Coatings companies in Europe and their raw material suppliers are bracing themselves for tougher safety restrictions on chemicals in their formulations to help the European Union realize its ambition of zero pollution in a toxic-free environment.

Also, in line with its program of an EU Green Deal, the European Commission, the Union’s executive, is planning new regulations to help achieve a greenhouse gases target of zero net carbon emissions by 2050 as well the creation of a circular economy in which products and their components like coatings will be recycled for reuse or remanufacture.

The radical changes in the EU’s chemicals safety policy have been put forward by the Commission in a recently issued Chemical Strategy for Sustainability (CSS)

One of the biggest proposed alterations to the EU’s REACH chemicals controls legislation, as well as its sister labeling regulation on the Classification, Labeling and Packaging (CLP) of hazardous substances,  would be to categorize virtually all substances with major concerns about their safety as being hazardous without the need for risk assessment.

Others of less concern would be subject to rigorous risk-management measures.

This would mean that strict controls could be imposed on the use of chemicals in coatings and other formulations and products because they are classified as being inherently hazardous rather than posing a risk to human health after a risk assessment.

The Commission’s objective is that a large proportion of chemicals on the EU market would be safe and sustainable, preferably by design. Substances of very high concern (SVHC) would be eliminated from waste and the secondary raw materials produced by the circular economy.

After his recent appointment as the new chairman of the European association of coatings and printings inks (CEPE), Andre Vieira de Castro, chief executive of Tintas e Vernizes of Portugal, warned about the need for a “politics with a sense of proportion” so that adaptations to the EU’s chemicals policy did not undermine the industry’s competitiveness.

Environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have praised the Commission for responding to public disquiet about the dangers of chemicals.

“Poll after poll shows the public is clearly and rightly concerned about harmful man-made chemicals polluting their homes, offices and environment, slowly and quietly sickening too many of them and their relatives,” said Tatiana Santos, chemicals policy manager at the Brussels-based European Environmental Bureau.

However, CEPE is wary about environmental fundamentalism becoming the driving force behind the new policy.

“We are really concerned that the CSS seems to be a clear call for hazard-based decision making in EU chemical policy with little room for risk-based solutions,” explained Didier Leroy, CEPE’s technical director. “The Commission’s plan seems to be to categorize certain chemicals as being hazardous and then tell the rest of the world to do the same.

“Under EU law there are possibilities of derogations or exemptions to restrictions or bans on chemicals classified as being hazardous,” he added. “But that will be difficult for companies to achieve because it will require the collection of a lot of data.”

In addition to being unhappy about the Commission’s proposals on classifying chemicals as being hazardous, CEPE also has considerable disquiet about a CSS suggestion that substances should be put into groups or given generic categories on the basis of having similar structures or chemistries.

The CSS cites as an example the reduction in the European population’s exposure to carcinogenic substances. It claims that this has been due to the use of the generic approach to risk management as a result of which carcinogenic substances have been banned from most consumer products.

However, the vast majority of chemicals are regulated on a case-by-case basis.

“Ample evidence and citizens’ worries should justify that for the most harmful chemicals the generic approach to risk management (should) become the default option,” the CSS document said.

“With the generic approach non-hazardous chemicals could be included in groups categorized as hazardous,” said Leroy. “Coatings companies will have to put a lot of work into changing formulations because of the new stricter chemicals policy.

“But creating new formulations because non-hazardous chemicals have been grouped with hazardous ones could be very difficult,” he continues. “A whole new chemistry for a formulation may be required, which with specialty coatings in sectors like aerospace may need 10 years of testing before it is accepted.”

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) will be among the group of substances which will be subject to more robust and comprehensive controls due to their danger to the human body’s hormonal system.

CEPE believes there is no need for new EDC-controlling regulations, certainly not using the generic method, since the disruptors have already been identified.

“If there is an EDC we don’t know about, let’s change the way we carry out studies on disruptors, not bring in new legislation,” said Leroy.

But the Commission reckons that the EU regulatory system is so fragmented and in need of consolidation that EDCs are not being detected quickly enough.

“This requires the adoption of the preventive generic approach to risk management, especially to avoid the use of endocrine disruptors in consumer products,” the CSS said.

Furthermore, EDCs should be covered by an extended CLP regulation which the CSS proposes should include not only endocrine disruptors but also substances that are persistent, mobile and toxic and also very persistent and very mobile.

The Commission is proposing that the scope of the generic approach to risk management should be extended but in stages, according to the CSS. First, it will be applied to chemicals causing cancer and gene mutations and affecting reproduction and endocrine systems and are persistent and bioaccumulative.

Then impact assessments will be carried out on its extension to other chemicals, including those affecting immune, neurological and respiratory systems and substances toxic to specific organs, the CSS said.

In some areas of concern, the Commission is taking a cautious stance. With mixtures or chemicals with combination effects, for example, which is an issue particularly relevant to formulations such as those applied in closed spaces, it wants the matter to be investigated more thoroughly.

‘’It is currently not realistic nor economically feasible to specifically assess and regulate an almost infinite number of possible combinations of chemicals,’’ the CSS explained.

On the other hand, it acknowledges that a scientific consensus is emerging that the effects of chemical mixtures should be taken into account when risk assessments are carried out.

As a result, the Commission has decided to further assess how best to introduce mixtures into the REACH safety assessment process.

Obviously, in the overhaul of the EU chemicals safety policy, there are some matters which can wait to be resolved, although the issue of the safety of chemical mixtures is one that has been around for some time.