
Britain’s initial set of mandatory classifications tend to be less strict where they diverge from categorisations under the EU CLP, an analysis by Chemical Watch News & Insight has shown.
The finding raises the possibility that companies operating in Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) could gain a competitive advantage over EU competitors because of less stringent regulation under the GB CLP, with potential for negative impacts on human health and the environment. However, companies operating in both jurisdictions may find themselves hampered by additional complexity and administrative burdens as they may need to, for example, label products differently.
Britain set mandatory classifications under post-Brexit chemicals legislation for the first time on 20 October. The classifications, covering 98 substances, stem from opinions of ECHA’s Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) published in 2019 and 2020. The EU already set classifications for the same substances in 2021 and 2022 through the adaptation to technical progress (ATP) process.
For 15 of the 98 substances affected, the classifications are not wholly aligned. And a Chemical Watch News & Insight analysis shows that the EU classification is stricter than the British equivalent for 12 of those 15 diverging substances (see table), or 80% of the time.
HSE rejected some RAC conclusions
The extent of the divergence varies considerably from substance to substance.
At one extreme, the EU classification follows the RAC recommendation, while Britain has no classification for the same endpoint. For example, the biocide azamethiphos has a category 2 carcinogenicity classification in the EU, but no classification for carcinogenicity in Britain.
In a technical report on RAC’s azamethiphos opinion published in 2021, Britain’s national regulator for chemicals the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) concluded that classification was unwarranted because tumours seen in relevant studies "could be regarded as incidental findings". There was no clear dose-response relationship and no statistical significance, the agency added.
The HSE did agree with RAC on classifications for azamethiphos for six other endpoints, however.
For other substances, the divergence is minimal. For the pesticide trifloxystrobin, for example, the EU and Britain both have a category 2 specific target organ toxicity with repeat exposure classification (STOT RE 2). However, in the EU the classification is for effects in the kidney as well as in the blood, whereas in Britain it is only for effects in the blood.
In all 15 cases of divergence, the deviation from the relevant RAC opinion originates in the HSE technical reports, published in 2021. The HSE agreed with its own technical report recommendations in all of its subsequent opinions, published in 2022. The ministerial decisions likewise have not deviated from those 2021 recommendations.
There are "limited" instances of difference between the British classifications, the RAC opinions, and the equivalent EU classifications, an HSE spokesperson said. "While the UK recognises the importance of the EU single market, as a third country, the UK must now make its own decisions regarding the classification and labelling of hazardous chemicals," they added.
They also said that where HSE proposes a less severe classification than RAC, "this does not necessarily mean that the overall classification proposed is less protective for human health and the environment".
Divergence remains a concern
Regulatory divergence from the EU as a result of Brexit remains a hot topic in UK political circles.
The Labour Party, which is projected to win the next general election that must be held by January 2025, said in October that it will aim to minimise divergence on REACH to increase protections from hazardous chemicals that are "falling behind due to a real lack of data and resources in the UK system".
Further mandatory classifications are in the pipeline, with ministers expected to take decisions for another 26 substances in the first quarter of next year.
Substance |
CAS No |
EC No |
Regime |
More Strict |
Divergence |
|
(R)-p-mentha-1,8-diene; |
5989-27-5 |
227-813-5 |
REACH, PPPR |
UK |
EU has Aquatic Chronic 3, H412. UK has Aquatic Chronic 1, H410 with an M-factor of 1 |
|
4,4'-isopropylidenediphenol (Bisphenol A; BPA) |
80-05-7 |
201-245-8 |
REACH |
EU |
EU has Aquatic Chronic 1, H410 with an M-factor of 10. UK has Aquatic Chronic 2, H411 |
|
Ammonium bromide |
12124-97-9 |
235-183-8 |
REACH, BPR |
EU |
EU has Repr. 1B, H360FD (May damage fertility. May damage the unborn child). UK has Repr. 1B, H360Fd (May damage fertility. Suspected of damaging the unborn child) |
|
Azamethiphos (ISO); S-[(6-chloro-2-oxooxazolo[4,5-b]pyridin-3(2H)-yl)methyl] O,O-dimethyl thiophosphate |
35575-96-3 |
252-626-0 |
BPR |
EU |
EU has Carc. 2, H351 (Suspected of causing cancer). UK has no classification for same endpoint |
|
Barium diboron tetraoxide |
13701-59-2 |
237-222-4 |
REACH |
EU |
EU has Acute Tox. 4, H332 (Harmful if inhaled) with an ATE value of 1.5 mg/L. UK has no classification for same endpoint |
|
Beta-cyfluthrin (ISO); reaction mass of rel-(R)-cyano(4-fluoro-3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl (1S,3S)-3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane-1-carboxylate and rel-(R)-cyano(4-fluoro-3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl (1S,3R)-3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ratio 1:2) |
1820573-27-0 |
- |
PPPR |
EU |
EU has STOT SE 1, H370 (May cause damage to the |
|
Cyfluthrin (ISO); α-cyano-4-fluoro-3-phenoxybenzyl 3-(2,2-dichlorovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate |
68359-37-5 |
269-855-7 |
BRP |
EU |
EU has STOT SE 1, H370 (May cause damage to the |
|
Esfenvalerate (ISO); |
66230-04-4 |
- |
PPPR, BPR |
N/A |
EU has STOT SE 1, H370 (Causes |
|
Mancozeb (ISO); manganese ethylenebis(dithiocarbamate) (polymeric ) complex with zinc salt |
8018-01-7 |
- |
PPPR |
EU |
EU has Repr. 1B, H360D. UK has Repr. 2, H361d |
|
Mecoprop-P (ISO) [1] and its salts; |
16484-77-8 [1] |
240-539-0 [1] |
PPPR |
EU |
EU has M-factor of 10 for Aquatic Chronic 1. UK has M-factor of 1 for same endpoint |
|
Methyl salicylate |
119-36-8 |
204-317-7 |
REACH |
EU |
EU has Aquatic Acute 3., H412 (Harmful to aquatic life with |
|
Guinoclamine (ISO); 2-amino-3-chloro-1,4-naphthoquinone |
2797-51-5 |
220-529-2 |
PPPR |
EU |
EU has STOT RE 2 for effects in the kidney, as well as in the blood. UK has STOT RE 2 only for effects in the blood |
|
RS)-1-{1-ethyl-4-[4-mesyl-3-(2-methoxyethoxy)-o-toluoyl]pyrazol-5-yloxy}ethyl methyl carbonate; |
1101132-67-5 |
- |
PPPR |
EU |
EU has Repr. 2, H361fd. UK has Repr. 2, H361d. |
|
Trifloxystrobin (ISO); methyl (E)-methoxyimino-{(E)-α-[1-(α,α,α-trifluoro-m-tolyl)ethylideneaminooxy]-o-tolyl}acetate |
141517-21-7 |
- |
PPPR |
UK |
EU has M-factor of 10 for Aquatic Chronic 1. UK has M-factor of 100 for same endpoint |
|
Trinexapac-ethyl (ISO); |
95266-40-3 |
- |
PPPR |
EU |
EU has STOT RE 2, H373 (May cause damage to the GI tract |
This article was updated on 9 November to include comments from the HSE.
