Thread by @pmdfoster

🚨🚨🇬🇧🇪🇺⚗️🧪👩‍🔬🥼🧪⚗️👩‍🔬🇪🇺🇬🇧🚨🚨Post-#Brexit chemicals regime risks UK being a “dumping ground” for toxic substances, warn environmental groups. My @ft latest.

Stay with me. This is an important story. /1
ft.com/content/32e6d8…

@FT So. This relates to UK chemical regulation after Brexit.

You'll recall that as an EU member the UK followed the EU REACH regulation for chemicals. But after #Brexit we're setting up our own version.

As of Jan 1, we've been free to diverge from EU rules/2

@FT And in one area -- substances of 'very high concern' or SVHCs -- it is now clear that the UK is going to diverge and take a different approach from the EU.

How do we know this? Well, very quietly the UK government slipped out a notice last week. Here/3.

gov.uk/government/pub…

@FT It says how the UK will manage substances of 'high concern'. These SVHCs are monitored closely and, if grounds of concern are found, they are subject to limited authorised use.

The EU has a list of these which it updates twice-yearly. Here. /4

echa.europa.eu/candidate-list…

@FT Now.

In 2021 the EU added *TEN* chemicals to the list.

BUT the UK, in setting out it's own equivalent has said it will only consider *FOUR* for inclusion on an equivalent UK list.

They are here: /5

@FT But what of the other six?

Why are they not added to the list?

And why, given the that UK Govt loves to crow about any divergence is their policy note SILENT on those six.

It. Does. Not. Mention. Them. /6

@FT You can look the six up on that ECHA database. They are:

bisphenol B
echa.europa.eu/substance-info…

Orthoboric Acid
echa.europa.eu/substance-info…

MCCPs
echa.europa.eu/substance-info…

Glutaral
echa.europa.eu/substance-info…

Tetraglyme
echa.europa.eu/substance-info…

Lysmeral
echa.europa.eu/substance-info… /7

@FT So why does this matter?

Environmental groups say that the UK, which will rely in part on voluntary submissions from industry, will as @zoeavison of @GreenAllianceUK says, allow dangerous chemicals to "fall through the cracks" /8

@FT @zoeavison @GreenAllianceUK or as @BreastCancer_UK ceo @thaliem tells the FT...this will create a “major weakening” of the UK’s post-#Brexit safety regime compared to EU membership, and risk the UK being a “dumping ground” for hazardous substances /9

@FT @zoeavison @GreenAllianceUK @BreastCancer_UK @thaliem Is that alarmist?

The UK government says it has reviewed the six chemicals and is committed to safety. It will publish its reasoning soon, but it includes reasons like some chemicals not being registered for use in UK, or they're covered by other health & safety rules /10

@FT @zoeavison @GreenAllianceUK @BreastCancer_UK @thaliem Per statement: “We are committed to maintaining an effective regulatory system for the management and control of chemicals, which safeguards human health and the environment and can respond to emerging risks.” /11

@FT @zoeavison @GreenAllianceUK @BreastCancer_UK @thaliem It is that final few words "respond to emerging risks" that is the basis of environmentalists concerns...that the UK is moving away from a precautionary approach, to a more reactive risk-based or 'response' based approach. So it will act as evidence arises. Not before /12

@FT @zoeavison @GreenAllianceUK @BreastCancer_UK @thaliem So take Orthoboric Acid. That was listed by the EU on it's candidate list in order deter its use as a substitute for another SVHC (borate salt) - per this submission to EU Reach

@FT @zoeavison @GreenAllianceUK @BreastCancer_UK @thaliem The basis for this is in a Swedish paper here. The UK apparently takes the view that since substitution isn't happening, it doesn't need add Orthoboric Acid to its SVHC list. /13

echa.europa.eu/documents/1016…

@FT @zoeavison @GreenAllianceUK @BreastCancer_UK @thaliem It is this approach that Dr Mike Warhurst @mwarhurst of ChemTrust @CHEMTrust says risk creating a weaker regime over time. “The government is trying to claim the system is as good as the EU’s, but that the UK somehow has superior science and can make different decisions." /14

@FT @zoeavison @GreenAllianceUK @BreastCancer_UK @thaliem @mwarhurst @CHEMTrust It is, frankly, very difficult for a layman to know.

Which is precisely the point. Without clarity (and just look at what you can find on EU websites) the government is in a weak position to make its case that it's new system is safer/better etc than the EU one /15

@FT @zoeavison @GreenAllianceUK @BreastCancer_UK @thaliem @mwarhurst @CHEMTrust The Govt is going to publish its full reasoning "soon"....but already, but publishing that policy paper that made NO MENTION of the other six chemicals, it has provided grounds for suspicion.

Where was the press release trumpeting this victory for regulatory divergence?? /16

At the very least, it creates the impression there is something the govt is ashamed about, or worried about in taking this new 'risk-based' approach. /17

Apologies all this is very complicated, but that's exactly the point -- my guess is that cladding fire regulations are very complicated, a minority expertise, but a system of utterly failed regulation allowed the Grenfell disaster. /18

Everyone knows the story of the “silent spring” caused by DDT and, more recently, the so-called forever chemicals such as PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) that was used in non-stick coatings which was featured in the film Dark Waters. /19

chemtrust.org/dark-waters-an…

All of which means that government does not have the presumption of innocence. If the UK is taking a different road, the public have a perfect right to know how and why. And what are motivations and possible consequences of this more risk-based approach. Not a good start. ENDS