BRITAIN is pressing for the European Commission to draw up legislation clamping down on the many chemicals still in use that can damage both human health and the environment. Michael Meacher, the environment minister, tells me the government is concerned that there are still so many chemicals for which even basic health and environmental data is unavailable.
Early last year, the Commission issued a White Paper proposing a future European Union policy on chemicals. It suggested a single system for existing and new chemicals requiring industries to provide information by specified deadlines to register the various chemicals they produce.
The plan was to evaluate the information and then ban those chemicals that raised the most concern, but also to decide where certain exemptions might be justified. Unacceptably risky chemicals should be phased out pronto.
Advertisement
Ministers agreed that persistent chemicals that accumulate in the bodies of humans and wildlife should go on a list of highest concern and subsequently be subject to the most stringent controls. Hormone disruptorswill be targeted as soon as identification tests are available.
In all cases, careful consideration must be given to the innovation and competitiveness of chemical industries in Europe. But I get the impression that ministers are determined that European legislation should be strong enough to ensure unacceptably risky chemicals are replaced with safer substances.
SECRECY plagues more than just the chemicals industry. Many years ago I visited the National Institute for Medical Research in Mill Hill, London, when the great Peter Medawar was director. He showed me around and over lunch took the opportunity to tell me of his bitter resentment at the excessive secrecy pervading British science. Now Medawar鈥檚 son Charles, who works with the London-based consumer watchdog Social Audit, is continuing that argument (快猫短视频, 16 March, p 14).
In particular, Medawar Jr identifies the infamous Section 118 of the Health and Medicines Act 1988. This makes it an offence for drug regulators to disclose to a third party any company information, such as case studies in drug trials and evidence given in confidence. But, as the article makes clear, Britain is now considering 鈥渄isclosure laws鈥� that are likely to compel companies to publish more information on their products, especially that relating to safety.
I asked Lord Hunt, the junior health minister, if Medawar is right and if he was happy with Section 118 of the act. Hunt replied that he is well aware that the section is widely criticised for encouraging excessive secrecy. However, the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) publishes much information about medicines. And as part of the preparations for implementing the Freedom of Information Act, due to come into effect in January 2005, Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor, is reviewing all statutory bars to disclosure of information.
Clearly, much greater transparency is needed on both chemicals and drugs research. For a start, the MCA should be able to insist that all safety information is published, unless there are very special grounds for granting an exemption.
