The term ‘essential use’ is associated with managing the uses of harmful chemicals. In a nutshell, uses that are critical to the functioning of society are considered to be ‘essential’ meaning the chemical can continue to be used. Deciding upon whether a use of a harmful chemical is ‘essential’, or not, is challenging since there is no agreed legal definition of a harmful substance and any resulting decision to not allow specific use(s) might have unintentional or even detrimental impacts for society.

‘Essential use’ is considered by some stakeholders to be a potential solution for streamlining decision‑making and prioritising critical uses of large families of similar chemicals with human health and / or environmental concerns. A conundrum exists however, in that it can be unfeasible to assess a large family of similar chemicals individually, yet it is unscientific to assume they all have the same risk profile (in the case of the PFAS ‘family’, this is tens of thousands of substances).

Some aspects of the ‘essential use’ concept are already incorporated within REACH legislation. An authorisation, for a use of a Substance of Very High Concern (SVHC), is an ‘essential use’ – this is when viable alternatives are unavailable and the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk.

Whilst originally implemented under the Montreal Protocol for controlling ozone depleting substances, its application to the far broader and more complex landscape of modern chemicals legislation must not only be workable, but also scientifically robust, as well as avoiding unintended impacts on society, innovation and supply chains. Should government policy makers seek to formally implement the ‘essential use’ concept in the UK, this will require careful evaluation and close engagement with stakeholders; a way forward is outlined.

 

ACTIONS:

  • Define agreed scientific criteria for a harmful chemical by working in partnership with stakeholders.
  • Identify sub-groups of chemical substances, based on structural similarities or evidence of similar persistence or hazards that would allow data gaps to be targeted and closed more quickly. This could provide more flexibility since ‘essential use’ assessments of the chemicals within sub-groups could allow certain chemicals to still be used after scrutiny.
  • Create an official decision-making expert panel to prioritise and serve as a focal point for industry sectors to review the most harmful and SVHC chemicals that may need to be retained for critical functions / uses.
  • Scrutinise harmful chemicals within these identified sub-groups to determine if they can still be used by carrying out an ‘essential use’ assessment.
  • Build flexibility into the process to account for unforeseen circumstances, further assessment and potential approval by the decision panel, or via permit derogation e.g. a ‘non-essential’ chemical may become ‘essential’ in an emergency or have a higher priority in the future in terms of it being needed for innovation such as technological advances.

For further information see our Position statement.

 

Topics