ECHA Publishes New "Example Exposure Scenarios" for REACH Chemical Registration

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has now developed some "practical examples of how to generate exposure scenarios (ESs) for risk characterization under the REACH chemical substance regulation.  The ESs were developed in collaboration with industry groups in the cleaning products and construction chemicals industries. 

According to ECHA:

The new example exposure scenarios are featured in two publications that are now available on the ECHA website. These are useful for both registrants and downstream users receiving extended safety data sheets (SDSs) for registered REACH substances.  The publications provide descriptions of both professional and consumer use of the substances. One document presents an example ES that refers to the widespread use of a substance in floor coatings applied by workers. The other document contains an example ES on the use of cleaning products by consumers. In both example ESs, the substances are classified as hazardous to human health but with a relatively low hazard level.

ECHA also notes that each publication includes:

• exposure scenarios, exposure estimations and risk characterisations for the CSR and for communication via the SDS;
• a description of the methodologies applied;
• learning points and conclusions from the exemplification process;
• open questions where further work is needed.

More information and links to the example ESs can be found here.

Pesticide Trade Association Offers Their Insight Into Recent NGO Endangered Species Act Lawsuit

About 10 days ago I reported on a law suit filed by two NGOs in an attempt to force EPA to "consult" with the Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service on pesticide issues as required by the Endangered Species Act.  Now the major crop protection chemical (i.e., pesticide) trade association has weighed in on the suit.

The trade association, CropLife America, which "represents the developers, manufacturers, formulators and distributors of plant science solutions for agriculture and pest management in the United States," offered the following on their web site:

“The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is an important legislative vehicle which helps facilitate the conservation of endangered plants and animals, yet the litigation filed by CBD and PANNA reflects the much larger issue: real ESA reform is required to protect endangered species,” said Jay Vroom, president and CEO of CLA. “However, litigation does not help to improve a system which can only be fixed through sound policy and legislation.”

CropLife America believes that, while the lawsuit "alleges that EPA has failed to consult with the...Services to ensure that crop protection products do not jeopardize endangered species," the NGOs "overlook the numerous benefits of modern agriculture, its rigorous regulatory oversight and proven role in protecting America’s wildlife."  In other words, think of all the good that pesticides do for society.  But there is more, obviously, to the story as CropLife and the NGOs differ dramatically on the value of pesticides.  CropLife believes that they allow for greater crop growth, which means greater and more efficient food production.  The NGOs believe that pesticides epitomize the problem of reliance on monoculture, which requires heavy chemical usage to combat the resulting pest species that would otherwise not be able to gain a foothold.


Both groups would agree that a better consultation process is needed.  The NGOs think that having EPA make what are essentially summary decisions by themselves is a conflict of interest since EPA also garners fees for registering pesticides.  CropLife believes that bringing in the Services creates a huge stranglehold on innovation and the ability to bring new, and presumably safer, products onto the market.  This argument has been going on for years and perhaps is the real reason behind the NGO law suit - to get a case that can cause there to be decisions made on how to proceed.  Clearly a more effective procedure, both from an efficiency standpoint and from a human health and the environment standpoint, is needed.

Two NGOs file suit against EPA for failure to consult on Endangered Species Act

On January 20, 2011, two NGOs filed "the most comprehensive legal action ever taken to protect endangered species from harmful pesticides. In the filing, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) accuse the USEPA of "registering and approving hundreds of pesticides known to harm imperiled species" without appropriate consultation with federal wildlife agencies. The lawsuit "seeks protection for 214 threatened or endangered species in 49 states and two U.S. territories."

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires EPA to undertake a formal consultation with other appropriate agencies responsible for protection of fish and wildlife, e.g., the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (commonly referred to as simply, "the services").  Over the years EPA has determined in many cases that the risk did not rise to the level of requiring outside consultation and that EPA had sufficient authority and practices under the FIFRA pesticide law to act.  However, CBD and PANNA charge that this practice is in violation of the ESA and favors the continued registration of pesticides that the services might otherwise deem to be too hazardous to fish and wildlife.

According to CBD,

The lawsuit seeks protection for 214 endangered and threatened species throughout the United States, including the Florida panther, California condor, piping plover, black-footed ferret, arroyo toad, Indiana bat, bonytail chub and Alabama sturgeon. Documents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA, as well as peer-reviewed scientific studies, indicate these species are harmed by the pesticides at issue. More than a billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, and the EPA has registered more than 18,000 different pesticides for use. Extensive scientific studies show widespread and pervasive pesticide contamination in groundwater, drinking water and wildlife habitats throughout the country. 

CBD and others have successfully sued EPA in the past, forcing the agency to consult with the services and often resulting in the further limitation of pesticide use.  But "today’s litigation is the first on this scale, as it seeks nationwide compliance for hundreds of pesticides on hundreds of species"

An interactive map is available on the CBD web site.  Clicking on a state will bring up a list of endangered and threatened species that CBD and PANNA identify in their law suit as being at risk due to EPA's lack of consultation with the services.