Socio-economic analysis for the authorisation of chemicals under REACH: a case of very high concern?
Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review
Standard
In: Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP, Vol. 70, No. 2, 11.2014, p. 564-571.
Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Socio-economic analysis for the authorisation of chemicals under REACH
T2 - a case of very high concern?
AU - Gabbert, Silke
AU - Scheringer, Martin
AU - Ng, Carla A
AU - Stolzenberg, Hans-Christian
N1 - Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2014/11
Y1 - 2014/11
N2 - Under the European chemicals' legislation, REACH, substances that are identified to be of "very high concern" will de facto be removed from the market unless the European Commission grants authorisations permitting specific uses. Companies who apply for an authorisation without demonstrating "adequate control" of the risks have to show by means of a socio-economic analysis (SEA) that positive impacts of use outweigh negative impacts for human health and ecosystems. This paper identifies core challenges where further in-depth guidance is urgently required in order to ensure that a SEA can deliver meaningful results and that it can effectively support decision-making on authorisation. In particular, we emphasise the need (i) to better guide the selection of tools for impact assessment, (ii) to explicitly account for stock pollution effects in impact assessments for persistent and very persistent chemicals, (iii) to define suitable impact indicators for PBT/vPvB chemicals given the lack of reliable information about safe concentration levels, (iv) to guide how impacts can be transformed into values for decision-making, and (v) to provide a well-balanced discussion of discounting of long-term impacts of chemicals.
AB - Under the European chemicals' legislation, REACH, substances that are identified to be of "very high concern" will de facto be removed from the market unless the European Commission grants authorisations permitting specific uses. Companies who apply for an authorisation without demonstrating "adequate control" of the risks have to show by means of a socio-economic analysis (SEA) that positive impacts of use outweigh negative impacts for human health and ecosystems. This paper identifies core challenges where further in-depth guidance is urgently required in order to ensure that a SEA can deliver meaningful results and that it can effectively support decision-making on authorisation. In particular, we emphasise the need (i) to better guide the selection of tools for impact assessment, (ii) to explicitly account for stock pollution effects in impact assessments for persistent and very persistent chemicals, (iii) to define suitable impact indicators for PBT/vPvB chemicals given the lack of reliable information about safe concentration levels, (iv) to guide how impacts can be transformed into values for decision-making, and (v) to provide a well-balanced discussion of discounting of long-term impacts of chemicals.
KW - Chemistry
KW - Authorisation of chemicals
KW - Decision-support
KW - Persistent chemicals
KW - REACH
KW - Socio-economic analysis
KW - Stock pollution effects
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84907809227&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.08.013
DO - 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.08.013
M3 - Journal articles
C2 - 25220186
VL - 70
SP - 564
EP - 571
JO - Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP
JF - Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP
SN - 1096-0295
IS - 2
ER -