Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

Thank you for your invitation to comment on the issues and areas to be investigated by RCEP's new study on the long term effects of chemicals in the environment. Friends of the Earth's initial comments are attached. Please get back to me if you require any more information on the points we have raised, or on other aspects of your study.

Initial comments from Friends of the Earth

Friends of the Earth welcomes the Commission's decision to examine the issue of the long term effects of chemicals in the environment. Friends of the Earth has been working on this issue for many years, and considers that such an investigation will be an important contribution to the debate on this important issue.

We are concerned that RCEP does not intend to consider direct consumer exposure to chemicals in products. The evidence shows that such exposures can be significant, so should be considered in any consideration of chemicals policy; There is no scientific rationale for not examining them along with environmental exposures. Unfortunately, inter-departmental boundaries at Government level seem to preclude proper assessment of chemicals policy, as both the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions review of the production and use of chemicals and their Stakeholder Forum on Chemicals do not consider direct consumer exposures, as these are the responsibility of the Department for Trade and Industry. This is not sound science.

As requested in the invitation letter, these comments will be brief and are only intended to outline our key concerns; we will provide a more detailed response to specific issues as requested by the Commission. We have organised these comments around the broad topics outlined in the invitation letter.

We would also recommend that RCEP examine the recent report from the Swedish Committee on New Guidelines on Chemicals Policy, published in summer 2000; an English translation of this report is now available. This in depth report makes many good suggestions on how to regulate the use of chemicals, which have been adopted by the Swedish Government.

We have attached two previous reports from Friends of the Earth which are relevant for this study:

The FoE response to the UK Government's consultation on the Sustainable Production and Use of Chemicals, published in October 1998.

The FoE detailed 'Crisis in Chemicals' report, in which we examine the future implications of the biomedical revolution on our understanding of the threats posed by chemicals, published in May 2000.

http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/safer_chemicals/in_depth/#experts

Future advances in understanding of individual variability, and the role of the biomedical revolution in increasing our understanding of the effects of chemicals on the body, as discussed in the attached 'Crisis in Chemicals' report.

Interactions with, and disruption of, complex biological systems, including the hormone system, the immune system and the nervous system, and the effects of these interactions on development in humans and wildlife.

The effects of exposure to mixtures of chemicals, as this is the reality of all exposures to chemicals.

Analysis of the chemicals that we and the environment are exposed to. Rather than continually 'chasing our tails' analysing for the same group of chemicals (dioxins, PCBs, DDT etc.) we should be investing in research into all the chemicals detectable in environmental media such as breast milk and sediments. Such analysis allows us to detect priority chemicals for action, and also helps ensure that we detect key metabolites and impurities in industrial chemicals.

Development and validation of in vitro and QSAR techniques for assessing the hazards of chemicals.

Evaluating the physico-chemical nature of the substance and whether it persists in the environment or bioaccumulates. If it has either of these hazards then there should be a presumption against use (see 'regulation' comments below).

Use of in vitro and QSAR tests where available, and examination of existing data. The obligation to substitute, combined with the requirement that uses of chemicals be shown to be safe beyond reasonable doubt, will ensure that there will not be a market for chemicals which have negative hazard properties, making it uneconomic for industry to spend money on further testing of such chemicals (see 'regulation' comments).

This approach will only work if there is a precautionary regulatory system, focusing on risk reduction, rather than the existing system, which encourages industry to perform ever-more animal experiments in an attempt to save their chemicals from restrictions.

We demand from the EU review of chemicals policy:

1. A full right to know, including what chemicals are present in products.

2. A deadline by which all chemicals on the market must have had their safety independently assessed. All uses of a chemical should be approved and should be demonstrated to be safe beyond reasonable doubt.

3. A phase out of persistent or bioaccumulative chemicals.

4. A requirement to substitute less safe chemicals with safer alternatives.

5. A commitment to stop all releases to the environment of hazardous substances by 2020.

A right to know will ensure that all decisions are transparent, and that consumers are allowed to make their own choices about what they are exposed to.

A deadline for assessment of safety will get rid of the scandal of continued use of unassessed chemicals. The approval of chemicals for uses, or groups of uses, will ensure that more restrictions are placed on more hazardous substances. This doesn't mean that all chemicals need an exhaustive list of approved uses - a chemical with minimal hazards could be approved for 'all uses', a chemical with some environmental hazards might be approved for non diffuse uses, whereas even more hazardous chemicals would have more specific use restrictions and approvals.

A phase out of persistent or bioaccumulative chemicals will stop the contamination of our bodies and the environment, with all chemicals having to rapidly break down into natural substances - the only exemption could be that these properties were an essential function in a specific application.

An obligation to substitute will ensure that the safest possible chemicals - or techniques - are used.

An end to releases of hazardous substances into the environment by 2020 will ensure that EU chemicals policy contributes towards the OSPAR objectives - hazardous substances are defined in the OSPAR Convention as substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, or which give rise to similar levels of concern.

A requirement for information about what chemicals are in use, and their safety properties. We have proposed that there should be an internet based database of the safety properties of all chemicals in use. Any chemical without adequate safety data should not be on the market.

An authorisation of chemicals for uses, combined with review of these authorisations when new data emerges, and an overarching requirement to use the safest available chemical or technique.

A phase out of those chemicals which accumulate in the body or the environment. If such chemicals are later found to be toxic, or have other negative impacts, it is not possible to remove exposures to them due to their persistence. Toxicity is a time dependant variable - it can change as our understanding increases, as happened with PCBs; new environmental impacts can also be discovered, as happened with CFCs. In addition, such chemicals increase the complexity of the mixtures that we are all exposed to.

We look forward to providing further assistance to the Royal Commission as your study proceeds.

Back to Index of comments

to the scoping of the Chemicals Study