The Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) directive was today approved by the European Parliament. REACH has been described as being one of the EU’s most important pieces of legislation for 20 years and will prevent diseases caused by dangerous chemicals, saving thousands of lives a year as well as millions of pounds of health costs. The adoption of this legislation is a big step forward for the protection of people and the environment.

The REACH regulation makes producers and importers responsible for analysing their chemicals and proving either that they are safe or that their use is necessary and strictly controlled. Dangerous chemicals will not be authorised in circumstances where safer alternatives exist.

An independent European Chemicals Agency will be established in Helsinki to oversee the way firms assess chemicals for safety, while all dangerous products will be independently examined under conditions that should stimulate the development of safer alternatives to the most dangerous substances.

It could be argued that a final text that leaves some environmentalists saying they hoped the law would go further than it did and some industry groups saying it went too far, cannot be too far wide of the mark.

There is a case to say that a compromise such as this is not perfect. However, a common set of rules on this important matter is better than a patchwork of perfect (but divergent) rules in some countries, half measures in others and no rules at all elsewhere - in what is supposed to be a common market with common rules. That would have given less protection at greater cost. This agreement also shows how useful the EU can be by sharing the burden of funding, testing and research. This is great news for everyone in Europe.

Arch Eurosceptic Tory MEP Martin Callanan seems to be mellowing in his views on Europe, now that he is gaining practical experience of how the EU actually works rather than his previous preconceptions. He is quoted in the Evening Gazette as welcoming a Commission initiative to ban the import and export of cat and dog fur in the EU, saying "this shows that where there is a will to effect change, coupled with a strong support for a shift in the law, the Commission is prepared to listen to a well presented case".

This comes on top of his victory with his amendment to allow the continued use of mercury in barometers. This is not an amendment that I agree with, but it certainly showed Martin that EU law is not dictated by the European Commission, as Eurosceptics are wont to claim, but adopted through democratic procedures involving elected governments in the Council and directly elected MEPs in the Parliament.

One man that is not for changing though is the moustachioed Member Roger Helmer, who has been quick to show his disgust at some of his fellow MEPs, and launched an astonishing attack on his leader David Cameron, for supporting a stronger version of the EU's chemicals legislation (known as REACH).

In a letter to a newspaper the right-wing rogue wrote: "Mr Cameron is quite reasonably seeking to enhance his party's green credentials, the proposed "stronger substitution principle" which he espouses makes Reach substantially more damaging. I first learned that Mr Cameron expected his MEPs to vote for a stronger Reach during his speech at the party conference in October, and I was shocked. As a life-long Conservative, I want to support industry, which delivers jobs, pensions and the taxes that fund our public services, and I will continue to do so. I am simply not prepared to vote for a green gesture that will do far more harm than good."


Despite the fact that the tighter chemical legislation will make the continent a healthier and safer place, industrial workers, and indeed the general public as a whole, the ones adversely affected by the myriad of chemicals we know little or nothing about in our environment, obviously do not receive quite as much support from him.

With the EU’s chemical legislation (REACH) to go before Parliament before the end of the year, the results of a timely investigation into the damage caused by chemicals has been released by scientists from the Harvard School of Public Health.

The scientists believe they have identified 202 different chemicals that can cause brain damage while the effects of low-level exposure to them worryingly remains unknown. They have also called for limits of exposure to be recommended to pregnant women and small children.

As anyone who has been following the progression of the REACH Directive will know, many of these chemicals are from everyday household products from cans to make-up.

This recent Harvard study is one of countless examples of how imperative chemicals legislation in Europe (and the world) is and the considerable benefits better regulation and testing will have on our health.

Both the Telegraph and Independent have more on the Harvard study on their websites.

The EU’s planned legislation for a Europe-wide system to test and regulate chemicals (called "REACH") was discussed in committee yesterday, with MEPs in the Environment committee voting in favour of putting a strong version of the law before Parliament in November’s Strasbourg session.

REACH could potentially improve the health, safety and working conditions of virtually every citizen of the EU.

The need for REACH was highlighted in the media twice yesterday. The Daily Mail contained an extended article on two twins suffering from hypospadias, a genital abnormality. The number of children born with the condition has doubled over the last 25 years with experts putting the blame squarely on chemicals used in everyday products.

The Guardian’s Conservation website reveals how a toxin called tributyltin contained in paints is contaminating wildlife and subsequently entering the food chain. By 2008 it will be banned in the European Union.

At last Friday’s Labour Movement for Europe evening, Giampi Alhadeff, the Secretary General of the European Parliamentary Labour Party, spoke of how we should identify problems that the EU can contribute to solving. The EU will get off the back foot if its legislation is seen to be making an obviously positive impact on the lives of its citizens.

REACH is proving Giampi right. The Daily Mail will never be a general advocate of the EU but, however reluctantly, it admits that this legislation will improve the health of Europe, and is therefore a good thing.

The latest edition of Private Eye (No 1163) carries a story about a development of houses built above a former paint factory in east London.

Potentially carcinogenic chemicals used in the manufacture of paints have contaminated some of the houses, with the worst-affected residents found to have a series of industrial chemicals in their blood stream. The magazine goes on to reveal how the victims have also suffered from a variety of illnesses including asthma, kidney problems, food intolerance and trouble with their memory.

This is a prime example of just how important the EU’s forthcoming legislation on chemicals, REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) will be.

As the story in Private Eye illustrates, large amounts of chemicals are used in everyday materials without us knowing exactly the effects they can have on us, though it is strongly suspected they are a cause behind the rise in cases of asthma, allergies and the drop in sperm counts.

REACH legislation will require all producers and importers to register the chemicals used in their products and make clear how they are to be used safely.

An intended consequence of the legislation is to increase competition within the chemical industry by encouraging companies to produce safer and safer chemicals.

Testing the vast majority of chemicals used in Europe will obviously be a costly exercise but this is where the EU comes into its own. With the cost split between 25 countries this necessary task becomes affordable and brings priceless health benefits to Europe and beyond.

The second reading of REACH goes before Parliament in autumn and, if as expected goes through, will be a monumental step in preventing cases like the one in Private Eye from occurring.

To read more about REACH I suggest visiting the following websites:

Commission's guide to REACH: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm

Women's Institute lobby page: http://www.womens-institute.co.uk/campaigns/chemicals-c.shtml

The UK Presidency ended as the clocks chimed in the New Year, and it's worth evaluating what was achieved. The balance sheet is surprisingly positive; surprising, that is, compared to the assessments of many of the armchair commentators whose agenda precludes them from saying anything positive about the government or the EU.

The Presidency of the European Council is not an executive office, but the chairmanship of one of the EU institutions for a very short period. It has no decision-taking powers of its own, merely the opportunity to chair skillfully, to broker compromises, and to place items higher up the (largely inherited) agenda.

Within these constraints, the UK's achievements are not insignificant:

• Managed to get a deal on the budget. (Enough has been said about this elsewhere on this blog.)


• Secured agreement on the "European Consensus on Development" that will double EU countries development aid to $80billion per year by 2010, commits Member States to reach the UN target of 0.7% GDP by 2015, and re-orientates the EU's own programmes towards poverty elimination and meeting the Millenium Development Goals.


• Begun a further round of CAP reform, with agreement to end all export subsidies over the next 7 years, to fit all the 10 new Member States and the next two (Bulgaria and Romania) within the current CAP spending ceiling, which will itself be reduced by 7%, to radically reform the sugar régime now and to have a new overall review of spending in 2008.


• Got all 25 countries to agree to start accession negotiations with Turkey.


• Persuaded Council to agree that its meetings on EU codecision legislation should be held in public, with immediate effect.


• Made huge progress towards adoption of the REACH directive on protecting consumers and workers from dangerous chemicals.


• Secured agreement with the European Parliament (rather than an intergovernmental shortcut) on the data retention directive, vital for combatting terrorism and serious criminality.


• Persuaded Council to resume consideration of proposals to reform the "comitology" system of scrutinising the implementing powers of the Commission, in view of giving Council and the European Parliament equal rights to call back Commission decisions.


• Set an example of how Council presidencies should interact withn the European Parliament, with a record number of ministerial appearences in Parliament and no fewer than four visits of the Prime Minister.


• Hosted a highly successful meeting of the 104-country ACP Assembly in Edinburgh.


• Launched EU Security & Defence missions to Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt and to Aceh in Indonesia.


• Made progress on climate change, leading the EU delegation to contribute to the agreement at the Montreal conference and putting together a package of assistance to China to clean up its coal-fired power stations.


• Secured agreement in Council on the Capital Requirements Directive, an important part of the Financial services Action Plan.

A very useful summary of Parliament's position on the REACH (chemicals) proposal at first reading is available here, via Parliament's website.

A constituent challenged MEPs from Bradford "to write to the Shipley Target and assure local voters that they are backing amendments to the proposals on chemical testing that will reduce the testing of such chemicals on animals". I am happy to write in and provide some assurance.

The whole point of having a common Europe-wide programme of testing the safety of chemicals (REACH), rather than 25 countries each duplicating each other with their own programmes, is to reduce the amount of testing necessary - saving costs and preventing unnecessary animal suffering.

We do need to find ways of testing chemicals. Recent medical evidence shows that each one of us has 300 more chemicals in our bodily tissues and blood than our grandparents did. We also know that there are increasing rates of asthma, cancer and other diseases which probably originate from chemicals.

Some in the chemical industry argue that such testing is costly. But anyone who recalls the asbestos tragedy will know that without money invested in the testing now can save thousands of lives and millions of pounds downstream. With the burden shared with our fellow countries in the European Union, this is well worth doing. And if it can be done while minimising animal testing, so much the better.