This morning the European Parliament Environment Committee voted on Julie Girling’s (UK/ECR) challenge against the listing for authorisation of Triton X-100 under REACH.
The vote was closer than many expected: For 23, Against 34, 1 abstention.
It is the closest any challenge has got to date. I recall a challenge against the phase out of lead in crystal by Swarovksi glass many years ago. It came to nothing.
Challenges usually succeed when a cross party group of MEPs from the S&D, Greens, radical left, and Liberals work together (often with the far right). But, to be fair, challenges are very rare, and successful challenges even rarer. We are talking about cases happening at the margins.
The EPP have a rule not to support challenges to authorisation listings under REACH.
I don’t think there was a roll call vote for today’s vote. If there is I will update this blog.
This case was peculiar. The reason for the challenge was more with a view to influence the Commission for a longer grant for continued permitted use of an otherwise phased out substance. Julie Girling, a respected British Conservative MEP, who serves as the liaison with ECHA supported the challenge. This was not a frontal challenge against a substance being listed.
I will have to wait longer until the Environment Committee, who lead on REACH matters, launch a successful challenge against a REACH authorisation listing. However, as these are implementing acts, the Commission does not have to follow the EP.
Time will tell if the tactic works and the Commission grant a longer period for continued use after the official phase out. To date, the longest so far is 12 years. That can be renewed.
Is there an alternative?
Coming in this stage is a last resort. There must be an alternative? I think there is. I was chatting with one of Europe’s leading experts on chemical regulation. I asked them how a substance, vilified by many NGOs and many politicians, had walked away from microscopic independent scientific review.
The answer was the substance had lots of world-class scientific studies and data, going back decades, that they handed over.
They brought in world-class scientific experts to present the science clearly and answer all and any questions clearly, humbly, and helpfully.
They stuck to the science, did not verve off message and talk about socio-economic impacts, and played the game as it was meant to be, and not how most people do.
After many hundreds of pages later one of the most disliked substances of the 20th century walked away.
Many may find it strange for a political consultant to suggest such a staid and scientific approach. I think you should keep the “dark arts” for the very few times when they are needed. That’s usually when, for exceptional reasons,things go wrong.
For 99% of the time, I just hope the science is followed, and the rules of the game are followed to the letter. Lobbyists and politicians are not very good at deciding at what science is.
I hope more people go for the dull approach.