NGOs claim that regulators increase the usage of grouping to evade ‘regrettable substitutions’.

CHEM Trust is publishing the report on the exchange of bisphenol A (BPA) using bisphenol S (BPS). BPA relates to a large body of toxicological data and uses data for identifying hazards and implements regulatory risk management measures. Hence, the action is leading companies to change BPA with BPS, which is similar and has the same toxicological profiles. Thus the lawfulness is tough to control as BPS associates to a small body of toxicological data.

Thus, the EU responds by asking registrants to increase the body of data for resolution of risk assessment, self-determining BPA. In the report, CHEM Trust argues for the wrong approach and at the outset, where the EU addresses bisphenols as a group.

CHEM Trust senior policy advisor, Ninja Reineke claims that chemical regulates the easy thing for companies to change the chemical.

EU Discussion

Some of the regulators are supporting the idea of the use of grouping.

Echa is focusing on the report, Strategy to encourage an alternative to safe chemicals with the invention, notes the alternative of SVHCs by the appropriate substitutes.

As per the report, Echa and member states works on groups of substances instead of taking action on separate ones. Whereas Echa starts to use the early stages of assessment like identification and screening of substances to avoid unfortunate substitution.

Hence, a series of pilot studies are running by Echa concludes the approach to report chemicals to fasten the substance evaluation procedure.

However, Echa claims mentioning substances in groups, increase collaboration within authorities and initiate communication with registrants seen as useful elements. Thus, it does not recommend the validation of aspects in the procedure.

Although, Norway known for use of a grouping of substances for restriction cases comments submitting to discussion on REACH review action.


Various NGOs, the state government is making arguments in relation to poly and perfluoroalkyl substances, risks the use of EPA.

As per chemical registries and patient filings, PFASs are using where agency appears to approach each one distinctly.

For instance, EPA prints hazard assessments of PFBS and GenX compounds for the public consultation.

However, the Environmental Working Group describes the single chemical by an approach to assess toxicity and regulations for PFASs.

Thus, an organization claims that treating PFAS chemicals is effectively safeguarding public health.

However, the grouping will stop the chemical industry for transforming from one chemical to another without offering data.

The Pennsylvania departments recommend US EPA lineup PFAS efforts for addressing various PFAS compounds.