At the beginning of April 2008, the Environment Committee of the European Parliament voted on the proposed Regulation for the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) of substances and mixtures. The regulation will implement at the EU level the so-called Globally Harmonised System (GHS) for classification and labelling of chemical substances and mixtures, developed in a UN-context.

In the run-up to the vote, the International Chemical Secretariat (Chemsec) advocated an introduction of PBT-labelling and the re-introduction of Category 5, for acute oral toxicity in the proposal.

PBT labelling would ensure that the high priority PBT-substances, i.e. chemicals that are persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic, would be labelled in a consistent and adequate manner.

Further, category 5 is intended to protect the most vulnerable groups, such as children. Category 5 covers a range of household products, such as window cleaners and hard surface cleaners, that can potentially cause harm if swallowed.

The ChemSec position was supported by a number of deputies from across the political divide, resulting in ambitious amendments tabled by MEPs in e.g. the conservative, the liberal, the socialist and the green groups.

However, the Environment Committee rejected the inclusion of PBT-labelling in the CLP regulation. The deputies also rejected amendments to include a category 5 for acute oral toxicity in the EU implementation of the UN developed GHS-system.

While giving PBTs (i.e. chemical substances and mixtures that are persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic) the highest priority in REACH, PBT-labelling was rejected on the grounds that most of these will probably be labelled in the system proposed by the European Commission. Some will e.g. get the signal word Danger, while others will have the word Warning. The foreseen labelling will thus in many cases be indicating a less severe hazard. Hereby no uniform and harmonised labelling at the highest, adequate level of danger is foreseen for PBTs.

"In general, the European Union has taken the lead internationally in terms of Environmental protection and chemicals regulation," says Nardono Nimpuno, senior policy advisor at the International Chemical Secretariat. "In these instances more often than not it is the European Parliament Environment Committee that has paved the way for the other institutions. However now, we are in this case in the unusual, and unfortunate, situation where the Environment Committee opts for the lowest common denominator, with the main driving force being an early deal rather than a convincing result."