British Ceramic Confederation
BCC
The British Ceramic Confederation (BCC) is the trade association for the UK ceramic manufacturing industry, representing the collective interests of all ceramic sectors.
ID: 418701911503-17
Lobbying Activity
26 Jun 2019
The British Ceramic Confederation (BCC) represents the UK ceramic tableware manufacturing industry. We welcome the opportunity to provide feedback on the roadmap of the inception impact assessment and to inform the initiative on migration limits for lead, cadmium and possibly other metals from ceramic and vitreous food contact materials. Key points are highlighted below and focus on the fact that it will only be possible for industry and the Commission to evaluate the impact of proposed regulatory changes if there is clarity on:
I. The inclusion of different metals and their associated limits
a. The term ‘heavy metal’ is not defined and the roadmap fails to clearly recognise the difference between metals that are present as trace elements in raw materials, those that are added for technical reasons and those that are decorative. The reasons for the use of different metal compounds needs to be clearly understood as this will have implications for how they can be controlled. Currently the document is confused in places about the presence / use of metals.
b. Clarity is required about which metal species may be deemed hazardous, the science behind these conclusions and how this is applicable to ceramics. It should be noted that many pigments are not classed as hazardous; for e.g. stable engineered Cadmium Pigments. Clearer distinction needs to be made between the technical/decorative product and the potential migratory element of concern.
c. Migration limits must be based on sound science and the impact on industry must be assessed, particularly if phase 2 elements are to be included. We are concerned that research carried out by the JRC was not based on a fair representation of ware produced in the EU as samples with significant concentrations of lead were selected so that the kinetics of reactions could be established. Moreover, there is a factual error in the Roadmap; the JRC did not test 6000 samples (as indicated on page 2) as ‘6000’ refers to a measurement value (“Between 2013 and 2017 the JRC's European Reference Laboratory for FCMs (EURL-FCM) generated over 6000 data points on hundreds of samples provided by industry”).
II. Proposed test methods
Testing costs will increase and need to be assessed for all types of manufacturers. Although more items may not need to be tested, the cost per test will increase as new equipment will be required - ICP MS is less widely available and more expensive than AA testing.
III. Definitions for artisanal and traditional production and culturally valuable products together with derogations
The document includes an objective to minimise potential adverse impacts on traditional and artisanal production and culturally valuable products, but there is no information about how these will be defined. There is also reference to 'derogations for traditional and artisanal productions' but there is no mention what these 'derogations' will be. These definitions need to be clarified before the industry can comment on the likely impact of proposals.
IV. Implementation date(s) and transitional arrangements
The economic impact on employment should not be underestimated; an adequate transition period is needed for the industry to adapt to the future legislation and this must be part of the impact assessment.
V. The management of imported products
The same level of compliance between European and imported goods should be a key priority for the European Commission; it is not clear to what extent the existing rules have been enforced at a customs level.
As a final point we would like to invite the European Commission to clarify the legislative process, including the timetable. As the European Commission is planning major changes to the legislation, with regards to the limits, and scope, we consider that a procedure of an implementing act is inappropriate and request that a co-decision process is followed in order to adopt the future legislation.
Read full response29 Jan 2019
The British Ceramic Confederation (BCC) is the trade association representing the collective interests of the UK ceramic manufacturing industry. Our 90-plus member companies cover the full spectrum of ceramic products and over 90% of the UK industry’s manufacturing capacity. The sector directly employs over 22,000 full-time employees in the UK, with many more in the supply chain, and generates £2bn in annual sales. Our membership comprises a range of company types, including SMEs operating single manufacturing sites, through to larger UK-based and multi-national organisations operating multiple manufacturing sites.
We are extremely concerned about the proposal for Adaptation to Technical Progress (ATP) to the CLP Regulation in respect to Titanium Dioxide (TiO2). This substance is a naturally occurring impurity which exists in many clay bodies used within the ceramic industry. TiO2 is also a commonly used opacifier in ceramic glazes. We are extremely concerned that the ATP proposals will have an adverse impact on our industry, without delivering any benefits to health within the European Union.
We have concerns about the science informing the proposals, which has based on studies involving observation of rats. The proposed classification is linked to a dust effect of TiO2, however the effect on human health is still being debated in the scientific community. Lung overload can only occur under extremely high exposure for long duration which have never been observed in humans and will realistically never happen. There is no realistic concern for consumers and while industrial workers need to be protected against all dusts, this is already adequately managed through national exposure limits and regulations, such as COSHH in the UK.
The negative consequences of the proposals are significant. Classifying TiO2 would be counterproductive as it would send the wrong message about the true level of concern. The credibility of CLP, as a system of identifying risks, is therefore at stake. The classification would have unnecessary downstream consequences, requiring further policy development to clarify waste requirements. The fact that the Commission recognised these unintended impacts through the introduction of a number of notes and labelling phrases demonstrates that CLP is not the correct regulatory approach.
In summary, we recommend that the process on hold until more information is available, and a more suitable regulatory approach is identified.
Read full response