From toys to toothbrushes, industrial chemicals are embedded throughout daily life. Knowing which chemicals are hazardous (called hazard classification) is fundamental to protecting health and the environment.
Hazard classification underpins product safety standards, workplace protections, environmental controls and restrictions on harmful substances as well as trade with across Great Britain and Northern Ireland and with the EU. Without robust hazard classification, regulators and supply chains cannot manage chemicals safely or remove harmful chemicals from sensitive products, like toys, with dangerous chemicals remaining in circulation. The agency responsible for hazard classification in Great Britain, the Health and Safety Executive, is now making changes to this process and it remains to be seen whether these changes deliver faster classification in line with the EU, which is needed to protect people and the environment.
When chemical policy hits reality: chemical classification against the clock
Today new regulation will dictate which chemicals are considered hazardous in Great Britain. Fidra raised serious concerns about earlier proposals to change UK chemical safety regulations to MPs, Lords, Ministers and to HSE in our consultation response. We have been warning that some of the reforms could slow down action on hazardous chemicals, weaken environmental protections, and increase divergence from EU due to a lack of legal deadlines and added unnecessary bureaucracy Since we raised concerns, there has been some assurances from ministers during debates in parliament that they plan to align with the EU and speed up decision making. We have also seen positive developments that could see GB adopt new EU hazard classes enabling further alignment across the UK and EU. Now we await to see the first classifications made through the new system. The stop watch is running to see if the ‘fast-tracked’ hazard classification route leads to quicker decisions in line with the EU as promised in parliament.
Chemical regulation since Brexit
Great Britain’s Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation (GB CLP), was originally derived from EU legislation designed to protect people and the environment from dangerous chemicals. Prior to Brexit, the UK participated in the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which pooled scientific expertise and regulatory capacity across 27 member states. Through the EU classification process, once a chemical hazard was identified, wider protections could follow across environmental regulation, worker safety and consumer product law. Since Brexit the EU has added new hazard classes to protect people from chemicals that interfere with hormones (endocrine disrupting chemicals), and from very persistent chemicals that can spread far and wide. However, HSE does not currently recognise these as hazards, so hormone disrupting chemicals are not labelled in the UK and can not be removed from products such as toys as their presence is on unknown.
In Great Britain, since 2021, HSE has had to review all hazard classification opinions issued by the European Chemicals Agency’s Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) and publish a technical report within six months, but with less data and capacity these deadlines were hard to meet and the HSE has acknowledged challenges in maintaining an effective standalone system. Under the updated regulation these requirements have now been scrapped and replaced with a work plan. The HSE are now looking into adopting the new EU hazard classes too, a move welcomed by NGOs.
Work Plan: a fast-track or a bottleneck?
The first test will be if the work plan is published swiftly and what it has in it. Although intended to streamline decision-making, the work plan could become a bottleneck that delays action. If a hazardous chemical identified by the EU is not included in the HSE’s work plan, no regulatory process may begin at all. The legislation does not specify when the plan must be published (but an explanatory note says within 6 months), what it must contain, or how quickly technical reports must be completed. This creates the risk of indefinite delays. HSE’s UK REACH work programmes is evidence that similar work plans have struggled to deliver timely chemical controls. Over four years, the UK has introduced only two chemical restriction decisions under UK REACH, compared with 13 in the EU over the same period and work programmes have been repeatedly delayed.
Delivery or divergence…
Although the legislation has no mechanisms requiring the HSE to explain when it diverges from EU or how long a ‘fast track’ classification should take, the government says the reforms are intended to improve efficiency and alignment. In the Work Plan and subsequent classifications it will be important to look out for:
- which chemicals are prioritised for classification: all those the EU classifies or just a subset
- which countries’ evidence and classification proposals are considered and whether other jurisdictions are considered as well as the EU
- which proposals are “fast tracked’’ and how long the fast track takes
- which EU classification proposals are not progressed or added to the work plan (which is at HSE’s discretion) and if reasons are given for any divergence.
Although we have heard in parliament the ambition is to align now oversight and scrutiny is needed to ensure that hazardous chemicals identified by the EU do not remain ‘unclassified’ in Great Britain because they haven’t been added to the work plan or because the fast track grinds to a standstill.
Perspectives on process
Consultations must provide relevant information at the right time and give sufficient opportunity for stakeholders across the spectrum to input. Concerns have been raised about HSE consultations and regulation development processes. Stakeholders have highlighted the absence of impact assessments, insufficient information on implementation costs and regulatory procedures, and limited evidence that environmental protections will be maintained or enhanced. The current survey launched by HSE on adding the new EU hazard classes to GB CLP asks questions to chemical producers and users on labelling and formulation but no there are no questions or opportunity to input comments on health and environmental impacts.
Scottish Parliament committees and devolved administrations also raised concerns that key information was unavailable during legislation scrutiny discussions earlier this year and said they would be keeping a close eye on proceedings in the future. Parliaments, civil society and watchdogs will be observing closely to check HSE deliver the speed, efficiency and alignment promised.
Chemical hazard classification is not a technical administrative exercise — it is the foundation upon which protections for human health, workers, wildlife and the environment are built. The UK faces genuine challenges managing chemical regulation after Brexit, but the solution is cooperation and alignment with EU standards rather than more discretionary processes. Robust scrutiny and oversight are now needed to ensure HSE’s new powers do not lead to a slower, more opaque regulatory system that leaves harmful chemicals in use longer and weakens protections for people and the environment. If the regulations work as parliament intended, the chemicals regime should be moving towards greater efficiency, with quicker decisions that align with the EU.