The coatings supply chain in Europe has been staging a last minute offensive to block the official classification of titanium dioxide as a suspected carcinogen  which will  require health warning labels to be put on paint containers.

The most that can likely be achieved is a delay to the introduction of  the classification.  But coatings  and TiO2  producers have been vowing to continue the battle, possibly by taking legal action. Even industrial mineral suppliers are joining the combat because they fear that once TiO2  is classed as being  hazardous their products will soon be as well. 

The focus of the pro-TiO2 campaigners has been on a committee  of  regulators from the European Union’s 28 member states which advises the European Commission, the EU’s Brussels-based executive, on final decisions under the Union’s Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP)  regulation.

Coatings, TiO2 and other producer associations have been opposing  at  the EU and national levels a recommendation by the European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki, responsible for administering the CLP  regulation, that TiO2  be categorized as being a  suspected  cause of  cancer (category 2) through the inhalation of titanium dioxide dust.

The objective of the CLP regulation, which is based on the United Nations’ Globally Harmonised System (GHS) on categorizing chemicals, is to protect  health and the environment as well as the free movement of substances by giving them a harmonized classification across the EU.  Companies have to label their products on the basis of  the classification which is concerned with hazard rather than exposure to risk.

Normally ECHA’s recommendations on CLP classifications  are  endorsed relatively quickly by the European Commission after consulting the advisory group of  member state regulators, called CARACAL.

At the first CARACAL meeting to discuss the TiO2  classification last November  a number of  member states raised  questions about its scope and whether there could  be labelling exemptions for paints and inks. 

A decision was postponed until the next  meeting of  the group in March where member states still insisted they needed more time to deliberate on the issue. So a sub-committee was set up to deal with the TiO2 classification in greater depth starting at a meeting in April. 

“The doubts being expressed by member states demonstrated  the success of our advocacy activities across Europe  on the issue,” said Didier Leroy, technical director at the European Council of the Paint, Printing Ink and Artists Colours Industry (CEPE), Europe’s coatings trade association. “We’ve made them aware that there is a problem  with  the CLP classification of  TiO2.  They understand the consequences if  the Commission goes ahead with its  implementation.  So  many questions are being asked that  more than one meeting of the special sub-committee will  be needed.”

CEPE, Titanium Dioxide Manufacturers Association (TDMA) and other industry organizations have criticized the conclusions  of a study of  TiO2  by scientific experts on ECHA’s  risk assessment committee (RAC) on which the CLP  classification has been based.

RAC’s analysis showed that there is “no robust” carcinogenicity studies on TiO2  in species other than rats, the TDMA  points out. Also the data on the effects of TiO2  dust on rats was generated under  conditions  of what would be lung  “overload” for humans, it claims.

Furthermore, the TDMA said, the carcinogenicity profile of TiO2 is not substance specific but is common to similar  substances with what is called  poor soluble low toxicity profiles (PSLTs).  These include quartz, carbon black, coal dust, diesel soot, talc and other silicates.

The TDMA has also published a socio-economic analysis, which has been  dismissed by environmental  NGOs  as being irrelevant because the CLP classification was concerned only with health and environmental hazards.   The  analysis concluded that the classification would impact a wide range of industrial sectors including in addition to coatings, paper, plastics, cosmetics and automotive.

It would affects the jobs of millions of workers in Europe and beyond, having “highly disproportionate (adverse socio-economic  impacts) as the recommended classification is not expected to enhance any human health benefits or further protect workers or consumers.”

A survey commissioned by the UK-based retailer Kingfisher plc which runs home improvement and DIY stores across Europe has demonstrated the danger to coatings sales of the TiO2 classification.

When 2,000 consumers in the UK were showed a wall-paint container  with a category 2 carcinogen warning on the label as would be required by the TiO2 classification, 76 percent thought the product poses a risk of cancer to them if they breathe it in. 

Just over half were less likely to buy wall paint after reading the label.  Around a third said it would not make any difference to the likelihood of their buying wall paint but this was only because they would not have any other choice.

The March meeting of CARACAL  revealed that a growing proportion  of member states had become sceptical about the classification. A number wanted it to be extended to cover PSLTs although this would require extensive  studies of other substances. According to  a European Commission summary of the meeting, it was suggested that  the whole issue of classification of PSLTs  should be referred to the United Nations for consideration at the GHS  level.

Some  EU countries wanted to postpone a final decision until the completion of  a current in-depth evaluation of the health and environmental risks of TiO2  under the auspices of ECHA.  This may not be concluded for five years.

The most significant doubts among member states about the classification related to its legal  implication.  Some thought  it was not an issue for CLP since  TiO2 dust was a workplace hazard already covered by occupational health regulations.

Germany, which was the most critical among  the member states of the classification, warned  that if could  have “severe”  and “unnecessary” legal consequences.

If the European Commission presses ahead with the enforcement of the classification , industry could exploit legal anomalies  in the measure by taking court action, possibly in the EU’s European Court of Justice (ECJ).  One consistency is that while the CLP regulation covers  only  chemical effects, the studies on TiO2 shows  that its particles can possibly have only a hazardous physical effect  on human organisms..  

“We don’t yet have plans for legal action but  we are evaluating all possibilities,” said Leroy. “We will fight this battle  all the way.”