The EU is using a mix of different instruments – authorisation, restriction, and occupational exposure limits – to reduce risks of chemicals of concern.
In the first panel of Helsinki Chemicals Forum 2019 on Thursday we discuss the method to derive the most suitable option and the pros and cons for each of them. Our panel also clarifies how do other regulatory authorities manage unacceptable risks of such chemicals.
As a sneak peek, I share a short overview of the questions to be addressed at the panel:
- Experiences from authorisation: Does it de facto encourage substitution? What are the barriers?
- Has it lead to an improvement of risk management in companies?
- How can we make sure that future upstream applications have the necessary quality?
- How do we deal with the interface between restrictions/OEL/authorisation?
- Is there a way how we can integrate socio-economic considerations better in the choice of regulatory instruments?
- Could we improve RMOA?
- How could we enter into a more constructive and ambitious dialogue with authorisation applicants to achieve substitution where feasible?
- What have we achieved with authorisation that we could not have done with restrictions?
- How is regulatory risk management for substances done in the US and other world regions?
- What could Europe learn from regulatory risk management in other countries?
Let’s find new aspects together and continue our discussion in the Forum soon. The timetable and whole programme of the Helsinki Chemicals Forum is available on the website.
View the full programme
Otto Linher | Moderator
Deputy head of unit, European Commission, DG GROW, REACH Unit