Beating cancer cannot be achieved without strengthening our chemicals law

Cancer is the first cause of death in many EU countries, and it can be caused also by exposure to many types of chemicals. For this reason, there is a need to strengthen the EU chemicals regulation while ensuring the competitiveness of the chemicals industry, write  Véronique Trillet-Lenoir and Martin Hojsík.

Véronique Trillet-Lenoir is a French MEP who was the rapporteur for the Special Committee on Beating Cancer in the European Parliament. Martin Hojsík is a Slovak MEP who is the official contact point for the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in Parliament. They are both sitting with the centrist Renew Europe political group.

While the war is raging at the EU borders, we must not forget about the enemies we have at home. One of them is cancer, and we need to use all the instruments in order to beat it.

It, therefore, comes at odds that a political group that says to have the fight against cancer as a priority, tries to kill an important tool to fight it – the revision of the main European chemical law (“REACH 2.0”). 

Cancer is the first cause of death in many EU countries and it is expected that 40% of EU citizens will face it during their lives. However, almost one in two cases of cancer can be prevented.

That is why prevention was one of the main pillars of the European Parliament’s report on strengthening Europe in the fight against cancer.

To improve it, the Parliament called for a strengthening of REACH and a swift implementation of the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability.

After all, exposure to many types of chemicals such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) has been linked to cancer, not only carcinogens.

Exposure to these chemicals is estimated to cost the Member States between €157 and 270 billion in terms of health care expenses and lost earning potential – every year.

The support of this Parliament’s report was overwhelming, with over 80% of members voting in favour. It was a cross-party success and the Renew group is proud to have led this together with all political groups, including the EPP who placed the Beating Cancer plan as a European priority.

Now we see EPP placing advertising calling for a regulatory moratorium singling out for example REACH, under the disguise of easing the burden on businesses. Manfred Weber, German president of EPP has personally led this call. Moreover, Commission led by another German EPP nominee is said to be happy to do as told, specifically in the case of REACH.

This would be a grave mistake, just as it was a grave mistake to buy into the position of the EPP-led German government defending diesel engines at the expense of the transition to electric cars in the past. 

The price we would pay would be the loss of competitiveness and innovation in the European chemical industry.

One of the key objectives of REACH 2.0 is to steer the transition of chemicals towards safe and sustainable. A key precondition for a circular economy.

We see China investing massively into green technologies and R&D. As a result of the German push for diesel we are now playing a catch-up game with the Chinese battery industry and need to spend public money to do so. We cannot afford to do the same with the chemical industry. 

Another loss would be the innovative SMEs developing safe chemicals and other functional alternatives to hazardous ones.

Already now, we see many of the clean-tech companies leaving Europe for better pastures in the US and elsewhere. We are losing competitiveness because we do not make the legislation fit for purpose. 

But what about the war and energy crisis, you might say? Both of them are additional reasons to act and move forward with REACH 2.0.

We are even late with it, as it would have been better to have it already in place. Safe and sustainable chemistry is about tackling our dependency on fossil fuels too, including the Russian ones. 

Using the war as an excuse is also a completely wrong understanding of how the legislative process in the EU works. Or populism. The choice is yours.

Commission publishing legislative proposal next year would not mean changes in legislation next year, nor change of rules for companies. It would take at least two years for such complex legislation to get through the co-decision process.

Then comes the 18 months from publishing in the official journal until entry into force. That brings us to mid-2026 when the REACH 2.0 would enter into force. Using the current war now looks a bit different, doesn’t it?

Safe and sustainable chemicals are a key component of our future. They are key to protecting our health from cancer and delivering on the climate, circular economy and biodiversity objectives.

A REACH 2.0 that is fit for purpose will also ensure that our chemical industry will stay innovative and competitive and see the rise of new SMEs. One wonders why the EPP is opposing it when they claim to subscribe to these objectives.