proposal is vital to avoid 'unnecessary [cost] increases for companies that are already in a tight spot'.
Of course, industry across Europe is affected by rising energy prices, but a recent analysis of major chemical companies' financial reports by the Swedish NGO ChemSec suggests there is little evidence of 'strain'.
In fact, profits have increased and, in the words of industry representatives, the impact of the war is 'insignificant'. This comes after a decade of growth for the chemical industry. Meanwhile, BASF has a 'lucrative link' with Russian gas company Gazprom. Instead, it seems that the invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent cost-of-living crisis are being used to try to avoid essential legislation on chemicals and many other important issues.
Strikingly, it bears a strong resemblance to the lobbying battle that took place 15 years ago, when the REACH regulation was first established.
At the time, REACH was one of the largest lobbying campaigns ever seen, and chemical industry representatives used all their tools of influence, including preparing questionable studies, mobilising political allies and making proposals about countless loopholes.
Crucially, the chemical industry reframed the debate over REACH to link it to jobs and competitiveness rather than health and the environment. When the REACH regulation was finally adopted, it was still seen as an unprecedented attempt to regulate the use of toxic chemicals, but time has passed. The loopholes and compromises seen since 2006 have created problems for this regulation.
As a recently published report by the European Environmental Bureau points out, it takes years, sometimes a decade or more, for REACH to regulate hazardous chemicals, and crucially, these toxic substances remain on the market during that time.
It is necessary for von der Leyen and her colleagues to learn from the REACH lobbying battle of 15 years ago. When making the final decision on what to include and what not to include in next year's EU legislative programme, they must not give in to further pressure from the chemical industry and its allies.
The chemical manufacturing industry in Germany is very influential, yet the German government was one of eight countries that recently called on the Commission to stick to the REACH revision proposal's timetable. If the German government can resist the influence of the German chemical industry on this issue, then surely von der Leyen can too. Instead of capitulating to self-serving interests, von der Leyen must keep her promises to protect citizens and the environment across the EU.