This time, the idea consists in regulating an evaluation, registry and approval system for 300,000 chemical substances produced, sold or used in the Old World. Companies would have to fund this massively expense system which means, consumers will be forced to pay for it.

 

I have commented on the fundamental problems of the “precautionary principle” before. In general, it requires banning or imposing an unjustified price increase on certain activities to eliminate their supposed associated risks. However, every human action has a degree of uncertainty and risk. If taking one action carries with it an associated risk, its prohibition also has a risk. Our leaders are stopping us from assuming certain risks, responsibility for which lies with the person undertaking that particular activity, and are imposing other risks which are oftentimes even greater. The classic example is DDT. A ban on DDT use in agriculture has contributed to the deaths of millions from malaria  

 

The “precautionary principle” creates a political tangle weakening the many natural ways of fighting risk that emerge through social cooperation: innovation, savings and institutions like insurance. There are thousands of chemical products that ease or save lives every day and there are many more waiting to be discovered. Given the dead weight this regulatory system would represent for innovation and social progress, REACH would bring greater costs or prohibit the responsible use of some products we have today and delay or even stop the discovery of new products for future.

 

But REACH’s destructive impact goes beyond the substitution of individual risk management for state and centralized authority. In addition, it implies an extremely high cost for small and mid-sized industry where the volume of production cannot justify the new expenses brought on by REACH. This fact might explain why so many large chemical manufacturers support the new regulation.