The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has pushed for a re-evaluation of certain regulations followed with respect to chemical trade between the United States of America and the European Union. The council has raised the demands when the US and European Union are in the midst of negotiating a new trade deal. A recent hearing at the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) saw the council representation of 35 industry experts testifying in regards to the priorities of the industry that need to be stressed upon during the formulation of the new trade deal. Initially, the idea of revising regulations under the new trade deal came up when US President Donald Trump met Juncker, the European Commission President to discuss regulations and relaxation of trade tariffs on most of the industrial goods.
In a letter addressed to the USTR, ACC stated that revising regulations to encourage cooperation in trade will play a pivotal role in substantially improving the trade productivity between the two countries. Notably, ACC professed to create a regulatory alignment for chemical trade between USA and EU on the same lines as laid down in the USA-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) agreement. In particular, the ACC singled out the call for facilitating a regulator to regulator dialogue for prioritizing and classification of chemicals.
The American Chemical Council targeted issues pertaining to two specific chemicals in titanium dioxide and siloxanes. A pending regulation in the EU may list titanium dioxide as a suspected carcinogen that can cause severe harm when inhaled. However, the ACC countered the pending regulation stating that the motion was put forward before the chemical was completely evaluated under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals regulation laid down by the European Union which was due to commence in 2017. The chemical council voiced concerns stating the classification of the chemical as a carcinogen could lead to other similar poorly soluble substances being classified as a carcinogen.
The council also objected to the evaluation of two siloxanes in D4 and D5 which deemed the compounds ‘primarily hazard-based’. The tag given to the compounds led to the authorities restricting its usage in certain personal care products. ACC countered the categorization stating that the evaluation did not align with what the Australian and Canadian regulatory authorities had discovered about the substances. ACC elucidated that the categorization of siloxanes as ‘primarily hazard-based’ robs consumers of choices, reduces the product quality, and restricts innovation and advancement in the field without any consolidated proof of benefitting the environment.