Thread by @iamian16

A few words about the chemical industry. As no-one goes to their local car dealership to buy the latest model of acetophenone it is not in the press or social media very often but the industry is much the same size as the automotive one and employs a similar number of people.

Like the automotive industry the European market is heavily integrated and mutually dependent. The biggest players are Germany, UK and France. There are a handful of very big players but thousands of SMEs in the sector.

It is also heavily regulated and EU (including EEA) REACH legislation is the most thorough in the world. It is that way not to ban everything but to ensure that the hazards are well defined according to good science.

Though at first thought of as overkill, REACH regulation is now widely respected and imitated all over the world including China, Korea, Japan, Brazil, Taiwan who have devised their own versions. Slowly the world is harmonizing, even Russia.

So what about the UK? As part of the EEA/EU any chemical registered for sale here can be sold throughout Europe and UK can buy chemicals from Europe on the same basis. All testing is in the public domain.

Javid’s non-alignment means the UK is no longer a REACH member so any UK supplier needs an EU partner to re-register their chemicals. Re-registration is necessary as the UK becomes a third country under EU rules.

Re-registration is not just a matter of buying a certificate. It means re-purchasing test results and in some cases re-testing, including animal testing. To the UK SME it means paying again for something already bought as existing agreements are EU-only ones.

And unless UK scraps chemical regulation is means EU suppliers need to register their chemicals through a UK agency to sell in the UK. More bureaucracy, more tests, more costs. It’s likely UK importers (therefore us) will end up picking up the tab.

So what benefit does non-alignment bring? To have more stringent controls? Unlikely, as REACH is already the “gold standard”. More relaxed regulation? Do you want easier access to dangerous chemicals? Less infromation on safe use and handling?

And what costs of non-alignment? Paying again for what you bought under the EU regime? More animal testing? But hey, it’s only nasty chemicals and I don’t use chemicals, it won’t affect me. Well it won’t unless you use or depend on:

Adhesives
Cosmetics
Detergents
Disinfectants
Inks
Medicines
Oil and fuel additives
Paints
Pesticides
Plastics
Preservatives
Raising agents
Stabilizers
Synthetic textiles

and tens of thousands of other upstream uses in industries you hardly know exist.

Faced with additionally costs and bureacracy will not only mean higher costs but also less choice as marginal business with the UK will not be worth the effort.

Non-aligment is dogma. It makes no practical sense in the chemical sector.