Proposals have been put forward by the Health and Safety Executive to change core regulations which protect people and the environment from some of the most harmful chemicals ever developed, those with hazardous properties and those that are designed to kill certain pests or bacteria (biocides).
Fidra are concerned that these proposals are not fit for purpose, we highlight the lack of critical details in these proposals and the potential risks to our health and environment in our consultation response (link here). The proposals do not provide sufficient detail on how they will be operationalised or what safeguards will be put in place. This makes it nearly impossible to assess whether they will protect health and the environment or reduce costs. In fact we fear the proposals risk creating a slow, burdensome, and unclear regulatory environment that could delay decisions on harmful chemicals and undermine vital protections.
Why we need to get chemical controls right
Classification is the first step in managing hazardous chemicals and the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures regulation – GB CLP, helps protect us from harmful chemicals, forming the basis of other regulations and control measures. We need to get Biocidal Product Regulation (GB BPR) in order because biocides are not only harmful to the organisms they are meant to control but can pose risks to people and the environment. Recent James Hutton Institute research found biocides in UK sewage sludge applied to land present a significant risk to soil health. The UK has made an international commitment to reduce the overall risk from highly hazardous chemicals by at least half by 2030 and to address chemicals in the Environmental Improvement Plan. Fidra are keen to see reforms that reduce risk to health and prevent pollution but the current proposal may not deliver this.
A ‘Pick and Mix’ Approach to Global Standards
Since our EU Exit, the UK has struggled to regulate chemicals (link to divergence table). When we left, we copied over the regulation but not the capacity, or the data. Rather than seek to draw on the gold standard EU regulation that is most similar to our own, the proposed reforms suggest adopting a ‘pick and mix’ strategy – with GB chemical regulation drawing on decisions made by multiple countries with different standards. This is risky and raises significant concerns around transparency and accountability. It also introduces complexity and uncertainty. Such an approach would require the UK regulator to track, assess, and respond to changes across multiple jurisdictions, each with its own data systems and legal structures. This model threatens to erode public trust and regulatory certainty, all while stretching the HSE’s already limited resources.
For example, the proposals include giving HSE delegated powers to approve biocides for use on the UK market because another country has accepted it. But the proposals remove checks and balances, like regular approval renewals that take into account the latest science. The public does not want harmful products that have been banned in the EU to appear on market here in the UK, just because they were once approved in the US.
Costs and Efficiency Claims Without Clear Evidence
The proposals claim to increase efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Yet no clear evidence has been presented to support these claims. The lack of processes outlined and unclear regulatory resource requirements results in an unclear business case. The added complexity of assessing multiple decisions from around the world may well result in increased costs, longer timeframes, and higher regulatory fees – with businesses and consumers footing the bill.
Trade and the UK Internal Market
As a Scotland-based organisation, we are particularly concerned about the impact on internal UK markets and devolved policy. Diverging from the EU on chemical regulation – especially when EU alignment remains key for devolved governments – will exacerbate regulatory fragmentation within the UK, disrupt Northern Ireland trade, and create unnecessary barriers with our largest trading partner: the European Union. Businesses do not want unnecessary complexity and uncertainty and Britain cannot afford to lose out trade.
A Better Way Forward: Harmonising with EU chemical regulations
Chemical regulation is fundamentally about protecting people and the environment. GB chemical regulation is based on the EU’s which is widely regarded as the global gold standard. Moving further away from this approach weakens protections and risks poor decision-making, particularly if the UK begins relying on jurisdictions with weaker standards or less transparency. Instead to protect both human health and the environment we should seek to further harmonise GB chemical regulations with the EU. This will provide certainty alongside robust health and environmental protections. Chemicals and their regulation impact all our lives and environment that’s why we urge the HSE and Ministers to rethink the current proposals.