Germany Calls for Revamp of Socio-Economic Analyses of Authorisations

The methodology used by Echa’s Socio-economic Analysis Committee (Seac) to calculate the impact of chemicals is "too simplistic" and does not convey any meaningful information regarding risk, a senior German ministry official has said.

And, at this month’s REACH Review conference, Jörg Lebsanft, from Germany’s federal environment ministry (BMU), called on the European Commission to start a political discussion on the consequences of Seac’s methodology.

In preparing Opinions on chemicals, the committee evaluates the costs and benefits of legislative actions such as restriction and authorisation.

So far, it has approved all of the authorisation requests it has received, arguing that the benefits outweigh the risks.

But Mr Lebsanft, who is head of division for chemical risk assessment and risk management at the BMU, told the conference in Brussels Seac uses ‘monetisation’ to compare the risks and benefits of suppliers continuing to place chemicals on the market. And this, he said, has "profound" implications.

The Commission should also discuss whether improvements can be made to more accurately reflect the adverse effects to individuals and the environment, he said.

Using a "willingness to pay" (WTP) approach, the committee transforms the risks of a chemical being on the market into a monetary value. This is the price consumers are prepared to pay for a certain product in return for it posing less risk to human health.

To calculate monetised risk, the estimated number of persons harmed is multiplied by the price of the adverse health or impact.

Using this methodology, however, the same value may be obtained for "extremely high or very low" individual risks depending on the number of exposed people, Mr Lebsanft said. As a result, he added, severe health risks do not hinder a recommendation for authorisation if the economic benefits are large enough.

Furthermore, he said, it does not consider the distribution of risks and benefits as "the people who take the risks do not necessarily enjoy the benefits".

In authorisation applications, the applicant normally calculates the cost attached to it being denied. But, the positive impacts of alternative products are not taken into account, Mr Lebsanft said.

"These consequences have never been discussed at the political level," he told the conference. He called on the Commission to "describe the consequences of the current Seac approach" and seek open dialogue with member states, European parliament and other stakeholders.

Speaking at the Brussels conference, Michael Flueh, head of REACH unit at DG Grow, said he would take the comments back to the Commission "and see what we can do". However, sources say an overhaul of Seac "is not on the agenda".

Nevertheless, an Echa spokesperson told Chemical Watch the agency plans to "engage directly" with Mr Lebsanft on the subject.