House of Commons

Environmental Audit Committee

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

Twentieth Report of Session 2017–19

Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 10 July 2019

HC 1805Published on 16 July 2019

by authority of the House of Commons

Environmental Audit CommitteeThe Environmental Audit Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider to what extent the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development; to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by Her Majesty’s Ministers; and to report thereon to the House.

Current membership

Mary Creagh MP (Labour, Wakefield) (Chair)

Dr Thérèse Coffey MP (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Geraint Davies MP (Labour (Co-op), Swansea West)

Mr Philip Dunne MP (Conservative, Ludlow)

Zac Goldsmith MP (Conservative, Richmond Park)

Mr Robert Goodwill MP (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

James Gray MP (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Ruth Jones MP (Labour, Newport West)

Caroline Lucas MP (Green Party, Brighton, Pavilion)

Kerry McCarthy MP (Labour, Bristol East)

Anna McMorrin MP (Labour, Cardiff North)

John McNally MP (Scottish National Party, Falkirk)

Dr Matthew Offord MP (Conservative, Hendon)

Dr Dan Poulter MP (Conservative, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Alex Sobel MP (Labour (Co-op), Leeds North West)

Derek Thomas MP (Conservative, St Ives)

Powers

The constitution and powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152A. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2019. This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/copyright.

Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/eacom and in print by Order of the House.

Evidence relating to this report is published on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Lloyd Owen (Clerk), Leoni Kurt (Second Clerk), Ruth Cahir (Committee Specialist), Laura Grant (Committee Specialist), Laura Scott (Committee Specialist), Helen Muller (Committee Researcher), Jonathan Wright (Senior Committee Assistant), Baris Tufekci (Committee Assistant), Anne Peacock (Media Officer) and Simon Horswell (Media Officer).

SContacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Environmental Audit Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 8890; the Committee’s email address is eacom@parliament.uk.

You can follow the Committee on Twitter using @CommonsEAC.

1 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

ContentsSummary 3

1 Introduction 5

Chemicals in society 5

Production of chemicals 5

Chemicals of concern 6

Toxicity 9

Risk management 9

Previous inquiries 10

Our inquiry 10

2 Environment and human health impact of chemicals 11

Environment 11

International chemicals management 11

Chemicals in the UK environment 12

Attitudes to chemicals 15

Human health 16

Body burden of chemicals 17

Biomonitoring 18

Plastic packaging 20

3 Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988 23

Flame retardants 23

Fire deaths 24

1988 Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 27

2014 BIS consultation 31

2016 BEIS consultation 32

Industry views 33

Whistle-blower allegations 36

4 Environmental contamination around the Grenfell Tower 40

Environmental contamination testing 40

Response to findings of environmental contamination 42

Public Health England response 43

Toxicity of smoke 45

Exposure of firefighters 46

5 Product safety 48

Product testing 48

Products sold online 49

Resources for chemical testing 49

Product labelling 52

Innovations for consumers 54

Product safety after the UK leaves the EU 55

RAPEX 55

6 Future UK chemicals policy 57

European Union 57

Strategy for a non-toxic environment 58

Framework on endocrine disruptors 58

Forthcoming Chemicals Strategy 59

Chemicals regulation in the event of EU exit 61

Stakeholder engagement 63

Acknowledgments 66

Conclusions and recommendations 67

Annex 1: Glossary 74

Annex 2: Survey results 76

Formal minutes 80

Witnesses 81

Published written evidence 82

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 84

3 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

SummaryChemicals are pervasive in modern society and contribute to improved health and quality of life globally. However, current regulation does not account for the cocktail of chemicals we are exposed to. Hazardous chemicals and other pollutants are now ‘ubiquitous in humans and the environment.’1 Without a rapid transition to a more circular economy for chemicals, it will not be possible to implement the ambitions set out in the 25 Year Environment Plan or Resources and Waste Strategy. We call on the Government to use the forthcoming Chemicals Strategy to form the basis of a non-toxic environment in the UK. This should set out a clear, ambitious vision for the type of chemical environment we hope to live in. We need to better understand which chemicals we are exposed to in greatest measure and what the risk from that exposure is. To do this, a long-term, UK wide, human and wildlife biomonitoring programme should be established. The Chemicals Strategy should include objectives and priority areas for monitoring. It should also consider the mixtures of chemicals we are exposed to and lay out a plan for the remediation of harmful regulated substances in the environment.

The 1988 Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations have been under review for ten years with no reforms enacted. During this time, some of the most commonly used flame retardants have been classed as persistent organic pollutants and substances of very high concern. Inaction has allowed unnecessary and potentially toxic chemicals to continue to enter the public’s homes. Our Regulations should be brought in line with the rest of the world and the Government should develop a new flammability standard without further delay. Children’s products should be immediately removed from scope of the Regulations. Labels should clearly state if a furniture product has been treated with chemical flame retardants. It is clear that the Regulations are contested and there is no consensus; however, it is unacceptable a government department can take nearly three years to respond to a public consultation. The Minister must publish the responses before a new Prime Minister takes office on 24 July. Failure to do so will add to the view that the process is being deliberately delayed.

We are troubled by the lack of urgency in response to findings of environmental contamination from chemicals around the Grenfell Tower site. Residents should be reassured that the presence of these chemicals is not harmful to their health and homes. We support calls for full health biomonitoring for residents, including specific monitoring for the effects of exposure to fire effluents. We also recommend that any local residents who have concerns about dusts or residues within their homes be offered the opportunity to have them tested for environmental contamination. Environmental contamination testing for chemicals should be carried out as standard in the immediate aftermath of major disasters.

Chemicals are routinely used in consumer products where their presence is not indicated on the product label. Consumers have the right to know what chemicals are used in the products they purchase. The current budget for product safety compliance does not reflect the volume of products on the market and is failing to protect UK consumers. The Government should increase resources for product safety compliance by 10 percent a year in the upcoming spending review. Product labelling should be reformed to

1 UN Environment Programme, Global Chemicals Outlook II: From legacies to innovative solutions (2019), p viii.

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 4

ensure consumers are aware of which groups of chemicals have been used. This should include domestic pictograms to indicate if a substance meets the criteria for a substance of very high concern. A full list of chemical ingredients should be made available on the product website and direction offered to independent, scientific advice. Public Health Bodies should be given responsibility for monitoring, researching the impact of chemicals on public health, and recommending restrictions and other controls on groups of problematic chemicals. They should be given adequate funding and staffing for research and policy development.

5 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

1 Introduction

Chemicals in society

1. Chemicals are pervasive in modern society and have contributed to global improvements in human health, food security, productivity and quality of life. Production and consumption of chemicals are rising as the market for chemical-intensive products such as computers, furniture and personal care products grows.2 There is growing evidence that some chemicals cause products and wastes with hazardous properties which harm human health and the environment.3 According to the UN’s Global Chemicals Outlook, hazardous chemicals and other pollutants are now ‘ubiquitous in humans and the environment.’4 CHEM Trust contends that ‘the unpleasant reality [is] that we are constantly exposed to a cocktail of chemicals, something which is still largely ignored by chemical safety laws.’5

Production of chemicals

2. Chemical production globally has increased fiftyfold since 1950 and is forecast to treble in volume by 2050.6 The Lancet Commission estimates that over 140,000 new chemicals and pesticides have been synthesised since 1950. 5,000 chemicals produced in the greatest volume have become widely dispersed in the environment and account for almost all human exposure.7 Per capita consumption of chemicals is driven by economic growth in chemical intensive industries such as construction, agriculture, electronics, cosmetics, mining and textiles.8 Emerging economies are experiencing rapid growth in both production and consumption of chemicals.9 This increase in production means more chemicals in products, which means increased human, animal and environmental exposure.10

3. Global chemical sales were valued at €3.4 trillion in 2017 with China, the EU and US the largest producers.11 The UK is the seventh largest chemicals producer in the EU 28. The industry contributes £18 billion to the UK economy each year.12 The European Commission estimates there are over 100,000 chemicals on the EU market, only a small proportion of which have been evaluated for their impact on human health and the environment.13 Eurostat, the EU statistical office, estimates that the EU produced 81 million tonnes of chemicals hazardous to the environment and 219 million tonnes

2 UN Environment Programme, Global Chemicals Outlook II: From legacies to innovative solutions (2019), p 4.3 UN Environment Programme, Global Chemicals Outlook II: From legacies to innovative solutions (2019), p 5.4 UN Environment Programme, Global Chemicals Outlook II: From legacies to innovative solutions (2019), p viii.5 CHEM Trust, No Brainer – The impact of chemicals on children’s brain development: a cause for concern and a

need for action (March 2017), p 2.6 Q67 The Lancet, The Lancet Commission on pollution and health (2017), p 462.8 Dr Olwenn Martin (TCS0030), pp 4–5.9 UN Environment Programme, Global Chemicals Outlook II: From legacies to innovative solutions (2019), p viii.10 European Commission, Study for the strategy for a non-toxic environment of the 7th Environment Action

Programme (2017), p 10.11 CEFIC, Facts & Figures of the European chemical industry (2018), pp 6–7.12 CEFIC, Facts & Figures of the European chemical industry (2018), p. 11; Chemical Industries Association (TCS0014),

p 1.13 European Commission, Study for the strategy for a non-toxic environment of the 7th Environment Action

Programme (2017), p 10.

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 6

of chemicals hazardous to human health in 2017.14 Only 70 unique substances, and some related groups, are subject to restrictions under the EU’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals Regulation (REACH).15

Chemicals of concern

4. Our inquiry and this report are focused on chemicals most commonly found in consumer products and due to limitations of time and space, we were not able to focus on groups such as metals, pharmaceuticals, pesticides and nanomaterials in depth.

Key terms

Substance of very high concern (SVHC): A substance is classed as an SVHC under Article 57 of REACH if it meets the criteria for classification as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction, is considered persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic or very persistent and very bio-accumulative, or causes an equivalent level of concern.16

Combined exposure: Exposure to multiple chemicals via one or several sources and routes.17

Regrettable substitution: The replacement of hazardous substances with structurally similar substances which exhibit similar hazardous properties.18

5. Substances of very high concern (SVHCs) are of particular interest to us. These are chemicals which are defined as having hazardous properties under Article 57 of REACH. To be considered a SVHC, a substance must meet the scientific criteria for classification as carcinogenic (cancer causing), mutagenic (having the ability to change genetic material) or toxic for reproduction, be considered persistent, bio-accumulative (accumulating in the body of animals and humans) and toxic or very persistent and very bio-accumulative or cause an equivalent level of concern.19 Once a substance is classified as of very high concern, it is added to REACH’s Candidate List. This places additional obligations on suppliers, including supplying safety information and informing the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), if the substance is produced in quantities above the threshold of one tonne per producer/importer per year.20 Continued use of a substance of very high concern may be permitted if applicants can demonstrate that the substance is used safely or if it can be shown that there are no available alternatives.21

REACH

Under REACH any substance manufactured in or imported to the EU in quantities above one tonne per year must be registered with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). The information requirements to assess the potential hazard and risk of a

14 Eurostat, Chemicals production and consumption statistics (December 2018).15 ECHA, Substances restricted under REACH [accessed 18 June 2019].16 ECHA, Substances of very high concern identification [accessed 4 March 2019].17 European Commission, Something from nothing? Ensuring the safety of chemical mixtures (May 2018), p 2.18 European Commission, Study for the strategy for a non-toxic environment of the 7th Environment Action

Programme (2017), p 42.19 ECHA, Substances of very high concern identification [accessed 4 March 2019].20 ECHA, Substances of very high concern identification [accessed 4 March 2019].21 ChemSec, Lost at SEA* (March 2019), p 3.

7 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

substance are determined by the quantity of the substance. Registered substances can be added to the List of the Community Rolling Action Plan (CoRAP) for substance evaluation by ECHA or an EU member state. Substances are chosen based on a hazard and risk criteria defined by ECHA. Once listed, an individual substance is evaluated by member state(s) to determine if its use poses a risk to human health or the environment. If the evaluation concludes a substance is of concern, risk management measures are proposed including harmonised classification and labelling, identifying the substance as a substance of very high concern (SVHC), restricting the substance or proposing EU-wide occupational exposure limits, national measures or voluntary industry actions (outside of the scope of REACH).22

6. The EU has also identified endocrine disrupting chemicals as an area of concern. They are ‘substances that alter function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently cause adverse health effects in an intact organism or its progeny, or (sub)populations.’23 They are structurally similar to hormones. This enables them to act like naturally occurring hormones or alter the body’s ability to synthesise, release or eliminate hormones.24 They are mostly synthetic and are found in pesticides, metals, additives or as contaminants in food and cosmetics. Humans and wildlife are exposed to them through food, dust, water, inhalation or through skin contact.25 Thresholds of exposure are likely to exist for endocrine disrupting chemicals; however they may be very low for individual chemicals and depend on when the exposure occurs.26 In addition to endocrine disrupting chemicals, groups of chemicals which have been linked to ‘regrettable substitution’ in consumer products will also be considered including flame retardants, per-fluorinated chemicals and bisphenols. Regrettable substitution occurs when a hazardous substance is replaced with a structurally similar substance which exhibits similar hazardous properties.27 We heard evidence that the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) is an example of this.

We identified that there were harmful health consequences of being exposed to bisphenol A sufficient to warrant a reduction in the tolerable daily limit that you are allowed to be exposed to. Lots of companies switched from bisphenol A to a highly related compound called bisphenol S to satisfy that this is a bisphenol A-free item, but bisphenol S has very similar toxicological properties to bisphenol A.28

CHEM Trust have argued that groups of chemicals should be regulated and controlled together, rather than regulating individual substances on a case-by-case basis. It is the regulation of single chemical substances that leads to regrettable substitution.29

22 UN Environment Programme, Overview Report III: Existing national, regional, and global regulatory frameworks addressing Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) (July 2017), p 15.

23 ECHA, Endocrine disruptor expert group [accessed 7 March 2019].24 OECD, OECD work on endocrine disrupting chemicals (March 2018), p 7.25 ECHA, Endocrine disruptors and our health [accessed 7 March 2019].26 Munn, S. and Goumenou, M., Thresholds for endocrine disrupters and related uncertainties, Report of the

Endocrine Disrupters Expert Advisory Group (2013), p 6.27 European Commission, Study for the strategy for a non-toxic environment of the 7th Environment Action

Programme (2017), p 42.28 Q2529 CHEM Trust (TCS0012), p 1.

Toxic C

hem

icals in Everyd

ay Life 8A

table of some of the groups of chem

icals and their properties to be considered in this report is set out below

:Sample of groups of chemicals of concern to human health and the environment

Chemical Group Uses Possible health effects Products

Bisphenols (BPA, BPF, BPS) A main component in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics, epoxies, epoxy resin.

Disrupts the reproductive and hormone systems, increases the risk of cancer.

Food can linings, plastic, electronic toys, paper receipts.

Flame retardants (brominated, organophosphate, chlorinated)

Fire retardant. Persistent, bio-accumulative, toxic; some kinds are also classified as carcinogenic, toxic, disrupting the reproductive system; some disrupt the hormone system.

Furniture, electronics, building materials.

Formaldehydes Bind pigments to the cloth. Fire retardant. Wrinkle resistance. Water repellence. Adhesive in wood products.

Irritates mucous membranes and skin, can cause hypersensitivity, carcinogenic (nasal pathway).

Toys, furniture, air fresheners.

Parabens Preservative. Estrogenic effects, disrupts the hormone system, sensitizing agent.

Shampoos, bath additives, lotions, creams, oils, sunscreens, toothpaste, baby wipes.

Perfluorinated chemicals including perfluoroalkylated substances (PFAs) (i.e. perfluorooctanoic sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA))

Water, grease and soil repellence. Carcinogenic, disrupts fertility. Waterproof clothing, non-stick pans, toys.

Persistent organic pollutants (PCBs, DDT, dioxins)

Flame retardants, surfactants. Cancer risk, reproductive disorders, neuro-behavioural impairment, endocrine disruption, genotoxicity and increased birth defects.

Banned under the Stockholm Convention but still widely dispersed in the environment including in recycled products.

Phthalates (DEHP, DBP, BBP)

Plasticiser, usually found in soft plastic, pellets for stuffing cuddly toys. Can also be used as a synthetic fragrance compound in scented toys.

Disrupts development and the hormone system, impairs fertility.

Plasticisers in PVC, furnishings, clothing and food packaging.

Source: Project NonHazCity [accessed 5 March 2019].

 

9 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

Toxicity

7. We received several submissions highlighting that the level of toxicity of a chemical is determined by the dose. Examples included oxygen which is harmful if normal concentrations are increased fivefold30 and botulinum, a highly poisonous naturally occurring substance, used in cosmetics (known as Botox) to treat muscle spasms.31 The Paracelsus Principle states, ‘what is there that is not poison? All things are poison and nothing is without poison. Solely the dose determines that a thing is not a poison.’32 Modern toxicity thresholds are determined by the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) and Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for chemicals and pesticides in food.33 The Chemical Industries Association noted that developments in technology are enabling the detection of chemicals in our bodies and the environment in ever smaller amounts.34 Approximately 2,000 new chemicals are placed on the market each year. Only a small proportion of chemicals have ever been tested for toxicity and there is a lack of knowledge about how they interact in mixtures. Evidence is emerging of a complex network of problems which vary depending on the chemicals, mixes, species and environment.35

Risk management

8. The Royal Society of Chemistry outlined five principles to manage the risks from chemicals in everyday life: the precautionary principle, risk and impact assessments, mutual recognition, innovation and citizens’ ‘right to know.’36 The Chemical Industries Association supports a risk-based approach for chemicals management. It said, ‘considering both hazard and risk of chemicals alongside the potential benefits they bring to society is the most effective means by which they should be regulated.’37 We heard evidence from government bodies including the Food Standards Agency and Office for Product Safety and Standards indicating they follow this approach.

9. Professor Michael Depledge of the University of Exeter told us that the regulatory environment for chemicals is ‘firefighting’. He asked us to consider ‘what kind of chemical environment are we willing to live in in the coming years’38 and suggested a ‘do no harm’ approach, mirroring the medical approach where ‘effort is put in to try to minimise that harm.’39 Dr Michael Warhurst of CHEM Trust noted that there is a delay between the use of a chemical and identifying problems. He called for a more proactive approach to assessing the likely toxicity of chemicals with similar structures.40

30 Q47531 Chemical Industries Association (TCS0014), p 2.32 Grandjean, P., Paracelsus Revisited: The Dose Concept in a Complex World, Basic & Clinical Pharmacology &

Toxicology, vol 119 (2016), p 1.33 Grandjean, P., Paracelsus Revisited: The Dose Concept in a Complex World, Basic & Clinical Pharmacology &

Toxicology, vol 119 (2016), p 1; Chemical Industries Association (TCS0014), p 2.34 Chemical Industries Association (TCS0014), p 2.35 Q636 Royal Society of Chemistry (TCS0034), pp 2–3.37 Chemical Industries Association (TCS0014), p 2.38 Q639 Q740 Qq131–133

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 10

Previous inquiries

10. The Committee held an inquiry into the future of chemicals regulation after the EU referendum in 2016–17. We heard from stakeholders including academics, environmental groups, business representatives and government agencies. The inquiry concluded that establishing a fully stand-alone system of chemicals regulation for the UK will be expensive for taxpayers and for industry and the Government should seek to remain involved in the ECHA’s registration process for chemicals as a minimum.41 The Government’s response was published in September 2017. The Committee followed up this inquiry with a one-off evidence session with stakeholders in December 2018 to consider further work required to prepare the chemicals industry if we leave the EU.

Our inquiry

11. We launched a call for evidence on the impact of toxic chemicals in everyday life in February 2019. The inquiry held four oral evidence sessions which heard from leading academics in ecotoxicology, product safety experts, retailers and industry representatives. In addition, the inquiry ran a survey about the public’s knowledge of chemicals in consumer products. It received 589 responses and a summary of responses is provided in Annex 2. The inquiry also held outreach events at IKEA Greenwich and Victoria Leeds to gather consumer views about chemicals in consumer products.

12. As our inquiry considered the presence of chemicals in consumer products, two specific issues emerged: the Government’s review of the 1988 Furniture and Furnishings Regulations and environmental contamination around the Grenfell Tower site. This has been reflected in the structure of this report. The environmental and human health effects of chemicals in consumer products will be considered in Chapter Two. Chapter Three and Four will be case studies of the use of flame-retardant chemicals in UK furniture and environmental contamination from chemicals around the Grenfell Tower site. Product safety and the future regulatory environment for chemicals in the UK is discussed in Chapters Five and Six.

41 Environmental Audit Committee, Eleventh Report of Session 2016–17, Future of Chemicals Regulation after the EU Referendum, HC 912, p 4.

11 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

2 Environment and human health impact of chemicals

Environment

13. There is a vast array of chemicals in the environment. These span historical contaminants such as metals and persistent chemical pollutants to substances for modern use such as pesticides, pharmaceuticals, nanomaterials and chemicals in consumer products.42 They are released directly or as by-products of industrial and manufacturing processes, energy generation, agriculture and pharmaceuticals.43 The persistence and fate of chemicals in the environment is controlled by natural processes and ecosystems are exposed to complex chemical mixtures.44 In 2013, the UN estimated that 27 percent of total global ecosystem loss was due to chemical pollution.45 The Lancet Commission estimated that 9 million premature deaths worldwide were attributable to pollution in 2015 and it determined that ‘chemical pollution is a great and growing global problem’.46 It has a cumulative effect where the whole food chain is impacted ‘because different chemicals will have different effects on different parts of the ecosystem.’47 UK Research and Innovation said it is not yet known what contribution chemicals make towards biodiversity loss and environmental degradation.48

14. Professor John Sumpter of Brunel University told us that it is not possible to know which chemicals we should be most concerned about. Using the example of Teflon, he said that as one damaging chemical is restricted, over 1,000 similar chemicals are patented, with many still in use.49 Chemicals in the environment are managed through international conventions and by the EU’s REACH regulation.

International chemicals management

15. The management of chemicals is included in Goals 3 and 12 of the Sustainable Development Goals. Target 3.9 aims to ‘substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals’ while target 12.4 aims to ‘achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle.’50 International oversight of chemicals is provided by the United Nations Environment Programme, the OECD’s chemical safety and biosafety division and the World Health Organisation’s International Programme on Chemical Safety. The UN administers the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management, a policy framework to achieve the safe management of chemicals throughout their life cycle51 and published its second global

42 Q543 Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (TCS0025), p 3.44 UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) (TCS0022), p 2.45 Wildlife & Countryside Link (TCS0024), p 3.46 The Lancet, The Lancet Commission on pollution and health (2017), p 462.47 Q248 UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) (TCS0022), p 2.49 Q450 UN Sustainable Development Goals, Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages; UN

Sustainable Development Goals, Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns [accessed 28 February 2019].

51 SAICM, SAICM Overview [accessed 11 March 2019].

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 12

chemicals outlook in early 2019.52 It has also implemented global treaties to control the use of hazardous chemicals including the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions (on the trade in hazardous waste and ending the production of persistent organic pollutants).53

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

16. The 2004 Stockholm Convention [hereafter ‘the Convention’] aims to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants (POPs). POPs are organic chemical substances that remain intact for a long time, become widely distributed in the environment through natural processes, accumulate in the fatty tissue of organisms and are toxic to humans and wildlife.54 Food is the primary route of exposure for humans. Professor Mumford explained that ‘probably 80% to 90% of our foodborne contact with POPs is through animal products—through dairy, meat, fish and oils.’55 POPs can be toxic to the liver, kidney and nervous, reproductive and immune systems and cancer-causing.56 The Convention requires signatories to prohibit or eliminate the production and use of POPs. They must also take measures to ensure wastes containing POPs are managed in an environmentally sound manner. 28 chemicals are restricted under the Convention with a further three under review.57 The UK ratified the Convention in April 2005 and the Government has a national implementation plan for its delivery. The 25 Year Environment Plan commits the Government to fulfilling its obligations under the Convention including the elimination of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by 2025 and increasing the amount of material containing POPs being destroyed or irreversibly transformed by 2030.58

17. POPs continue to be found in the environment and organisms despite the Convention. Reports suggest that levels of PCBs in Europe have stabilised rather than continuing to decline.59 Dr Kimberley Bennett of Abertay University said that there has not been a substantial reduction in the environmental risk from POPs to seals in the North Sea in 15 years. This indicated that ‘relying on a ban of production and use is not sufficient to eliminate POPs from the environment and from the food chain in a timely way.’60 Professor Tamara Galloway from the University of Exeter told us that regulation has contributed to a fall in the concentration of PCBs in seafood and focused remediation can be effective in reducing levels of PCBs below toxic levels.61

Chemicals in the UK environment

18. The Government’s approach to chemicals in the environment is set out in the 25 Year Environment Plan and the 2018 Resources and Waste Strategy. The 25 Year Environment Plan is focused on POPs and the UK’s obligations under the Stockholm Convention.62 It does not consider chemical pollution or exposure from chemicals in consumer products.63 The Resources and Waste Strategy sets out how the Government will approach sustainable 52 UN Environment Programme, Global Chemicals Outlook II: From legacies to innovative solutions (2019).53 Basel Convention; Rotterdam Convention; Stockholm Convention [accessed 19 June 2019].54 Stockholm Convention, What are POPs? [accessed 19 June 2019].55 Q15256 Persistent Chemical Pollutants, POSTnote 579, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, July 2018, p 2.57 Persistent Chemical Pollutants, POSTnote 579, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, July 2018, p 1.58 HM Government, 25 Year Environment Plan (2018), p 30.59 Plastics leading to reproductive problems for wildlife’, The Guardian, 27 February 2019.60 Dr Kimberley Bennett (TCS0026), p 3.61 Q562 HM Government, 25 Year Environment Plan (2018), p 30.63 CHEM Trust (TCS0012), p 6.

13 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

chemicals use as it moves towards a circular economy. It notes that ‘there are significant opportunities for resource efficiency savings in the chemicals sector.’64 Legacy chemicals in products were identified as a problem as they contaminate waste streams and pose a barrier to efficient recovery of resources. It cited Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and Eco-design as methods to address these issues.65 Wildlife and Countryside Link and CHEM Trust called on the Government to set targets for the reduction of chemicals in the environment.

The Government needs to set targets and strategies for the reduction into the environment from all sources of all substances of regulatory interest (e.g. all SVHC on ECHA’s candidate list, all substances in the REACH Restrictions process). They also need to address emerging chemicals of concern (persistent, mobile, endocrine disruptors etc) that are found in everyday products such as many “new” bisphenols.66

The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) is supporting research into the environmental risk from chemicals via its Emerging Risks of Chemicals in the Environment programme. This is expected to lead to a transformation in how chemical risk assessment is considered and moves towards an ecosystems approach.67

Extended Producer Responsibility

19. The Resources and Waste Strategy identified EPR as a method of reducing the contamination of waste streams by chemicals. The waste management of products containing harmful chemicals has a direct effect on the environment as toxic substances can be released into the air, water and soil. These toxins can leach from landfill, enter soil and water, travel long distances, accumulate in tissues of plants and animals, before entering human bodies. The management of plastic waste through incineration, gasification and pyrolysis can release toxic metals, dioxins, furans and acid gases. This can lead to direct or indirect exposure to toxic substances for workers and communities.68

20. In the Resources and Waste Strategy, the Government committed to an EPR scheme for bulky waste including mattresses, furniture and carpets by 2025.69 This is unlikely to be consulted on before 2020.70 Defra is also developing a strategy with local authorities and the waste industry to divert high risk items away from landfill.71 In evidence, Dr Thérèse Coffey, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, was unable to give detail on the EPR scheme for bulky waste as it is still in early stages; however she confirmed that the ‘polluter pays’ principle will form an element.72 She acknowledged that chemicals used in bulky waste pose a technical challenge for identification and safe removal. The Environment Agency is working with industry to find a solution to dispose safely of brominated flame retardants.73 Cement kiln co-incineration was proposed as one

64 HM Government, Our waste, our resources: a strategy for England (2018), p 46.65 HM Government, Our waste, our resources: a strategy for England (2018), p 46.66 CHEM Trust (TCS0012), p 7; Wildlife & Countryside Link (TCS0024), p 3.67 UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) (TCS0022), p 2.68 CIEL et al., Plastic & Health: The hidden costs of a plastic planet (February 2019), p 2.69 HM Government, Our waste, our resources: A strategy for England (2018), pp 38–9.70 Environmental Audit Committee, Eighteenth Special Report of Session 2017–19, Fixing fashion: clothing

consumption and sustainability: Government Response to the Committee’s Sixteenth Report, HC 2311, p 9.71 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (TCS0040), p 9.72 Qq518–51973 Qq500–501

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 14

solution.74 Minister Coffey agreed that mandating the use of environmentally friendly alternatives to flame retardants would be a good approach ‘if it fulfils the principle of what it is there to do, which is safety and also [reducing] the risk from chemicals.’75

21. The Furniture Industry Research Association (FIRA) confirmed that they, alongside the British Furniture Confederation and National Bed Federation, have had discussions with Defra regarding the disposal of products containing flame retardants.76 In evidence, retailers were broadly supportive of an EPR scheme; however IKEA stressed the need for a harmonised approach.77 Amazon added that it would like the administration of the programme to involve the entire supply chain, including recyclers.78 Kingfisher noted the need to ensure it is designed correctly so that the market responds and the Government can help to facilitate information about approved recyclers.79

22. In May, the Mail on Sunday reported that Amazon destroys unsold stock in France.80 Following the reports, the French Prime Minister’s office reported that more than €650 million worth of consumer products are thrown away each year and the government moved to ban the destruction of unsold or returned consumer products including clothes, electrical items and cosmetics. The ban will be introduced within four years.81 Amazon was questioned about the practice in the UK and denied it took place:

No. When I was talking about this earlier, I was talking about my knowledge of the UK’s work here, because I work in the UK office, is that we have a zero to landfill policy. I know that they are looking to try to continually improve that story everywhere across Europe. One of the challenges that we have in France is that donations are subject to VAT so there are fewer overall donation pathways as a result of that.82

23. It will not be possible to implement the ambitions of the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan and the Resources and Waste Strategy without a rapid transition to a more circular economy for chemicals. We call on the Government to set ambitious targets for the reduction of chemicals in the environment. The forthcoming Chemicals Strategy should form the basis for the UK to develop a non-toxic environment by setting out a clear, ambitious vision for the type of chemical environment we hope to live in. It should lay out a plan for remediation of regulated substances in the environment with binding targets.

24. We recommend that the Government works with the EU environment plan and REACH to mandate the phase out of chemicals harmful to the environment. This should include a ban on the use of substances of very high concern, including those under the threshold level, ‘regrettable substitutes’ and groups of chemicals whose properties mean

74 Q51175 Q50976 Q37177 Q31478 Q31579 Qq318–31980 How Amazon destroys millions of new items it can’t sell with everything from TVs to kitchen equipment, books

and nappies dumped in landfill sites, Mail on Sunday, 12 May 2019.81 France to ban destruction of unsold consumer products, The Guardian, 4 June 2019.82 Q325

15 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

they do not easily breakdown in the environment. The Government should introduce an EPR to enable the furniture industry to invest in technology to ensure the safe disposal of hazardous wastes containing harmful chemicals such as brominated flame retardants.

25. The landfill and incineration of consumer products containing chemicals causes harm to the environment, workers and communities. Reports from France suggest this is happening in huge volumes to unsold stock. We restate the recommendation in our Fixing Fashion report and call on the Government to ban the landfill and incineration of unused and unsold consumer goods.

Attitudes to chemicals

26. In 2017, a survey by the European Commission found that 90 percent of Europeans were worried about the environmental impact and 84 percent were worried about the health impacts of chemicals in everyday products. This indicated a higher level of public concern for chemicals than plastics.83 During this inquiry, we ran a similar survey to gauge the views of the UK public about chemicals in consumer products. The survey received 589 responses online and through outreach events at IKEA Greenwich and Victoria Leeds. There was a high level of awareness (79 percent) of potentially harmful chemicals in consumer products. The results mirrored the European Commission’s findings of overwhelming concern about the impact of chemicals in consumer products. 98 percent of respondents were somewhat or very concerned about the impact on the environment while 95 percent were somewhat or very concerned about the impact of their health. Beauty and laundry products, air fresheners, toys, clothing and shoes were of particular concern.84

27. We received written evidence of exposure to chemicals. Georgina Downs described the effects of her exposure to the organophosphate flame retardant, triaryl phosphate ester, via a faulty laptop.

It was deemed a relatively high level exposure considering that the breakdown product of the OP [organophosphate] was still found in my body fat almost 3 months later in blood and fat tests that were taken at a medical and scientific laboratory at the end of October 2009. The body fat tests also found raised levels of another flame retardant called polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs).

The extensive and subsequently diagnosed impacts on my eyes as a result of the exposure causing pain in the eyes, light sensitivity, acute problems with glare, dry eyes, significant disturbances in the field of vision (which is like looking through debris with how many black lines etc. there are), have been permanent ever since. Also, at the time and for a few weeks after I also had pinpoint pupils (a common feature of OP poisoning).85

83 European Commission, Special Eurobarometer 468 Report: Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment (2017), p 34.

84 Environmental Audit Committee, Survey results: Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life [accessed 28 June 2019].85 UK Pesticides Campaign (TCS0050), pp 3–4.

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 16

Tracy Logan detailed her exposure to formaldehyde:

Our toxic furniture installation occurred in April 2017. It involved built-in cabinets and wardrobes in our bedroom, which made our eyes sting for 10 days following installation. The furniture firm told us this was normal. Eleven days after installation, a BRE air quality investigator sampled the air in our bedroom. This showed our bedroom air to contain more than thirteen times the WHO’s safety limit for formaldehyde, over eighteen times the Building regulations for VOCs [volatile organic compounds] and four times over the WHO limit for styrene. Emissions were significantly higher inside a new wardrobe.86

Human health

28. The Lancet Commission concluded ‘the effects of chemical pollution on human health are poorly defined and its contribution to the global burden of disease is almost certainly underestimated.’87 It suggests that chemicals have the potential ‘to cause global epidemics of disease, disability and death.’88 This is linked to a lack of testing of chemicals for their safety and toxicity prior to be being placed on the market. Pre-market evaluation of new chemicals is a recent development and at present, is limited to a small number of high-income countries.89 The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimated the disease burden from chemicals as 1.6 million deaths and 45 million disability-adjusted-life-years in 2016.90 This was an increase on its 2012 estimates and it suggested it is likely to be an underestimate overall as data is only available for a small proportion of the chemicals to which people are regularly exposed.91 In the EU, the annual cost of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals alone is estimated at between €109 billion and €157 billion.92

29. Concentrations of chemicals identified in humans vary depending on the location. Higher levels of some flame retardants have been identified in developed countries while some pesticides are present in greater concentration in developing countries.93 Professor Depledge told us that research by the European Centre for Environment and Human Health also identified different socio-economic groups as a factor in the burden of chemicals.

… [we looked at] people from different socioeconomic groups within the NHANES study, let us just say from wealthy people to very poor people. We looked at the body burden of chemicals that they had and they were very different. Wealthy people tended to have more mercury, probably from the consumption of shellfish, shrimps and things like that, and more pesticides from the golf course, whereas poorer people had more chemicals, say, from

86 Tracey Logan (TCS0045), p 2.87 The Lancet, The Lancet Commission on pollution and health (2017), p 462.88 The Lancet, The Lancet Commission on pollution and health (2017), p 480.89 The Lancet, The Lancet Commission on pollution and health (2017), p 462.90 WHO, The Public Health Impacts of Chemicals: Knowns and Unknowns - Data addendum for 2016 (2018), p 1.91 WHO, Chemical Risk Assessment Network Newsletter (Spring 2019), p 2.92 Trasande, L. et al., Estimating burden and disease costs of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the

European Union, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, vol 100 (2015), p 1245.93 UN Environment Programme, Global Chemicals Outlook II: From legacies to innovative solutions (2019), p 27.

17 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

landfill sites and from air pollution. They end up with a different spectrum of diseases. We are only beginning to see how socioeconomic conditions interact with body burdens of environmental chemicals.94

30. Health conditions associated with exposure to harmful chemicals include developmental disorders, endocrine disruption, breathing difficulties, reproductive disorders, cancers and neurological disorders.95 Foetuses, children and pregnant women are most at risk.96 Baskut Tuncak, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and toxics, warned of children being born ‘pre-polluted.’97 Recent studies have discovered banned flame retardants in the umbilical cord blood of new-borns.98 Dr Michael Warhurst of CHEM Trust explained that ‘the most sensitive period is always development; it is always the foetus and the development of the brain.’99 Men and some occupations are also at risk in certain environments. Research by the University of Nottingham linked declining male fertility with concentrations of chemicals in the home.100 Firefighters are at greater risk from some carcinogenic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs) and flame retardants; cashiers from bisphenols used in till receipts.101 Research for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has shown higher instances of sinonasal cancer in furniture and textile industry workers exposed to formaldehyde and wood dust.102

Body burden of chemicals

31. Humans and animals are exposed to complex mixtures of chemicals from a variety of sources on a daily basis. This exposure can impact on human and environmental health, even if individual chemicals in a mixture are below their individual safety threshold levels. Moreover, chemicals do not act in a uniform way in mixtures and can have complex additive, synergistic or cancelling effects.103 Professor Depledge explained that as people are living longer, there is evidence that they are developing diseases earlier in old age.104

As we are now living longer, we are accumulating levels in our bodies that are much higher than ever before, so there is a much larger number of people with higher levels of these chemical mixtures than ever before and we do not know what the implications are of it.105

Professor Sumpter outlined that under current testing regimes, it is not possible to determine if there is a risk to human health from long-term, low-level chronic exposure.106

94 Q3995 Changing Markets Foundation, Testing for Toxics: How chemicals in European carpets are harming health and

hindering circular economy (October 2018), p 11.96 UN Environment Programme, Global Chemicals Outlook II: From legacies to innovative solutions (2019), p 30.97 Pure Earth, Pollution knows no borders (2019), p 34.98 UN Environment Programme, Global Chemicals Outlook II: From legacies to innovative solutions (2019), p 27.99 Q133100 School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Nottingham (TCS0038), pp 2–3.101 Fidra (TCS0019), p 4.102 HSE, The burden of occupation cancer in Great Britain (2012), p iii.103 Davies, S., Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2017: Health impacts of all pollution - what do we know?

(2017), p 52; Dr Kimberley Bennett (TCS0026), p 3.104 Q19105 Q19106 Q41

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 18

Biomonitoring

32. The Royal Society of Chemistry told us that with increasing data and awareness of the burden of chemicals, ‘we will seek as a society to know whether the chemicals observed in our biofluids (blood and urine) are presenting significant harm to the quality and longevity of life.’107 The EU’s Joint Research Centre is coordinating five research programmes: chemical mixtures in the environment (SOLUTIONS), human health (EuroMix, HBM4EU), endocrine disruption (EDC-MixRisk) and alternatives to animal testing (EUToxRisk). The purpose is to consider the links between mixtures and diseases and the interaction effects of chemicals.108 The UK government funds the annual Health Survey for England. This measures physical and mental health alongside wellbeing, social care and lifestyle behaviours of 8,000 adults and 2,000 children.109 UK Biobank, a registered charity and international health resource, has collected samples from 500,000 people aged between 40–69 including body scans and lifestyle questionnaires. These samples are used by researchers around the world investigating prevention, diagnosis and treatment of a range of serious illnesses. It receives funding from the Medical Research Council, Department of Health, Scottish and Welsh governments and other UK charities.110

HBM4EU (Human Biomonitoring for the EU)

The HBM4EU programme is a five-year, EU member state initiative funded through Horizon 2020 to coordinate and advance human biomonitoring in the EU. It runs until 2021. The project is intended to harmonize procedures for biomonitoring enabling the collection of comparable data on human internal exposure to chemicals and mixtures of chemicals. To achieve this, the project is developing indicators to ‘describe the exposure and body burden of chemical mixtures, with an emphasis on defining priority mixtures and identifying the drivers of mixture toxicity.’111 To date it has listed 18 priority substances including chemical mixtures, bisphenols, flame retardants, per-/poly-fluorinated compounds and phthalates.112

It has been suggested that the UK is only participating in this programme in a limited way and is not fully involved in collecting data.113

33. Biomarkers can provide ‘a biological measure of current or historic exposure to a pollutant.’114 They provide a broader perspective than measuring concentrations of a pollutant in an environment as lifestyle factors are also accounted for. Through blood and urine sampling, information about individual exposure can be assessed which can inform estimations of the population’s exposure. Countries such as the US and Germany have used these surveys to monitor chemical exposure over time.115 To date, the Health Survey for England has not been used to study the effects of pollution, including from

107 Royal Society of Chemistry (TCS0034), p 5.108 European Commission, Something from nothing? Ensuring the safety of chemical mixtures (May 2018), p 2.109 NHS Digital, Health Survey for England - Health, social care and lifestyles [accessed 20 June 2019].110 UK Biobank, About UK Biobank [accessed 21 June 2019].111 HBM4EU, Exposure and Health [accessed 15 March 2019].112 Chemical mixtures pose ‘underestimated’ risk to human health say scientists, Horizon Magazine, 15 May 2019;

HBM4EU, Substances [accessed 22 May 2019].113 Public Health England, UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum - HBM4EU Presentation (June 2019), pp 11–12.114 Davies, S., Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2017: Health impacts of all pollution - what do we know?

(2017), p 145.115 Davies, S., Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2017: Health impacts of all pollution - what do we know?

(2017), p 145.

19 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

chemicals. The Chief Medical Officer’s 2017 annual report noted that ‘the collection and storage of biological samples and health data mean that such studies using HSE data could be undertaken were funding to become available.’116 In a parliamentary debate on chemicals regulation after leaving the EU, Minister Coffey said the Government’s forthcoming Chemicals Strategy was intended to ‘support collaborative work on human biomonitoring.’117

34. We received evidence in favour of the UK establishing its own biomonitoring programme within the Chemicals Strategy.118 Breast Cancer UK said its understanding was that the UK could continue to participate in the HBM4EU project until its completion but may be unable to continue as part of any follow-on programme should we leave the EU without a deal. It suggested that the UK establish its own biomonitoring programme in such a scenario.119 Professor Sumpter described the potential benefits:

… It seems a rather dull and routine thing to be doing, and yet biomonitoring—and, I would also argue, wildlife monitoring—is really our eyes and ears. It gives us another angle to see to what degree our chemical exposure is changing, increasing or decreasing, and how that may or may not be associated with health. Without that monitoring exercise, for many of our aspirations such as those mentioned in the 25-year environment plan, we would have no idea whether we would be achieving them.120

Professor Sumpter outlined that it would not be possible to monitor every chemical, so choices would have to be made on what to monitor. He suggested that the establishment of a programme would incur significant costs and take time to produce information.121 Professor Tim Gant of Public Health England said similar national studies in other EU countries cost in the region of €1 million annually.122 On its benefit for decision making, Professor Andrew Johnson of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology cautioned that ‘it will not solve all the questions you wish to ask but it would be a vital part of the evidence you would need to come to those sorts of decisions.’123

35. Public Health England also supported the need for biomonitoring and further resource for the HBM4EU programme. Professor Gant said it would enable better understanding of ‘what exposures are within the population. Only with that information can you then start to calculate risk.’124 He proposed that this could be done via blood, hair, saliva and urine sampling.125 When questioned about the inclusion of a biomonitoring programme within the Chemicals Strategy, Minister Coffey said:

I have tried to outline that we are still at very early stages. Some of this will depend on the scenario that we have for [EU] exit, but biomonitoring is important to follow the trends and identify problematic substances. We

116 Davies, S., Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2017: Health impacts of all pollution - what do we know? (2017), p 145.

117 HC Deb, 1 February 2018,col 440WH [Westminster Hall].118 Q43119 Breast Cancer UK (TCS0018), p 6.120 Q44121 Q47122 Letter from Public Health England to EAC, 26 June 2019.123 Q45124 Q590125 Q593

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 20

are very much engaged with the EU programme, and it certainly has the opportunity to be a key part of the future Chemicals Strategy. I am not ruling it in, nor am I ruling it out.126

36. Without better understanding of the body burden of chemicals, it is difficult for authorities to know what the population is exposed to in greatest measure and what the risk from that exposure is. We recommend that the Government establish a UK wide human and wildlife biomonitoring programme. The objectives and priority monitoring areas for the programme should be set out in the Government’s forthcoming Chemicals Strategy. Such a programme will require careful design. We call on the Government to form an inter-disciplinary body of scientists and stakeholders to establish the best approach and use best practice from established programmes internationally. We support the Chief Medical Officer’s 2017 suggestion that the data collected by the Health Survey for England should be considered as a starting point for this programme. In recognition of the timeframe required to produce exposure information, the programme should be provided with long-term, ringfenced funding. The programme should be accompanied by a public information campaign so that people are aware of their chemical burden and how they can lower it.

Plastic packaging

37. The use of plastic packaging is increasing and it ‘is likely to substantially contribute to chemical exposures of the human population and the environment.’127 The chemicals in packaging can transfer to food, cosmetics and into the environment. The Food Packaging Forum led the establishment of the Database of Chemicals associated with Plastic Packaging. It identified 906 chemicals used in packaging and 3,377 substances that are possibly associated. Of these, 63 are human health hazards while 68 are environmental hazards according to ECHA classifications under the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) regulation. The EU considers 7 of the substances as persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic or very persistent, very bio-accumulative and a further 15 as endocrine disrupting chemicals. Chemicals are included in plastics as solvents, plasticisers, flame retardants and colorants.128 Wildlife and Countryside Link argued the Government should focus on prevention by phasing out plastics which are toxic to environmental health. They suggested that this could be done via the EPR scheme for plastic packaging with measures introduced to ‘strongly disincentivise and/or prohibit harmful plastics from being placed on the market.’129

38. Professor Galloway highlighted the difficulty in reducing the body burden from chemicals in plastics. She referenced an experiment by the University of Exeter to monitor exposure to bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical commonly found in plastics.

The students and their families designed their diets and then stayed on them for seven days, which was the time we thought would allow concentrations to drop. We took samples from the students before and afterwards and although all of them were hugely enthusiastic and did everything that they

126 Q578127 Groh, K.J. et al., Overview of known plastic packaging-associated chemicals and their hazards, Science of The

Total Environment, vol 651 (February 2019), p 3254.128 Groh, K.J. et al., Overview of known plastic packaging-associated chemicals and their hazards, Science of The

Total Environment, vol 651 (February 2019), pp 3253–4.129 Wildlife & Countryside Link (TCS0024), p 4.

21 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

were supposed to do, they found it almost impossible to do that for seven days because you could not follow the packaging. The packaging was not labelled so they did not know what kind of plastics things were packaged in. They could not find things that were unprocessed. Even if they tried to cook something themselves, it would be from other things that were processed. At the end of the trial, we saw a teeny tiny drop in their bisphenol A levels but not a significant drop.130

She cited a lack of labelling and transparency as key challenges in making informed consumer choices.131 This echoed the findings of the Food Packaging Forum who identified a lack of information ‘on how specific chemicals are used, or which chemicals are used in what application and in what quantities, and at which levels they are present in finished plastic packaging.’132

Food contact materials

39. Food contact materials were highlighted as a particular problem. Our academic witnesses were divided fifty-fifty on whether they would use Teflon coated pans in their homes.133 Contact materials include packaging, containers, kitchen equipment, cutlery, utensils and dishes.134 Manufacturers must ensure any potential transfer to food does not raise safety concerns, change the composition of the food in an unacceptable way or cause adverse effects on taste or odour. European Food Standards Authority publishes scientific opinions, risk assessments and advice on the safety of substances intended for use in food contact materials.135 In the UK, the Food Standards Agency is responsible for ‘protecting the public against chemicals that might transfer onto food from materials they come into contact with, for example packaging and utensils.’136 The EU consulted on food contact materials in early 2019. CHEM Trust called on the EU to include an automatic ban on the use of substances of very high concern within the new regulation.137

40. Dr Warhurst described food contact materials as an example of a system which does not work properly with constant substitution a problem.138

You have an EU harmonised list of chemicals that you can use in food contact plastics. That is separate from the REACH system and to an extent is not updated by the REACH system, so that list is a bit too stable … This is about plastic, but food contact materials are also made of paper, card, coatings, inks and glues. Amazingly, those materials do not have harmonised EU regulations, and do not have a harmonised list.139

130 Q14131 Q14132 Groh, K.J. et al., Overview of known plastic packaging-associated chemicals and their hazards, Science of The

Total Environment, vol 651 (February 2019), p 3265.133 Qq22–24134 ECHA, Chemicals in food [accessed 23 April 2019].135 European Food Safety Authority, Food contact materials [accessed 23 April 2019].136 Food Standards Agency, Food contact materials [accessed 23 April 2019].137 CHEM Trust, Five key principles for future EU regulation of chemicals in food contact materials [accessed 21 June

2019].138 Q158139 Q157

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 22

Professor Rick Mumford of the Food Standards Agency estimated that the number of chemicals used in food contact materials is likely in the ‘tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.’140 He said the UK is taking a risk-based approach.141 This is led by work at EU level via Commission Expert Working Groups. The Food Standards Agency is also working with other UK Government departments and agencies to establish a UK/EU strategy for per-fluorinated chemicals,142 identified as chemicals of significant concern during the inquiry.143

41. There are a huge number of chemicals used in plastic and food packaging, some of which have been identified as harmful to human health and the environment. We call on manufacturers to be more transparent about the chemicals used in their packaging to enable consumers make informed decisions. We support CHEM Trust’s call for REACH-defined substances of very high concern to be automatically banned in food contact materials as soon as possible. We recommend the Government implements a UK-wide ban on the use of these chemicals in food contact materials available on the UK market to lower the public’s exposure. We also call on the Government to advocate this position as part of the EU’s review of food contact materials. In addition, the Government should use the introduction of an EPR scheme for plastic packaging to phase out the use of chemicals in plastics which have been found to be toxic to human and environmental health.

42. We heard that per-fluorinated chemicals are of significant concern due to the lack of knowledge surrounding them and the health effects associated with them. Pending a further opinion by the European Food Safety Authority, the tolerable daily intake levels of the chemicals PFOA and PFOS will be substantially reduced.144 We call on the Government to publish its strategy on per-fluorinated chemicals as soon as possible. This should include clear guidance on routes of exposure to chemicals such as PFOS and PFOA and how these will be reduced amongst the public.

140 Q161141 Q162142 Letter from the Food Standards Agency to the Chair on toxic chemicals in everyday life, 6 June 2019143 Qq59–60144 Letter from the Food Standards Agency to the Chair on toxic chemicals in everyday life, 6 June 2019

23 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

3 Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988

Flame retardants

43. Flame retardants have been in widespread use in consumer and industrial products since the 1970s. They are chemicals in consumer products to slow or prevent them catching fire. They are commonly found in furnishings, electronics, building and construction materials and transportation products.145 They can be chemically incorporated into products or added to materials after production. Legislation has mandated their use in furniture since 1975 in the US and 1988 in the UK.146 In 2017, the Chief Medical Officer said of flame retardants, there is ‘no known causative linkage between exposure from the environment and adverse health outcomes;’147 however they are being phased out due to their persistence.148 The most commonly used flame retardant is aluminium hydroxide which is generally considered to be safe.149 There are many classes of flame retardants with different chemical structures and properties including brominated, chlorinated and organophosphorus. Brominated flame retardants are generally considered the most effective as relatively small amounts are required to achieve high protection.150

44. Flame retardants have been detected in air, soil, water, food, wildlife and humans. They are present in homes and offices via dust and on surfaces including windows, floors and carpets.151 Exposure occurs when additive flame retardants leach from goods into the air, dust and surfaces.152 Breast Cancer UK suggests the US and UK have the highest levels of flame retardants in human body fluids.153 Legacy polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are in breast milk in the highest concentrations in women in the US and UK. A comparative study of dust in the UK and Norway found that UK levels of PBDEs were 20–30 times higher and levels of organophosphorus flame retardants were 11 times higher.154 There is a growing body of research that some flame retardants pose a threat to human health and the environment. The Cancer Prevention and Education Society noted the effects include ‘cancer, neurotoxicity, developmental, behavioural, endocrine, metabolic, reproductive, developmental and allergy.’155

45. As flame retardants are found to be persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic to humans and wildlife, they have been classed as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and banned under the Stockholm Convention. They are also restricted under REACH as SVHCs. This classification is carried out on a substance by substance basis. Groups of similar flame retardants have not been considered together. Historically, penta-,

145 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Flame retardants [accessed 12 June 2019].146 Green Science Policy Institute, Flame retardants in furniture [accessed 9 July 2019].147 Davies, S., Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2017: Health impacts of all pollution - what do we know?

(2017), p 57.148 Davies, S., Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2017: Health impacts of all pollution - what do we know?

(2017), p 57.149 Breast Cancer UK, BCUK Background Briefing - Flame retardants (June 2017), p 1.150 KEMI, Brominated flame retardants [accessed 18 March 2019].151 Cancer Prevention & Education Society (TCS0005), p 1.152 Cancer Prevention & Education Society (TCS0005), p 3.153 Breast Cancer UK, BCUK Background Briefing - Flame retardants (June 2017), p 4.154 Breast Cancer UK, BCUK Background Briefing - Flame retardants (June 2017), p 4.155 Cancer Prevention & Education Society (TCS0005), p 1.

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 24

octa- and decabromodiphenyl ether (PBDEs), tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBP A) and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) were most widely used. Each is persistent and bio-accumulate in humans and wildlife and are now subject to restriction.156 Deca-BDE was widely used as a flame retardant in UK furniture. It was classed as an SVHC in 2012157 and banned in March 2019.158 Regrettable substitution occurred as it was replaced with flame retardants which are now being considered for restriction (TCEP, TCPP, TDCP).159 It also poses waste disposal challenges as it is present in many peoples’ sofas and mattresses.160

46. Internationally, further restrictions are being placed on flame retardants. In 2013, California revised its domestic furniture standard, Technical Bulletin 117, which reduced the use of flame retardants in upholstered furniture and children’s products. In 2018, it also banned the sale of furniture, baby products and mattresses containing flame retardants and repealed its open flame test standard for upholstered furniture in public spaces.161 Several other states have adopted similar measures.162 The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is considering a ban on additive organohalogenated flame retardants in children’s products, mattresses, electronic casings and furniture.163 The EU has also proposed a ban on halogenated flame retardants in electronic displays under the Eco-design Directive. This is due to be implemented from April 2021.164 In addition, it has proposed a restriction on the sale of children’s products and upholstered furniture with polyurethane foams containing the flame retardants TCEP, TCPP and TDCP. ECHA is due to publish its decision in July 2019.165

Fire deaths

47. The UK and Ireland are the only EU member states to have additional national fire safety controls on domestic, upholstered furniture. This requires products to pass ignition (match) and flammability (smoulder) tests before being placed on the market.166 The use of flame retardants is generally the primary method of compliance. In the UK, deaths from fire increased in the 1960s and 1970s due to the introduction of synthetic polymers. Polyurethane foam replaced natural materials such as horsehair and cotton causing increased ignitability and fire growth, dense smoke and greater smoke toxicity.167 A major fire in a Manchester department store in 1979, which killed ten people and injured six more, contributed to calls for limits on flammability. In 1988, the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations [hereafter ‘the Regulations’] covering domestic furniture were introduced.168 The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 covers the fire safety of furniture and furnishings in non-domestic environments.

156 KEMI, Brominated flame retardants [accessed 18 March 2019].157 ECHA, Bis(pentabromophenyl) ether (decabromodiphenyl ether) (DecaBDE) [accessed 9 July 2019].158 European Commission, News [accessed 9 July 2019].159 ECHA, Registry of restriction intentions until outcome [accessed 22 June 2019].160 Q83161 Green Science Policy Institute (TCS0035), pp 1–2.162 Safer States, Toxic Flame Retardants [accessed 22 June 2019].163 U.S. agency struggling with organohalogen flame retardants in consumer products, Chemical & Engineering

News, 23 September 2018.164 Proposed EU ban on halogenated flame retardants set for July adoption, Chemical Watch, 20 May 2019.165 ECHA, Registry of restriction intentions until outcome [accessed 22 June 2019].166 Furniture flame retardants in focus, Chemical Watch, April 2018.167 Mckenna, S.T. et al., Flame retardants in UK furniture increase smoke toxicity more than they reduce fire growth

rate, Chemosphere, vol 196 (2018), p 2.168 Fire safety ignites rules rethink, ENDS Report, 21 March 2016.

25 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

48. UK fire deaths stabilised in the mid-1980s at 12–13 deaths per million. This rate declined following the introduction of the Regulations to 10 deaths per million in the mid-1990s.169 The rate has continued to decline in recent years. In 2017/18 there were 395 fatalities in Great Britain, a rate of 6 deaths per million.170 A comparison of deaths from fire in the UK and New Zealand since the 1970s shows a similar rate of decline, despite New Zealand having no furniture flammability regulations.171 Declines have also been measured in European countries which do not use a match test, only a smoulder test.172

Box 1: Fire deaths per 100 000 population in the UK and in New Zealand

Source: Centre for Fire and Hazard Science, University of Central Lancashire (TCS0033), p. 4.

49. There is disagreement about the contribution of flame retardants to this reduction. Reports commissioned by the flame-retardant industry and the Government attributed 50 percent of this reduction to flame retardants and 50 percent to increased use of smoke alarms.173 A 2009 report by consultancy firm Greenstreet Berman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) provided an estimate for the reduction attributable to the Regulations: 1,065 fires prevented, 54 lives saved and 780 casualties avoided per year.174 The Centre for Fire and Hazard Science, based at the University of Central Lancashire, is critical of this analysis suggesting that it does not account for changes in cigarette smoking habits, the move away from exposed flame heating sources and improvements in living standards.175

169 ARCADIS, Identification and evaluation of data on flame retardants in consumer products (2011), p 309.170 HM Government, FIRE0501: Fatalities and non-fatal casualties by nation and population [accessed 22 June 2019].171 Centre for Fire and Hazard Science, University of Central Lancashire (TCS0033), pp 1; 4.172 ARCADIS, Identification and evaluation of data on flame retardants in consumer products (2011), pp 310–11.173 Mckenna, S.T. et al., Flame retardants in UK furniture increase smoke toxicity more than they reduce fire growth

rate, Chemosphere, vol 196 (2018), p 3.174 Fire safety ignites rules rethink, ENDS Report, 21 March 2016.175 Mckenna, S.T. et al., Flame retardants in UK furniture increase smoke toxicity more than they reduce fire growth

rate, Chemosphere, vol 196 (2018), p 3.

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 26

50. In an analysis of the smoke toxicity of UK furniture, the Centre for Fire and Hazard Science found that 12.6 percent of fires occur in bedrooms, living rooms and dining rooms, where most upholstered furniture is located, accounting for 71.2 percent of fatalities.176 They found that since the 1990s, the majority of deaths and injuries from fires are caused by the inhalation of toxic smoke.177 Its study concluded that ‘while we are unlikely to ever have robust data showing how effective flame retardants are in suppressing ignition, it is evident that, once ignition occurs, the presence of flame retardants has little effect on the fire growth rate, but does have an adverse effect on the smoke toxicity.’178 Professor Anna Stec of the University of Central Lancashire told us that the toxicity of the fire is dependent on the type of material burning and the scale of the fire.179 She explained how flame retardants affect this toxicity:

Typically, what we have learned with the use of fire retardants is that manufacturers somehow find a way to meet furniture regulations by using fire retardants. What is happening is that fire retardants generally, on a positive note, are supposed to suppress ignition time, and slow fire growth. But if we are adding fire retardant to, let’s say, fabric, more combustible material can be added at the same time, which will eventually, together with the fire retardant, quench in the gas phase. It will stop reactions in the gas phase. Typically, if you have clean flame it is getting you cleaner products. If you stop those reactions, you are going to generate more incomplete combustion products, which would increase toxicity and concentrations of other toxicants, which will overall create a more hazardous situation.

… Gas-phase flame retardants. Generally, we found that they increase acute toxicants—carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide—in a gas phase, as well as chronic toxicants, which would also have an effect in an environment where they are persistent … Generally, we have classified them as chlorinated, brominated ones and organophosphorus flame retardants.180

176 Mckenna, S.T. et al., Flame retardants in UK furniture increase smoke toxicity more than they reduce fire growth rate, Chemosphere, vol 196 (2018), p 6.

177 Mckenna, S.T. et al., Flame retardants in UK furniture increase smoke toxicity more than they reduce fire growth rate, Chemosphere, vol 196 (2018), p 6.

178 Mckenna, S.T. et al., Flame retardants in UK furniture increase smoke toxicity more than they reduce fire growth rate, Chemosphere, vol 196 (2018), p 29.

179 Q168180 Qq137–139

27 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

Box 2: Causes of UK fire deaths from 1955 to 2013

Source: Centre for Fire and Hazard Science, University of Central Lancashire (TCS0033), p. 1.

51. Jonathan Hindle of the British Furniture Confederation maintained the Regulations provide ‘a number of front end benefits’ by preventing early ignition and providing time for people to escape.181 When questioned about the role of toxic smoke inhalation, he said ‘ … there is a palpable lack of research to show exactly where all the deaths are coming from. Often they are in catastrophic fires and it is a cumulative effect of many things impacting on that and it is very difficult to pin it back on one particular item.’182 Kasturirangan Kannah of flame-retardant producer Lanxess, referenced escape time when asked about the toxicity of smoke.183

1988 Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations

52. The purpose of the Regulations is ‘to ensure that upholstery components and composites used for furniture supplied in the UK meet specified ignition resistance levels.’184 They are UK-wide, cover flammability testing and labelling requirements and apply to all suppliers of materials in the supply chain through final product. They also apply to hire and second-hand furniture suppliers. Products within scope of the Regulations include furniture intended for private use, children’s and nursery furniture, beds, mattresses and garden furniture.185 There are four main flammability tests contained within the Regulations. The ‘match’ and ‘cigarette’ tests cover fabrics while two further tests cover foam and non-foam materials.186 The Regulations do not specify the use of flame retardants, but their use is

181 Q381182 Q382183 Q417184 FIRA, Fire safety of furniture and furnishings in the home: A guide to the UK regulations (2009), p 3.185 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to

Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p 10.186 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to

Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p 11.

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 28

generally accepted as the most cost-effective method of achieving compliance.187 Trading Standards is the enforcement body under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.188 We heard evidence that the test requirements under the Regulations push the use of different flame retardants and make it more difficult for EU based companies to put furniture on the UK market.189

The Match Test

The current match test requires cover fabrics to be tested over highly flammable, polyurethane (plastic) foam which is banned in final products due to its flammability. Flame-retardant chemicals are applied via backcoating. This is completely different to the equivalent EU test (EN 1021–2) which requires the finished product to be assessed, as found in final products.190 Further, as the test has not been revised since 1988, it does not consider modern furniture construction techniques, does not account for the use of protective materials underneath the cover, it is unclear at what stage a component or piece of furniture must comply. This therefore creates doubts over the ability to prosecute under the current Regulations.191

The 2014 consultation proposed amending the match test to test filling materials over combustion modified foam (the foam that is used in final furniture products and which would reduce the use of flame retardants), removing the cigarette test requirement for any fabrics which passed the match test and invisible linings, regulating lining fabrics and testing more parts of furniture currently unregulated materials within 40mm of the surface of the product.192 However, the unamended test remains in place.

187 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p 5.

188 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p 11.

189 Qq121–122190 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to

Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p. 11.191 BIS, Technical paper: Systematic rationale for modification of the Furniture & Furnishings (Fire) (Safety)

Regulations in relation to Schedules 4 & 5 (October 2014), pp 12–14.192 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to

Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p 12.

29 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

53. The Regulations have not been significantly revised in over thirty years. A review began in 2009.193 In 2010, the Government’s Red Tape Challenge identified two issues with the Regulations and concluded Government intervention was required.

Firstly, in order to meet the requirements, manufacturers use significant quantities of potentially harmful Flame Retardant chemicals (FRs) to make covers fire resistant to the required standard. Secondly, weaknesses in the current testing regime mean that the testing which takes place (particularly the ‘match test’) may not actually be delivering the desired outcome (i.e. match-resistant furniture) for finished products. Government intervention is required to resolve these two issues to ensure the regulations maintain fire resistance standards for all products.194

In the same year, a study commissioned by Defra found ‘there is significant scope to move towards design-based and inherent FR [flame retardant] material approaches which can avoid the use of chemical FR [flame retardant] technologies.’195

54. In 2011, a report for the European Commission considered the use of flame retardants in consumer products. While acknowledging the difficulties in comparing varied statistical data from different countries, it concluded:

… in some instances, drops in the number of fire deaths coincide with the introduction of non-flammability requirements for domestic consumer products. In other instances, however, there is no change in the ongoing trend of fire deaths. This suggests that these numbers do not reflect the stringency of non-flammability requirements, respectively that non-flammability requirements do not visibly decrease the number of fire deaths.196

At the same time, the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupation Health & Safety (ANSES) began a four-year appraisal of the effectiveness of flame retardant treated furniture, as available on the UK market. Its findings, published in September 2015, said there was insufficient data ‘to conclude that fire-retardant treatment of upholstered furniture significantly contributes to reducing the frequency and severity of domestic fires. It therefore seems impossible to determine the possible safety benefit of using flame retardants in upholstered furniture.’197 It recommended that other fire safety measures be adopted over the use of flame retardants. While this appraisal was ongoing, BIS was engaged in an 18-month informal consultation with stakeholders to review the Regulations. This work led to a consultation on the Regulations in August 2014.198

193 Mr Terry Edge (TCS0029), p 1.194 BEIS, Amendment to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 - Impact Assessment (July

2016), p 1.195 Defra, Fire Retardant Technologies: safe products with optimised environmental hazard and risk performance

(November 2010), p 3.196 ARCADIS, European Commission Health & Consumers DG – Identification and evaluation of data on flame

retardants in consumer products (2011), p 311.197 ANSES, Opinion of the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupation Health & Safety concerning the

“request regarding the fire safety of domestic upholstered furniture” (September 2015), p 4.198 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to

Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p 26.

Toxic C

hem

icals in Everyd

ay Life 30

The 1988 Furniture and Furnishings RegulationsTimeline of review

1979

Major furniture fire at a department store in

Manchester.

1988The Furniture and

Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations introduced.

2009

Greenstreet Berman Report published.

BIS begins initial review of the Regulations.

2010Government's Red Tape Challenge recommends

update of the Regulations.

2014

BIS publishes its first consultation in August.

2015BIS responds to the

consultation in March announcing it will complete a full review of the Regulations.

Stakeholder responses published in November

following an FOI request.

2016

BEIS publishes its second consultation in September.

European Furniture Industries Confederation lodges a

complaint with the European Commission over the UK's flammability standards for

domestic furniture in November.

2019EAC launches inquiry into

toxic chemicals in everyday life in February.

In June 2019, BEIS Minister tell EAC that the publication of the response to the 2016 consultation is imminent.

?

BEIS responds to the second consultation.

31 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

2014 BIS consultation

55. The consultation proposed reform of the match test. The technical paper accompanying the consultation explained:

It is possible to demonstrate in full scale tests that the Regulations are ineffective. Consumers are, in many instances, being led to believe that the furniture they buy is match resistant when it is not so in its final form (because it has been sprayed by persistent and flammable materials or has covers which behave favourably in test but not in the finished item or has components near the surface which are flammable).199

The consultation estimated that the changes would reduce flame retardant use by up to 50 percent, save industry up to £50m per year and would facilitate the transition to greener furniture in the UK.200 Implementation of the proposals was planned for April 2015.201

56. In outlining the need for change, BIS cited growing evidence that flame retardants are harmful to health and the environment, moves by the EU to classify brominated flame retardants as SVHCs, the rising price of chemicals to meet the testing requirements, changes to the furniture flammability standard in California, growing concern amongst UK consumers, future EU legislation on the disposal of furniture containing hazardous substances and the Regulations posing a barrier to trade on the EU market.202 The barrier to trade was of particular concern. We received evidence that during its review of the Regulations, BIS feared ‘legal action from the European Commission for violating single market rules.’203 In 2016, the European Furniture Industries Confederation lodged a complaint with the European Commission about the Regulations. The Commission has not yet responded to the complaint.204

Stakeholder response

57. The 2014 consultation received 113 responses, with the highest proportion coming from manufacturing and retail sectors. BIS published its official response to the consultation within six months, in March 2015. The response included a summary of stakeholders’ replies but not their full submissions.205 The full responses were only published following a Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations request by CHEM Trust in September 2015.206 45 percent of respondents believed the proposals would result in no cost savings or would increase costs. Some respondents felt that the changes could result in an increase in the use of flame-retardant chemicals. Only 18 responses

199 BIS, Technical paper: Systematic rationale for modification of the Furniture & Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations in relation to Schedules 4 & 5 (October 2014), p 15.

200 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p. 5.

201 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p. 16.

202 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), pp 11–12.

203 Mr Gareth Simkins (TCS0031), p 10.204 Alliance for Flame Retardant Free Furniture in Europe, Competitiveness [accessed 18 March 2019].205 BIS, Consultation on amendments to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations: Summary of

responses (March 2015), p 5.206 Mr Terry Edge (TCS0029), p 4; Confirmed in correspondence by Dr Michael Warhurst, Executive Director of CHEM

Trust.

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 32

believed the proposals would make UK furniture greener and only 16 responses felt the proposals would make UK furniture more fire safe.207 Terry Edge, a former civil servant involved in the review of the Regulations, said of the consultation responses:

They did not give any reasoning or evidence for why they disagreed. There were 113 responses. Over half of those were positive, particularly from individual fire services, which were universally pleased that furniture should be fire safer, and from the enforcement authority, but from the chemical industry and its supporters all they really said to the questions we asked was, “No”.208

BIS decided not to implement the measures it proposed in the 2014 consultation. The Department announced it would conduct a full review of the Regulations. It identified required work as engaging with stakeholders to develop a consensus on the changes required and working with the British Standards Institute (BSI) on the proposed new match test.209

2016 BEIS consultation

58. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS - the Department was renamed in July 2016), published a second consultation in September 2016 which proposed replacing the Regulations with an updated version.210 Unlike the earlier consultation, the Government’s response remains unpublished nearly three years later. It stated the proposals were developed following two stakeholder workshops in summer 2015 and feedback from the British Standards Institute as proposed in 2014.211 In evidence, Terry Edge contested that work with the British Standards Institute was carried out.212 He also suggested that the consultation was instigated ‘under pressure from the Sunday Times reporting on my whistle-blowing case.’213

59. The consultation restated the Department’s ambition to revise testing methods to better reflect the construction of modern furniture and to enable manufacturers to reduce the use of flame retardants.214 The proposals covered scope, testing and, traceability and enforcement including:

• A single definition to cover all items in scope, supplemented by a list of exclusions including sleeping bags, mattress protectors, outdoor furniture, pushchairs, prams and carry cots.215

207 BIS, Consultation on amendments to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations: Summary of responses (March 2015), pp 5–7.

208 Q78209 BIS, Consultation on amendments to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations: Summary of

responses (March 2015), p 8.210 BEIS, Consultation on updating the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations (September 2016), p 3.211 BEIS, Consultation on updating the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations (September 2016), pp 9;

14.212 Qq87–88213 Mr Terry Edge (TCS0029), pp 4–5.214 BEIS, Consultation on updating the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations (September 2016), p 4.215 BEIS, Consultation on updating the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations (September 2016), p 13.

33 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

• A revised match test building on previous proposals including the option to include an interliner or non-flame retardant treated fire barrier to achieve protective compliance and removal of the cigarette test for most covers.216

• A revised permanent label including information on the use of flame retardants.217

• An increase in time available for Trading Standards to bring a prosecution from six to twelve months.218

Government response

60. The Chemical Industries Association told us it understood there were 125 responses to the 2016 consultation.219 As of July 2019, BEIS had not published either its response to the 2016 consultation or the stakeholder submissions, a delay of nearly three years. The Government’s guidance on consultations advises that ‘government responses to consultations should be published in a timely fashion.’220 A timeframe of 12 weeks is recommended or the Department should ‘provide an explanation why this is not possible.’221 In evidence to the inquiry, the Government cited the complexity of the area as the reason for delay.

Plans to revise the current Regulations have been ongoing for some time. It is a complex area that requires careful balancing of evidence and close engagement with diverse stakeholders to find consensus on the right way forward. Specifically, in relation to furniture, there is a need to manage the risks of both fire and chemical hazards from the flame-retardant chemicals and their potential health and environmental impacts.222

Kelly Tolhurst, Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility, told us the Government’s response would be produced ‘imminently’223 and ‘within this month [June].’224

Industry views

61. It is evident that there is no consensus about the review of the Regulations. Evidence to the inquiry illustrated the range of stakeholder perspectives. FRETWORK, the Flame Retardant Textiles Network, were supportive of the Regulations saying ‘the FFR [Furniture and Furnishings Regulations] are fit for purpose in addressing a very real consumer safety concern.’225 The Chemicals Industries Association told us that ‘any updating of the FFRs should not compromise fire safety.’226 Lanxess agreed with this view saying that ‘anything at all is fine as long as you do not jeopardise fire safety. That is our

216 BEIS, Consultation on updating the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations (September 2016), p 16.217 BEIS, Consultation on updating the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations (September 2016), pp

23–24.218 BEIS, Consultation on updating the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations (September 2016), p 24.219 Chemical Industries Association (TCS0014), p 3.220 Cabinet Office, Consultation principles: guidance (2018), p 2.221 Cabinet Office, Consultation principles: guidance (2018), p 2.222 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (TCS0040), p 11.223 Q451224 Q458225 FRETWORK - The Flame Retardant Textiles Network Ltd (TCS0007), p 4.226 Chemical Industries Association (TCS0014), p 4.

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 34

single number one concern.’227 It defended the use of flame retardants in products. Citing the example of deca-BDE, a brominated flame retardant classed as a SVHC, it said ‘this does not imply that its prior use in furniture is causing harm to people.’228 The Furniture Industry Research Association (FIRA) said the industry is not opposed to change but wants to ensure it ‘is going in the right direction’ and that the industry can meet new requirements in a consistent way.229 Opponents of the current Regulations said they ‘do not create a strong enough impetus to change furniture design and construction to design out both flammability and the use of flame retardants.’230 Therese Lilliebladh of IKEA told us the company was in favour of a change saying ‘we believe it is possible to have both fire safe products, but also that are free from harmful chemicals.’231 Gemma Brierley of Kingfisher also expressed support for a proposal that reduces overall use of flame retardants.232 Silentnight Group said it wants ‘to be in a position to supply products which don’t compromise fire safety but at the same time don’t contain materials known to release harmful substances into consumer’s homes or the environment when they become post-consumer waste.’233

62. In evidence the industry was unable to explain why fire death rates in the UK are similar to New Zealand, with no flammability regulations on domestic furniture, and other EU countries.234 Lanxess contested the 2014 consultation figure of £50 million in industry savings saying the actual figure was likely to be between £1.5 million and £3.75 million.235 Jonathan Hindle identified cost as a significant factor in moving away from flame-retardant treated products. He said the use of natural materials as alternatives to flame retardants was likely to cost an additional 25 percent.236 This was contested in written evidence from mattress manufacturer Cottonsafe who said the additional cost to move to natural materials in a double or king-sized mattress would be £19.237

British Standards Institute

63. Kasturirangan Kannah of Lanxess questioned if a resolution could be found through public consultation saying ‘ … when you come to complex areas like fire safety testing methods, the match test, the smoulder test, it cannot be done by public consultation. You could have another half a dozen and unfortunately you will not come up with a solid outcome.’238 He advocated that the relevant British Standards committee be tasked with finding a solution239 and that this work could be completed within three years.240 FIRA also supported British Standards completing further work on the test.241 According to the 2016 consultation and evidence from the Minister, British Standards have facilitated

227 Q349228 Lanxess Solutions UK Ltd (TCS0054), p 3.229 Q342230 CHEM Trust (TCS0012), p 8.231 Q336232 Q338233 Silentnight Group Limited (TCS0009), p 1.234 Qq378–380235 Q349236 Q366237 Cottonsafe (TCS0056), p 1.238 Q351239 Q355240 Q360241 Q371

35 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

work and been involved in the stakeholder engagement throughout the review process.242 The Minister intimated that the British Standards Institute will be tasked with devising a solution:

I am minded to develop the outcome-based approach based on essential safety requirements … it will mean that potentially there will be a range of requirements that are devised by the British Standards Institution.243

64. The Furniture and Furnishings Regulations have been under review by BEIS and its predecessor department for ten years. In that time, a growing body of research has linked some flame retardants to adverse human and environmental health outcomes. Some of the most commonly used flame retardants in consumer products, such as deca-BDE, have been classed as persistent organic pollutants and substances of very high concern. Some have been banned and regrettable substitutions have occurred. Internationally, restrictions are increasingly being placed on their use in furniture, mattresses, children’s products and electronics. In addition, evidence has emerged that flame-retardant chemicals increase the toxicity of smoke in domestic fires, which calls into question their overall benefit. We understand the challenges the Government has faced in finding consensus with varied and opposing industry views and share its belief that there is a need for both fire and chemical safety; however, that does not justify continued ministerial paralysis while the public remain exposed to harmful chemicals in their homes. Inaction has allowed unnecessary and potentially toxic chemicals to continue to enter homes for over a decade. Chemicals which, while purporting to protect the public from fire, cause more toxic smoke and increases the production of carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide.

65. The UK and Ireland stand alone in requiring these chemicals in domestic upholstered furniture with a hotly contested debate about whether they reduce fire deaths. We strongly disagree with the industry view that a resolution cannot be found by public consultation. We are concerned that the Government’s intention to involve the British Standards Institute in devising a new test, at the behest of industry, will be used by industry to frustrate change and further delay reform. The Government should bring the UK into line with the rest of the EU and develop a new flammability test standard based on the EU’s smoulder test and California’s standard Technical Bulletin 117–2013. This should be delivered with a clear legislative timetable for the adoption of revised regulations. In the meantime, industry must acknowledge this practice is no longer sustainable and begin the process of innovating and adopting alternatives to chemical flame retardants.

66. There is action the Government can take immediately to reduce public exposure. We heard that in-utero and early childhood are the most sensitive times for exposure to chemicals. As proposed in the 2016 consultation, we call on the Government to remove children’s products from scope of the 1988 Regulations without further delay. The Government should also introduce a new permanent label for all upholstered furniture products containing flame retardants. This should clearly state if the product has been treated with chemical flame retardants and list all chemicals used, including

242 Q451243 Qq456–457

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 36

those below the substance of very high concern threshold. The label should also direct consumers to an online platform where they can view independent scientific advice on the relative toxicity of the chemicals listed.

67. The presence of harmful chemicals in furniture, and their classification as hazardous waste at disposal, have been highlighted as particular problems. In addition to the measures proposed to reduce the use of chemical flame retardants, the Government should take measures to restrict regrettable substitutions through banning the use of groups of chemicals with similar properties. In addition, the use of substances of very high concern, at any threshold, should be banned in line with the precautionary principle. The Health and Safety Executive has been aware of the heightened occupational risk to sinonasal cancer from furniture making since 2012.244 It needs to assess the dangers posed to furniture workers from the handling and use of foams and flame retardants including when using personal protective equipment.

68. It is completely unacceptable that BEIS has not responded to a public consultation for nearly three years. BEIS has provided no reason for this delay beyond stating that the issue is complex and stakeholder consensus has not been achieved. We recommend the Cabinet Office strengthen its guidance on consultations. This should apply formal time limits to departmental responses to consultations with penalties for departments who do not comply. The expected response date should be published on the consultation webpage. If it is not possible to publish a full response, there should be a binding requirement to publish an update on the consultation webpage listing the reason for the delay, outlining what work is ongoing and giving a revised publication date. Stakeholder responses to consultations should be published as standard with sensitive or personal information redacted. The departmental Permanent Secretary and the Secretary of State should personally review any consultations which suffer a delay of more than six months in response and provide an account to parliament of the action they propose.

Whistle-blower allegations

69. Terry Edge was the lead civil servant on the review of the Regulations.245 In evidence to the inquiry, he alleged inappropriate behaviour by individuals working in the fire sector and officials at BIS during the review of the Regulations. His evidence, and that of journalist Gareth Simkins, set out examples of obstruction and delay within BIS:

• Mr Edge and the technical advisor leading the review of the responses to the 2014 consultation were removed from the job by a senior BIS official leading BIS to miss its implementation deadline.246

• Two drafts of the Government’s official response to the 2014 consultation were put before then Minister, Jo Swinson. The draft compiled by Terry Edge allegedly raised questions about the intention not to implement the new match test immediately.247

244 HSE, The burden of occupation cancer in Great Britain (2012), p iii.245 Mr Terry Edge (TCS0029), p 1.246 Mr Gareth Simkins (TCS0031), p 11.247 Mr Gareth Simkins (TCS0031), p 10.

37 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

• A senior BIS official refused to publish the consultation responses to the 2014 consultation until obliged to following a request from CHEM Trust under the Freedom of Information Act.248

• Senior BIS officials informed the then Minister Jo Swinson that further work was required on the match test proposed in the 2014 consultation. Terry Edge claims that ‘this was against Ministers’ and lawyers’ advice, which was that the new test had already been consulted upon and should be implemented straight away.’249

• Two senior BIS officials introduced new amendments and convened a technical panel requiring a further consultation on proposals in 2016.250

• The two senior BEIS officials left their roles reviewing the Regulations as the 2016 consultation responses required analysis. According to Simkins, they were replaced by ‘a new and inexperienced team.’251

70. Terry Edge retired from BIS in March 2016. This was following two formal complaints to BIS about the review of the Regulations and the conduct of certain colleagues. He initially launched a Civil Service Code complaint against his managers. He alleged that the then Minister was wrongly informed of his complaint that certain BEIS officials had misled Ministers. When this complaint was not resolved to his satisfaction, he initiated a complaint under BIS’s internal whistleblowing policy. This complaint was dealt with by the Government Internal Audit Agency.252 Terry Edge and Gareth Simkins alleged that this complaint was mis-handled and that a final report was only issued in August 2016 following an intervention by the Sunday Times. Gareth Simkins alleges that the final report was written by one of the BIS officials Mr Edge had made a complaint against.253

71. In response to questioning about the allegations, BEIS provided no information about the actions taken to investigate individual employees and told us:

A complaint was made in 2015 about a potential breach of the Civil Service Code in relation to the intended approach to the Review and information that had been provided to the then-Minister.

An internal investigation, and then a further internal review of both the Civil Service Code complaint and the policy process/approach, concluded that there had been no breach of the Civil Service Code.

Further complaints were raised and were investigated externally by the Government lnternal Audit Agency (GIAA) under the Department’s Whistleblowing Policy and Procedure. No evidence was found to substantiate the allegations.254

248 Mr Terry Edge (TCS0029), p 4.249 Mr Terry Edge (TCS0029), p 5.250 Mr Gareth Simkins (TCS0031), p 11.251 Mr Gareth Simkins (TCS0031), p 12.252 Mr Gareth Simkins (TCS0031), p 11.253 Mr Gareth Simkins (TCS0031), p 11.254 Letter from Alex Chisholm to the Chair on toxic chemicals in the environment, 15 April 2019

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 38

Playing with Fire

In 2012, the Chicago Tribune ran a Pulitzer Prize nominated investigative reporting series into flame retardants. The series uncovered evidence of misleading and deceptive activity by the chemicals industry in lobbying against the restriction of flame retardants. This included paying witnesses to advocate positions in favour of flame retardants at state legislature hearings,255 promoting flawed scientific studies256 and the use of advocacy groups funded by the industry to promote the use of flame retardants.257

72. In evidence, Terry Edge further alleged that ‘there is a long history of fire sector/medical officials accepting large sums of money from the FR [flame retardant] industry to support its products’258 and that this extends to named individuals in the UK fire sector. A 2017 BBC Newsnight report identified former Manchester firefighter Bob Graham’s role in the Alliance for Consumer Fire Safety in Europe. The Alliance advocated the use of flame retardants in some products and for the EU to adopt the UK’s flammability standards.259 In oral evidence, Terry Edge named other individuals he believed were involved in blocking changes to the Regulations260 and said that lobbying activity in the UK ‘is a bit more subtle’ than in the US.261 He did not have evidence of direct lobbying of his colleagues and was questioned about whether this action was normal activity in a consulting capacity:

Yes, but as Bob Graham did in his time, to lobby heavily in Europe for flame retardants in furniture, so I am not quite sure of the consultant role there.

When asked if he had any evidence that Mr Graham lobbied Mr Edge’s colleagues at BEIS, he said:

Not directly, no. I will not mention names but there is an open secret of several people currently in the fire sector who are funded by the flame retardant industry and their actions certainly suggest that too. These are currently-serving fire sector people … It is not so much a job. I think it is more intentionally, deliberately blocking in the case of two or three of these people who are prominent in blocking changes to the furniture regulations and that is all on record. I have recorded evidence of that. They would say, “Well, we just believe these changes would not result in better fire safety” but the fact is they have blocked those changes and these were the same people, for example, who suggested more work needed to be done but have never followed up on that work and have never explained why it has not been done and what have they done about the fact that, with that work not being done, the current match test is unsafe.262

255 Playing with fire, Chicago Tribune, 5 May 2012.256 Flawed research props up industry, Chicago Tribune, 30 December 2012.257 Playing with fire, Chicago Tribune, 5 May 2012.258 Mr Terry Edge (TCS0029), p 6.259 How fire-safe is British furniture?, BBC Newsnight, 13 December 2017.260 Q115261 Q114262 Qq109–112

39 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

73. In follow-up written evidence one of the individuals named denied the allegations made against him saying ‘I was not given ‘a large sum of money’ (or, indeed, any sum of money) by the Flame Retardant Industry at the time of changes to the match test nor at any other time.’263 Kasturirangan Kannah also denied a covert lobbying campaign took place in the UK.

I completely disagree that it was covert or any other kind of lobbying. We had concerns with the regulations, we went to our local MP in Trafford Park in Manchester and expressed our concerns. I mentioned the impact assessment and mentioned the grossly overstated figures there. I talked about the fact that brominated flame retardants had been described in the whole, in the round, as though they were all one cohesive whole. We objected to that.264

74. Lanxess acknowledged that its predecessor company, Chemtura, funded the Fire Safety Platform and current European Fire Safety Alliance but said ‘we completely refute any suggestion of corruption, totally.’265 The current Minister, Kelly Tolhurst, also denied there was lobbying activity within BEIS:

… in the time that I have been the Minister—10 months—I have not spoken to any corporate around this particular work, which has firmly fallen under me.266

75. We agree with evidence provided by Terry Edge that inaction and obstruction within BEIS has contributed to the delay in reforming the Regulations. It is clear that opposition from some in the furniture and flame-retardant industries, and protection of their market share, also contributed to the delay and the inability to achieve a consensus for reform. The evidence indicates that there are strongly held feelings regarding reform on all sides of the argument. We take Terry Edge’s allegations against individuals within BEIS and the industry very seriously; however, we have been unable to substantiate these allegations. We recommend that the Minister makes a decision and publishes the consultation responses before the change of government that will take place on 24 July. Failure to do so will add to the view that officials are deliberately delaying the process and waiting for a new minister so the process can start again.

263 Mr Michael Hagen (TCS0058), p 1.264 Q354265 Q361266 Q454

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 40

4 Environmental contamination around the Grenfell Tower

76. During our inquiry, concerns were raised about environmental contamination from chemicals around the Grenfell Tower fire site. In the immediate aftermath of a fire, acute toxicity from fire effluents is the leading cause of death and injury. The longer-term health and environmental consequences of fires, including the ‘cocktail of pollutants’ they produce, are less well understood.267 In the Grenfell Tower fire, toxic effluent from the fire was spread via the smoke plume and particulate deposits.268 There have been reports that several residents were treated for cyanide poisoning after the fire.269 Local resident Agnieszka Murray described her experience:

There were particles of debris / burned foam falling down for months and months. The Council did some roof cleaning weeks after the fire, but about a year and a half after, at the end of November 2018 they did a thorough cleaning where a lot of moss soil was removed. I do worry that with the rain and wind the toxins were dropping down our windows into our flats, before the cleaning was done. Sometimes I would place a hot dish near the window for it to cool quicker or stick my head in the rain. The Council offered some painting and carpets cleaning, but this was all offered for cosmetics reasons, and because I had some family difficulties going through it, we never took this opportunity. We had our curtains dried cleaned, offered by the council but our blinds they could not clean. I am concerned now that over a period of time we were exposed to quite a large amount of toxins being around, where we must have inhaled, touched, went into our eyes, and we may have eaten them.270

In June 2019, Grenfell survivors and relatives launched legal action in the US against the cladding maker Arconic, insulation maker Celotex and fridge supplier Whirlpool. The case is filed under product liability law, ‘which is meant to hold firms responsible for injuries caused by the goods they sell.’271

Environmental contamination testing

77. In the immediate aftermath of the fire, Public Health England began air quality monitoring. There was no monitoring of soil and water run-off by the Environment Agency or Kensington and Chelsea Council.272 In March 2019, scientists from the Centre for Fire and Hazards Science, led by Professor Anna Stec, published the results of their

267 Stec, A.A. et al., Environmental contamination following the Grenfell Tower fire, Chemosphere, vol 226 (July 2019), p 2.

268 Stec, A.A. et al., Environmental contamination following the Grenfell Tower fire, Chemosphere, vol 226 (July 2019), p 1.

269 How fire-safe is British furniture?, BBC Newsnight, 13 December 2017.270 Mrs Agnieszka Murray (TCS0070), p 1.271 Grenfell survivors and relatives open US legal battle, BBC, 10 June 2019.272 Stec, A.A. et al., Environmental contamination following the Grenfell Tower fire, Chemosphere, vol 226 (July

2019), pp 5–6.

41 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

testing for environmental contamination around the site. This followed a private briefing to authorities of their preliminary findings in February 2018 and the release of provisional results in October 2018.273

78. Soil samples were collected between one and six months after the fire, at different distances from the Tower. Sample locations were determined by permission to collect and the prevailing wind at the time of the fire. A standard soil sample was also obtained.274 In addition to soil, char samples were collected from three balconies between 50m and 160m from the Tower. Dust and condensates samples were collected from a flat 160m from the Tower, 17 months after the fire.275 Samples were examined for common components of fire effluents. The chemicals identified included benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, isocyanates, phosphorus flame retardants, hydrogen cyanide and synthetic vitreous fibres.276 In some cases the results showed significantly higher concentrations than background levels.

Key findings of Professor Anna Stec’s testing

• Benzene concentrations exceed guideline values by factors between 25 and 40 in the four soil samples closest to the Tower.277

• The total sum of 6 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAHs) concentrations, 45m away from the Tower, was found to be 20 times higher than levels found in Hyde Park before the fire and 160 times greater than reference soil.278

• Polychlorinated dibenzodioxin (PCDDs) levels were found to be 70 time greater than Hyde Park samples and 60 times greater than urban reference soil values.279

• The four soil samples taken closest to the Tower suggest ‘significant increased cancer risk from dioxins and furans, as well as for PAHs via dermal intake.’280

The study concluded that ‘the Grenfell Tower fire released both acute and chronic toxicants in the fire effluent which may have potential long-term adverse health effects on emergency responders, clean-up workers and local residents.’281 It called for health biomonitoring,

273 ‘Huge concentrations’ of toxins found in Grenfell soil, study finds, The Guardian, 12 October 2018.274 Stec, A.A. et al., Environmental contamination following the Grenfell Tower fire, Chemosphere, vol 226 (July

2019), p 6.275 Stec, A.A. et al., Environmental contamination following the Grenfell Tower fire, Chemosphere, vol 226 (July

2019), p 7.276 Stec, A.A. et al., Environmental contamination following the Grenfell Tower fire, Chemosphere, vol 226 (July

2019), pp 1–2.277 Stec, A.A. et al., Environmental contamination following the Grenfell Tower fire, Chemosphere, vol 226 (July

2019), p 21.278 Stec, A.A. et al., Environmental contamination following the Grenfell Tower fire, Chemosphere, vol 226 (July

2019), p 21.279 Stec, A.A. et al., Environmental contamination following the Grenfell Tower fire, Chemosphere, vol 226 (July

2019), p 21.280 Stec, A.A. et al., Environmental contamination following the Grenfell Tower fire, Chemosphere, vol 226 (July

2019), p 24.281 Stec, A.A. et al., Environmental contamination following the Grenfell Tower fire, Chemosphere, vol 226 (July

2019), p 26.

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 42

including for long-term fire exposure, and further analysis of the Grenfell Tower area for to understand the potential health risks.282 The victim support group Grenfell United echoed the call for further soil testing and health screening in the community.283

79. In evidence, Professor Anna Stec repeated her call for further soil analysis and indoor testing of buildings around the Tower to better understand the extent of contamination.284 She explained:

For me there would be two concerns. One would be indoor: inside people’s flats and houses. We know that a number of residents are still keeping fire debris in their houses, and there is potentially also contamination within that. Within the soil, some of the toxins will travel down with the rain. Some of the toxins will degrade and some will stay long term in the same form.285

She later elaborated that the source of the fire debris was likely to be tiny items such as charred insulation which can get inside homes.286 She said that some residents contacted her about ‘a very strong, pungent smell’ and having difficulty breathing inside their homes despite thorough cleaning.287 When questioned about the presence of fire debris in homes, Professor Tim Gant of Public Health England told the Committee, ‘my understanding is that the local council offered to remove all that debris and the residents had the opportunity to get rid of that debris, so it should not still be there.’288

Response to findings of environmental contamination

80. Kensington and Chelsea Council was responsible for the clean-up following the fire. Advice was issued to residents about how to clean up dust residues. In response to Professor Stec’s evidence, we wrote to Kensington and Chelsea Council and the Department for Education to establish what steps were taken to address potential environmental contamination. Kensington and Chelsea Council told us they completed a deep clean of 300 properties and cyclical, window and jet washing cleaning across all blocks. It also changed soil in vegetable plots and planters where requested. The Council has not undertaken a widespread replacement of soil or deep clean of ventilation systems as it has not been advised that this is required and the risk from air pollution is low.289 Kensington Aldridge Academy, in the vicinity of the Tower, completed a deep clean of its buildings and systems, including ventilation systems, surfaces and furniture.290 The playground and outdoor areas were also replaced due to damage from the fire and planters were cleaned with the soil replaced.291

282 Stec, A.A. et al., Environmental contamination following the Grenfell Tower fire, Chemosphere, vol 226 (July 2019), pp 26–7.

283 Grenfell: toxic contamination found in nearby homes and soil, The Guardian, 28 March 2019.284 Q177285 Q182286 Q193287 Q196288 Q542289 Letter from Cllr Elizabeth Campbell, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, regarding the toxic

chemicals inquiry, 29 May 2019290 Kensington Aldridge Academy, KAA1 – FAQs [accessed 17 June 2019].291 Letter from the Secretary of State to the Chair on toxic chemicals in everyday life, 27 May 2019

43 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

81. In October 2018, the Government announced the Environment Agency would oversee environmental testing of the area around the Grenfell Tower site.292 This testing is being carried out by AECOM on behalf of the Environment Agency, Kensington and Chelsea Council, Public Health England and NHS England. The initial work includes a site survey, risk assessment, exploratory sampling and identifying historical sources of pollution. These will be used to inform a wider sampling programme in stage two.293 Resident, Agnieszka Murray, expressed concern that AECOM’s results will be based on soil tested two years after the fire and will not account for what residents have been exposed to in the immediate aftermath of the fire.294 Separately, Hammersmith and Fulham Council has commissioned RPS Consulting to undertake testing for environmental contaminants in the soil on the Edward Woods estate, half a mile from Grenfell Tower.295 Kingspan confirmed that the Government has not requested the assistance of industry to support clean-up activities in the area.296

Public Health England response

82. Public Health England began air quality monitoring around Grenfell Tower following the fire in June 2017. It has not considered contamination from soil and dust residues to date. It publishes regular data updates of its monitoring which have concluded that the risk to public health from air pollution remains low.

Results to date have shown that levels of particulate matter remain low and no asbestos fibres have been found above the limit of detection in areas surrounding Grenfell Tower. Current evidence, therefore, suggests the risk to public health from air pollution remains low… Average results to date for dioxins, furans and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are comparable to background levels for London.297

83. Following the publication of her preliminary findings in October 2018, The Guardian reported that Professor Stec privately briefed health authorities on 8 February 2019 about the presence of high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and that the risk to survivors and residents was likely to come from the absorption of toxic material via the skin rather than smoke inhalation. She recommended that further testing be carried out including blood and saliva testing to monitor any DNA damage to survivors and local residents.298 Public Health England responded stating that contaminants in soil come from a variety of sources and are dependent on the historical use of the land. It also said the blood testing proposed was not recommended as a method of determining exposure from a particular time or event.299

84. In her evidence, Pressor Stec restated her view that exposure via dermal (skin) contact or digestion were now of greatest concern and that blood and saliva testing should be 292 Grenfell: ministers order soil tests amid concerns over toxins, The Guardian, 26 October 2018.293 Letter from Cllr Elizabeth Campbell, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, regarding the toxic

chemicals inquiry, 29 May 2019294 Mrs Agnieszka Murray (TCS0070), p 2.295 Grenfell tests begin at Hammersmith and Fulham estate, BBC, 15:50 - 17 May 2019.296 Qq399–400297 Public Health England, Environmental monitoring following the Grenfell Tower fire - Data update (13 June

2019), p 4.298 ‘Huge concentrations’ of toxins found in Grenfell soil, study finds, The Guardian, 12 October 2018.299 ‘Huge concentrations’ of toxins found in Grenfell soil, study finds, The Guardian, 12 October 2018.

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 44

carried out. Air pollution is a less significant factor due to the length of time since the fire.300 She explained that current NHS health screening does not include testing for the presence of fire effluents but that studies in the years following the World Trade Centre attacks identified cancers and other diseases.301 Some fire effluents, such as flame retardants, are persistent and will remain in human biological systems in low concentrations; however after a fire, concentrations will be much higher and give an indication of exposure. Professor Tim Gant outlined why Public Health England’s view differs on the benefit of this biomonitoring:

Public Health England does not routinely recommend collection and analysis of biological samples following large fires. Particularly in terms of Grenfell, most of the products of combustion that may have been found in those samples would have been long since cleared from the body a long while back so, even if that was done now, those would not have been detected.

It is important to remember is [sic] that biomonitoring studies of this nature require careful design. There is often a lack of causality process between what is analysed in those samples and any later health effects, and the results cannot be meaningfully interpreted. That in many ways can cause an affected community more distress than it does in providing answers. That is one of the reasons why Public Health England would not have recommended in that place that biomonitoring be carried out, and it certainly would not be useful at this stage this long after the fire.302

When questioned about the emergence of a ‘Grenfell cough’ amongst 60 to 70 residents, Professor Gant noted that this would be of concern ‘if it could be directly assigned to smoke inhalation or other chemical contaminants in the fire’303 and advised that it be reported to a GP.

85. We are troubled by the lack of urgency in response to the findings of environmental contamination around the Grenfell Tower site. We consider the results of sufficient concern to warrant immediate action yet in correspondence, Kensington and Chelsea Council told us ‘until the [Government’s] testing programme is complete we will not know if there is environmental contamination.’304 At the same time, residents have reported the emergence of the ‘Grenfell cough’ and health problems including vomiting, coughing up blood, skin complaints and breathing difficulties.305 We share Public Health England’s desire not to cause the affected community any further distress; however we fear the delay in soil testing and offering full health testing is contributing to the sense that public authorities are complacent about the risks and patronising about the experience of local residents.

86. We support calls from experts and residents for full health biomonitoring. We understand Public Health England’s concerns but believe it is possible to design a comprehensive biomonitoring programme for local residents, including specific

300 Qq179–180301 Qq185–187302 Q531303 Q538304 Letter from Cllr Elizabeth Campbell, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, regarding the toxic

chemicals inquiry, 29 May 2019305 Grenfell Tower study: Cancer-causing chemicals found nearby, BBC, 28 March 2019.

45 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

monitoring for the effects of exposure to fire effluents. This should be led by Public Health England with input from fire toxicity experts. It should be funded through the central government’s Bellwin scheme and implemented as soon as possible so that the community can be offered reassurance about their ongoing exposure levels. We also recommend that any local residents who have concerns about dusts or residues within their homes be offered the opportunity to have them tested for environmental contamination. Where contamination is identified, a further deep-clean of the home and surrounding residences should be carried out by Kensington and Chelsea Council.

87. Environmental contamination testing should be carried out routinely in the immediate aftermath of major disasters. This should include soil and water testing and be in addition to air quality monitoring. The results of this monitoring should be made public and it should continue until the public are assured there is no long-term contamination risk.

Toxicity of smoke

88. As discussed in Chapter Three, the inhalation of toxic gas and smoke is the leading cause of deaths from fire.306 Carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide, known as the ‘toxic twins’, are both powerful chemical asphyxiants.307 Professor Stec told us that the toxicity of the fire is dependent on the type of material burning and the scale of the fire.308 Ventilation conditions are also a factor as Roy Weghorst of Kingspan explained:

If you talk about toxicity, it is a very difficult subject. To establish the toxicity of a product you look at, for example, is it a well-ventilated fire or an under-ventilated fire? Because that gives you completely different readings of how toxic these chemicals are being released in a fire because they burn very well ventilated. As soon as they start to become burning under-ventilated you get into different things, but that goes for everything.309

Kingspan’s K15 Kooltherm product made from phenolic foam and polyisocyanurate (PIR) plastic insultation, which are considered combustible, was present in Grenfell Tower. Both products are included in the Government ban on combustible materials on the external walls of high-rise buildings.310 Kingspan subsequently launched a non-combustible mineral fibre insulation.311

89. Correspondence from Rockwool UK said ‘current [building] regulations do not contain any restrictions around the use of materials that produce high levels of toxic smoke, nor is there a toxicity standard and accompanying requirement for product labelling.’312 Further, Professor Stec said commercial testing does not necessarily consider human exposure to fire effluents.313 The London Fire Brigade called for a greater understanding of how toxic products behave including their potential to build up in escape routes and residual

306 Mckenna, S.T. et al., Flame retardants in UK furniture increase smoke toxicity more than they reduce fire growth rate, Chemosphere, vol 196 (2018), p 6.

307 The Toxic Twins, Fire Rescue Magazine, 2 January 2016.308 Q168309 Q401310 Qq383–384311 Q385312 Letter from ROCKWOOL to the Chair on toxic chemicals in everyday life, 11 June 2019313 Q187

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 46

contamination after a building has been reoccupied.314 Following the recommendations in Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review of the building regulations and fire safety published in May 2018, the Government consulted on the technical guidance on fire safety accompanying the Building Regulations. The Government stated that it ‘intends to achieve Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendation for a clearer, more transparent and more effective specification and testing regime of construction products.’315 The Government is due to publish its response in the coming weeks.

Exposure of firefighters

90. Firefighters and clean-up workers are exposed to elevated levels of persistent environmental contaminants, such as brominated and chlorinated dioxins and furans, which can adversely affect human health and the environment. They are also exposed to dangerous levels of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This exposure has been linked to elevated rates of four cancers in firefighters: multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate, and testicular. US firefighters have twice the line-of-duty death rate from cancers than the general population.316 Firefighters carrying out their normal work practices can cause cross-contamination of their personal protective equipment. Studies of California firefighters showed that they have higher levels of PBDEs in blood serum than the general population. In addition, elevated contamination was identified in fire station dust compared with Californian homes. This is possibly linked to tracking of contamination from incidents to fire stations.317 The Centre for Fire and Hazard Science suggested that these additional hazards are linked to the replacement of traditional, non-combustible building materials with flame retardant treated synthetic polymers which increase the fire risk and long-term toxicity.318

91. Statistical analysis of Scottish firefighters found that they typically have more than one type of cancer and recent trends suggest these cancers are developing in younger firefighters.319 Researchers identified higher instances of skin, multiple melanoma, liver and kidney cancers.320 Professor Stec suggested that this is linked to skin absorption rather than inhalation.321 This reflects similar findings by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in 2015 which found fire fighters had a higher number of cancer related diagnoses and deaths, and certain cancers were more prevalent in younger fire fighters including bladder and prostate cancers.322 Firefighters are considered workers performing their duties so are not included in NHS health screening programme offered in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire. Employers are responsible for monitoring the health of employees. The Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) remit includes ensuring employers are undertaking their responsibilities under the law.323

314 London Fire Brigade, Consultation Response: Fire safety: Technical review of Approved Document B of the Building (1 March 2019), pp 15–16.

315 HCLG, Technical Review of Approved Document B of the Building Regulations (18 December 2018), para. 41.316 Centre for Fire and Hazard Science, University of Central Lancashire (TCS0033), p 3.317 Centre for Fire and Hazard Science, University of Central Lancashire (TCS0033), p 3.318 Centre for Fire and Hazard Science, University of Central Lancashire (TCS0033), p 3.319 Q174320 Q174321 Q175322 NIOSH, Findings from a Study of Cancer among U.S. Fire Fighters (July 2016), p 1.323 Qq552–554

47 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

92. There is increasing awareness amongst firefighters about the risk from fire effluent contamination. A majority of states in the US and Canada have introduced presumptive legislation for firefighters which recognises certain cancers as occupational hazards. The most common cancers legislated for include leukaemia, lymphoma, bladder and brain cancer.324 London Fire Brigade have established a contaminants committee to consider measures London firefighters can take to limit their exposure. In addition, the Fire Brigades Union have partnered with the University of Central Lancashire to undertake a £500,000 research project to better understand the exposure of UK firefighters to contaminants. Professor Stec described the study in evidence.

The studies—probably the first in the world—which we are doing with the Fire Brigades Union for the next four years are divided into three areas. One will look at the work environment and contamination that is in the offices, fire engines and private cars that part-time firefighters take. The other one will look at exposure for different types of toxins on the clothing; the permeability of the clothing, especially within the age; and then how much of those toxins get to the firefighter’s body, so there will be blood and urine testing. We will combine that and we hope to have a better understanding and better data to answer that.325

93. The Government has stated its intention to achieve a more effective testing regime for construction products and we support the work of our colleagues on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee considering modern methods of construction. We have heard that the flame-retardant chemicals used in building materials, furniture and electrical goods can contribute to the overall toxicity of fires, putting individuals and emergency service workers at greater risk. We recommend that any update to fire test standards for building materials include a toxicity standard, therefore eliminating the use of the most toxic substances. We are aware that the unique circumstances of each fire contributes to its overall toxicity; however, by reducing the toxicity of individual substances, it should be possible to reduce the toxicity of fires as a whole.

94. We recognise that firefighters have a greater risk from environmental contamination from fires and support the research being undertaken by the University of Central Lancashire and the Fire Brigades Union. This is still in its early stages. However, research from the US has already shown that firefighters suffer higher instances of cancer in carrying out their duties than the normal population. The Government should update the Social Security Regulations so that the cancers most commonly suffered by firefighters are presumed to be industrial injuries. This should be mirrored in the UK’s Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefits Scheme. We also recommend that the Health and Safety Executive monitors the progress of the Fire Brigades Union research and provides assistance in implementing recommendations which seek to improve the work environments of UK firefighters. This should include measures to minimise contamination from clothing and equipment and reduce the overall exposure of firefighters, their families and the public.

324 First Responder Centre for Excellence, Occupational Cancer Legislation [accessed 9 July 2019].325 Q176

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 48

5 Product safety

Product testing

95. Chemicals produced in high volumes or included in certain product lines must be tested for characteristics linked to their ability to cause adverse effects. The testing considers their inherent characteristics such as volatility and degradation by light, and their potential effects on a range of species, chosen dependent on chemical use. Tests are conducted according to international standards and provide data for European and national assessments, including REACH.326 EU testing guidelines are approved by the OECD.327 Products sold on the EU market must comply with the General Product Safety Directive. Importers are responsible for ensuring that products manufactured outside the EU comply with chemical safety standards and do not contain chemicals restricted within the EU. It is the responsibility of the national authorities of Member States to ensure products on the market are safe and apply sanctions if required. When a dangerous product is identified, the Member State can withdraw the product and inform the European Commission. The Commission then informs other Member States through the RAPEX alert system. If imported from outside the EU, the relevant country authorities will also be notified.328

96. The Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) is responsible for identifying consumer risk and managing product safety incidents in the UK. It provides funding to Trading Standards for product testing and access to toxicology expertise for enforcement purposes. Local Authority Trading Standards also consider chemicals and toxicity when assessing the safety of consumer products. This assessment is done by checking technical documentation required to place a consumer good on the market.329 Products are chosen on an intelligence basis informed by knowledge of imports and products for sale on the UK market, records of previous investigations and high-risk areas.330 The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment provides independent scientific advice to the UK Government and arms-length bodies on matters concerning the toxicity of chemicals.331

97. In 2017–18, National Trading Standards reported the removal of over 800,000 unsafe and 1.4 million non-compliant items from the supply chain, valued at over £70 million. 60 percent of referrals identified a safety issue. It estimates that this prevented 1,565 serious injuries and 1,341 fires.332 The products intercepted included jewellery with 1,270 times permitted levels of the potential carcinogen cadmium333 and a consignment of 4,500 plastic toy monkeys which contained phthalates at 240 times and 160 times permitted levels. 16,000 of these monkeys had been imported previously and are subject to a recall.334

326 Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (TCS0025), p 2.327 ECHA, OECD and EU test guidelines [accessed 15 April 2019].328 ECHA, What about imported products? [accessed 15 April 2019].329 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (TCS0040), pp 6–7.330 Q205331 Committee on Toxicity [accessed 25 June 2019].332 National Trading Standards, Annual Report 2017–18 (2018), pp 57–58.333 National Trading Standards, Consumer Harm Report 2018 (2018), p 7.334 National Trading Standards, Annual Report 2017–18 (2018), p 63.

49 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

National Trading Standards 2018 Consumer Harm Report highlighted the risk from growing numbers of unsafe and non-compliant goods, particularly toys, originating in the Far East and which it is now possible to ship to the UK via the Yiwu-London railway.335

98. Graham Russell of the OPSS told us that Coventry postal hub and East Midlands airport were the main entry points for direct imports.336 Robert Chantry-Price noted that ports are also entry points.337 When questioned about the percentage of products examined at both entry points, Graham Russell was unable to provide a figure but said the risk-based approach worked.338

Products sold online

99. Products sold online and delivered directly to consumers, therefore bypassing the regulatory system, were highlighted as an area of concern.339 Recent research by Which? found 14 of 24 toy slimes and putties tested, and available to buy on the UK market through Amazon and toy stores such as Hamley’s, Smyths and Argos, failed to meet the EU safety standard for toys as they contained excess levels of boron.340 Amazon carries out testing on its private label products but acknowledged that it does not routinely test products available for sale on its website via third party sellers.341 It said following the identification of harmful chemicals by Which?, it instigated controls and some specific document checks as products are listed.342 It also said it works with Trading Standards and European regulators to gather intelligence, refine rules and take ‘appropriate action with sellers when we find products that do not meet the legal requirements.’343 Amazon provides funding for ‘primary authority partnerships’ such as Trading Standards work.344

Resources for chemical testing

100. The OPSS told us that ‘at the moment, the principal testing is carried out by local authorities.’345 This testing covers a range of product safety responsibilities, of which chemicals is one.346 The OPSS has an annual budget of £12 million per year. In 2018 it made £500,000 available for product compliance testing, including chemicals testing at accredited laboratories. This has been increased to £600,000 for 2019.347 It has also provided recall and risk assessment training to 800 Trading Standards officers.348 Robert Chantry-Price of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute explained the challenges local authorities face in funding chemicals testing:

335 National Trading Standards, Consumer Harm Report 2018 (2018), p 13.336 Q216337 Q228338 Q225339 Q210; Q214340 Children’s toy slime on sale with up to four times EU safety limit of potentially unsafe chemical, Which? 17 July

2018; Hamley’s, Smyths and Argos sell slimes containing chemicals up to four times higher than EU safety limit, Which?, 13 December 2018.

341 Qq267–268342 Q265343 Q273344 Q305345 Q205346 Q205347 PQ HL15637 [on Furniture: Fire Resistant Materials], 9 May 2019.348 Q520

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 50

The cost of testing is very high. If I can give you an example, I am involved with a company that is involved in some soft toy testing. They are testing some chemicals. They are just about to spend £20,000 testing some soft toys for a variety of chemicals. That is a pretty sizeable chunk just for one product. If a local authority were to challenge that, they would have to spend a similar amount of money on the testing. Then there are all the legal costs and the staffing costs in-house for the local authority as well. Local authorities at the moment just do not have that sort of budget, so the amount of testing that they are actually doing is very limited.349

Dr Duncan Campbell of the Association of Public Analysts noted that in his experience, there has been little consumer safety testing.350 While funding has been made available, in some instances the uptake has been hampered by a lack of Trading Standards resources:

Perhaps the uptake of the money that has gone into the testing has been patchy. Certainly I know from colleagues in Scotland that some of their local authorities do not have the trading standards officers on the ground to be able to go out and take the samples, even though the money has been provided for the analysis of those samples once they are taken.351

101. A study by CHEM Trust in 2018 supported the conclusion that testing is limited. It found that chemicals monitoring varied widely between councils with an average spend of £262 per year per council over the previous five years.352 This included 39 percent of UK councils who spent no money on monitoring chemicals and 35 percent of councils who analysed no samples.353 Of the 2,199 samples tested, 495 (23 percent) exceeded legal limits for hazardous chemicals. The London Borough of Enfield had the highest spend, assisted by funding from BEIS. This resulted in eight RAPEX notifications for dangerous products, including toys and cosmetics, and six prosecutions with fines and victim surcharges exceeding £60,000.354 Reports by the National Audit Office (NAO) and House of Lords European Union Committee in recent years have highlighted the reduction in resources faced by Trading Standards. The NAO found Local Trading Standards officers have responsibility for the enforcement of 263 pieces of legislation but have suffered a 56 percent reduction in staff since 2009 and a 46 percent reduction in nominal budgets since 2011.355 The Lords European Union Committee was concerned:

… by the clear evidence from the national regulatory and trading standards bodies that they are already struggling to fulfil their important roles because of financial restraints even before the additional complications of Brexit.356

349 Q209350 Q207351 Q207352 CHEM Trust, Local chemical regulation in the UK: fragmented and under-resourced (December 2018), p 3.353 CHEM Trust, Local chemical regulation in the UK: fragmented and under-resourced (December 2018), pp 3–4354 CHEM Trust, Local chemical regulation in the UK: fragmented and under-resourced (December 2018), p 4.355 National Audit Office, Protecting consumers from scams, unfair trading and unsafe goods (December 2016), pp

8–9.356 House of Lords European Union Committee, 9th Report of Session 2017–19, Brexit: will consumers be protected?,

HL 51, p 28.

51 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

It recommended that the Government bring forward a ‘clear plan aimed at alleviating the pressures on national regulators, and addressing how they will continue to interact in the interests of consumers, post-Brexit, with other national regulators in the EU’s remaining 27 Member States.’357

102. The Minister defended the work of Trading Standards and the funding available for product testing358 She questioned the scale of the issue:

I am unsure whether there is more of a problem. When you look at Trading Standards, it has taken something like 2 million products off the marketplace this year alone that have been noncompliant. I think Trading Standards would be quite defensive about what it does.359

103. Dave Bench of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) noted that there is some overlap between the HSE and OPSS related to workplace products. When questioned about closer working with the OPSS, he said that the HSE does not currently conduct consumer product testing but would have the ‘capability and capacity’ to do so at its research facility in Buxton.360

We could. We do have capability and capacity. Of course that is mostly focused on our statutory responsibilities in relation to workplace health and safety, but there is a facility there and we are always open to discussions and collaboration providing the funding is available to expand capability and capacity.361

104. The Government’s budget for product safety compliance does not reflect the volume of products on the market and, as demonstrated by Which? and CHEM Trust, it is failing to protect UK consumers. Checks are only completed on a small number of products and of these, over 2 million were removed from the market in 2017–18. Online sales are increasingly problematic as products bypass the regulatory system. We recommend the Government increase the resources available for product safety compliance by 10 percent a year in the upcoming spending review. This should include a specific commitment to test products for hazardous chemicals. This will be an essential requirement to fulfil the ban on endocrine disrupting chemicals in consumer products in the forthcoming Chemicals Strategy. Chemicals testing is expensive and we believe there is scope for savings through enhanced cooperation between government agencies. We recommend a centralised testing authority be established within the Health and Safety Executive to test workplace and consumer products for chemical safety. This resource should be made available to Local and National Trading Standards offices via the OPSS. Testing results should be widely shared amongst relevant bodies and inform Trading Standards’ enforcement approach, Defra and BEIS’s regulatory approach and the work of the Committee on Toxicity.

105. We echo the House of Lords European Union Committee’s concern about the capacity of National and Local Trading Standards to fulfil all their statutory duties due

357 House of Lords European Union Committee, 9th Report of Session 2017–19, Brexit: will consumers be protected?, HL 51, p 28.

358 Qq520–522359 Q524360 Q528361 Q528

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 52

to resource reductions. These duties will increase if the UK leaves the EU, especially if we lose access to the rapid alert system, RAPEX. We call on the Government to complete a full review of the legislation Trading Standards enforces, the resources allocated by councils, capabilities and likely additional functions should the UK leave the EU. The Government should develop a plan to end the postcode lottery in chemical safety testing which currently leaves large areas of the country with no regulatory enforcement.

Product labelling

106. CHEM Trust and the Changing Markets Foundation agreed that ‘the main risks from consumer exposure to chemicals are not caused by labelled mixtures of chemicals, but from routine consumer products where the presence of the chemicals is not labelled.’362 A recent study of plastic toys, hair accessories and kitchen utensils found 109 of 430 items contained flame retardants which came from recycled electronic waste. It concluded that ‘insufficient information on chemicals in products, waste streams and recycled materials hampers monitoring of compliance of recycled materials and articles produced within existing legislation.’363

107. Product labelling requirements are set out in the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulations. Labelling requirements are the same whether the product is for consumer or occupational use. Under CLP, where a chemical is found to have hazardous properties, suppliers are expected to provide information on the label. This information includes hazard statements, precautionary statements, symbols and pictograms.364 Legally binding hazard classification applies for some hazard classes such as ‘flammable’, ‘corrosive’ and ‘hazardous to the environment.’365

108. There have been calls for full disclosure of chemical information so consumers can make more informed decisions and keep undesirable chemicals out of waste streams.366 The European Environment Bureau have recommended that a freely accessible online register with full disclosure of chemical ingredients in products be established. This would empower consumers, assist public authorities with enforcement and share information with supply chains.367 The Danish Consumer Council have called for full disclosure of chemical content in children’s products and toys, as is available for food and cosmetics.368 In the UK, the National Fire Chiefs Council and London Fire Brigade support the use of a text and symbol label on furniture covers to indicate the use of flame retardants. They believe that this would assist consumers to make purchases based on safety and ensure the correct disposal of products at end of life.369 In our consumer survey, 51 percent of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they had sufficient knowledge about potentially harmful chemicals in consumer products and 92 percent said more knowledge would change their purchasing behaviour. Respondents were overwhelmingly (87 percent) in favour of the information being provided on packaging; however, some stated that one

362 CHEM Trust (TCS0012), p 5; Changing Markets Foundation (TCS0044), p 3.363 Straková, J. et al., Toxic Loophole: Recycling hazardous waste into new products (October 2018), p 25.364 HSE, Chemical classification: Labelling and packaging [accessed 15 April 2019].365 ECHA, Classification of substances and mixtures [accessed 15 April 2019].366 Straková, J. et al., Toxic Loophole: Recycling hazardous waste into new products (October 2018), p 25.367 NGOs demand full disclosure of information on chemicals in products, EEB and IPEN [accessed 15 April 2019].368 Chemicals in consumer goods - full disclosure needed, Chemical Watch, July 2018.369 National Fire Chiefs Council (TCS0016), p 3; London Fire Brigade (TCS0015), p 5.

53 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

method was not enough. Ideas suggested adapting the traffic light labelling system used in food, an independent website giving full information about the chemicals used in production and through advertising.

109. In evidence we heard that better labelling and packaging could help people to make informed choices370 but there are challenges in presenting complex chemical information. Professor Andrew Johnson of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology said that consumers ‘would be struggling with the information, as many of us are, on what are the relative risks of the other or different chemicals.’371 Rather he suggested that transparency around the chemicals used and the regulatory process would enable a better assessment of the risk.372 Dr Duncan Campbell noted that ‘it would be useful for analysis, but in terms of consumers’ perception, perhaps 90% would ignore it and 10% would not venture out of the house again.’373 Professor John Sumpter of Brunel University also highlighted the risk that the removal of a chemical or group of chemicals could be used as a marketing tool with little understanding of the toxicological profile of the replacement chemical(s).374

110. Graham Russell told us the OPSS are committed to closing the information gap for consumers but that ‘long lists of ingredients on the back of a packet do not necessarily do that.’375 He said that labelling would not protect against unsafe products and ‘if we want people to make choices, we need to inform them in ways that work.’376 IKEA told us they do not label the chemical contents of their products but instead focus on communicating which chemicals have been phased out of their products, what their function is and why IKEA has chosen to remove it. It said it was willing to provide customers with additional information about alternative substances used but ‘we have not quite figured out how to do it.’377 It said it is increasing the information to its customers about certain groups of chemicals instore and on its web platforms.378 Gemma Brierley of Kingfisher also highlighted the difficulty in communicating to customers and the challenge of educating staff to be able to respond to customer enquiries.

Well-informed customers understand the chemistry and want to know more and we should provide the route for them to find the right information. However, having the information on the labelling can lead to miscommunication and misunderstanding by the general public, so I think we need to be quite cautious or have a several tiered approach to public communication when it comes to chemicals because it is such a complex area.

From an operational point of view, as a retailer, we also have to equip our store colleagues to be able to respond to public inquiries. It will take quite a lot of effort to educate everyone to understand it and be able to respond to customer inquiries effectively.379

370 Q14371 Q27372 Q27373 Q229374 Q26375 Q233376 Q233377 Q292378 Q294379 Q295

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 54

Innovations for consumers

111. Under Article 33 of REACH, the public have the right to know if products contain substances of very high concern. Companies are obliged to respond to information requests within 45 days.380 The right applies to products such as textiles, furniture, toys and electronics but does not include chemical mixtures such as paints, cosmetics and food.381 AskREACH is an initiative to apply the ‘right to know’ to consumer products. The project is developing a database, to be completed by suppliers, which will gather information on levels of substances of very high concern in consumer products. Consumers will be able to access information about the chemical content in a product by scanning a barcode on the product via a smartphone app. Where the data is not yet available, the supplier will be automatically notified and assisted to facilitate communication in their supply chain. The initiative will be accompanied by campaigns to raise consumer awareness of substances of very high concern in products and supplier awareness of their obligations under REACH.382 Research by the project has found that food, cosmetics and toys are the products of most consumer interest.383

112. The project was launched in September 2017 by the German Environment Agency and has 19 project partners currently. The awareness campaigns will run in participating countries initially and later be expanded to all EU countries.384 The UK is not participating in the AskREACH project but is observing it.385 Graham Russell told us the OPSS has commissioned research amongst consumers386 and that the Chemicals Strategy will include measures to address information to consumers. We asked if the UK’s status as an observer meant it was not taking these issues as seriously as some others. He told us:

I would not conclude that. I think we take our engagement with control of chemicals and information to consumers very seriously. It is not the only way that consumers are being empowered and informed. As I say, we will have our UK chemicals strategy, which will deal directly with that.387

113. We recognise the challenge of communicating complex chemical information to the public. Our desire is not to cause consumers concern about the chemicals used in products but to raise their awareness and to assist them make more informed purchasing decisions. Our survey of attitudes to chemicals indicated that consumers want this knowledge. We recommend reform of the labelling system for chemicals in consumer products. We acknowledge that long ingredients lists would be challenging to communicate. We propose that the grouping approach be used where the packaging or product label indicates which family of chemicals has been used. This should be accompanied by directions to the product webpage where a full list of chemical ingredients should be available. Consumers should also be provided with direction to an online platform where they can view independent scientific advice on the relative

380 European Commission, Consumer right to know [accessed 25 June 2019].381 ECHA, Use your right to ask [accessed 25 June 2019].382 AskREACH, ABOUT: Project [accessed 15 April 2019].383 AskREACH, Consumer smartphone apps for problematic substances in products: Emergence and potential

impacts (December 2018), p 2.384 AskREACH, ABOUT: Project [accessed 15 April 2019]; Echa, AskREACH trying to align SVHC databases, Chemical

Watch, 11 April 2019.385 Qq235–236386 Q233387 Q238

55 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

toxicity of the chemicals listed. Where a substance of very high concern has been used, even under the threshold, this should be clearly listed with an accompanying message about which criteria it meets (carcinogenic, persistent, bio-accumulative etc.).

114. We also recommend that the Health and Safety Executive develop domestic pictograms based on the criteria for classification as a substance of very high concern. Once available, these should also be indicated on packaging or product labels. We believe these changes would be a small step towards full chemical disclosure and would assist consumers in making more informed decisions at the point of purchase.

115. We are deeply disappointed that the UK is not participating in AskREACH. The Government should seek access to AskREACH for UK consumers. Observer status is not enough when UK consumers desire more information about the chemical content of their products. We believe the AskREACH initiative sits alongside the labelling changes we have proposed and is an important step to enable consumers to exercise their right to know while challenging suppliers to engage with their supply chains and become more transparent.

Product safety after the UK leaves the EU

RAPEX

116. RAPEX, also known as Safety Gate, is the EU rapid alert system for dangerous non-food products. It enables the national authorities of 31 countries to exchange information quickly, screen their markets and take appropriate action if a dangerous product is found.388 Under the system, the European Commission publishes a weekly summary of consumer protection related alerts. These summaries provide information on dangerous products identified, any risks to consumers, measures taken by the notifying country to prevent or restrict use and other countries where the product has been found along with any further measures taken.389 In 2018, the system received 2,257 alerts and 4,050 follow up actions. Toys (31 percent), motor vehicles (19 percent), and clothing and textiles (10 percent) were the most commonly notified categories.390 Chemicals, injuries and choking were the most common risks notified. Chemicals represented 25 percent of all risks notified in 2018.391 53 percent of alerts were for products originating in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan followed by 24 percent alerts for products coming from RAPEX member states.392

117. 16 percent of RAPEX alerts in 2018 were for products available for sale online. This led the European Commission to develop the Product Safety Pledge which goes further than legal compliance and has been signed by four major online retailers including Amazon and eBay. It enables national authorities to contact online retailers directly when a dangerous

388 European Commission, Safety Gate: Just a click to keep away from dangerous products (2019), p 11.389 House of Lords European Union Committee, 9th Report of Session 2017–19, Brexit: will consumers be protected?,

HL 51, p 14.390 European Commission, EU Rapid Alert System for dangerous non-food products: 2018 results per country (2019),

pp 1–2.391 European Commission, EU Rapid Alert System for dangerous non-food products: 2018 results per country (2019),

pp 1–2.392 European Commission, Safety Gate: Just a click to keep away from dangerous products (2019), p 18.

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 56

product is identified for sale on their platform. The retailers have committed to providing single points of contact for product safety, react to requests to remove listings within two days and provide consumers with a clear procedure to notify dangerous products.393

118. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute and Which? have called on the Government to secure access to the EU’s alert and information sharing systems to avoid the UK becoming a target for rogue traders and to ensure consumers are not at risk from products in their homes.394 The OPSS has developed its own product safety database to prepare for the UK’s exit from the European Union but hopes to retain a high level of data sharing with EU colleagues.395 Of RAPEX, Graham Russell told us:

… It is an important system for sharing product safety information across enforcement organisations, businesses and consumers across Europe, and it is important that we maintain that sharing of data. We are committed to developing the maximum possible access to RAPEX, but we also recognise that we do not know what the outcome of those discussions will be.396

He also noted that UK shares data with partners outside the EU through an OECD committee, a professional bodies network and on a one-to-one level with countries with similar product ranges such as the US and Canada.397 The Government White Paper on the future relationship between the UK and the EU says it is the Government’s intention to seek access to RAPEX.398 In evidence, Defra restated the Government’s intention to explore membership of RAPEX as part of the future economic partnership with the EU;399 however the intention to seek membership of RAPEX is not formally included within the Government’s Withdrawal Agreement or Political Declaration.

119. We call on the Government to prioritise data sharing relationships in its future partnership negotiations with the EU including seeking to retain access to RAPEX. This will ensure that consumers remain protected from a range of dangerous products available on the UK and EU market. We also recommend that the OPSS build relationships with online retailers through a mechanism similar to the Product Safety Pledge. This will ensure that products which bypass the normal regulatory process are captured and consumers have a clear mechanism to report faulty products purchased online.

393 European Commission, Safety Gate: Just a click to keep away from dangerous products (2019), pp 7–8.394 House of Lords European Union Committee, 9th Report of Session 2017–19, Brexit: will consumers be protected?,

HL 51, p 13; Dangerous products could swamp UK after Brexit, warns Which?, The Guardian, 15 April 2019.395 Q244396 Q244397 Q245398 HM Government, The Future Relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union (July 2018), p

25.399 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (TCS0040), p 12.

57 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

6 Future UK chemicals policy120. During this inquiry we received evidence that, despite the many measures being taken to reduce the environmental and human health impact of chemicals, ‘still the situation seems to be getting worse because there are just so many new chemicals entering the environment and so many things that we do not know.’400 The Royal Society of Chemistry told us that ‘chemicals safety evaluation is on a path to disruptive change through scientific advancement.’401 This will require the UK to continue to work collaboratively and internationally to remain a world leader in chemicals regulation.402 It will also require ambitious policy making to ensure human and environmental health is protected from a growing and diverse range of chemical exposure.

European Union

121. At present chemicals regulation is carried out at EU level under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals Regulation (REACH).403 Only newly registered chemicals complete the REACH process. Chemicals available on the market prior to REACH have not undergone widespread testing.404 Professor Andrew Johnson of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology explained the purpose of REACH testing:

The REACH testing is, if you like, limited to the basics of toxicity: different types of toxicity, their persistence and bio-accumulation. We have a basic first screen of whether it would conform to existing knowledge of a bio-accumulative, persistent toxic chemical, but we do not have the time and resources to test it against every animal and every endpoint. It is only at a beginning stage but it is very important that the onus is on the industry to demonstrate the product is safe whereas previously the onus was on the environmental [impact].405

122. Under Article 57 of REACH, a substance may be proposed as a substance of very high concern if it meets the criteria for classification as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction, is considered persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic or very persistent and very bio-accumulative, or causes an equivalent level of concern as these properties.406 197 chemicals are currently listed on ECHA’s Candidate List of substances of very high concern.407 ECHA has committed to have all relevant, currently known substances of very high concern included on the Candidate List by 2020. These include sensitizers, endocrine disrupting chemicals and petroleum/coal stream substances.408

400 Q47401 Royal Society of Chemistry (TCS0034), p 6.402 Royal Society of Chemistry (TCS0034), p 6.403 An explanation of the REACH regulation can be found in Brexit and chemicals regulation, Briefing Paper CBP

8403, House of Commons Library, November 2018.404 Q40405 Q40406 ECHA, Substances of very high concern identification [accessed 4 March 2019].407 Fidra (TCS0019), p 4.408 ECHA, SVHC Roadmap to 2020 implementation [accessed 4 March 2019].

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 58

123. The EU is developing a number of policy areas to reduce the public’s exposure to chemicals in consumer products. In addition to the biomonitoring activities described in Chapter Two and product safety measures outlined in Chapter Five, it is formulating a non-toxic environment strategy and a framework for endocrine disrupting chemicals. In June 2019, an EU Environment Council summit gave political guidance to the European Commission to develop policy measures towards a ‘sustainable EU chemicals policy strategy’ to protect human health and the environment.409 Actions proposed include the promotion of green and sustainable chemistry alternatives, support for business to replace substances of concern, an early warning system for emerging chemical risks and the publication of an EU strategy for a non-toxic environment without further delay.410

Strategy for a non-toxic environment

124. The EU’s 7th Environment Action Programme, published in 2013 set a goal to address the risk from hazardous chemicals by 2020 and acknowledged that:

… there is still uncertainty about the full impacts on human health and the environment of the combined effects of different chemicals (mixtures), nanomaterials, chemicals that interfere with the endocrine (hormone) system (endocrine disruptors) and chemicals in products.411

125. The Programme committed the EU to publishing a strategy for a non-toxic environment by 2018 which would promote innovation and develop sustainable substitutes, including non-chemical solutions. It also outlined plans to develop a chemical exposure and toxicity knowledge base, guidance documentation on test methods and risk assessment methodologies to ensure a comprehensive and consistent approach to hazardous substances.412 Publication of the Strategy has been delayed and is now unlikely before a new Commission takes office in late 2019.413

Framework on endocrine disruptors

126. In November 2018, the European Commission published its framework on endocrine disruptors. This identified the knowledge gaps in understanding endocrine disrupting chemicals, set out the EU’s strategic approach and identified areas of work for the EU institutions. The approach is based on the application of the precautionary principle and aims to minimise overall exposure to endocrine disruptors, particularly during sensitive developmental times (e.g. pregnancy and childhood), accelerate the development of research for effective, forward-looking decision making and promote an active dialogue with stakeholders.414 Actions proposed include:

• A Regulation on transparency and risk assessment under EU food law;

409 Council of the European Union, Council conclusions on chemicals [accessed 27 June 2019].410 Council of the European Union, Council conclusions on chemicals [accessed 27 June 2019].411 Parliament and Council Decision 1386/2013/EU, annex, para. 50.412 Official Journal of the European Union, The 7th Environment Action Programme to 2020 – ‘Living Well, within

the limits of our planet’ (2017), p 192.413 EU delays non-toxic strategy until new Commission takes helm, Chemical Watch, 12 December 2018.414 European Commission, Towards a comprehensive European Union framework on endocrine disruptors (7

November 2018), p 8.

59 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

• Accelerating the substitution of substances of concern under the European Plastics Strategy;

• Revise the Drinking Water Directive to add three endocrine disrupting chemicals (Beta-estradiol; nonylphenol; bisphenol A);

• A New Deal for Consumers which will improve the enforcement of product safety and address the illegal presence of endocrine disruptors in products; and

• Updating the legal framework for Occupational Safety and Health to protect workers exposed to hazardous chemicals, including some with endocrine disrupting properties.415

127. The Framework is currently in a feedback period in advance of public consultation.416 The Minister, Thérèse Coffey, acknowledged that ‘the approach taken by the EU will clearly have significant implications for the UK in the future.’417 The Framework has been criticised for its lack of ambition and timetable for action.418 A number of states support a ban on endocrine disrupting chemicals in toys and consumer goods and further research into the effect of chemical mixtures.419 In correspondence with the House of the Commons European Scrutiny Committee, the Minister said the UK ‘will remain fully committed to the effective and safe management of chemicals and ensuring that endocrine disrupting chemicals do not harm human health or the environment will continue to be a priority.’420

Forthcoming Chemicals Strategy

128. The Government has committed to publishing a chemicals strategy. A call for evidence was planned for 2019; however the Minster told us that the Strategy was now more likely to be available in 2020–1421 due to Defra’s reprioritisation of staff to work on the UK’s departure from the EU.422 Some of the content will be dependent on the scenario if the UK leaves the EU.423 According to the Resources and Waste Strategy, the Chemicals Strategy will strengthen the chemicals-waste interface by tracking chemicals in products across supply chains and work internationally to standardise assessment methods for chemical safety.424 It will also seek to define substances of concern which can create barriers to recycling, consider different rules for chemicals in primary and secondary materials and facilitate better communication so hazardous components are designed for safer recycling.425

415 European Commission, Towards a comprehensive European Union framework on endocrine disruptors (7 November 2018), p 7.

416 European Commission, Harmful chemicals – endocrine disruptors, review of EU rules [accessed 21 June 2019].417 Letter from Thérèse Coffey to European Scrutiny Committee, 30 January 2019418 Council of Ministers’ draft conclusions call for sustainable EU chemicals policy, Chemical Watch, 18 June 2019.419 EU ministers push Commission to speed up EDC strategy, Chemical Watch, 7 March 2019.420 Letter from Thérèse Coffey to European Scrutiny Committee, 15 March 2019421 Q557422 Q586423 Q578424 HM Government, Our waste, our resources: a strategy for England (2018), p 46.425 HM Government, Our waste, our resources: a strategy for England (2018), p 119.

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 60

129. The Chemicals Industries Association expressed support for the proposed strategy but pressed the need for a risk-based approach.

Chemicals in the environment are expected to feature in this strategy and whilst industry supports this, we would ask that any measures proposed are not only risk-based in the way in which they would be implemented, but also take into consideration the wider sustainability agenda including innovation.426

In 2017, the Chief Medical Officer’s annual report argued that the challenge ‘of managing hundreds of thousands of chemicals on the market will not be achieved without high throughput methods and grouping approaches.’427 In evidence, we were told that there is a need to move away from testing individual chemicals to reduce instances of regrettable substitution. This would require new testing approaches which considers groups of similar chemicals.428 Dave Bench of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) noted that grouping approaches should consider structurally similar substances and substances used for the same or similar purposes. He suggested that this approach would help to avoid instances of regrettable substitutions. Professor Tamara Galloway also proposed a move toward green chemistry approaches to avoid substitutions.

One of the ways of trying to avoid that is to institute everything that you can by way of green chemistry approaches and sustainable frameworks for developing safer chemicals in the future and trying to institute them and working together with manufacturers to try to reduce the risks of any substituted chemicals.429

130. The Chief Medical Officer’s report also highlighted that mixtures and complex chemical combination are providing new challenges for risk assessment including from ‘21st century chemicals.’430 It argued that new technologies are being developed which will enable more sensitive measures of exposure and provide greater understanding of hazard.431 It recommended that the Government’s Chemicals Strategy take ‘full account of the human health impacts of chemicals, including chemical mixtures.’432 Under questioning Professor Michael Depledge of the University of Exeter recommended that biomonitoring encompassing both indoor and outdoor exposure, should be included within the Strategy.433

131. In evidence, Minister Coffey committed to include endocrine disrupting chemicals in the development of the Chemicals Strategy.434 She also agreed that grouping substances was ‘a good approach to take’ and ‘we will need to consider it carefully in the creation

426 Chemical Industries Association (TCS0014), p 4.427 Davies, S., Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2017: Health impacts of all pollution - what do we know?

(2017), p 50.428 Q29; Q167429 Q25430 Davies, S., Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2017: Health impacts of all pollution - what do we know?

(2017), p 47.431 Davies, S., Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2017: Health impacts of all pollution - what do we know?

(2017), p 59.432 Davies, S., Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2017: Health impacts of all pollution - what do we know?

(2017), p 11.433 Qq42–44434 Q559

61 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

of the Strategy.’435 The Strategy remains in the early stages of discussion so has not considered the inclusion of chemicals mixtures or substances for priority monitoring.436 Professor Gant of Public Health England stated that substances classed as cancer-causing or reproductive would be of most concern.437

132. The forthcoming Chemicals Strategy should form the basis for the UK to develop a non-toxic environment by setting out a clear, ambitious vision for the type of chemical environment we hope to live in. It should lay out a plan for remediation of harmful regulated substances in the environment with binding targets and a ring-fenced budget. We endorse the Chief Medical Officer’s recommendation that the Strategy take full account of the human health impacts of chemicals, including chemical mixtures. We recommend the Strategy set out how chemical mixtures will be considered in the regulatory process and how new technology will be developed to enhance our understanding of exposure. This should be closely linked to a new, UK-wide biomonitoring programme. As set out in Chapter Two, the Strategy should include objectives and priority monitoring areas for human and wildlife monitoring. The UK’s public health bodies should be given responsibility for monitoring, researching the impact of chemicals on public health, and recommending restrictions and other controls on groups of problematic chemicals. They should be given adequate funding and staffing for research and policy development.

133. Building on the work of the European Commission, it should set targets for the elimination of endocrine disrupting chemicals from consumer products with children’s products prioritised. The Strategy should commit the UK to reducing regrettable substitutions by using a grouping approach to chemical testing. Should the UK no longer retain membership of ECHA after EU-exit, a grouping approach to substance evaluations which considers both structurally similar substances and substances used for similar purposes should be devised. The Government should support industry innovation to develop green chemistry approaches and safer chemicals in the future. This should particularly encourage the development of chemicals which biodegrade in the environment safely. The Committee received evidence from multiple stakeholders regarding the exposure of consumers to toxic chemicals in indoor environments. This includes, but is not limited to, formaldehyde emissions from bedroom furniture, flame retardant leaching from sofas and electrical equipment, bisphenols in food packaging and phthalates in various plastics and other products. We recommend that the Chemicals Strategy addresses the concerns about the use of these chemicals in furniture and other household goods.

Chemicals regulation in the event of EU exit

134. The HSE is the UK’s chemicals regulator. In the event of the UK leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement, UK REACH will be the regulatory position and the HSE will assume ECHA’s responsibility for substance evaluations and making scientific recommendations on restrictions. The Defra Secretary will assume the duties of the European Commission and make decisions regarding authorisations of substances of very high concern and restricting chemicals based on an opinion from the HSE. After the initial grandfathering of 12,000 registrations, Defra expects there to be 50 to 100 new

435 Q574436 Qq586–588437 Q589

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 62

registrations each year which would require evaluation by the HSE.438 In the House of Commons debate on the draft REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the Minister, Thérèse Coffey, set out the Government’s approach to chemicals of concern:

The building blocks of REACH will all remain: industry’s primary duty to understand the hazards and risks of chemicals and to ensure safe use, all tied to the principle of no data, no market; registration by industry of the chemicals it produces and places on the market; dossier evaluation by the regulator of at least 5% of registration dossiers to check compliance and quality, exactly as ECHA is expected to do today; and substance evaluation, which is investigation by the regulator of outstanding concerns about a chemical often leading to a requirement on industry to fill the knowledge gaps … Then there is the authorisation process that forces industry to apply for and justify continued use of substances of very high concern. Finally, there is restriction of the most dangerous chemicals where unacceptable risks remain.439

135. Dave Bench of the HSE told us that in the event of a no-deal scenario, the Executive would develop a programme of work to be agreed by Defra ministers. This would be based on the EU’s work programme and ongoing substance assessments. It would also take account of substances the UK is more concerned about and work being carried out by other chemicals regulators.440 He explained the approach he would advocate to a UK minister:

What I would not advocate, in my advice to any Minister in the future, would be to completely duplicate on a UK basis and do all over again the same things that are going to be happening in the EU. That would be a waste of effort in my view. What I would advocate is taking a mixed approach and looking to see whether we want to look earlier at particular substances of concern for UK reasons, and at where we want to engage and take note of EU assessments in other areas.441

Alignment to ECHA’s candidate list of SVHCs would be a decision for ministers. In this scenario, the UK could choose to complete work ahead of the EU.

We would have a decision to take as to whether we wanted to do work ourselves in advance of the EU doing it, and clearly it is fairly easy to think of some criteria that we would choose to identify those types of substances. We would also want to think about whether we want to just keep a close engagement with what the EU is doing on some other substances. We should look to see what it is doing and whether we want to make any additional UK-only assessment or additional assessment on the back of what it is doing, to determine whether we would make exactly the same decision or a decision that is similar but a bit different and bespoke for UK conditions.442

438 HC Deb, 25 February 2019, cols. 75–101 [Commons Chamber].439 HC Deb, 25 February 2019, cols. 77–8 [Commons Chamber].440 Q569441 Q569442 Qq570–571

63 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

The Minister suggested that the UK could move to restrict some substances of very high concern more quickly where there is strong scientific evidence and within the current sunset date procedure.443

Stakeholder engagement

136. The UK REACH statutory instrument has been criticised for failing to establish formal standing committees of experts to inform the HSE’s work. It states that ‘when forming opinions the Agency must take relevant scientific knowledge and advice into account (including any relevant knowledge and advice relating to socio-economic matters).’444 This does not replicate the committee functions of ECHA. ECHA has a number of management and technical committees and a forum which accredited stakeholders, NGOs and trade unions can attend and participate in.445 The Royal Society of Chemistry outlined the benefits of advisory committees and independent scientific evaluation in the decision-making process:

This system of independent scientific review, where all real and perceived conflicts of interest are managed transparently, provides society with confidence that safety decisions have been arrived at in an independent and objective way, based on scientific evidence and knowledge, and not vested interests.446

Professor Johnson told us that any new chemicals body must seek transparency and engage external stakeholders.

You mentioned something that is really very important in that any new organisation must be credible from the start and must have as much popular support as possible at the beginning. I would perhaps take a view similar to yourselves that as much influence as possible from external bodies and a range of experts who are allowed to play a role is really important. We do not want to get off to the wrong start should such an agency be formed. It should be as open as possible, as transparent as possible and take as much advice as possible.447

137. CHEM Trust criticised the Government’s approach because ‘vital mechanisms for stakeholder engagement and public participation will not exist in the new UK system.’448 Green Alliance echoed this criticism saying expert committees that ensure EU decisions are based on the best scientific advice ‘will disappear overnight.’449 The Royal Society of Chemistry has suggested that a register of specialists to support scientific committees be established for chemicals regulation to assist the decision-making process within BEIS and Defra.450 Minister Coffey did not agree that the provisions for scientific advice have been weakened. She argued that the HSE must publish its scientific opinions, commission independent scientific knowledge when forming opinions on authorisations

443 Q576444 The REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/758)445 CHEM Trust (TCS0012), p 10.446 Royal Society of Chemistry (TCS0034), p 4.447 Q51448 CHEM Trust (TCS0012), p 10.449 How Brexit is already watering down environmental protections, Green Alliance, 19 March 2019.450 Royal Society of Chemistry (TCS0034), p 4.

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 64

and restrictions and publish justifications when not taking further advice where ECHA has already published robust evidence. She also noted that sourcing scientific advice is not limited to the UK and EU and the HSE is required to publish a statement on how it will comply with these measures within 3 months of leaving the EU.451

138. Evidence from academics also expressed concern about available expertise in the UK.452 They noted that the UK could not readily rely on expertise from overseas to make up this shortfall:

It is important to note that the broad deficit in expertise cannot be easily made up by recruiting from the finite pool of experts from other European countries, especially as the supply will be curtailed post-Brexit. This will coincide with Defra and the Devolved Administrations needing to rapidly develop a new chemicals management strategy.453

139. Members of the Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee indicated a lack of funding for research in ecotoxicology, toxicology and environmental chemistry was a contributing factor.454 They explained that the Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) was hesitant to fund this research as its view was that as an applied science, chemical risk determination should be funded by Defra and the Environment Agency.455 Funding for chemical-related topics from the Environment Agency ended in 2008 and from Defra in 2012. The Environment Agency no longer carries out significant ecotoxicological research.456 In recent years, much of the routine work associated with developing chemicals regulations has been undertaken by the EU.457 Following representations from the Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee, in 2018 NERC provided funding for a four-year programme on chemicals in the environment. This was the first major ecotoxicology funded project in 25 years.458

140. As the UK’s chemicals regulator, the Health and Safety Executive should retain alignment to ECHA’s candidate list of substances of very high concern. Deviation should only happen where the intention is to increase safety standards by moving more quickly to restrict a substance of concern. In its statement on how it will comply with the measures set out in UK REACH, the Health and Safety Executive should outline a formal role in the substance evaluation process for the Committee on Toxicity and Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee. It should also establish a forum for engagement with stakeholders. We support the Royal Society of Chemistry’s call for a register of specialists to be established to assist the decision-making process for chemicals policy within BEIS and Defra.

141. In the coming years, the Government will be required to replicate much of the chemicals regulatory work currently undertaken by the EU. It is a matter of great regret that there has been no funding for ecotoxicology research since 2012. We recommend that Defra commits to funding an annual research programme for chemicals in the environment to plug this knowledge gap. This should build on the work of NERC’s 451 HC Deb, 25 February 2019, cols. 95–6, [Commons Chamber].452 Qq33–35453 Professor Michael Depledge (TCS0055), pp 1–2.454 Q33455 Professor Michael Depledge (TCS0055), p 2.456 Professor Michael Depledge (TCS0055), pp 1–2.457 Professor Michael Depledge (TCS0055), p 3.458 Professor Michael Depledge (TCS0055), p 2.

65 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

chemicals in the environment programme and support both ecotoxicology and toxicology strands. The areas of interest of the programme should be guided by the objectives set out in the Chemicals Strategy including human and wildlife biomonitoring and speeding up the development of green chemistry approaches.

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 66

Acknowledgments142. We would like to thank Maria Malpartida, and the staff of IKEA Greenwich, and Nicola Hanson, and the staff of Victoria Leeds, for their hard work and assistance in facilitating our public outreach events.

67 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

Conclusions and recommendations

Environment and human health impact of chemicals

1. It will not be possible to implement the ambitions of the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan and the Resources and Waste Strategy without a rapid transition to a more circular economy for chemicals. We call on the Government to set ambitious targets for the reduction of chemicals in the environment. The forthcoming Chemicals Strategy should form the basis for the UK to develop a non-toxic environment by setting out a clear, ambitious vision for the type of chemical environment we hope to live in. It should lay out a plan for remediation of regulated substances in the environment with binding targets. (Paragraph 23)

2. We recommend that the Government works with the EU environment plan and REACH to mandate the phase out of chemicals harmful to the environment. This should include a ban on the use of substances of very high concern, including those under the threshold level, ‘regrettable substitutes’ and groups of chemicals whose properties mean they do not easily breakdown in the environment. The Government should introduce an EPR to enable the furniture industry to invest in technology to ensure the safe disposal of hazardous wastes containing harmful chemicals such as brominated flame retardants. (Paragraph 24)

3. The landfill and incineration of consumer products containing chemicals causes harm to the environment, workers and communities. Reports from France suggest this is happening in huge volumes to unsold stock. We restate the recommendation in our Fixing Fashion report and call on the Government to ban the landfill and incineration of unused and unsold consumer goods. (Paragraph 25)

4. Without better understanding of the body burden of chemicals, it is difficult for authorities to know what the population is exposed to in greatest measure and what the risk from that exposure is. We recommend that the Government establish a UK wide human and wildlife biomonitoring programme. The objectives and priority monitoring areas for the programme should be set out in the Government’s forthcoming Chemicals Strategy. Such a programme will require careful design. We call on the Government to form an inter-disciplinary body of scientists and stakeholders to establish the best approach and use best practice from established programmes internationally. We support the Chief Medical Officer’s 2017 suggestion that the data collected by the Health Survey for England should be considered as a starting point for this programme. In recognition of the timeframe required to produce exposure information, the programme should be provided with long-term, ringfenced funding. The programme should be accompanied by a public information campaign so that people are aware of their chemical burden and how they can lower it. (Paragraph 36)

5. There are a huge number of chemicals used in plastic and food packaging, some of which have been identified as harmful to human health and the environment. We call on manufacturers to be more transparent about the chemicals used in their packaging to enable consumers make informed decisions. We support CHEM Trust’s call for REACH-defined substances of very high concern to be automatically banned in food contact materials as soon as possible. We recommend the Government implements a

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 68

UK-wide ban on the use of these chemicals in food contact materials available on the UK market to lower the public’s exposure. We also call on the Government to advocate this position as part of the EU’s review of food contact materials. In addition, the Government should use the introduction of an EPR scheme for plastic packaging to phase out the use of chemicals in plastics which have been found to be toxic to human and environmental health. (Paragraph 41)

6. We heard that per-fluorinated chemicals are of significant concern due to the lack of knowledge surrounding them and the health effects associated with them. Pending a further opinion by the European Food Safety Authority, the tolerable daily intake levels of the chemicals PFOA and PFOS will be substantially reduced. We call on the Government to publish its strategy on per-fluorinated chemicals as soon as possible. This should include clear guidance on routes of exposure to chemicals such as PFOS and PFOA and how these will be reduced amongst the public. (Paragraph 42)

Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988

7. The Furniture and Furnishings Regulations have been under review by BEIS and its predecessor department for ten years. In that time, a growing body of research has linked some flame retardants to adverse human and environmental health outcomes. Some of the most commonly used flame retardants in consumer products, such as deca-BDE, have been classed as persistent organic pollutants and substances of very high concern. Some have been banned and regrettable substitutions have occurred. Internationally, restrictions are increasingly being placed on their use in furniture, mattresses, children’s products and electronics. In addition, evidence has emerged that flame-retardant chemicals increase the toxicity of smoke in domestic fires, which calls into question their overall benefit. We understand the challenges the Government has faced in finding consensus with varied and opposing industry views and share its belief that there is a need for both fire and chemical safety; however, that does not justify continued ministerial paralysis while the public remain exposed to harmful chemicals in their homes. Inaction has allowed unnecessary and potentially toxic chemicals to continue to enter homes for over a decade. Chemicals which, while purporting to protect the public from fire, cause more toxic smoke and increases the production of carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide. (Paragraph 64)

8. The UK and Ireland stand alone in requiring these chemicals in domestic upholstered furniture with a hotly contested debate about whether they reduce fire deaths. We strongly disagree with the industry view that a resolution cannot be found by public consultation. We are concerned that the Government’s intention to involve the British Standards Institute in devising a new test, at the behest of industry, will be used by industry to frustrate change and further delay reform. The Government should bring the UK into line with the rest of the EU and develop a new flammability test standard based on the EU’s smoulder test and California’s standard Technical Bulletin 117–2013. This should be delivered with a clear legislative timetable for the adoption of revised regulations. In the meantime, industry must acknowledge this practice is no longer sustainable and begin the process of innovating and adopting alternatives to chemical flame retardants. (Paragraph 65)

69 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

9. There is action the Government can take immediately to reduce public exposure. We heard that in-utero and early childhood are the most sensitive times for exposure to chemicals. As proposed in the 2016 consultation, we call on the Government to remove children’s products from scope of the 1988 Regulations without further delay. The Government should also introduce a new permanent label for all upholstered furniture products containing flame retardants. This should clearly state if the product has been treated with chemical flame retardants and list all chemicals used, including those below the substance of very high concern threshold. The label should also direct consumers to an online platform where they can view independent scientific advice on the relative toxicity of the chemicals listed. (Paragraph 66)

10. The presence of harmful chemicals in furniture, and their classification as hazardous waste at disposal, have been highlighted as particular problems. In addition to the measures proposed to reduce the use of chemical flame retardants, the Government should take measures to restrict regrettable substitutions through banning the use of groups of chemicals with similar properties. In addition, the use of substances of very high concern, at any threshold, should be banned in line with the precautionary principle. The Health and Safety Executive has been aware of the heightened occupational risk to sinonasal cancer from furniture making since 2012. It needs to assess the dangers posed to furniture workers from the handling and use of foams and flame retardants including when using personal protective equipment. (Paragraph 67)

11. It is completely unacceptable that BEIS has not responded to a public consultation for nearly three years. BEIS has provided no reason for this delay beyond stating that the issue is complex and stakeholder consensus has not been achieved. We recommend the Cabinet Office strengthen its guidance on consultations. This should apply formal time limits to departmental responses to consultations with penalties for departments who do not comply. The expected response date should be published on the consultation webpage. If it is not possible to publish a full response, there should be a binding requirement to publish an update on the consultation webpage listing the reason for the delay, outlining what work is ongoing and giving a revised publication date. Stakeholder responses to consultations should be published as standard with sensitive or personal information redacted. The departmental Permanent Secretary and the Secretary of State should personally review any consultations which suffer a delay of more than six months in response and provide an account to parliament of the action they propose. (Paragraph 68)

12. We agree with evidence provided by Terry Edge that inaction and obstruction within BEIS has contributed to the delay in reforming the Regulations. It is clear that opposition from some in the furniture and flame-retardant industries, and protection of their market share, also contributed to the delay and the inability to achieve a consensus for reform. The evidence indicates that there are strongly held feelings regarding reform on all sides of the argument. We take Terry Edge’s allegations against individuals within BEIS and the industry very seriously; however, we have been unable to substantiate these allegations. We recommend that the Minister makes a decision and publishes the consultation responses before the change of government that will take place on 24 July. Failure to do so will add to the view that officials are deliberately delaying the process and waiting for a new minister so the process can start again. (Paragraph 75)

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 70

Environmental contamination around the Grenfell Tower

13. We are troubled by the lack of urgency in response to the findings of environmental contamination around the Grenfell Tower site. We consider the results of sufficient concern to warrant immediate action yet in correspondence, Kensington and Chelsea Council told us ‘until the [Government’s] testing programme is complete we will not know if there is environmental contamination.’ At the same time, residents have reported the emergence of the ‘Grenfell cough’ and health problems including vomiting, coughing up blood, skin complaints and breathing difficulties. We share Public Health England’s desire not to cause the affected community any further distress; however we fear the delay in soil testing and offering full health testing is contributing to the sense that public authorities are complacent about the risks and patronising about the experience of local residents. (Paragraph 85)

14. We support calls from experts and residents for full health biomonitoring. We understand Public Health England’s concerns but believe it is possible to design a comprehensive biomonitoring programme for local residents, including specific monitoring for the effects of exposure to fire effluents. This should be led by Public Health England with input from fire toxicity experts. It should be funded through the central government’s Bellwin scheme and implemented as soon as possible so that the community can be offered reassurance about their ongoing exposure levels. We also recommend that any local residents who have concerns about dusts or residues within their homes be offered the opportunity to have them tested for environmental contamination. Where contamination is identified, a further deep-clean of the home and surrounding residences should be carried out by Kensington and Chelsea Council. (Paragraph 86)

15. Environmental contamination testing should be carried out routinely in the immediate aftermath of major disasters. This should include soil and water testing and be in addition to air quality monitoring. The results of this monitoring should be made public and it should continue until the public are assured there is no long-term contamination risk. (Paragraph 87)

16. The Government has stated its intention to achieve a more effective testing regime for construction products and we support the work of our colleagues on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee considering modern methods of construction. We have heard that the flame-retardant chemicals used in building materials, furniture and electrical goods can contribute to the overall toxicity of fires, putting individuals and emergency service workers at greater risk. We recommend that any update to fire test standards for building materials include a toxicity standard, therefore eliminating the use of the most toxic substances. We are aware that the unique circumstances of each fire contributes to its overall toxicity; however, by reducing the toxicity of individual substances, it should be possible to reduce the toxicity of fires as a whole. (Paragraph 93)

17. We recognise that firefighters have a greater risk from environmental contamination from fires and support the research being undertaken by the University of Central Lancashire and the Fire Brigades Union. This is still in its early stages. However, research from the US has already shown that firefighters suffer higher instances of cancer in carrying out their duties than the normal population. The Government

71 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

should update the Social Security Regulations so that the cancers most commonly suffered by firefighters are presumed to be industrial injuries. This should be mirrored in the UK’s Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefits Scheme. We also recommend that the Health and Safety Executive monitors the progress of the Fire Brigades Union research and provides assistance in implementing recommendations which seek to improve the work environments of UK firefighters. This should include measures to minimise contamination from clothing and equipment and reduce the overall exposure of firefighters, their families and the public. (Paragraph 94)

Product safety

18. The Government’s budget for product safety compliance does not reflect the volume of products on the market and, as demonstrated by Which? and CHEM Trust, it is failing to protect UK consumers. Checks are only completed on a small number of products and of these, over 2 million were removed from the market in 2017–18. Online sales are increasingly problematic as products bypass the regulatory system. We recommend the Government increase the resources available for product safety compliance by 10 percent a year in the upcoming spending review. This should include a specific commitment to test products for hazardous chemicals. This will be an essential requirement to fulfil the ban on endocrine disrupting chemicals in consumer products in the forthcoming Chemicals Strategy. Chemicals testing is expensive and we believe there is scope for savings through enhanced cooperation between government agencies. We recommend a centralised testing authority be established within the Health and Safety Executive to test workplace and consumer products for chemical safety. This resource should be made available to Local and National Trading Standards offices via the OPSS. Testing results should be widely shared amongst relevant bodies and inform Trading Standards’ enforcement approach, Defra and BEIS’s regulatory approach and the work of the Committee on Toxicity. (Paragraph 104)

19. We echo the House of Lords European Union Committee’s concern about the capacity of National and Local Trading Standards to fulfil all their statutory duties due to resource reductions. These duties will increase if the UK leaves the EU, especially if we lose access to the rapid alert system, RAPEX. We call on the Government to complete a full review of the legislation Trading Standards enforces, the resources allocated by councils, capabilities and likely additional functions should the UK leave the EU. The Government should develop a plan to end the postcode lottery in chemical safety testing which currently leaves large areas of the country with no regulatory enforcement. (Paragraph 105)

20. We recognise the challenge of communicating complex chemical information to the public. Our desire is not to cause consumers concern about the chemicals used in products but to raise their awareness and to assist them make more informed purchasing decisions. Our survey of attitudes to chemicals indicated that consumers want this knowledge. We recommend reform of the labelling system for chemicals in consumer products. We acknowledge that long ingredients lists would be challenging to communicate. We propose that the grouping approach be used where the packaging or product label indicates which family of chemicals has been used. This should be accompanied by directions to the product webpage where a full list of chemical ingredients should be available. Consumers should also be provided with direction to

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 72

an online platform where they can view independent scientific advice on the relative toxicity of the chemicals listed. Where a substance of very high concern has been used, even under the threshold, this should be clearly listed with an accompanying message about which criteria it meets (carcinogenic, persistent, bio-accumulative etc.). (Paragraph 113)

21. We also recommend that the Health and Safety Executive develop domestic pictograms based on the criteria for classification as a substance of very high concern. Once available, these should also be indicated on packaging or product labels. We believe these changes would be a small step towards full chemical disclosure and would assist consumers in making more informed decisions at the point of purchase. (Paragraph 114)

22. We are deeply disappointed that the UK is not participating in AskREACH. The Government should seek access to AskREACH for UK consumers. Observer status is not enough when UK consumers desire more information about the chemical content of their products. We believe the AskREACH initiative sits alongside the labelling changes we have proposed and is an important step to enable consumers to exercise their right to know while challenging suppliers to engage with their supply chains and become more transparent. (Paragraph 115)

23. We call on the Government to prioritise data sharing relationships in its future partnership negotiations with the EU including seeking to retain access to RAPEX. This will ensure that consumers remain protected from a range of dangerous products available on the UK and EU market. We also recommend that the OPSS build relationships with online retailers through a mechanism similar to the Product Safety Pledge. This will ensure that products which bypass the normal regulatory process are captured and consumers have a clear mechanism to report faulty products purchased online. (Paragraph 119)

Future UK chemicals policy

24. The forthcoming Chemicals Strategy should form the basis for the UK to develop a non-toxic environment by setting out a clear, ambitious vision for the type of chemical environment we hope to live in. It should lay out a plan for remediation of harmful regulated substances in the environment with binding targets and a ring-fenced budget. We endorse the Chief Medical Officer’s recommendation that the Strategy take full account of the human health impacts of chemicals, including chemical mixtures. We recommend the Strategy set out how chemical mixtures will be considered in the regulatory process and how new technology will be developed to enhance our understanding of exposure. This should be closely linked to a new, UK-wide biomonitoring programme. As set out in Chapter Two, the Strategy should include objectives and priority monitoring areas for human and wildlife monitoring. The UK’s public health bodies should be given responsibility for monitoring, researching the impact of chemicals on public health, and recommending restrictions and other controls on groups of problematic chemicals. They should be given adequate funding and staffing for research and policy development. (Paragraph 132)

25. Building on the work of the European Commission, it should set targets for the elimination of endocrine disrupting chemicals from consumer products with children’s

73 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

products prioritised. The Strategy should commit the UK to reducing regrettable substitutions by using a grouping approach to chemical testing. Should the UK no longer retain membership of ECHA after EU-exit, a grouping approach to substance evaluations which considers both structurally similar substances and substances used for similar purposes should be devised. The Government should support industry innovation to develop green chemistry approaches and safer chemicals in the future. This should particularly encourage the development of chemicals which biodegrade in the environment safely. The Committee received evidence from multiple stakeholders regarding the exposure of consumers to toxic chemicals in indoor environments. This includes, but is not limited to, formaldehyde emissions from bedroom furniture, flame retardant leaching from sofas and electrical equipment, bisphenols in food packaging and phthalates in various plastics and other products. We recommend that the Chemicals Strategy addresses the concerns about the use of these chemicals in furniture and other household goods. (Paragraph 133)

26. As the UK’s chemicals regulator, the Health and Safety Executive should retain alignment to ECHA’s candidate list of substances of very high concern. Deviation should only happen where the intention is to increase safety standards by moving more quickly to restrict a substance of concern. In its statement on how it will comply with the measures set out in UK REACH, the Health and Safety Executive should outline a formal role in the substance evaluation process for the Committee on Toxicity and Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee. It should also establish a forum for engagement with stakeholders. We support the Royal Society of Chemistry’s call for a register of specialists to be established to assist the decision-making process for chemicals policy within BEIS and Defra. (Paragraph 140)

27. In the coming years, the Government will be required to replicate much of the chemicals regulatory work currently undertaken by the EU. It is a matter of great regret that there has been no funding for ecotoxicology research since 2012. We recommend that Defra commits to funding an annual research programme for chemicals in the environment to plug this knowledge gap. This should build on the work of NERC’s chemicals in the environment programme and support both ecotoxicology and toxicology strands. The areas of interest of the programme should be guided by the objectives set out in the Chemicals Strategy including human and wildlife biomonitoring and speeding up the development of green chemistry approaches. (Paragraph 141)

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 74

Annex 1: GlossaryTable 1: List of Abbreviations

ANSES French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety

BEIS Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

BIS Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

BPA Bisphenol A

BSI British Standards Institute

CLP Classification, Labelling and Packaging regulation

CMO Chief Medical Officer

COT Committee on Toxicity

Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

ECHA European Chemicals Agency

EFSA European Food Safety Authority

EPR Extended Producer Responsibility

FFRs Furnishings and Furniture (Fire Safety) Regulations

FIRA Furniture Industry Research Association

FR Flame retardant

FRETWORK Flame Retardant Textiles Industry Network

FSA Food Standards Agency

GIAA Government Internal Audit Agency

HBCD Hexabromocyclododecane–a brominated flame retardant

HBM4EU Human Biomonitoring in Europe

HSAC Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee

HSE Health and Safety Executive

IPCS International Programme on Chemical Safety

MRL Maximum Residue Level

NAO National Audit Office

NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level

OPSS Office for Product Safety and Standards

PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PBBs Polybrominated biphenyls

PBDEs Polybrominated diphenyl ethers

PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls

PCDDs Polychlorinated dibenzodioxin

PFCs Perfluorinated compounds

PHE Public Health England

POP Persistent organic pollutant

RAPEX Rapid Alert System for dangerous non-food products in the EU

REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals regulation

75 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

SAICM Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management

SVHC Substance of Very High Concern

TCEP Tris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate–a flame retardant

WHO World Health Organisation

Source: CHEM Trust, No Brainer, The impact of chemicals on children’s brain development: a cause for concern and a need for action (2017), pp 36–8.

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 76

Annex 2: Survey resultsTable 2: Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life Survey

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

1. Gender

2. Age

589 Responses 08:50 Average time to complete Closed Status

Male 185

Female 397

Other gender identity 2

Prefer not to say 5

18-24 19

25-34 48

35-44 87

45-54 117

55-64 143

65+ 175

Page 1 of 5Results | Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

10/07/2019https://forms.office.com/Pages/AnalysisPage.aspx?id=nt3mHDeziEC-Xo277ASzSugWXtlS9G1Opuy...

77 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

3. Region

4. I am aware of potentially harmful chemicals in consumer products.

5. I am concerned about the presence of potentially harmful chemicals in consumer products.

West Midlands 26

East Midlands 38

North-East 21

North-West 42

South-East 143

South-West 56

Northern Ireland 11

Scotland 40

Wales 17

London 115

Yorkshire and the Humber 80

Yes 464

No 38

Not sure 86

Very concerned 418

Somewhat concerned 140

Neither concerned nor uncon… 14

Somewhat unconcerned 11

Very unconcerned 6

Page 2 of 5Results | Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

10/07/2019https://forms.office.com/Pages/AnalysisPage.aspx?id=nt3mHDeziEC-Xo277ASzSugWXtlS9G1Opuy...

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 78

6. I am concerned about the impact on my health of potentially harmful chemicals in consumer products.

7. I am how concerned about the impact on the environment of potentially harmful chemicals in consumer products.

8. I have sufficient knowledge about potentially harmful chemicals in consumer products to make informed purchasing decisions.

Very concerned 412

Somewhat concerned 145

Neither concerned nor uncon… 13

Somewhat unconcerned 16

Very unconcerned 2

Very concerned 485

Somewhat concerned 90

Neither concerned nor uncon… 6

Somewhat unconcerned 3

Very unconcerned 3

Strongly agree 69

Agree 148

Neutral 70

Disagree 188

Strongly disagree 112

Page 3 of 5Results | Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

10/07/2019https://forms.office.com/Pages/AnalysisPage.aspx?id=nt3mHDeziEC-Xo277ASzSugWXtlS9G1Opuy...

79 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

Source: Environmental Audit Committee, Survey results: Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life [accessed 28 June 2019].

9. More knowledge about potentially harmful chemicals in consumer products would change my purchasing behaviour.

10. How should this knowledge be made available to consumers?

11. I consider the presence of potentially harmful chemicals when recycling consumer products.

12. Any other comments

Strongly agree 387

Agree 154

Neutral 27

Disagree 12

Strongly disagree 7

Packaging 469

Product website 39

Mobile Application 21

Written response from the ma… 9

Strongly agree 191

Agree 210

Neutral 94

Disagree 73

Strongly disagree 18

Latest responses

"I am so concerned about harmful chemicals in food and consum…

"I am so concerned about harmful chemicals in food and consum…

"Why is roundup still being sold when it is a class 2 carcinogen? "

288Responses

Page 4 of 5Results | Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

10/07/2019https://forms.office.com/Pages/AnalysisPage.aspx?id=nt3mHDeziEC-Xo277ASzSugWXtlS9G1Opuy...

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 80

Formal minutesTuesday 10 July 2019

Members present:

Mary Creagh, in the Chair

Philip Dunne Alex SobelAnna McMorrin

Draft Report (Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the Chair’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 142 read and agreed to.

Annexes agreed to.

Summary agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Twentieth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.

[Adjourned till 17 July 2019 at 2pm

81 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

WitnessesThe following witnesses gave evidence. Transcripts can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.

Tuesday 23 April 2019

Professor Michael Depledge, Emeritus Professor, University of Exeter Medical School, Professor Andrew Johnson, Research Scientist, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Professor Tamara Galloway, Professor of Ecotoxicology, University of Exeter, Professor John Sumpter, Professor of Ecotoxicology, Brunel University London Q1–64

Terry Edge, Former Civil Servant, Gareth Simkins, journalist Q65–118

Tuesday 30 April 2019

Professor Rick Mumford, Deputy Director and Head of Science, Food Standards Agency, Professor Anna Stec, Professor in Fire Chemistry and Toxicity, Centre for Fire and Hazards Science, University of Central Lancashire, Dr Michael Warhurst, Executive Director, CHEM Trust Q119–202

Robert Chantry-Price, Joint Lead Officer Product Safety, Chartered Trading Standards Institute, Dr Duncan Campbell, Public Analyst, Association of Public Analysts & Aberdeen Scientific Services, Graham Russell, Chief Executive Officer, Office for Product Safety and Standards Q203–263

Tuesday 14 May 2019

Daniel Kingdon, Director, Compliance and Safety, EMEA, Amazon, Gemma Brierley, Sustainability Director, Offer and Supply Chain, Kingfisher PLC, Therese Lilliebladh, Product Requirements Manager, IKEA of Sweden Q264–338

Jonathan Hindle, Chairman, British Furniture Confederation, Kasturirangan Kannah, Product Advocacy Manager, Lanxess UK, Suzie Radcliffe-Hart, Technical Manager, FIRA International, Roy Weghorst, Head of Regulatory Affairs, Kingspan Group Q339–449

Wednesday 5 June 2019

Dr Thérèse Coffey MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Kelly Tolhurst MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Professor Tim Gant, Head of Toxicology, Public Health England, Dave Bench, Director, EU Exit – Chemicals, Health and Safety Executive Q450–600

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 82

Published written evidenceThe following written evidence was received and can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.

TCS numbers are generated by the evidence processing system and so may not be complete.

1 Airtopia (TCS0043)

2 Anglian Water Services (TCS0023)

3 Bill Grayson (TCS0068)

4 Breast Cancer UK (TCS0018)

5 British Coatings Federation (TCS0006)

6 British Furniture Confederation (TCS0037)

7 British Furniture Confederation (TCS0065)

8 British Heart Foundation (TCS0020)

9 British Toy And Hobby Association (TCS0059)

10 Cancer Prevention & Education Society (TCS0005)

11 Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (TCS0025)

12 Centre for Fire and Hazard Science, University of Central Lancashire (TCS0033)

13 Changing Markets Foundation (TCS0044)

14 Chartered Trading Standards Institute (TCS0047)

15 CHEM Trust (TCS0012)

16 CHEM Trust (TCS0073)

17 Chemical Industries Association (TCS0014)

18 Colostrum UK (TCS0013)

19 Cottonsafe (TCS0056)

20 Cottonsafe (TCS0057)

21 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (TCS0040)

22 Dr Derrick Crump (TCS0041)

23 Dr Kimberley Bennett (TCS0026)

24 Dr Olwenn Martin (TCS0030)

25 Dr. Marcelo Hirschler (TCS0062)

26 European Furniture Industries Confederation (EFIC) (TCS0008)

27 Fidra (TCS0019)

28 Flame Retardants Europe and Pinfa (TCS0028)

29 FRETWORK - the flame retardant textiles network (TCS0052)

30 FRETWORK - The Flame Retardant Textiles Network Ltd (TCS0007)

31 Furniture Industry Research Association (TCS0067)

32 Green Science Policy Institute (TCS0035)

33 H & C Whitehead Ltd (TCS0011)

83 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

34 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (TCS0053)

35 Ikea of Sweden (TCS0072)

36 Lanxess Solutions UK Ltd (TCS0054)

37 Lanxess Solutions UK Ltd (TCS0064)

38 London Fire Brigade (TCS0015)

39 Mr Gareth Simkins (TCS0031)

40 Mr Mark Dowen (TCS0003)

41 Mr Michael Hagen (TCS0058)

42 Mr Norman Guiver (TCS0048)

43 Mr Terry Edge (TCS0029)

44 Mrs Agnieszka Murray (TCS0070)

45 National Bed Federation (TCS0071)

46 National Fire Chiefs Council (TCS0016)

47 Nigel Maguire (TCS0027)

48 Petrol Retailers Association & Car Wash Association (TCS0036)

49 Philip Mason (TCS0074)

50 Professor Michael Depledge (TCS0055)

51 Professor Tom Woolley (TCS0001)

52 Pure Earth / Global Alliance on Health and Pollution and Blacksmith Initiative UK (TCS0039)

53 Richard Horrocks (TCS0010)

54 Royal Society of Chemistry (TCS0034)

55 RSC Toxicology group (TCS0046)

56 School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Nottingham (TCS0038)

57 Silentnight Group Limited (TCS0009)

58 Steven Hansom (TCS0032)

59 Texchem UK LTD (TCS0060)

60 Tracey Logan (TCS0045)

61 UK Pesticides Campaign (TCS0050)

62 UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) (TCS0022)

63 Vita Cellular Foam UK Ltd (TCS0021)

64 Wildlife & Countryside Link (TCS0024)

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life 84

List of Reports from the Committee during the current ParliamentAll publications from the Committee are available on the publications page of the Committee’s website. The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report is printed in brackets after the HC printing number.

Session 2017–19

First Report Plastic bottles: Turning Back the Plastic Tide HC 339

Second Report Disposable Packaging: Coffee Cups HC 657

Third Report The Ministry of Justice: Environmental Sustainability HC 545

Fourth Report Improving air quality HC 433

Fifth Report UK Progress on Reducing F-gas Emissions HC 469

Sixth Report Green finance: mobilising investment in clean energy and sustainable development

HC 671

Seventh Report Greening Finance: embedding sustainability in financial decision making

HC 1063

Eighth Report The Government’s 25 Year Plan for the Environment HC 803

Ninth Report Heatwaves: adapting to climate change HC 826

Tenth Report Hand car washes HC 981

Eleventh Report UK Progress on Reducing Nitrate Pollution HC 656

Twelfth Report The Changing Arctic HC 842

Thirteenth Report Sustainable Development Goals in the UK follow up: Hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity in the UK

HC 1491

Fourteenth Report Sustainable Seas HC 980

Fifteenth Report Interim Report on the Sustainability of the Fashion Industry

HC 1148

Sixteenth Report Fixing fashion: clothing consumption and sustainability

HC 1952

Seventeenth Report Pre-appointment hearing with the Government’s preferred candidate for Chair of Natural England

HC 1979

Eighteenth Report Scrutiny of the Draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill

HC 1951

Nineteenth Report UK Export Finance HC 1804

First Special Report The Future of Chemicals Regulation after the EU Referendum: Government Response to the Committee’s Eleventh Report of Session 2016–17

HC 313

Second Special Report Marine Protected Areas Revisited: Government Response to the Committee’s Tenth Report of Session 2016–17

HC 314

Third Special Report Sustainable Development Goals in the UK: Government Response to the Committee’s Ninth Report of Session 2016–17

HC 616

85 Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life

Fourth Special Report Plastic bottles: Turning Back the Plastic Tide: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report

HC 841

Fifth Special Report Disposable Packaging: Coffee Cups: Government’s Response to the Committee’s Second Report

HC 867

Sixth Special Report The Ministry of Justice: Environmental Sustainability: Government’s Response to the Committee’s Third Report

HC 982

Seventh Special Report Improving air quality: Government Response to the Committee’s Fourth Report

HC 1149

Eighth Special Report UK Progress on reducing F-gas Emissions: Government’s Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report Eighth

HC 1406

Ninth Special Report Green finance: mobilising investment in clean energy and sustainable development: Government Response to the Committee’s Sixth Report

HC 1450

Tenth Special Report Heatwaves: adapting to climate change: Government Response to the Committee’s Ninth Report

HC 1671

Eleventh Special Report Greening Finance: embedding sustainability in financial decision making: Government Response to the Committee’s Seventh Report

HC 1673

Twelfth Special Report The Government’s 25 Year Plan for the Environment: Government Response to the Committee’s Eighth Report

HC 1672

Thirteenth Special Report

UK Progress on Reducing Nitrate Pollution: Government Response to the Committee’s Eleventh Report

HC 1911

Fourteenth Special Report

Hand car washes: Government Response to the Committee’s Tenth Report

HC 1910

Fifteenth Special Report The Changing Arctic: Government Response to the Committee’s Twelfth Report

HC 2069

Sixteenth Special Report Pre-appointment hearing with the Government’s preferred candidate for Chair of Natural England: Government Response to the Committee’s Seventeenth Report

HC 2096

Seventeenth Special Report

Sustainable Seas: Government Response to the Committee’s Fourteenth Report

HC 2118

Eighteenth Special Report

Fixing fashion: clothing consumption and sustainability: Government Response to the Committee’s Sixteenth Report

HC 2311

Nineteenth Special Report

Sustainable Development Goals in the UK follow up: Hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity in the UK: Government Response to the Committee’s Thirteenth Report

HC 2310