GLOBAL VIEW
Bill of contention W
The revised industrial chemicals bill is expected to come into force in September 2018, but is already under fire
hen the Australian government announced in 2016 it was planning to change the way it regulated chemicals, the announcement was
met with almost universal approval. The existing system was outdated and potentially hazardous. Of over 30,000 chemicals listed on the Australian inventory, only 39 had so far been assessed – and this had taken almost three decades. This, the industry felt, was far too slow and expensive. At the time, the assistant minister for health,
Fiona Nash, said the reforms would introduce a ‘risk-based framework’ that would benefit all companies ‘from cosmetics manufacturers to those making household cleaning products’. Companies would be able to import ‘lower-risk’ chemicals into the country without a lengthy pre-market assessment process, which would encourage innovation and reduce the burden on the government. It would also, she said, save industry Aust$23m/year. In a series of consultation papers, the
government has set out its plans and encouraged feedback from industry in an apparently fair and transparent manner. The proposals have drawn a considerable amount of attention not only within Australia, but around the globe, with trade groups, associations, companies and individuals weighing in. Some feedback has been positive; much hasn’t. Some have complained that the proposed system isn’t as accepting as it could be of international risk assessments, the use of which would help the government assess chemicals used in Australia – and keep costs down. Others have said that the suggested ‘classification’ process, where chemicals will be graded from low to high risk, is a concern. The cosmetics industry has been the most
vocal in its disapproval. Cosmetics Europe said the government was asking for too much information on formulated cosmetics, which would discourage companies – particularly small ones – from innovating in the country. This is ‘out of step with other global economies’, it said. Johnson & Johnson largely agreed, saying it was ‘quite disappointed’ with the paper and the ‘lack of consideration’. Meanwhile, Estée Lauder said the proposed reforms would only increase the complexity and cost for industry. Another significant issue raised was the fact that the reforms focus solely on new chemicals and ignore chemicals already being used or imported into Australia – so-called ‘existing’ substances. Because of this, the NGO National Toxics Network said the proposals were
‘fundamentally unacceptable’. Existing chemicals comprise 85% of substances on the inventory, but ‘the reform process makes no mention of how it proposes to manage [these] … instead, it focuses on the 7% of chemicals that are new,’ it said. Other NGOs, such as Friends of the Earth, argued that the proposals wouldn’t do enough to safeguard consumer health. Friends of the Earth commented that they call for a significant amount of voluntary or self-regulation, but ‘there is substantial evidence that the vast majority of self-regulatory approaches fail to meet promised outcomes or legitimate public expectations’. It called for stricter, mandatory enforcement and regular audits. Many respondents focused on the
government’s decision to reject the use of US risk assessments. Sharing risk assessments across different jurisdictions helps to keep costs down and reduces unnecessary animal testing. While the Australian government said it would accept assessments from the EU, Canada and China, but the US wasn’t considered a ‘trusted source’ because of issues relating to transparency and differences in regulatory coverage. While the government has since modified this to allow US assessments if they have been conducted under the amended (2016) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), it admits that the ‘acceptability of such assessments is uncertain’ because so few have so far been completed under the amended law. Four consultation papers later - with feedback on a fifth pending - and, despite feedback on each, the proposals remain remarkably similar to those pitched in 2016. The ‘Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017’ is expected to be passed this year and fully implemented by later in 2018. Few of industry’s concerns have been addressed and, of the 25 respondents to the fourth consultation paper, only five cited approval. Estée Lauder summed it up: ‘The objective of the reforms has been lost,’ adding that ‘the status quo is preferable to any proposed reform’ – a sentiment echoed by many others. While some, such as the American Chemistry
Council (ACC), welcome and support the proposed changes, others, such as Haztech Environmental, still consider the reforms too complex and expensive. ‘The current “reform” proposals are replacing an expensive toxicological evaluation system with another expensive toxicological evaluation system,’ it said. And, so far, none have agreed that industry will see the promised A$23m/year in savings.
Charlotte Niemiec is a journalist specialising in Asia’s chemical industry
Australia
The current “reform” proposals are replacing an expensive toxicological evaluation system with another expensive toxicological evaluation system
Haztech Environmental
02 | 2018 39
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
