Environmental campaigners are launching legal action against the UK government over new regulations that they contend could expose Britons to harmful chemicals. The group, Fighting Dirty, claims the proposals risk fast-tracking chemical hazard classifications from nations with weaker safety standards into British law, potentially undermining protections against substances known to cause cancer.
The controversy stems from a consultation launched last year by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the body responsible for chemical regulation in Great Britain since Brexit. The consultation explored changes to the system for identifying hazardous substances, determining labelling warnings, applying restrictions, and deciding whether chemicals should be banned or tightly controlled. Critically, it proposed allowing the HSE to fast-track chemical hazard classifications from other countries. While the HSE's response to the consultation indicated it would recognise the European Union's standards – widely considered the highest globally for chemical safety – the final regulations laid before Parliament earlier this year made no mention of the EU or its standards.
Fighting Dirty, represented by law firm Leigh Day, argues that this omission is a significant loophole. Ricardo Gama, a partner at Leigh Day, stated that the absence of this 'safeguard' means the current government, or any future administration, 'could approve chemicals from places that have lower standards than the UK and EU'. The campaigners highlight that substances like hexavalent chromium, a highly toxic chemical linked to cancer and famously featured in the 'Erin Brockovich' case, are used far more extensively in countries such as the US, China, India, and Brazil than within the EU.
Georgia Elliott-Smith, founder of Fighting Dirty, described the move as 'deregulation dressed up as efficiency', warning that the 'British public will pay for it with their health'. The group fears the new regulations could grant the HSE 'unchecked power' to import weaker standards for such chemicals into the UK. Chloe Topping, a senior campaigner at CHEM Trust, echoed these concerns, suggesting the omission 'risks the regulations being misused in the future'.
The HSE, however, disputes these claims, asserting that the legislation will prevent non-EU jurisdictions with weaker regulatory practices from qualifying for fast-track evaluations, thereby protecting the public and the environment. A spokesperson for the HSE stated: 'Far from opening the door to lower standards, these regulations actually provide for a mechanism by which Great Britain can prevent non-EU jurisdictions with weaker regulatory practices from qualifying for fast-track evaluation – helping protect the public and the environment.'
Despite these assurances, campaigners are urging the government to clarify the legal text, explicitly stating that any fast-tracked adoption of decisions would only apply to those made by the EU, given its robust safety standards. Fighting Dirty has now formally initiated legal proceedings, sending a letter before claim to the HSE on 1st April, and is proceeding with an application to the courts.
Source: Fighting Dirty