Essential use & EU law

The document proposes integrating an essential use (ESU) framework into EU chemical regulations, specifically REACH and sectoral laws, to streamline the phase-out of hazardous substances. It argues that current cost-benefit analyses are too technical and favor 'business as usual'. The proposed ESU approach would evaluate chemicals across three functional levels—technical, product, and societal—to determine if a use is truly critical. It suggests that non-essential uses (e.g., luxury, cosmetics, toys) should be banned by default, while essential uses (e.g., life-saving medical devices) may receive limited, time-bound derogations. The brief emphasizes shifting the burden of proof to companies and establishing clear criteria for 'acceptable loss of performance' when substituting hazardous chemicals.

• The current EU chemical risk assessment process relies heavily on cost-benefit analysis, which the author claims is "hyper technical and resource intensive" and tends to "favours business as usual".
• The proposed essential use (ESU) approach would improve the REACH authorisation process by limiting applications to critical cases and streamlining the analysis of alternatives by defining an "acceptable loss of technical performance".
• For REACH restrictions, the document argues that the current broad discretion leads to the "de facto" treatment of the socio-economic route as a "profitability preserver", where maintaining EU jobs is implicitly valued as highly as preventing health or environmental harm.
• The ESU framework evaluates the necessity of a chemical across three functional levels: the micro level (chemical function/what it does), the medium level (end use function/why it is used), and the macro level (societal function/why it matters).
• The document identifies specific sectors that should be presumed non-essential, including "luxury, convenience, leisure, cosmetics, toys or decorative products", while health and safety are viewed as the least contentious essential sectors.
• To prevent economic arguments from overriding safety, the brief asserts that "market disruption is not sufficient to establish essentiality" unless that disruption impacts a "material human need".
• The brief proposes that the burden of proof for the absence of alternatives should rest with the companies, suggesting a stringent review process similar to the Montreal Protocol where the "TEAP" may refuse requests if even one alternative is available.
• Any allowed transition periods for essential uses should be capped at a "10 years maximum", with a mandatory mid-term review if the period exceeds 6 years, and should include an increasing annual fee.

APA

ClientEarth (2023). Essential use & EU law. https://www.clientearth.org/media/zh5b32e5/2304-ce_eu-chemical-law-essential-use_final.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. Essential use & EU law. 2023. https://www.clientearth.org/media/zh5b32e5/2304-ce_eu-chemical-law-essential-use_final.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=ClientEarth |title=Essential use & EU law |date=March 2023 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/zh5b32e5/2304-ce_eu-chemical-law-essential-use_final.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{clientearth2023essential, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{Essential use \& EU law}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2023}, month = mar, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/zh5b32e5/2304-ce_eu-chemical-law-essential-use_final.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }