Greening the supply chain: protecting consumers - and retailers - through an improved REACH

1. Greening the supply chain: protecting consumers - and retailers - through an improved REACH Michael Warhurst EU Chemicals Policy WWF European Policy Office, Brussels

2. Contents • Why is WWF interested in chemicals? • Problems with greening the supply chain • REACH - how can it help? • Optimising REACH - improvements needed • Realism on impact assessment of REACH • REACH priorities for retailers and the supply chain? • Conclusions

3. Why is WWF interested in chemicals? • The problems caused by toxic chemicals are a global priority for WWF • Wildlife - and humans - throughout the world are contaminated by industrial chemicals • And there is considerable evidence of wildlife (and human) impacts. • WWF is working to support a more sustainable production and use of chemicals • We consider that REACH is a key part of this work • WWF has therefore launched an international campaign in favour of a strong REACH: http://www.panda.org/detox

4. Contamination - part of the problem • A growing number of industrial chemicals are known to contaminate wildlife and people, for example: • Brominated flame retardants • Contaminating people and wildlife across the world • Two phased out in Europe (penta and octa) • Deca is in increasing use, despite contamination of polar bears, birds of prey and people • Even though industry claimed it wouldn’t accumulate • The EU decided in May not to phase out Deca, in the face of aggressive industry lobbying • Perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) • Including PFOS (Scotchguard) PFOA (used in teflon manufacture and telomers (used in coatings, break down into PFOA) • Contamination by PFOS and PFOA exists across the world • PFOS has been voluntarily phased out, PFOA and telomers are in widespread use • MacDonalds have admitted using telomers in their food packaging

5. My perfluorinated chemicals • From WWF’s sampling of the blood of 47 people for 101 chemicals. • All 45 samples (including mine) analysed for PFCs contained these 7 PFCs: • PFHxS, PFOA, PFNA, PFOS • PFOSA, PFDA, PFUnA • All unregulated in EU • A liability in future?

6. My PDBEs 34%of samples contained ‘Deca’, including one with the highest concentration ever published.

7. Current problems with greening the supply chain • Poor information flow • Difficult for downstream users and retailers to find put what chemicals are in the products they buy • Difficult for producers to find out how their chemicals are used • Lack of good quality safety information on chemicals • Lack of information on alternatives • Hard to make decisions on substitution due to pervasive lack of safety data on existing chemicals • Even if information exists, it may be difficult to get hold of, as there is no single source • A system biased against new substances • New substances require safety data, existing substances don’t, so new substances are penalised. • Slow regulatory action on the worst chemicals • Very slow processes to evaluate and restrict existing chemicals do not protect consumers or users

8. REACH - how can it help? • Improved transparency and communication through the supply chain: • On chemical properties flowing down the supply chain, creating a more educated market • On chemical uses, flowing up the supply chain, giving suppliers a better understanding of what services are needed • Easier introduction of new chemicals onto the market, and removal of the perverse subsidy on older chemicals • An authorisation system which will promote - and sometimes oblige - substitution of chemicals with the worst properties • Strengthening this will increase the driver for green chemistry • REACH will ensure safety information is available on alternatives • Producer responsibility on the chemical industry, providing protection for downstream users • Improved public confidence in the use of chemicals, leading to improved investment and recruitment.

9. Optimising REACH - improvements needed • Our highest priority is to improve the authorisation procedure • We must ensure that it is an effective method to identify the worst chemicals and then push for their phase out wherever safer alternatives are available. • An increase in openness and transparency • Provision for information flow in the article supply chain • In current REACH text information flow ceases once chemical or preparations enter article, e.g. fabric • Consumer Right to Know • Improved control of chemicals in imported articles • See next page • A restoration of recently removed safety tests for 1-10t chemicals, and independent auditing of registration dossiers

10. Chemicals in imported articles (comes in at REACH+11 years) • The current text will allow articles to be imported into Europe containing unregistered chemicals. • It only requires notification if there is a known release of a dangerous chemical which is present in more than 1 tonne per ‘article’, and which “may cause harm to human health or the environment”. • This approach will be unworkable • E.g. Enforcement will be tied up in arguments about the definition of individual articles • E.g. red chairs vs blue chairs • A more workable and enforceable approach: • Importers must register if >1 tonne in all the articles they import • consistent with legislation on imported substances and preparations • We would expect importers to operationalise this in a straightforward way: • Specifying to suppliers to use chemicals registered in REACH (& listed in internet database) • If not possible, should start dialogue with importer re registration • This solution could also resolve concerns in current text re registration having happened ‘up the supply chain’

11. Realism on impact assessment of REACH (I) • Which policy would cause: “very large” costs leading to “redesign and re-equipping of large sectors of vital industry...,smaller firms going out of business...and an effect on inflation and employment nationally and internationally” • According to CEFIC ??? • Answer: • Phase out of CFCs in order to protect the ozone layer • These impacts did not happen • Industry has a long history of exaggerating impacts of future legislation • see WWF “Cry Wolf” report, on the DetoX campaign web site: • http://www.panda.org/detox

12. Realism (II) • Many claims have been made about the costs of REACH • Notably by BDI/ADL (Germany) & Mercer (France) • These studies have been heavily criticised by economists, and are extremely misleading. • They have been extremely politically effective, and are still used • Commission impact assessment: • Direct costs of REACH to the chemicals industry of €2.3 billion over an 11 year period • €0.5 per person per year for the EU • the amount the European Chemical Industry spent in 1999 on environmental improvements relating to waste. • Costs to downstream users are estimated to be between €2.8-5.2 billion, including €2.3 billion passed on from the chemical industry. • Many other assessments now exist too • some even mention health and environmental benefits! • general message - REACH costs are small compared with other cost variabilities e.g. oil, exchange rates

13. REACH priorities for retailers and the supply chain? • Ensure producer responsibility remains in place • With no data no market - CEFIC is undermining this: • CEFIC paper: “Do: ensure that the registration system becomes a pure database, with no banning of substances” • Ensure decision making is not captured, and enforcement capacity exists at Member State level • Ensure balance maintained between Agency and Member States • Improve Authorisation: • So it can deal with all chemicals of very high concern • So it pushes substitution • Improve information flow, including from substances in articles • Improve process for dealing with substances in imported articles • Don’t lobby for them to be ignored • Remember your interests are not the same as the chemical industry’s

14. Conclusions • The current regulatory system makes it very difficult to green the supply chain • E.g. Lack of information flow, new substances penalised • REACH has the potential to improve this, but needs to be improved to ensure that: • The worst chemicals are identified and then phased out if safer alternatives are available. • Improving controls on chemicals in imported articles • To create an more open and transparent system, maximising information flow to all parties. • E.g. information flow on substances in articles • The REACH debate has been distorted by exaggerated impact studies - it is time to return to the real world. • Retailers and downstream users need to be aware of that their interests differ from the chemical industry’s • If REACH is not effective and precautionary, NGOs will need to start a campaign for a new chemicals policy • It is crucial to finish REACH, so we can all benefit from the improvements it should bring.