Chemicals used in homes could pose health risk

Thousands of innocuous household items such as cans, sofas and plastic toys contain chemicals that could potentially damage the environment but which have never been properly tested, a Royal Commission warned yesterday.

To avoid an "environmental disaster", the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) suggested that more than 30,000 chemicals introduced before 1982 should be analysed under a "quick check" scheme aimed at producing results in three years.

The RCEP has warned that regulations are too lax and fail to protect people and the environment sufficiently.

A range of chemicals - including bisphenol A, used in cans; brominated flame retardants, used in television sets and sofas; and phthalates, used in soft plastic toys - all appear to affect animals, plants and humans.

The RCEP makes 54 recommendations in Chemicals in Products: Safeguarding the Environment and Human Health, published after a two-year study. It says the system "fails to prevent serious risks to human health".

Sir Tom Blundell, RCEP chairman and a leading biochemist, said: "Given our understanding of the way chemicals interact with the environment ... we are running a gigantic experiment with humans and all other living things as the subject. We think that's unacceptable."

While new chemicals must be rigorously tested before being marketed, thousands introduced earlier have never been properly checked. Present measures advocated by the European Commission involve testing 30,000 chemicals for toxicity - a process that could take more than 50 years without conclusive results.

The report recommended a "quick check" of each chemical's toxicity, how long it survived in the environment without breaking down, and its tendency to accumulate in animals and plants.

Computer-based molecular techniques, such as those used by the pharmaceuticals industry to screen huge numbers of potential drugs for particular biological effects, would be employed to screen the chemicals.

A spokesman for the UK Chemical Industries Association said: "Bringing in a new system only for the UK would be another burden on our manufacturing members and might be another reason why they would shift abroad ... where they would not have to do these tests."

But Elizabeth Salter-Green, the head of WWF-UK's toxics programme, said: "How many more eminent bodies need to speak out before the chemical industry takes full responsibility for the chemicals it manufactures?

"The RCEP suggests a voluntary approach, but WWF believes [the tests] must be enshrined in legislation to ensure the safety of the public and wildlife."