From: Monona Rossol <0000030664c37427-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] EU Survey Results: Consumer confidence in chemicals improving 10 years after REACH entry into force
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:30:08 -0400
Reply-To: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
Message-ID: 15ca6cc0739-4015-e07e**At_Symbol_Here**
In-Reply-To <7E5F4DF4-85F9-4347-87F1-918EFD4F8DB7**At_Symbol_Here**>

I'm not a praying person, but I'm temped in this case to pray that REACH sticks to its "no test, no market" deadline in 2018 for the 30,000 high production volume chemicals they identified in the chemicals registered for use in the E.U.  To get around this deadline, the Obama reps were busy trying to get a clause in the TTIP that would require the E.U. to accept imports that meet our U.S. standards --- which in this case are no standards at damn all.

But negotiations are now sort of not a U.S. priority and this may just slip past you-know-who and we would suddenly have no market for a great number of our exports.  

REACH gave industry 10 years to do the testing they should have done decades ago anyway, and now there is no time.  This is why industry is now supporting PETA and anyone else who doesn't want animal testing and going for the computer modeling which could be done fast and dirty.  Garbage in = garbage out.  

PLEASE, please, REACH.  Make 'em do the gold standard 10 tox tests listed on any proper SDS and be done with it.   If they can't afford ~$200,000 of testing for a chemical they sell in amounts over a 1000 tons a year, they need a better business plan.

Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President:  Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012     212-777-0062


-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart, Ralph <ralph.stuart**At_Symbol_Here**KEENE.EDU>
Sent: Wed, Jun 14, 2017 8:39 am
Subject: [DCHAS-L] EU Survey Results: Consumer confidence in chemicals improving 10 years after REACH entry into force

Valuable information for people conducting GHS training, particularly for international audiences.

- Ralph

On 1 June 2007, the REACH Regulation, cornerstone of EU chemicals legislation, entered into force. One of the reasons for developing REACH was to improve citizens' confidence in the EU regulatory framework and the safety of products.

Today, Commissioner Bie=C5=84kowska presents the findings of the Eurobarometer survey on chemical safety in her keynote speech at the Helsinki chemicals forum. The study reveals the impact REACH has made in its 10 years=E2=80™ existence.

44% of EU citizens consider that safety of chemicals contained in products has improved in the last 10-15 years. They also have a higher level of confidence in products manufactured in the EU compared to those imported from outside.

Two-thirds of citizens feel concerned about being exposed to hazardous chemicals, while in general, citizens in Northern Europe feel better informed about the potential dangers of chemicals than citizens in Southern Europe. The main sources of information used by the public to get such information are product labels and media.

Other findings of the Eurobarometer survey are as follows

- Perceptions of safety vary considerably between EU countries, although almost half of the respondents think that chemical products are safe for human health and the environment. Correspondingly, half of the respondents say that the current level of regulation and standards in the EU is not high enough and should be increased.
- 2 in 3 respondents know that if they ask whether a product contains particularly hazardous chemicals, the seller is required by law to inform them. Only a small minority does not think this is the case.
- There are varying perceptions of who currently has and who should have responsibility for ensuring the safety of chemicals contained in consumer products in the EU. 3 in 10 respondents think this responsibility currently lies with multiple actors (i.e. EU authorities, national authorities or manufacturers), while more than 4 in 10 respondents think that this responsibility should lie with more than one actor.

The cornerstone of safety information is the label, as regulated by the EU's CLP Regulation. Awareness and comprehension of hazard pictograms on the CLP label vary across the different pictograms. They are quite high for certain pictograms, especially for the =E2=80=98flammability' pictogram, but only 1 in 5 say that they have seen the serious health hazard pictogram before, and just 1 in 6 know the meaning of the exclamation mark pictogram.

For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional secretary at secretary**At_Symbol_Here**
Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional secretary at secretary**At_Symbol_Here** Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.