The EU recently introduced four new hazard classes to the Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation (CLP) (EC) 1272/2008. The classes are endocrine disruption for human health (ED HH) and the environment (ED ENV), persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) or very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB), and persistent, mobile and toxic (PMT) or very persistent and very mobile (vPvM). This action was a direct consequence of the EU’s Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, which aims at strengthening the protection of human health and the environment, as well as reinforcing the CLP Regulation as the central piece of the chemicals legislation. This study examined the regulatory obligations triggered by these new hazard classes, as well as the existing obligations for endocrine disrupters and PBT/vPvB substances identified in other EU regulations. In addition, we compared the CLP criteria for endocrine disruption and PBT/vPvB to criteria existing in other EU regulations and investigated how these criteria are used in the EU chemicals legislation. We found that the implementation of the new hazard classes under the CLP into existing EU chemicals legislation will require the revision of all regulations that rely on the CLP hazard criteria for risk management. Without revision, the immediate impact of the new hazard classes will only extend to six regulations and the regulatory obligations they contain, all of which apply to substances classified under any of the CLP hazard classes. Meanwhile, substances with endocrine disrupting and PBT/vPvB properties are already being identified and regulated using criteria from regulations other than the CLP. When comparing the criteria for identification of endocrine disrupters and PBT/vPvB substances across the chemicals legislation, we found that the criteria differed between regulations. The findings aim to support the efficient implementation of the new CLP hazard classes and harmonization of criteria across regulations, in line with the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability.

Chemicals in the EU are mainly regulated based on their intended use. Each legal framework consists of requirements and guidance for hazard- and risk assessment, along with the associated decision processes e.g., registration or authorisation of chemicals for market access in the EU. As a single chemical may have multiple uses, it may be assessed under more than one framework, potentially leading to different assessment outcomes. To address this, the European Commission has introduced the ‘one substance, one assessment’ approach as part of the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. The aims of the approach include streamlining risk assessment processes and reducing duplication of work in assessing the same chemical. This study aimed to map the scope of chemicals subject to assessment in multiple legal frameworks and to illustrate the importance of coordination and communication in chemical assessment processes. This was achieved by identifying chemicals that are either registered or have received specific approval for the EU market, and analysing their presence in different legal frameworks. Our findings showed that almost one-tenth of the substances identified were listed under more than one framework. However, there was a notable lack of coherent chemical identifiers available to accurately identify chemicals across the frameworks. Additionally, we identified the presence of phthalates, bisphenols and PFAS in EU frameworks to illustrate how a group-based approach to chemical assessment could be applied across different legal frameworks.

Today’s production and consumption are increasingly overusing and polluting natural resources. In response, actors globally are developing circular economy strategies to use resources such as materials and products in a sustainable way. An important but often neglected part of the circular economy is hazardous chemicals. These are part of everyday products and when recycled they become part of the resource cycle. This paper discusses the management of circular non-toxic supply chains, focusing on goal conflicts and synergies in policy and regulation, issues of transparency and traceability in supply chains, and difficult trade-offs and knowledge gaps regarding circularity and end-of-life. The exploratory study builds on semi-structured interviews and reference group discussions with respondents from the chemicals management and circular economy sectors. The results show that the transition to a circular non-toxic economy is impeded by insufficient legislation, policy incoherence and low supply chain transparency and traceability. This leads to the circulation of hazardous chemicals in materials and products, including legacy chemicals, significantly increasing consumer and environmental exposure. The findings illustrate how designing products and materials to be non-toxic from the start creates synergies and opportunities for a sustainable use of resources and how a hazard-based approach to risk management promotes circularity and safer consumer products. It also identifies relevant management and policy steps to achieve a circular, non-toxic economy as part of the transition to a society that meets today’s environmental and resource challenges.

Ecosystems around the globe are increasingly being inundated with a cocktail of chemical pollutants. From antidepressant drugs found in the tissues of fish from the Niagara River to persistent organic pollutants detected in polar bears from Arctic ecosystems, pollutants are capable of affecting the development, physiology, morphology, and behaviour of wildlife. Here, we highlight the relatively young field of behavioural ecotoxicology, which has shown that exposure to even low, environmentally realistic levels of contaminants can cause a wide range of behavioural changes in animals. This is cause for major concern, given that the ability to appropriately produce and maintain behaviours is fundamental to the ecology and evolution of wild animal populations. Further, we underscore that not only is studying animal behaviour a vital component of understanding the impacts of chemical pollution, it also represents an extremely valuable—but as yet underutilized—tool for informing more effective chemicals regulation, which is urgently needed to protect wildlife living in an increasingly toxic world.

Behavioural analysis has been attracting significant attention as a broad indicator of sub-lethal toxicity and has secured a place as an important subdiscipline in ecotoxicology. Among the most notable characteristics of behavioural research, compared to other established approaches in sub-lethal ecotoxicology (e.g. reproductive and developmental bioassays), are the wide range of study designs being used and the diversity of endpoints considered. At the same time, environmental hazard and risk assessment, which underpins regulatory decisions to protect the environment from potentially harmful chemicals, often recommends that ecotoxicological data be produced following accepted and validated test guidelines. These guidelines typically do not address behavioural changes, meaning that these, often sensitive, effects are not represented in hazard and risk assessments. Here, we propose a new tool, the EthoCRED evaluation method, for assessing the relevance and reliability of behavioural ecotoxicity data, which considers the unique requirements and challenges encountered in this field. This method and accompanying reporting recommendations are designed to serve as an extension of the “Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating Ecotoxicity Data (CRED)” project. As such, EthoCRED can both accommodate the wide array of experimental design approaches seen in behavioural ecotoxicology, and could be readily implemented into regulatory frameworks as deemed appropriate by policy makers of different jurisdictions to allow better integration of knowledge gained from behavioural testing into environmental protection. Furthermore, through our reporting recommendations, we aim to improve the reporting of behavioural studies in the peer-reviewed literature, and thereby increase their usefulness to inform chemical regulation.

The Science-Policy Panel (SPP) on Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution Prevention, now being established under a mandate of the United Nations Environment Assembly, will address chemical pollution, one element of the triple planetary crises along with climate change and biodiversity loss. The SPP should provide governments with consensual, authoritative, and holistic solution-oriented assessments, particularly relevant to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and, we suggest, to issues regarding the global commons. The assessments should be flexible in scope and breadth, and address existing issues retrospectively and prospectively to minimize the high costs to human and environment health that come from delayed, slow, and/or fragmented policy responses. Two examples of assessments are presented here. The retrospective example is pharmaceutical pollution, which is of increasing importance, especially in LMICs. The SPP’s assessment could identify data gaps, develop regionally attuned policy options for mitigation, promote “benign-by-design” chemistry, explore educational and capacity-building activities, and investigate financial mechanisms for implementation. The prospective example is on risks posed by chemicals and waste release from critical technological infrastructure and waste sites vulnerable to sea level rise and extreme weather events. Multisectoral and multidisciplinary inputs are needed to map and develop “disaster-proofing” responses, along with financing mechanisms. The new SPP offers the ambition and mechanisms for enabling much-needed assessments explicitly framed as inputs to policy-making, to protect, and support the recovery of, local to global human and environmental health.

The CLP mandates manufacturers and importers to classify substances and mixtures according to hazard criteria, with notifications submitted to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Substances meeting hazard criteria must be appropriately labelled and packaged to communicate hazards effectively. The CLP establishes hazard classification criteria but does not independently prohibit or restrict the use of hazardous chemicals. Instead, it serves as a basis for regulatory obligations in other specific regulations. This study investigates the regulatory implications of meeting hazard criteria under the CLP across EU regulations and directives listed in EU Chemicals Legislation Finder (EUCLEF). The results show that fulfilling criteria for human health hazard classes trigger regulatory obligations in the highest number of regulations/directives, with carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and reproductive toxicity (CMR) leading to obligations in 19 of 20 pieces of legislation linked to the CLP. Conversely, physical, environmental, and ozone layer hazards are associated with fewer regulations and directives, and lead to fewer prohibitions. The study underscores the pivotal role of the CLP in EU chemical legislation and the need for coherence and consistency across regulations. While regulatory obligations are primarily aimed at substances meeting hazard criteria, the variability in self-classification notifications and limitations in harmonized classification processes were observed. Moreover, the complexity of the regulatory structure poses challenges for stakeholders and policymakers, including inconsistencies, compliance difficulties, and the need for frequent revisions. Addressing these challenges is critical for enhancing regulatory effectiveness and ensuring a more coherent and harmonized approach to chemical management in the EU.

The essential use concept aims to better protect consumers, vulnerable groups, and the environment from the most harmful chemicals by phasing out uses considered non-essential for society. Given the lack of empirical research evaluating this novel approach for chemical management in real-world settings, the aims of the present analysis were to 1) investigate if the information provided in applications for authorisation under REACH allowed for the identification of non-essential uses of substances of very high concern (SVHCs), and 2) identify data gaps, challenges and potential needs for revising the assessment criteria to effectively implement the essential use concept in the REACH authorisation. In total, 100 uses covering 11 SVHCs were analysed. 4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl) phenol (OPnEO) and chromium trioxide were among the most frequently used substances, covering 42% and 35% of the analysed uses. Using the current essential use criteria, 55% of all analysed uses were categorised as essential, while 10% were categorised as non-essential. Potentially, authorisations would not have been granted for the identified non-essential uses under REACH if the concept had been implemented at the time. However, for 35% of the uses it was not possible to assess their essentiality and these uses were therefore categorised as “complex.” These challenges were due to the multiple purposes of the technical function, lack of detailed information on the spectrum of end-uses, and difficulties in interpreting the essential use criteria. Consequently, for a successful implementation of the essential use concept, we recommend the European Commission to develop guidance for applicants and refine the essential use criteria to ensure a transparent and resource-efficient authorisation procedure under REACH.

The EU Cosmetic Products Regulation requires neither environmental data nor environmental risk assessment for individual ingredients or finished cosmetic products. Instead, it relies on REACH to address environmental risks linked to cosmetic ingredients, including preservatives. We investigated how the environmental risks of cosmetic preservatives are managed by REACH. We identified preservatives of environmental concern and examined if any of these had been selected for Substance Evaluation, proposed for or identified as an SVHC, required authorization or were proposed for, or subject to, restriction under REACH. More than half of the preservatives approved under the Cosmetic Product Regulation, 70 of 137, were identified as being of environmental concern according to the criteria set in this study. Some of the approved preservatives were no longer produced or used in the EU due to their hazardous properties. However, they remained approved and may still enter the EU via the imported products. Our results also indicate that the environmental aspects of cosmetic ingredients, including preservatives, are not efficiently managed by REACH. Besides the known issues in REACH, we identified additional areas in the interface between REACH, CLP and the Cosmetic Products Regulation that call for improvement. Here, we provide practical suggestions in line with the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. If implemented, these measures would strengthen the protection of the environment from hazardous cosmetic ingredients.

Climate change, biodiversity loss, and chemical pollution are planetary-scale emergencies requiring urgent mitigation actions. As these “triple crises” are deeply interlinked, they need to be tackled in an integrative manner. However, while climate change and biodiversity are often studied together, chemical pollution as a global change factor contributing to worldwide biodiversity loss has received much less attention in biodiversity research so far. Here, we review evidence showing that the multifaceted effects of anthropogenic chemicals in the environment are posing a growing threat to biodiversity and ecosystems. Therefore, failure to account for pollution effects may significantly undermine the success of biodiversity protection efforts. We argue that progress in understanding and counteracting the negative impact of chemical pollution on biodiversity requires collective efforts of scientists from different disciplines, including but not limited to ecology, ecotoxicology, and environmental chemistry. Importantly, recent developments in these fields have now enabled comprehensive studies that could efficiently address the manifold interactions between chemicals and ecosystems. Based on their experience with intricate studies of biodiversity, ecologists are well equipped to embrace the additional challenge of chemical complexity through interdisciplinary collaborations. This offers a unique opportunity to jointly advance a seminal frontier in pollution ecology and facilitate the development of innovative solutions for environmental protection.