An environmental campaign group is taking legal action against the UK government over proposals that it says could fast-track chemical hazard classifications from other countries with lower standards into British law. Because nothing says 'efficiency' like potentially importing cancer-causing substances from places that think safety is for suckers.
Fighting Dirty claims the proposed changes to classification and labelling of hazardous chemicals could result in the UK weakening standards on cancer-causing substances. Last year, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which has been responsible for chemical regulation in Britain since Brexit, launched a consultation on plans to change the system that determines which substances are identified as hazardous, what warnings appear on labels, what restrictions apply, and whether chemicals are banned or tightly controlled.
Its consultation proposed that the HSE be allowed to fast-track chemical hazard classifications from other countries into British law. When the HSE published its response, it said it would recognise the EU's standards when adopting such classifications. The EU has the highest standards on chemical safety globally - a fact that seems to have been conveniently forgotten.
But when the government laid the regulations before parliament earlier this year, the EU and its standards were not mentioned. Fighting Dirty is now taking legal action over concerns that this omission may expose the public to more hazardous chemicals. Ricardo Gama, a partner at the law firm Leigh Day representing Fighting Dirty, said the absence of this 'safeguard' meant the government, or any future government, 'could approve chemicals from places that have lower standards than the UK and EU.'
Fighting Dirty notes that substances classified as human carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, such as hexavalent chromium - made infamous by the film *Erin Brockovich* and the water pollution scandal - are far more widely used in countries like the US, China, India, and Brazil than in the EU. The campaign group argues the new regulations give the HSE 'unchecked power' to import weaker standards for such chemicals into British law.
'This is deregulation dressed up as efficiency, and the British public will pay for it with their health,' said Georgia Elliott-Smith, founder of Fighting Dirty. The HSE insists the legislation will help prevent non-EU jurisdictions with weaker regulatory practices from qualifying for fast-track evaluations, but campaigners argue the omission of the EU in the text means future governments could still approve chemicals from places with lower standards.
Chloe Topping, a senior campaigner at CHEM Trust, said the omission 'risks the regulations being misused in the future.' Elliott-Smith added: 'We are not asking for anything radical. We are asking the court to hold the government to its own promises and ensure laws designed to protect people from cancer-causing chemicals actually do their job. If this law goes unchallenged, it could shape how chemicals are regulated in the UK for generations to come.'
Topping urged the government to 'close this door by clarifying in the legal text that they only intend to use the changes to speed up adoption of decisions made by the EU, which sets the highest standards globally on chemical safety.' A spokesperson for the HSE countered: 'Far from opening the door to lower standards, these regulations actually provide for a mechanism by which Great Britain can prevent non-EU jurisdictions with weaker regulatory practices from qualifying for fast-track evaluation - helping protect the public and the environment.'
A formal letter before the claim was sent to the HSE on 1 April. Fighting Dirty is now proceeding with an application for a judicial review. April Fools' Day seems an appropriate date for a fight over whether the government is joking with public health.