Will CLP be country-specific!?

A substance that in one EU Member State is classified as carcinogenic, but in another not? Who can help me? So, a substance is carcinogenic for the Dutch, but not for the Belgians? I just can’t wrap my head around it. Physiologically, it makes no sense to me at all, and I really cannot imagine that a substance could be carcinogenic for an Italian but not for a Spaniard. Is it then political? That was exactly the reason why we all started with GHS (Globally Harmonised System) & CLP (EU-GHS) in the first place. The big differences in classification were supposed to disappear worldwide, weren’t they? The thresholds for classification, for example as carcinogenic, are the same in the Netherlands and Croatia under CLP, right?

Apparently not! I’ve been annoyed for years about the classification debate surrounding ethanol in the Netherlands and the differences of opinion. According to the legally binding classification in Annex VI of CLP, ethanol is classified as flammable and skin irritating. But… ethanol has also been on the Dutch SZW list for years as… carcinogenic. Its inclusion on the SZW list (an occupational health list) has, since the implementation of CLP (and even before that), been used as a reason to classify ethanol as carcinogenic under CLP. In my view, wrongly! I could give you a very technical story about EU legislation and Dutch legislation, the difference between national occupational health law and EU classification law, which one takes precedence, and the possibilities Member States have to amend an Annex VI classification if they have grounds for it—but this isn’t the right place for that. (You can always call me if you’re really interested).

The ethanol discussion (carcinogenic or not) has been ongoing for a long time and is far from resolved. Until recently, it was one of the few debates in this area. Quartz, and the fact that quartz is also on that same SZW list, has in recent years become a strong second and has even led to very strange classifications of sand-containing products. Until recently, this was mainly an issue with products from the US or supplied by US companies.

My jaw literally dropped recently when a US supplier told us that for the EU they apply different classifications for quartz per country! They based their classification on the inclusion of quartz on lists such as the Dutch SZW list and Germany’s TRGS905 (fortunately we’re not the only country with such a list). I immediately went on the counterattack and explained that CLP doesn’t work that way (including the whole technical explanation). Unsurprisingly, they didn’t follow me and stuck to their position of classifying products with more than 0.1% (or 1%, depending on category) quartz sand as carcinogenic. The only thing I could think was: your customers are not going to react kindly to that. I even tried to explain that there’s a difference between the EU and the US in how we handle classifications, but to no avail. In the end, there was nothing left to do but accept it.

So, a product carcinogenic in the Netherlands but not in France!?

And it’s not only from the US side—I’ve been hearing more and more lately, from different corners, that country-specific classifications of substances (and therefore also mixtures) are being made based on national information, such as lists of carcinogenic substances. There are even countries where government agencies recommend this. But CLP was precisely intended to prevent this: EU-level legislation to ensure that we classify a substance the same way in the Netherlands as in France. Yes, there are national occupational health lists. No, those national lists cannot lead to mandatory national classifications of substances.

I am convinced that country-specific classifications are not in the spirit of CLP legislation. I truly hope this is not the end of that beautiful harmonisation dream, and that it’s only a small bump in the road. What do you think about this? Share your thoughts—I’d love to hear them.

Best regards,
Ivo