More Proposed SVHC for REACH

ECHA is proposing for public comment more candidate SVHC (Substances of Very High Concern) under REACH.   These do not trigger the Candidate List requirements – yet.  See the list here.

More arsenic, lead and chromate compounds. Ethylene dichloride. Diglyme, CAS 111-96-6, which has stirred EPA attention recently (proposed SNUR).  Most interesting is the first identified as “equivalent level of concern” because it is an endocrine disruptor and not the standard carcinogen, reproductive toxin, mutagen (4-tert-octylphenol).  Expect to see lots more EDCs (endocrine disrupting chemicals).

ECHA will keep adding to the Candidate List SVHC, making compliance an ongoing challenge for products and their raw materials.  Need help?  Contact EHS Strategies, Inc.

Read Full Post »

Sustainability vs Innovation?

Article by Jens Martin Skibsted and Rasmus Bech Hansen illustrates why “sustainability” is just not the right goal:

Over-Innovation Makes U.S. Firms Suck At Sustainability  The same forces that drive U.S. companies to become the greatest innovators are the ones that make them the biggest environmental sinners. 

Skibsted and Hansen argue we need to standardize and to focus on adding non-material “value” (Starbucks as example – doesn’t it rely on stuff to create their interior design and never-ending combinations of ingredients in silly-named concoctions?)  Preferably no more new stuff and there’s only a small number of “stuff” you can buy.    They argue American innovation and constant stream of new products is what makes us the least sustainable society.

I agree that our consumption rates are absurd.  Certainly having only a few standard products (Beetles everyone?) will cut back on consumption.  Not clear who gets to decide what gets to be made.  The old Soviet planning committee worked soooooo well.

They are wrong. The only way we will find “greener” solutions is by pushing the envelope of technologies and testing what works – using innovation and the market introduction and subsequent acceptance/rejection/modification of new products.  (Of course, we need to be smart in the design – aka use life cycle thinking.)   Maybe they want to go back to the Stone Age of subsistence living.  (Utopia?)  Or wait for America to invent products for Europe.

Give me a thriving future, not a bleak standardized one.  That’s why I don’t see sustainability as an endpoint. See my last blog.

Read Full Post »