by Angela Logomasini
October 25, 2003

This fall the European Union is considering a vast new regulatory program that promises to stall innovation worldwide and eventually shut many U.S. products out of EU markets. Fortunately, trade experts in the Bush administration have been battling against the policy since the beginning. After months of debate, support for the policy is finally eroding in Europe as well.

The United Kingdom, Germany, and even regulation-loving France have recently expressed grave reservations about the proposed massive new regulatory experiment, yet EU officials continue to march forward. A revised version of the proposal is due out this month, and a final decision is expected before the end of the year.

The EU Chemicals Policy—also known as REACH for registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals—would apply the so-called “Precautionary Principle” to nearly all chemicals in EU commerce. Basically, that means products must be proven safe before sale. While precaution sounds reasonable, it ignores the far greater dangers of resulting stagnation.

Under REACH, manufacturers would have to conduct an extensive series of studies to show that chemicals used in their products are safe. Chemicals already in commerce would remain on the market while new health studies are underway. But once studies are complete, EU regulators will decide which to register for legal sale and which to ban, limit, or simply regulate to death. New products would not even enter markets at all until they are studied and approved. A likely result is delay and arbitrary bans based on theoretical risks and political considerations—a policy that will promote stagnation over progress.

Not only does this policy threaten U.S. and other imports into Europe, it sets a dangerous precedent that could eventually impact U.S. environmental policy and cause other nations to follow suit. Since EPA began consideration of this program, California lawmakers have expressed an interest in passing a similar policy at the state level. International bodies, such as the Organization for Economic Development, have also expressed an interest in imposing such standards on its members, which includes 30 developed nations.

Nonetheless, advocates of the policy note that much data is lacking on specific chemicals, making risks intolerable. In reality, there is enough information about the general sources of cancer-related disease to cast serious doubts on all of the EU policy’s alleged benefits. For instance, if trace levels of chemicals were a source of health problems, one might expect that along with increased chemical use, there would be some measurable adverse impact on life expectancy, cancer rates, or other illnesses. But in developed nations, where chemical use has greatly increased, people are living longer, healthier lives. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the average worldwide human life span has increased from 45 years in 1950 to about 66 in 2000, and will most likely continue to increase to 77 years by 2050.

Meanwhile, cancer rates in developed nations actually show a decline when factors like smoking and the fact that the population is aging are considered.

Moreover, the WHO estimates that only 1 to 4 percent of cancers can be attributed to environmental pollution in developed countries. The WHO suggests that cancer prevention efforts should focus on three factors: tobacco use, diet, and infections—which together account for 75 percent of cancer cases worldwide.

If there is anything to fear, it isn’t chemicals, but an overly precautionary chemicals policy. Similar “precautionary” policies are already producing seriously adverse impacts around the world — hitting the world’s poor most severely. A dramatic example is the ban of the pesticide DDT, which can be used to control malaria without adverse public or wildlife impacts. Yet developing nations have followed western advice to ban the product, resulting in the skyrocketing of malaria cases worldwide. In Africa, 1.5 to 2.7 million people, mostly children, die from malaria alone every year. The precautionary principle has even been used to deny perfectly good food to starving populations in poor nations like India and Zimbabwe.

Even in the United States — where there is no official precautionary policy and where regulators are supposed to consider tradeoffs and weigh the risks — regulators ban, preempt, or delay life saving products just to be “on the safe side.” The U.S. pesticide law, which follows a structure similar to REACH, has greatly reduced the number of public health pesticides available to health officials, according to a report by the Institute of Medicine. And overprecaution at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration preempts medical treatments for decades while thousands die as a result.

A safer world is clearly desirable. But over-precaution, as embodied in REACH won’t deliver that. It oversteps of boundaries of reason and resulting stagnation is likely to increase misery around the world.

This article was derived from CEI comments to the EU on its chemicals policy. The comments are available on CEI’s website.

To schedule media interviews contact Jody Clarke by email or (202) 331-2252

To be removed from this and other CEI email lists click here.