Rapport om USA's påvirkning af EU's kemikaliepolitik

ent play the best role possible?"

8

counterparts have a critical role in facilitating the participation of heads of U.S. government agencies and senior Commission officials in addressing specific transatlantic industry concerns. "

On April 29, 2003, just several days before REACH was released for public comment, Colin Powell sent a cable to EU Member States." The cable repeated industry objections to REACH and urged US government agencies, "... to reiterate to the European Commission and EU Member States our general concerns before the Commission finalizes its formal proposal in early May... Posts in EU Member States are requested to communicate USG concerns to appropriate host government environment, trade, industry and foreign ministry officials, drawing upon the talking points in para 11 as appropriate. "

Powell's talking points included objections to the precautionary principle, REACH's "...complexregulatory approach", and its overly broad focus on "...tens of thousands of chemicals": In its place, the State Department memo proposed the industry-favored US-style regulatory system as one where, "...environmentally sound management of chemicals can be achieved through approaches that better balance risk and economic considerations. "Powell also described the EPA's role in the lobbying effort; EPA is engaged in a constructive dialogue with the Commission at the regulatory level. " The State Department cable criticized costs and other "burdens"without mentioning the

9

US INTERVENTION IN EU CHEMICAL POLICY

public health costs of poor chemical safety regimes. The cable complained about the length of the proposed 5-week comment period and urged US government lobbying to extend it as requested by the chemical industry.

In May 2003, the EU formally presented REACH for public comment. William Lash, Assistant Secretary, Department of Commerce, told the New York Times that, "This is a big game; it will dwarf the G.M.O. dispute. "' Using chemical industry language, Lash described REACH as, "... a barrier based on unsound science or non-existent risk analysis that damages our exports... "°' He also admitted that Commerce officials had met frequently with EU leaders to express "concerns" about the proposal. In news reports, the Commerce Department announced their intention to hold a series of public town hall meetings to organize opposition to the proposal beginning May 16'I. Replies to inquiries from public interest NGOs about the locations and times of the meetings were vague and unresponsive.

On May 6, 2003, the State Department issued a press release promoting a report from the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) concerning "...trade barriers that ignore sound science. "The report features REACH as an example where, "...US. and foreign exporters are effectively prevented from fully participating in the regulatory drafting and review process. " NFTC's 300 member companies include Dow Chemical, DuPont, and ExxonMobil.

Press reports described the US government's opposition to REACH was due to, "... unsound science and an abuse of regulatory authority... Ø This prompted a letter from Rockwell Schnabel, US Ambassador to the EU.⁵1 Despite two years of US government lobbying at the behest of the chemical industry, Schnabel denied that the US had criticized REACH or identified it as a possible trade dispute because he claimed that the government had not yet had time to study the proposal.

On May 12, 2003, Rockwell Schnabel commented on REACH to students at Boccini University in Milan, Italy.⁵² He praised the EU for extending the comment period as requested by industry and encouraged industry to participate. "We strongly support and encourage efforts by AmCham Italy [American Chamber of Commerce in Italy] and the Italian chemicals association to take part in these consultations. "

10 US INTERVENTION IN EU CHEMICAL POLICY

The US government adopted the chemical industry position on REACH and aggressively advanced it to intervene in the EU legislative process. The government developed its policy in closed-door meetings with the industry to the exclusion of citizens, public interest advocates, environmental organizations, and public health professionals, even though these stakeholders are relevant to REACH's environmental and public health emphasis. The government never even analyzed REACH's business benefits and apparently felt justified in trying to weaken public health legislation in sovereign countries at the behest of the interested industry.

Ironically, the US chemical industry opposes REACH precisely during a time when public confidence in the chemical industry is very low. As the EU inevitably moves forward with the legislative process to implement REACH, the US industry has an opportunity to regain public confidence by supporting the legislation as a first step toward overhauling a long outdated US system. Instead, the industry remains mired in the past and is initiatingg a new plan to spend hundreds of millions of_dnllarc nna PR rampaign in an attempt to improve its image.

The recent activities uncovered by the internal government documents reveal agency actions that are incompatible with their mandates. For example, the EPA mandate to protect human health and safeguard the environment is not consistent with their joint mission with US chemical industry executives to lobby the German government against REACH. The Commerce Department adopted the chemical industry's arguments without considering the REACH's beneficial effect on other industries. For example, REACH would reduce product liability concerns currently borne by industries that use the chemical industry's products such as cosmetics, toys, textiles, building products, and electronics.

At the behest of the chemical industry, the US government intervened to weaken EU efforts to enhance public health. This merits a full Congressional investigation into the corporate influence over government actions at the relevant agencies and raises questions about the objectives of US foreign policy. EPA, Commerce, State, and USTR should desist from further lobbying against REACH and the Administration should publicly affirm the right of the EU to implement important public health laws such as REACH without US government intervention.

US INTERVENTION IN EU CHEMICAL POLICY

September 9, 2003

President George W Bush The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of public health professionals, physicians, nurses, children's health advocates, environmental organizations, and community groups, we are writing to express our deep concerns about the United States government efforts to undermine proposed reforms of the European Union chemicals policy also known as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals). We request that you instruct key officials within your administration to stop using federal funds to undermine this important proposed legislation, and seek ways to support progressive reform of chemicals policy that benefit public health.

The U.S. Administration has actively lobbied against the European proposals for reform through actions of the State Department, Department of Commerce, US Trade Representative, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We find itparticularly^--troublingthatthe^--position^-of-the-US-government-closely-reflects-the-narrow interests of U.S. chemical manufacturers, to the exclusion ^-of other^-business sectors who will belie-Et-from. the: pduction of cleaner, safer chemicals, as well as public health and environmental advocates working to secure policies that will safeguard the American and European public from dangerous chemicals.

Recent scientific evidence from the United States, Canada, and Europe demonstrates that untested, unregulated chemicals are accumulating in human body tissue and breast milk. Toxicological findings indicate that exposures to even low doses of certain chemicals can result in profound yet subtle effects including birth defects, reproductive disorders, and neurological abnormalities. We are particularly concerned about a variety of ubiquitous substances that have been measured in the general public. For some, like mercury, their toxicity is beyond doubt. For others, adequate toxicity testing data are simply not available. The public's continued exposure to these substances vividly demonstrates the need for comprehensive safety testing in order to protect human health and the environment.

The chemical management system proposed under REACH addresses many of the flaws of the current system both in the United States and Europe. As you know, lax chemical regulations in the U.S. have created a situation whereby an estimated 95% percent of the chemicals in commerce today lack basic testing data on potential health and environmental impacts.

REACH would begin to fill in the information blanks by first and foremost demanding better health data for the existing and new chemicals produced or used in quantities greater than one ton per year. It would also restrict and in some cases ban the use of chemicals that are inherently harmful, i.e. carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxins, in addition to those chemicals that persist and accumulate in the environment. Requiring manufacturers to demonstrate that a particular chemical is safe to use in commerce is a commonsense and long overdue approach to chemical management.

The United States government and the chemical industry claim that the costs of increased scrutiny of chemicals proposed in REACH will place a burden on business. However, the latest estimates from the European