In February 2001, the European Commission (EC) released a White Paper, REACH 2001, detailing unique and unprecedented legislative proposals for the regulation of industrial chemicals, based on the Precautionary Principle. The object of these proposals was to reverse the escalating incidence of avoidable cancers, a wide range of other industrial diseases, and environmental contamination. However, REACH was aggressively opposed by the European and U.S. chemical industries, and even more so by the U.S. administration. The EC responded by making major concessions in its October 2003 REACH-based legislative proposals. This report critically analyzes REACH, and its 2003 revised proposals, and recommends that REACH be strengthened, not weakened. Furthermore, the report urges that regulatory policies of the United States and other industrialized nations be drastically reformed to comply with those of REACH.
References
1.
EpsteinS. S.Legislative proposals for reversing the cancer epidemic and controlling run-away industrial technologies. Int. J. Health Serv. 30(2): 353–371, 2000.
2.
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 15, June 14, 1992.
3.
UNCED. Convention on Biological Diversity, preamble, June 5, 1992.
4.
UNCED. Agenda 21, June 13, 1992.
5.
Consolidated version of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, Art. 174(2), 1993.
6.
Commission of the European Communities on the Precautionary Principle. COM (2001). Brussels, February 2, 2000.
7.
European Commission. White Paper: Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy. COM (2001) 88, final. Brussels, February 27, 2001.
8.
ChristoforouT.The precautionary principle and democratic expertise: A European legal perspective. Sci. Public Policy30(3): 205–211, 2003.
9.
AllanouR.Public Availability of Data on EU High Production Volume Chemicals. European Commission, European Chemicals Bureau, EUR 18996 EN, Brussels, 1999.
10.
Environmental Protection Agency. Chemical Hazard Data Availability Study. Office of Pollution Protection and Toxics, Washington, D.C., 1988.
11.
WildeM.Locus Standi in Environmental Torts and the Potential Influence of Human Rights Jurisprudence. Reciel12(3): 284–294, 2003.
12.
European Chemical Industry Council. Discussion Paper: The Scope of the Future Chemicals Legislation and Its Elements. May 15, 2002. www.cefic.org.
13.
American Chemistry Council. Comments on the EC Proposal Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Registration of Chemicals. Arlington, Va., July 10, 2003.
14.
LuxtonJ. C., Washington Legal Foundation Advocate for Freedom and Justice, and the Ad Hoc Metals Coalition. New European chemical policy imperils U.S. Economic Growth. Legal Backgrounder18(33): 1–4, 2003.
15.
LoewenbergS.Precaution is for Europeans. New York Times, May 18, 2003.
16.
BrownV.REACHing for Chemical Safety. Environ. Health Perspect. 111(14): A767–769, 2003.
17.
DiGangiJ.US Intervention in EU Chemicals Policy. Environmental Health Fund, Jamaica Plains, Mass., September 2003.
18.
U.S. opposes effort to test chemicals for health hazards. Wall Street Journal, September 9, 2003.
19.
Greenwatch Today. Bush Administration Presses European Union to Weaken Proposed Regulations, Lest They Affect U.S., Washington, D.C., January 26, 2004.
20.
Chemical Policy Alert. Senators Seek Investigation of TSCA Shortfalls for Possible Legislative Overhaul. Washington, D.C., January 8, 2004.
21.
Democrats eye revisions to toxic law based on draft European policy. Inside EPA, November 10, 2003.
22.
Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue. Recommendations Regarding Exemptions and Exclusions. March 29, 2002.
23.
Environmental Working Group. Media advisory. November 20, 2003.
24.
EpsteinS. S.The Stop Cancer Before It Starts Campaign. Cancer Prevention Coalition report, February 2003. www.preventcancer.com.
25.
European Commission. Staff Working Paper: Extended Impact Statement. COM (2003) 644, final. Brussels, October 29, 2003.
26.
EpsteinS. S.The Politics of Cancer, Revisited. East Ridge Press, Hankins, N.Y., 1998.
27.
MusuT.REACH, The Future EU Policy for Chemicals. European Trade Union Technical Bureau report, November 7, 2003.
28.
World Bank. The Global Burden of Disease. Based on analysis of Murray & Lopez, 1996.
29.
ZeligerH. I.Toxic effects of chemical mixtures. Arch. Environ. Health58(1): 23–29, 2003.
30.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Toxics Use Reduction Act, 1989.
31.
Toxics Use Reduction Institute, 2003. www.turi.org.
32.
Greenpeace. Safer Chemicals within REACH: Using the Substitution Principle to Drive Green Chemistry, October 2003. www.cleanproduction.org.
33.
Swedish Government. Swedish Views on the Authorization System and Comments on Accelerated Risks Management. Stockholm, November 2002.
34.
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Chemicals in Products: Safeguarding the Environment and Human Health. London, 2003.
35.
DeSimoneJ. M.Practical approaches to green solvents. Science297: 799–803, 2002.
36.
PoliakoffM.Green chemistry: Science and politics of change. Science297: 807–810, 2002.
37.
PacalaS. W.False alarms over environmental false/alarms. Science301: 1187–1188, 2003.
KinzigA.Coping with uncertainty: A call for a new science-policy forum. Ambio32(5): 330–335, August 2003.
40.
VielJ. F.Soft tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma clusters around a municipal solid waste incinerator with high dioxin emission levels. Am. J. Epidemiol.152(1): 13–19, 2000.
41.
FloretN.Dioxin emissions from a solid waste incinerator and risks of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Epidemiology14: 392–398, 2003.
42.
HardellL.ErikssonM.Is the decline of the increasing incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in Sweden and other countries a result of cancer preventive measures?Environ. Health Perspect. 111(14): 1704–1706, 2003.
43.
RemontetL.Cancer incidence and mortality in France over the period 1978–2000. Rev. Epidemiol. Sante Publ. 51: 3–30, 2003.
44.
WatsonR.EU advisory committees declare their interests. BMJ320: 826, 2000.
45.
BurtonA.Is industry influencing IARC to downgrade carcinogens?Lancet Oncol. 4: 4, 2003.
46.
TomatisL.The IARC Monograph Programme: Changing attitudes towards public health. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health8(2): 144–152, 2002.
47.
Commission Working Group on the Classification and Labelling of Dangerous Substances. Guidelines for Setting Specific Concentration Limits for Carcinogens in Annex I of Directive 67/548/EEC: Inclusion of Potency Considerations. http://europa.eu.int.
48.
MichaelsD.WagnerW.Disclosure in regulatory science. Science302: 2073, 2003.
49.
EpsteinS. S.Testimony on Corporate Criminal Liability (H.R. 4973) Before the Subcommittee on Crime of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, December 13, 1979.
50.
Italian chemical plant managers accused of mass manslaughter. Edie Weekly Summaries, November 17, 2000.
51.
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom (Rome 4 November, 1950) (ECHR), Art. 8(1).
52.
National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Statistics Review (SEER). Bethesda, Md., 1975–2000.
53.
National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. Atlas of Cancer Mortality in the United States. Bethesda, Md., 1950–1994.
54.
Earth Crash Earth Spirit. Documenting the Collapse of a Dying Planet. November 17, 2000. www.eces.org.
55.
European Commission, Radiation Protection 129. Directorate-General Environment Unit C.4—Radiation Protection.
56.
PobelD.VielJ. F.Case-control study of leukemia among young people near LaHague nuclear waste reprocessing plant (France). J. Epidemiol. Community Health55: 101–106, 2001.
57.
GuizardD. V.The incidence of childhood leukemia around the LaHague nuclear waste reprocessing plant (France). J. Epidemiol. Community Health55: 469–474, 2001.
58.
GardnerM. J.Review of reported increases in childhood cancer rates in the vicinity of nuclear installments in the U.K. J. R. Stat. Soc.152: 307–385, 1989.
59.
ManganoJ.Elevated childhood cancer incidence proximate to U.S. nuclear power plants. Arch. Environ. Health58: 74–82, 2003.
60.
HattchouelJ. M.Cancer mortality around French nuclear sites. Ann. Epidemiol.6: 126–129, 1996.
61.
LeGuenB.French approach for the distribution of iodine tablets in the vicinity of nuclear power plants. Health Phys. 83: 293–300, 2002.
62.
VergerP.Thyroid cancers in France and the Chernobyl accident. Health Phys. 85: 323–329, 2003.
63.
European Commission on Radiation Risks. Regulators' Edition. Brussels, 2003.
64.
ShellabargerC. J.Experimental carcinogenesis in the breast. In Radiation Carcinogenesis, edited by UptonA. C.Elsevier, New York, 1986.
65.
Directive du Conseil, 90/394/EEC, June 1990.
66.
AubrunJ. C.Occupational cancer in France: Epidemiology, toxicology, prevention and compensation. Environ. Health Perspect. 107(Suppl. 2): 245–252, 1999.
67.
BrugèreJ.NaudC.Recognition of Occupational Cancers in Europe. Trade Union Technical Bureau Newsletter, No. 21, June 2003.
68.
GoldbergM.Risques Professionals. Rapport Pour le Groupe Technique National, January 2003.
69.
ImbernonE.Estimation du Nombre de Cas de Certain Cancers Attributable a des Facteurs Professionals en France. Institut de Veille Sanitaire, Paris, 2002.
70.
VielJ. F.Brain cancer mortality among French farmers: The vineyard pesticide hypothesis. Arch. Environ. Health53(1): 65–70, 1998.
71.
Fabro-PerayP.Environmental risk factors for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: A population-based case control study in Languedoc-Roussillon, France. Cancer Causes Control12: 201–212, 2001.
72.
BoffettaP.KogevinasM.Occupational cancer in Europe. Méd. Lavo.86: 236–262, 1995.
73.
Germany confronts the work taboo. Financial Times, January 15, 2004.
74.
Thévonon, E. Railing against cancer. Label France Magazine, No. 51, July 2003.
75.
DastonG.A framework for assessing risks to children from exposure to environmental agents. Environ. Health Perspect. 112(2): 238–256, 2004.
76.
LandriganP. J.Children's health and the environment: Public health issues for risk assessment. Environ. Health Perspect. 112(2): 257–265, 2004.
77.
LaRondaL.Hazard identification and predictability of children's health risk from animal data. Environ. Health Perspect. 112(2): 266–271, 2004.
78.
GinsbergG.Incorporating children's toxicokinetics into a risk framework. Environ. Health Perspect. 112(2): 272–283, 2004.
79.
HardellL.Increased concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls, hexachlorobenzene, and chlordanes in mothers of men with testicular cancer. Environ. Health Perspect. 111(7): 930–934, 2003.
80.
Eurostat. The United Nations, Population Reference Bureau, 2001. gapminder.org.
81.
ChristoforouT.The precautionary principle, risk assessment and the comprehensive role of science in the European Community and the U.S. legal system. In Green Giants, edited by VigN. J.FaureM. G., MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2004.
