The document summarizes key discussions from panels at the Helsinki Chemicals Forum 2018 on the first day. It discusses trends in chemicals management globally and opportunities for capacity building. One panel focused on communicating risks related to endocrine disruptors, noting the evolving scientific understanding and regulatory challenges. Another panel addressed potential for harmonization across countries in setting chemical priorities, highlighting common approaches to risk-based screening and the need for transparent communication. The concluding remarks encouraged sharing experiences to speed capacity building and taking advantage of frameworks like the UN Sustainable Development Goals to better integrate chemicals management globally.

1. Helsinki Chemicals Forum 2018
Concluding Remarks
First Day
Jukka Malm
European Chemicals Agency

2. Capacity building beyond 2020
Panel 1

3. Trends
• Population in developing countries increasing
together with age and consumption,
urbanisation, thereby increasing concerns of
safety & pollution
• Chemicals management in OECD is developing
fast, can contribute to increasing gap
• Shifting production of chemicals to Asia,
especially China & India
• Industry has become a stronger advocate for
multilater agreements

4. Opportunities
• Promote the use of hazard/risk information developed in
national/regional programmes, eg. REACH – build on
OECD standards
• Awareness raising of chemicals issues at political level;
promote chemicals management as an integral part of
green economy and sustainability
• How to share the learnings, not repeat the mistakes, is
there a way to speed up the capacity building process
• Capacity building can also be targeted towards industry,
incl SMEs – not only chemicals industry but more widely,
encourage measure that go beyond legislation
• SDGs together with SAICM and the ’beyond 2020 prcess’
offer a good frame for this work – window of opportunity
for integration!
4

5. Endocrine disruptors as a
challenge for risk
communication
Panel 2

6. Observations
• Emerging issue since 80’s, with continous progress on
scientific understanding and regulation
• - (regulatory) science still evolving, (screening) test methods needed,
regulation can/should be adapted
• Invisible threat – many commonalitities with general
challenges of chemicals risk communication, but also
specificities
• Complex and controversial issue, low doses, severity of effects, no
thresholds?
• Endocrine acitivity -> adverse effect -> risk
• Moving from known EDCs to (yet) unknown EDCs
• Sensitive, gaining media attention, high economic interest, doubts
about conflict of interest
• Burden of proof, uncertainty vs precautionary principle
6

7. EDCs – good practice for science
& risk communication
• Normal rules of good communication apply
• Constant, honest, transparent communication
• ”People are not idiots” – don’t underestimate the desire and
capacity for good information
• Including what is known, what not
• What has been done, what is underway
• Balanced, not alarmist, give wider context
• Listen, take concerns seriously
• While having different views, the actors should speak the
same language; otherwise confusing audiences
• Applying good practices of communication builds
cooperation and trust
7

8. Priority setting of
chemicals – potential for
harmonisation and
synergies
Panel 3

9. 9
Key issues
• All countries with (developed) industrial chemicals
management systems apply priority setting schemes
• Serving different purposes but largely based on common
approaches and data elements – often risk based screening
• However, often also (somewhat) context dependent
• New approach methods likely to generate new hazard data
• Exposure data – less developed, more difficult to get
• How about chemicals in products (articles)?
• Main purpose to identify high priority substances for
further work
• But also low priority is a result that can be used &
communicated
• Priorities to be regularly reviewed – new hazard/use data

10. 10
How to foster collaboration and
synergies?
• From sharing of lists to common priority setting
• Common data formats facilitate data sharing and
cooperation, and allows for common use of the technical
tools
• Cooperation on priority setting is a good stepping stone for
cooperation on next steps (e.g. risk assessment)
• Data ownership not an issue for priority setting but may be for
assessment
• Transparent communication about the approaches, data used
and results (but also limitations) can help
• Developing countries to target their efforts
• Industry by increasing predictability of what is of concern, and to
avoid regrettable substitution
• Overall creating confidence in the system

11. Thank you!
Subscribe to our news at
echa.europa.eu/subscribe
Follow us on Twitter
@EU_ECHA
Follow us on Facebook
Facebook.com/EUECHA
jukka.malm@echa.europa.eu