REACH starts roll-out with teething troubles but no real disasters for cosmetics

If the number of notifications received by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) for pre-registering the use of chemicals by businesses making or importing chemicals in Europe is a gauge of success, then the new REACH control system is performing with aplomb. There were 150,000 substances pre-registered with ECHA by 65,000 companies between 1 June and 1 December last year in 2.75 million pre-registrations.

This was well above expectations. So much so that ECHA officials continued to check registrations well into this year, they had planned to wrap up this work before New Years Eve. And on the face of it there appears to be good news in that no downstream users of chemicals (such as the cosmetics sector) have reported to the agency that a substance of interest to them has not been pre-registered and so cannot be used in Europe legally without an immediate full-scale registration assessment. Companies have had the opportunity to notify ECHA via their website of such problems and so far none have been reported.

The focus now turns to the full scale registration of chemicals and preparations, with deadlines depending on the quantities of the substance involved and their toxicity. The staggered deadlines range from November 2010 to May 2018, with the first being for substances produced or imported in quantities equal to or greater than 1,000 tonnes/year; carcinogens, mutagens and substances toxic to reproduction of at least one tonne/year and substances classified as very toxic to aquatic organisms at and above 100 tonnes/year.

But what does the cosmetics industry think about how REACH has been rolling out thus far?

Paul Crawford, head of regulatory and environmental services for the UK’s Cosmetic Toiletry & Perfumery Association (CTPA) said he hoped that regulatory authorities were tough on enforcement to ensure that companies following the rules and buying REACH compliant products and ingredients were not undercut. He was speaking following the delay of an American chemical shipment by Belgian customs officials who demanded evidence of REACH pre-registration covering the cargo and also that its contents was REACH compliant generally.

The exporter was a client of logistics consultant BMT who warned: “In light of the incident, and the suggestion that similar issues are arising at a number of ports in the EU, BMT is recommending that exporters ensure that an appropriate letter confirming REACH compliance accompanies all relevant shipments to the EU.” And while the CTPA will not be recommending that members ensure their deliveries carry REACH documentation, Crawford is happy with a firm line on compliance. “If there are companies in the EU who are getting round the legislation, that’s an enforcement issue. It means they would be trying to get away supplying products cheaply over reputable companies.” He believes REACH compliant companies would be only too ready “to shop any companies who are dodgy” in this way.

On pre-registration, the CTPA has received reports about the slowness of ECHA IT systems, but the process has been completed, and there have been no reports of any chemicals important to the cosmetics sector not being declared. Indeed, he says there has been a spate of “defensive pre-registrations” by cosmetics companies, noting their chemical supplies, in case their suppliers have not filed the paperwork. Given that this does not appear to have happened, he suggests that a lot of pre-registrations by cosmetics companies would not be followed through with full-scale registrations, unless of course they were importers, in which case they would have to be involved. As a result, he thinks it unlikely that cosmetics companies would be deeply involved in the process of forming ‘Substance Information Exchange Forums (SIEF), where businesses band together to share information and ease their REACH registrations. This would be dominated by chemical suppliers, he predicts. However, some cosmetics companies with test data might like to get involved – and this system could enable them to demand favours or even money from their rivals.

And it is precisely this kind of market cooperation that ECHA wants to see develop. It has asked all companies handling chemicals – the cosmetics and personal care sector included – to consider becoming a SIEF Formation Facilitator (SFF). This is essentially a coordinator of businesses handling similar chemicals able to help companies cooperate in making applications for registrations, which will require significantly more data than was needed for pre-registrations. The role would, said an ECHA note: “initiate and conduct discussions after pre-registration, and facilitate the exchange of information and data.”

To assist this process, a new version of the REACH-IT computer interface was installed on 5 January to support the submission of all types of dossiers and SIEF formation. There have been problems however. ECHA admitted: “The performance of the system turned out to be below expectations.” Another upgrade was required in late January and mid-February as a result, designed to improve data storage and accessibility.

In north America, the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CCTFA) said there had not been any evidence that exporters to Europe had pulled out from European markets because of the difficulties posed by REACH. However, Beta Montemayor, CCTFA manager for environmental science stresses that it is early days for any firm conclusions to be drawn. Certainly, “there was a lot of frustration with operation of pre-registration and the [REACH] IT system,” he says. There was also “a lot of concern about how to continue to do business in Europe: challenges around whether you have representation in Europe” to facilitate REACH administration. As in Europe, defensive pre-registrations were a “strategic play strongly considered by a lot of players in Canada”. Montemayor says his organisation was planning to canvass its membership in more depth as the registration process gathers pace.