UK opposes REACH

An interesting take on the REACH directive (which I've discussed here and here) in The Independent, which claims that "Ministers are sabotaging laws to control toxic chemicals despite fears that they are causing a "silent epidemic" of brain disorders in British children".

The article explains that

The law is the first attempt to regulate more than 100,000 chemicals in use in Europe. There is little or no safety information on 85 per cent of the ones in common use: the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (Reach) directive aims to get companies to carry out safety tests on chemicals - and to control the most dangerous ones.

Researchers are claiming various chemicals in common use are dangerous, but nowhere does the article consider the question of quantities.

Of course it is all a cynical plot -

Britain originally supported Reach, but after lobbying by the Bush administration - which fears it will damage US exports - it switched to denouncing it as "dangerously wrong".

The implication is that no body will stop manufacturers using chemicals which have been shown to be dangerous. This is surely nonsense, especially as regards food in supermarkets.

If regulators aren't doing their job, the solution is not to create a new expensive regulator.

Britain has persuaded Europe's governments to resist the measure. If no deal is reached, the entire directive is likely to be abandoned.

So the French just rolled over to protect imports from the US? Pull the other one.