REACH, Expensive, Unneccesary and On its Way
This week, the proposed system of chemical regulation is to be discussed in the European Parliament.
Reach is a great example of the kind of world that the greens want to create for us.
Producers and importers of chemicals, not authorities as is currently the case, will need to show that substances are safe before they can be placed on the market (reversal of burden of proof).
All chemicals will have to be proven to be safe. An impossible standard that will stop the production of many chemicals that have important contributions to our lives. It also means the testing of chemicals that have been used for decades.
I know the sociology graduates that populate the ranks of the parasite sector know nothing about industry, but they rely just as much on those horrible dirty industrial sectors as all the rest of us.
Regulation should always be based on sensible cost / benefit analysis, not utopian ideals. The fact that the EU always plumps for the latter is one of the biggest arguments against the EU being allowed to regualte anything.
3 comments:
One of the good things about REACH is that it will harmonise national rules on the evaluation and authorisation of chemical products. That is good for the single market and for industry. Member States will no longer be able to block access to their national markets by creating bogus environmental-protection legislation. Industry will have to spend less time researching the differing national legislation of different Member States.
Yet another benefit is that REACH is not only improving on current EU legislation, but it is also replacing 17 different pieces of already existing Community legislation. So, REACH is a way to rationalise Community law.
So, what's the problem?
If you think REACH is a great victory for the Greens, think again. The German chemical industry has had REACH sewn up for over a year now. The three main German political blocks have pulled out all the stops and used their connections to get a very industry-friendly REACH.
and I have just convinced my new girlfriend "it is safe to swallow"
.
Philip Porter
You show yet again the EU is "big-business friendly" rather than business friendly. The false corporatist belief that bigger = better is not only bad for consumers, it's bad for employees and economic growth.
The best thing governments can do for economic growth is to get out of the way.
The best way to ensure standards is to create a reasonable (voluntary) standard + brand mark and see if manufacturers AND consumers accept the extra costs.
The Euro currency disaster (have a look at Irish debt as a %age of GDP) shows that one size allways fits no-one. The same happens with EU "standards" that have no bearing on reality.
Post a Comment