Chemicals Coffee Time Monthly, February 2025

Dear Reader,

February may be a short month, but that doesn’t mean the chemical sector was peaceful. Regulatory change is still flooding out of the EU, but we’ll start with some important GB news.

Hearing from the HSE, DEFRA and the UK

New GB Mandatory Classifications

One of our eagle-eyed readers has just spotted that the GB Mandatory Classification List has been updated to the 6th Edition on 15th February (interesting date, that was a Saturday!). You can download it as an xls file from this webpage : https://www.hse.gov.uk/chemical-classification/classification/mcl-list.htm .

The version log states:

“Updated to include the new/revised GB mandatory classifications and labelling (GB MCL) for the 46 substances included in the fourth GB CLP Agency recommendation to ministers and agreed by ministers (January 2025). See the GB MCL list and the HSE GB CLP Publication table for details.

This update also corrected a number of reported errors in the GB MCL list (e.g., editorial issues, typos).”

You can download the recommendations list from this webpage, and I understand that this document also includes some new recommendations too, so it’s not just the MC List itself which has been updated: https://www.hse.gov.uk/chemical-classification/classification/publication-template.htm .

The text “EU label” should not be on GB labels

One of our UK readers spotted that some chemical labels from suppliers in GB state “EC label” but others do not. We both tried to find which product regulation brings in the requirement to have “EC label” on a label, and failed.

So I asked our weekly email newsletter readers if they could help – “Is it a legal requirement in the EC, and if so, is there a GB equivalent? or is this just a “custom and practice” thing which some companies do voluntarily?“

The first clue we had was that Clive Foster of DCL found a reference to adding the words “EC label” in a 2009 HSE guide to classification and labelling, which refers to both CLP classification (for substances) and CHIP classification (for mixtures).

The specific extract states that the label “should contain the following information: … for substances, the EC number, and in addition, for substances appearing in Table 3.2 Part 3 of Annex VI to the CLP Regulation, the words “EC Label”.“

As this refers to the CHIP (or Dangerous Substance Directive) Harmonised Classifications, we suspected this requirement might have been removed, particularly as there is no reference to these words in the current ECHA CLP labelling guidance.

The following week, Clive found the legislation to back this up,:

I think this legal instrument introduced “EC Label” https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31996L0056&from=IT

which of course was repealed by CLP (2008) although remained in force (at least in part) until 2015.

i.e. if CLP (2008) and subsequent revisions didn’t include the need for the words “EC Label” – I didn’t find it with the pdf search tool – then I would consider it dead somewhere between 2008 and 2015.

So there we have it – the words “EC Label” were introduced under CHIP following the Dangerous Substances Directive, and then removed under CLP, although the exact date is unclear. Please note that this is UK legislation only – we have not looked at any other EU member states requirements.

Many thanks to Clive for his sterling research efforts, and hopefully this may free up space on your product labels if you are still adding this text.

UK proposal to restrict the use of biocides in cosmetics and personal care products

Back in October last year, we mentioned a draft House of Lords Bill to restrict the use of biocides in cosmetics and personal care products.

The good news is that it has failed to gather government support, more details from Enhesa (ChemicalWatch as was) here: https://product.enhesa.com/1419322 (behind an email wall), and you can find the bill here: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3767 and supporting documents here: https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/lln-2025-0003/ . Of course, this may not be the end of this discussion, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.

May thanks to Caroline Simpson of Colourscapes for sending this information through. She comments: “How can anyone think it is a good idea to remove biocides from cosmetics and personal care products! Mouldy foundation anyone?”

Keeping an Eye on ECHA and the EU

Alternatives to Ethanol as a biocide being sought

Over in the EU, interested parties may like to comment on the consultation for substituting it which ECHA are currently running, on the back of the proposed classifications as a carcinogen and reprotoxin: https://echa.europa.eu/current-candidates-for-substitution-and-derogations-conditions/-/substance-rev/79301/term

This is where muddling up hazard and risk gets you – these new carcinogen and reprotoxic effects are seen in situations where people are deliberately ingesting alcohol over a long period of time. The exposure to end users of hand sanitisers is through dermal absorption repeatedly over short periods of time. I think that the risk (risk = hazard x exposure) from ethanol is significantly lower from this route than through deliberate ingestion – is ethanol realistically going to cause carcinogenic or reprotoxic problems in that context?

Ethanol is naturally occurring (e.g. in over-ripe fruit), cheap, readily available, its manufacture and associated risks are well understood, and it is fully biodegradable. Even the World Health Organisation recommend it for use as the active ingredient of a cheap and effective hand sanitiser for Third World countries dealing with respiratory epidemics e.g. Covid.

Another consideration is the way ethanol works as a biocide, which is by physically dissolving the lipid layer of certain viruses, e.g. Covid (but also why it doesn’t work on norovirus which doesn’t have a lipid layer). This type of biocide, which physically attacks the cell wall, is very valuable because resistance is much less likely to develop, unlike biocides which have a toxicity mechanism, and we need to keep as wide a range of biocides on the market as possible.

What’s not to love about ethanol as an effective biocidal product? And will any of the proposed substitutes be as well-characterised or have the same or lower hazards?

Northern Ireland packaging regulation derogation

After the The Stormont Brake application for CLP font sizes was officially cancelled, Alison Potts of WSP has spotted that there has been Commission Notice to the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste reg that excludes certain provisions which fall outside the Windsor Framework and will not apply in Northern Ireland (See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025XC00946&qid=1739264387669).

The EU packaging and waste packaging regulation can be found here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/40/oj/eng .As usual, if this affects your business, we recommend you read the original regulation and the Commission Notice side by side so you can work out exactly what’s going on.

This looks like there is an acknowledgment within the EC that Northern Ireland needs support in handling EU regulations, and may even be an attempt to ensure that there was not another Stormont Brake application. Interesting times!

Legislative Act and new Harmonised Classfications

The Legislative Act has brought in extra ways in which Harmonised Classifications can be introduced, separate to the existing CLH process.

These relate to the new Hazard Classifications (PBT/vPvB, ED HH and ED ENV) for substances already identified as holding one or more of these properties under:

• REACH Regulation,
• Plant Protection Products Regulation (PPPR) or
• Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR).

The mechanism is that the European Commission can add this information directly to the Harmonised Classification List, independent of ECHA, with a variety of complex timelines which you can find here: https://echa.europa.eu/timelines-for-substances-from-other-legislation .

This makes keeping an eye on non-CLP regulations, and participating in public consultations even more important than previously, as this new mechanism effectively bypasses the CLH process, at least for a while.

Many thanks to Vidyut Mehta for sending this through.

(Sort of) consolidated version of EU-CLP

I spotted that someone was making a big fuss about the latest EU-CLP Consolidated Regulation including information from the recent CLP Legislative Act. This latest Consolidated version came out in mid-December 2024 (you can find it here; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02008R1272-20241210 ), not long after the Legislative Act was published (which is available here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2865/oj/eng).

Sure enough, the new Consolidated version of EU-CLP references the Legislative Act, and information which has been added or removed is given the reference M34 (with a black triangle symbol in front of the M, but our email system won’t let me include it in this newsletter).

But, and it’s a big but, the only things which have been added in this consolidated version are items which have now entered into force, and this means that all of the changes around minimum font sizes in Table 1.3 (for example) don’t appear in the Consolidated version yet.

So you’ll still need to read the new Consolidated version of CLP alongside the Legislative Act to be clear about what is going to happen, as well as what is now in effect legally.

New EU CLP hazard Q&As published

This gives some explanation of the new hazards, and was part of their webinar introducing the new hazards back in November 2024. You can download the document here: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/92636068/241121_clp_new_hazard_classes_webinar_qa_en.pdf/32365dea-58cd-69e2-bdea-176224ef06dd and the webinar itself here: https://echa.europa.eu/-/introduction-to-echa-s-guidance-on-new-clp-hazard-classes h

Many thanks to Chris Hughes of Embark Chemical Consulting for this link.

Titanium Dioxide – the saga continues

The Advocate General for the EU has published an opinion on the appeal by France and others on the decision to remove the Harmonised Classification for Titanium Dioxide, which can be found here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62023CC0071

Steven Brennan of Foresight has an excellent precis of this opinion here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dr-steven-brennan_choose-the-experimental-features-you-want-activity-7293271105811668993-GNso. Briefly, this means that the annulment will be cancelled, but that’s not the end of the story.

Alison Potts of WSP writes: “There is usually a couple of weeks between the Advocate General statement and the official judgement which will just be 2 or 3 lines with no explanation. It should appear in EUR-Lex-C (They usually publish court judgments on Monday, but not always!)

In this case, the Court of Justice judgement will not end the saga. Once the annulment is official, the case will return to the General Court to reconsider the original appeal. Apparently the original appeal case included some additional pleas/arguments which were never ruled on (because the original GC opinion was that grounds for annulment had been met within the first few arguments).

So officially we’re waiting on the CoJ statement and then another round in the General Court.”

Many thanks to Steven and Ali for this information.

In the meantime, the current Titanium Dioxide classification in the EU and NI in the Harmonised Classification list remains at Carc. 2, H351i with notes W, 10 and V which give further details on when this classification is applicable. However, the Mandatory Classification list in GB has removed the entry for Titanium Dioxide.

Around the World – USA

There has been a proposal to shut down OSHA and return its duties to individual states, see https://www.linkedin.com/posts/globalhsemanager_the-nullify-osha-act-nohsa-another-example-activity-7293531501458042881-R1r7 (Note that I think James Pomeroy has misinterpreted the point of this proposal – it isn’t part of a “deregulatory movement”, it’s a unique USA situation where people think something currently handled at federal level should be dealt with by individual states).

Further details here: https://www.workerscompensation.com/daily-headlines/legislation-to-eliminate-osha-introduced-in-congress/ .

Mike has just observed that returning OSHA’s duties to individual states could give a lot of local variability and actually create more red tape by not having a (reasonably) level playing field across the USA. Interesting times!

Chemical snippets – is someone extracting the urine?

A recent edition of the RSC’s Chemistry World newsletter includes news of a novel electrochemistry method to turn urine into percarbamide (aka urea hydrogen peroxide, CAS no 124-43-6), which is easier to isolate, see https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/cheap-electrochemistry-process-can-turn-urine-into-powdered-fertiliser/4020856.article?,

However, this is an oxidiser, and I can foresee problems in being able to manufacture, transport and use it safely. Although it appears to be already in use in China as a novel type of fertiliser, as I stumbled across a paper about its effect on fungicides, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479723014755.

The thing which really caught my attention was this statement: The researchers suggest that urine would need to be diverted at source to prevent mixing with general sewer systems. ‘One option is to develop small-scale devices for use within households,’ Shi says.

Well, we did have these small scale devices in households called chamber pots/ chantys/ gazunders (my sister still has the one our Victorian Granny used). They were stored under the bed (hence gazunder in Yorkshire dialect – goes under), or in bedside cabinets ready for use during the night when a trip to the outside water closet or dry closet was impractical (incidentally the reason why the antique bedside cabinets are cupboards, rather than the modern chest of drawers).

And when it comes to collecting urine to use, the Romans were way ahead of modern man, as the fullers and tanners of Ancient Rome collected it. The Emperor Vespasian even taxed this, leading to the famous phrase “pecunia non olet” (money doesn’t stink), see https://allthatsinteresting.com/pecunia-non-olet .

Process Safety Corner

• A fascinating test video of a deliberate release of chlorine gas, showing its behaviour: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tijs-koerts-0a67636_processsafety-psv-reliefvalves-ugcPost-7294986507155587073-3BDx , with an important point from Chris Brookes-Mann – the importance of ensuring any relieved fluid is made safe or directed to a release point where it won’t cause harm.
• Very important insight on how communication breaks down as incidents happen from Brad Mayhew: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bradmayhew_another-brutal-truth-from-a-firefighter-fatality-ugcPost-7295169871573618688-APO3
• And an article from Gareth Lock on “how do you assess risks if you don’t know a hazard is there?”https://www.linkedin.com/posts/garethlock_riskmanagement-psychologicalsafety-justculture-ugcPost-7288691425234350081-cT_4?

Infographic of the Month

Another excellent infographic from Tanmay Vora, curiosity vs lifelong learning https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tnvora_sketchnotes-curiosity-lifelonglearning-activity-7288534529454067712-yBHC

I think one of the features of being a scientist or engineer is loving to learn how things work, and that lifelong learning never goes away. As my Victorian Granny used to say, even in her nineties, “you learn a new thing every day”.

The Weekend Watch/ Read

Chris Hughes has set up a podcast called Chemical Journeys, where he discusses people’s careers and thoughts on chemistry. This is a fascinating podcast (if your a regulations nerd), where Chris talks to Peter Fisk about his 40 years involvement in chemical regulation https://www.embarkchemical.com/podcast/peter-fisk.

I was particularly interested in Peter’s use of Hansen Solubility Parameters to estimate PBT properties, see https://www.greenchemicaldesign.com//content/uploads/2021/05/HSP-and-legacy-pollutants-20210510.pdf and apparently other people have been using them to predict eye damage/ irritancy, see https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/02611929231175676 .

There’s so much more in this podcast, highly recommended.

The Weekend Recipe

As next Tuesday is Shrove Tuesday, it’s time for a pancake recipe!

The traditional pancakes for Shrove Tuesday are crepes, that is very thin pancakes covering the base of the pan, but you can make these thicker if you prefer by cutting down the amount of milk you use.

• 4 oz plain flour
• 2 eggs, beaten
• 1/2 pint milk, or milk and water (eg 7 floz milk, 3 oz water)

Make a well in the centre of the flour, and add the beaten eggs and about half the milk, beat until smooth. add the rest of the liquid. Like Yorkshire Pudding batter, this benefits from resting in the fridge for a half hour before using.

Cook in a hot frying pan (a few drops of water should form a ball and run over the pan surface when it’s up to temperature), and don’t forget to keep up with tradition and try to toss at least one pancake! Best served with caster or granulated sugar, and a slice of lemon.

If you’re on a gluten free diet, you can even make pancakes using banana instead of flour, see https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/banana-pancakes, and of course you can use non-dairy milk to make them lactose free as well.

Reasons to be Cheerful

We’re on a religious comedy theme this month:

• Billy Connolly on Two Scotsmen in Rome: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBbvnbApzKM
• The Reverend I.M. Jolly (Rikki Fulton) on “Last Call” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYcnKkBOcmI (a parody of STV’s “Late Call” – there was even a minister called Rev. John Jolly!
• Dave Allen has a series of religious jokes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYXenjpefNU
• A selection of the best bits from Father Ted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epTZ2MKouXg

Many thanks for reading this LinkedIn newsletter, and many thanks to everyone who has contributed, through sending in links, queries, comments etc. If you have anything you’d like to share, please email me or send a DM, and I’ll do my best to include it in the next Chemicals Coffee Time Monthly.

It would be great if you’d like to subscribe to this newsletter on LinkedIn if you haven’t already, and if you want to get the news early, and much, much more (because we can’t include everything in this monthly round-up), you can sign up to our weekly email newsletter here: https://chemicalscoffeetime.co.uk/. (This website includes the email archive, with both open-access and subscriber-only content).

Chemicals Coffee Time Monthly and Weekly have grown over time to support the chemical industry, and are free to read and free from adverts. If you’d like to support our work, why not treat yourself to one of our new Chemicals Coffee Time mugs? https://chemicalscoffeetime.co.uk/product-range-mug/ .

Look forward to chatting to you in late March or early April.

Kind regards,

Janet

Janet Greenwood, TT Environmental Ltd

PS We’re happy for you to use this content in your own social media or newsletters, as long as you credit Chemicals Coffee Time. Please note that this newsletter highlights issues which may be of interest to your business, but is not intended as specific advice. We always recommend that you should do your own research. If you need consultancy help, please book a Quick Consultancy Call here: (https://chemicalscoffeetime.co.uk/quick-consultancy-calls/), or Quick Consultancy Email here: https://chemicalscoffeetime.co.uk/quick-consultancy-emails/

• You can sign up to the weekly Chemicals Coffee Time email here: https://chemicalscoffeetime.co.uk/.
• Our online training course CLP Mastery is here: https://clpmastery.com/, (nearly) everything you need for classification, SDSs and Regulatory Affairs in the UK and EU
• The “main” consultancy website is https://ttenvironmental.co.uk/ (Environmental/ IPPC Permit and COMAH)
• Not forgetting the Chemical Regulations Self Help Group website at https://www.chemselfhelp.co.uk/