Are chemicals in articles an obstacle for reaching environmental goals? — Missing links in EU chemical management

Molander, Linda; Breitholtz, Magnus; Andersson, Patrik L.; Rybacka, Aleksandra; Rudén, Christina

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.07.021

Cited by 20 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The best way to reduce risk is to keep the residual risk as small as possible through reducing the amount of hazardous substances in the product [32,76]. This should be the first step before using RC mechanisms as risk reduction measures.…”

Section: Reduction Of Dangerous Chemicals In Consumer Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Read this and be safe!’ Comparison of regulatory processes for communicating risks of personal care products to European and South African consumers

Klaschka

Rother

2013

Environ Sci Eur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Most personal care products (PCPs) contain hazardous ingredients, but current legislation in the European Union (EU) and South Africa (SA) does not require these to be labelled as hazardous products. Instead, ingredients must only be listed on containers to inform consumers of potential hazards. We assessed whether current legal strategies provide the means for effective risk communication (RC) mechanisms for PCPs in order to protect consumers' health and the environment. Results and conclusions: RC strategies used in developed countries are not necessarily better compared to developing countries despite the existence of extensive legislation in the former. Socio-cultural factors, scientific literacy and language differences are key reasons why the current ingredient lists on PCP labels are not an effective RC strategy. The assumption is that consumers will interpret the risks of these ingredients by conducting a risk assessment for their personal context. Realistically, the following risk mitigation measures should be implemented in developed and developing countries to reduce the public's potential exposures to hazardous substances: substitute hazardous ingredients with less hazardous; provide accessible mechanisms for consumers to comprehend RC measures; delete the exception clause in the EU Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP); apply clear mandatory labels where PCPs health risks are clearly illustrated; and increase enforcement of legislation. The high incidence of fragrance allergies caused by PCPs is one example illustrating how current legal measures in the EU and SA fail to protect consumers and the environment from hazardous exposures. Therefore, efforts must be made to improve legally required RC measures.

show abstract

Section: Reduction Of Dangerous Chemicals In Consumer Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Read this and be safe!’ Comparison of regulatory processes for communicating risks of personal care products to European and South African consumers

Klaschka

Rother

2013

Environ Sci Eur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This waste is to be separated from waste streams (EC 2008c, Point 28) and labeled accordingly by industry (EC 2008c, Point 34). Unlike the Waste Framework Directive (EC 2008c), the Water Framework Directive (EC 2000), and the Sewage Sludge Directive (EEC 1986) do not refer to substance classifications (Molander et al 2012). Further, the Waste Framework Directive sets a ban on all kinds of mixing of hazardous waste with other material (EC 2008c, Article 18).…”

Section: Impacts Of Classification Of Tio 2 As Carcmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The basic division may be drawn between the regulations that refer to CLP classification, namely, Toy Safety Directive (EC 2009a), REACH (restrictions) (EC 2006), Waste Framework Directive (EC 2008c), and those that do not have a link to CLP, namely, RoHS (EC 2011), Water Framework Directive (EC 2000), Sewage Sludge Directive (EEC 1986), occupational regulations (EC 2017), cosmetics regulations (EC 2009b), food regulations (EC 2002), and pharmaceutical regulations (Molander and Rudén 2011;Molander et al 2012;Sobek et al 2013). The basic division may be drawn between the regulations that refer to CLP classification, namely, Toy Safety Directive (EC 2009a), REACH (restrictions) (EC 2006), Waste Framework Directive (EC 2008c), and those that do not have a link to CLP, namely, RoHS (EC 2011), Water Framework Directive (EC 2000), Sewage Sludge Directive (EEC 1986), occupational regulations (EC 2017), cosmetics regulations (EC 2009b), food regulations (EC 2002), and pharmaceutical regulations (Molander and Rudén 2011;Molander et al 2012;Sobek et al 2013).…”

Section: Gaps In the Regulatory Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is It Safe to Paint Your Wall White? A Case Study on Titanium Dioxide Classification

Kähkönen

2019

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is in the process of being classified as a suspected carcinogenic substance (Carc 2). The present case study probes the outcomes of this potential classification in terms of the reduction of hazardous exposure to TiO2 due to its classification. Furthermore, the case study examines the elements that are causing ambiguity during the classification process. This study was conducted by walking through the process from the present exposure to TiO2 to the hazard assessment associated with TiO2 exposure, to the regulatory classification process, and to practical outcomes affecting TiO2 usage. Finally, the impact of the classification on exposure, which was originally considered potentially hazardous, is evaluated. The case study shows that TiO2 classification as a carcinogen will not directly reduce respiratory exposure to TiO2, which was the original reason for the classification. Instead, the classification will lead to restrictions on recycling. Moreover, the classification will have an impact on certain solid artifacts and liquid mixtures for which hazardous exposure was not detected. Altogether, the present case raises questions concerning hazard communications associated with the Carc 2 classification; treatment of poorly soluble low toxicity (PSLT) particles and nanoparticles in the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) classifications; and use of human exposure studies for the purposes of chemical regulations. Based on the present study, the following recommendations are made: the final decision on the TiO2 classification should be reconsidered together with those of other PSLT particles and take into account extensive developments in the field of nanoscience. Furthermore, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) should develop state‐of‐the‐art guidance on how to use the available human exposure data. Finally, the authorities that are in charge of European Union chemicals management are advised to further develop the regulatory network to utilize the information generated in REACH processes as efficiently as possible and to verify that the connections between the regulations result in the intended outcome. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;00:1–12. © 2019 SETAC

show abstract

“…This is because the details about the chemical content of products are not always available to consumers, organizational buyers, or regulators who evaluate the risks of using these products in our everyday life [2]. The growing concerns about the control and use of these chemicals are further amplified if we consider their impact on the natural environment [4,27,36]. In this context, researchers in the field of consumption began to take interest in environmental topics [28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Raising Awareness on Health Impact of the Chemicals Used in Consumer Products: Empirical Evidence from East-Central Europe

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research and guidance provided by regulatory authorities address the growing concerns on the control of chemicals used in consumer products. In this context, this study responds to literature alerts emphasizing the need for promoting risk reduction by decreasing the use of damaging chemicals and raising public awareness on this issue. It focuses on East-Central Europe and investigates whether consumers are worried about the impact on health of chemicals, and whether they think there is enough information available in this sense. The study uses logistic regression in order to analyze the secondary data from Special Eurobarometer No. 416 (part of Eurobarometer Wave EB 81.3, European Commission, 2014), namely 27,998 interviews collected in all 28 EU countries, of which 11,460 are from East-Central Europe. The research reveals a profile of East-Central Europeans, who consider that they lack information on the topic, and identifies the most effective way of reaching these people according to their perceptions and habits. Reporting results on a representative sample in East-Central Europe, the study indicates the channels, sources of information, and trusted institutions in order to support a campaign for raising public awareness on the health impact of chemicals used in consumer products.

show abstract

Are chemicals in articles an obstacle for reaching environmental goals? — Missing links in EU chemical management

Cited by 20 publications

References 13 publications

‘Read this and be safe!’ Comparison of regulatory processes for communicating risks of personal care products to European and South African consumers

‘Read this and be safe!’ Comparison of regulatory processes for communicating risks of personal care products to European and South African consumers

Is It Safe to Paint Your Wall White? A Case Study on Titanium Dioxide Classification

Raising Awareness on Health Impact of the Chemicals Used in Consumer Products: Empirical Evidence from East-Central Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About