Cadmium industry disputes latest candidate list additions
Echa has added two cadmium compounds to the candidate list, following agreement by its Member State Committee (MSC), despite claims by the cadmium industry that such action would be inappropriate.
Cadmium fluoride (CdF2) and cadmium sulphate (CdSO4) have been added for being carcinogenic, mutagenic, and toxic for reproduction (CMR), as well as having serious effects of "equivalent concern" based on probable health effects, with prolonged exposure possibly affecting kidneys and bones.
The International Cadmium Association (ICdA) and Eurometaux raised concerns before the meeting about including the substances on the candidate list, not least because cadmium fluoride is not registered and is “probably limited to minor laboratory reagent uses,” while cadmium sulphate is only registered as an intermediate, used for example to make pigments and photovoltaic components (GBB March 2010).
The substances are, however, both listed in Annex VI of CLP as carcinogenic (category 1B), mutagenic (1B), and toxic for reproduction (1B), among other classifications. The CMR listing gave “no room for manoeuvre for MSC members or indeed for Echa,” says Elina Karhu, head of Echa's risk management identification unit.
Sweden proposed that the substances should be added to the candidate list based on their harmonised classification as CMRs. It also argued that the toxic effects of all cadmium substances are caused by cadmium ions so that conclusions for health effects of cadmium are directly relevant to cadmium fluoride and cadmium sulphate. This, Sweden added, is supported by an additional harmonised classification in place for specific target organ toxicity repeated dose in both cases. In its conclusion on a risk management option analysis, Sweden also considered a suggestion that the substances could be used as substitutes for other cadmium compounds.
The ICdA criticised Sweden's Annex XV report for making “no effort” to try to link uses of the cadmium substances to the risks posed to the general population.
The trade association also says that including the substances in the candidate list is in “direct contradiction” to principles outlined in Echa's SVHC Roadmap to 2020 Implementation Plan. The roadmap suggests that priority should be given to substances that have been fully registered for non-intermediate use.
However, the roadmap does say that “supplementary activities” can be carried out to identify further (potential) SVHC substances that have not been registered or only registered for intermediate effects but that are chemically similar to SVHCs with registrations for non-intermediate uses.
“It is true that tonnage and type of use are the main factors” for prioritising which SVHCs should transfer from the candidate list to the authorisation list, says Ms Karhu, “yet there are also other considerations such as whether a substance could potentially substitute another”. She points to other substances, including phthalates, that have been recommended for inclusion on the authorisation list because of structural similarities to others already listed.
Meanwhile, Echa also added two benzotriazole substances (UV 320 and UV 328) to the candidate list after they were identified as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, as well as very persistent and very bioaccumulative (PBT/vPvB). Two more substances, DOTE, and the reaction mass of DOTE and MOTE, were added for being toxic to reproduction.
Four other substances also added to the list by Echa
News from Chemical Watch