The objective of ScienceMatters is to launch a debate on the proper use of science and scientific evidence in policy-making. In particular, ScienceMatters is calling for a more balanced approach in applying sound scientific evidence when approving for use products and technologies that are critical for our lives, including chemicals, minerals, metals, pesticides, cosmetics, nanotechnologies, and many more.

ScienceMatters believes that ignoring science infringes upon the principle of better regulation and in some cases creates unnecessary risks for the consumer and the environment.

ScienceMatters was launched in September 2008, and its current membership includes Albemarle, Chemtura, Foundation Nanonet, and ICL-IP. Organisations that support the principles of science-based policy-making, such as scientific institutions, academics, and other industry bodies, such as the British Plastics Federation (BPF), collaborate with the campaign on issues of common interest.

ScienceMatters acknowledges that there is a worrying trend of independent science being discarded in EU policy-making which affects a broad range of sectors. Accordingly, membership is open to any interested organisations, companies, and individuals that share the objectives of the campaign and would like to be involved.

Indeed, one of the key aims of the ScienceMatters campaign is to act as an umbrella under which engaged parties can communicate the importance of science being taken into account in EU policy-making. Please contact the ScienceMatters Secretariat for more information.

Science-based policy-making is about ensuring that sound scientific evidence forms the basis of public policy. Indeed, decision-makers and the public at large should not be swayed by emotive and often exaggerated arguments from certain organisations which only tell half the story, fail to balance out the benefits of a substance with the perceived risks, and at times ignore the conclusions of the official EU risk assessment process.

Official EU risk assessments recommend whether any restrictions on a product should be put in place. These assessments are undertaken by a panel of distinguished scientists working for national public bodies and whose conclusions are endorsed by all 27 Member States. When sound science is ignored in policy-making, both consumer safety and environmental protection are jeopardised, since respected scientific advice is no longer being heeded.

Furthermore, the money, time, and expertise that have gone into developing scientific conclusions, particularly with regard to the official EU risk assessments, have essentially been wasted if sound science is not even taken into account in the final reckoning.

Example: pesticides are a regular target for certain environmental organisations who would like to see them banned, but when used safely pesticides can play an essential role in producing high-quality nutritious food on a daily basis.

Example: flame retardants help prevent everyday household products, such as televisions and mattresses, from catching fire. One flame retardant, deca-BDE, which is used in computer and television cabinets and casings and general electrical and electronic components, underwent an official EU risk assessment which did not propose any restrictions. Yet it has nonetheless been banned from electronic and electrical applications in the EU following a court case which imposed the ban on a procedural technicality. This could result in consumers being placed at greater risk from fire than before.

The consumer needs to be able to trust the policies of the EU and have confidence that decision-makers are doing their job properly by protecting both the citizen and the environment. Decision-makers often act in good faith, but what is rarely understood is that by banning a product or a technology that has been passed as safe for use by official assessments, they potentially put consumers at more risk than before.

If consumer safety is to be upheld, decision-makers need to ensure they are fully informed about the consequences of banning or restricting products. In particular, consumer protection should not be weakened as a result of products which save lives being replaced by lesser-known alternatives.

A double-balance needs to be struck between the risks and benefits of certain products, and protecting the environment and consumer safety. In particular, when assessing substances and technologies, decision-makers must properly assess their risks in light of the benefits that they provide.

Example: Chlorine is a favourite target for environmental NGOs, many of whom would like to see it restricted or in some cases banned. Yet chlorine also provides an invaluable service by purifying water and is used safely in everyday household products, such as disinfectants and bleach.

Currently there is a major disconnect between public perceptions on certain products and the considerable benefits they provide society every day. These products include chemicals, pesticides, GMOs, nanotechnologies, and many more. This disconnect leads to a clear demonisation of certain products and technologies, which in turn makes it easy for organisations calling for unjust bans and restrictions to gain public support.

In Europe regulators, industry, scientists, and NGOs in particular need to take the time to provide consumers with all the information necessary. This in turn will lead to an increasing trust in the measures being taken by decision-makers whilst also improving the level of knowledge regarding both everyday products and science in general.

Some organisations frequently refer to the "risks" which certain substances or products may pose and on this basis call for a ban. Yet they consistently fail to place these perceived "risks" into context and often fail to provide the full picture with regard to the considerable benefits of using such a product.

The precautionary principle is regularly referenced as a reason to take action, but this often has the undesired effect of increasing the risks to consumers and the environment. Moreover, the benefits the product provides are often ignored and little thought is given to any viable alternatives.

Moreover, figures are often quoted as if they represent a genuine threat to consumer safety, but these need to be put into perspective.

Example: a chemical can never be said to be wholly "dangerous" or "safe" since it depends upon the dose received. A little aspirin can soothe a headache, but 50 tablets can cause acute renal failure, coma, and heart failure.

Example: never forget that one part per billion is equivalent to one drop of water in an Olympic swimming pool or one blade of grass on a football pitch!

Alternatives are often assumed to be free of all the "nasty aspects" found in their predecessors whilst providing the exact same function. However, in reality, many so-called "safer alternatives" have not been tested to the same extent as the substances they are replacing, and hence less is known about them.

It is in the interests of the consumer that products are only replaced by safer alternatives if the substance has been demonstrated through scientific assessment to pose an unacceptable risk and that its replacement has been sufficiently scientifically tested and proven to be a genuine "safer alternative."

Better regulation is not just about cutting red tape; it strikes to the heart of how the policy-making process is carried out and applied. Better regulation can and should play a major role in ensuring that science-based policy-making is upheld and that consumers and the environment are properly protected.

Impact assessments and consultations are critical in ensuring that all voices are heard and that expert advice in taken onboard by decision-makers. Failure to do so can lead to contradictions within public policy, which in turn can impact consumer safety and public health.

Example: REACH has been adopted with the aim of being the horizontal legislation for chemical authorisation. Yet parallel laws exist, such as the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive, the Water Framework Directive, and the Toys Directive, all of which can regulate chemicals outside the REACH framework.

Example: Regarding the recent Regulation concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, no comprehensive impact assessment was carried out, and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was never consulted. This represents a clear deficiency in the policy process and provides another example of how science is being circumvented in policy-making.

The terms "hazard" and "risk" are often confused. In brief, hazard equates to the potential to cause harm, whereas risk refers to what extent the hazard is sufficiently managed and/or contained.

The difference between hazard and risk is often completely overlooked by organisations that consistently refer to the "risks" of a substance or product without reference to the hazard, and vice versa. As such, the public can be misled into thinking that a substance poses more of a risk than is truly the case.

Example: not many people would consider water to be hazardous, but if the dikes break the risk is all too apparent.

Example: the fuel that is used in cars is labeled as a hazardous substance. However, we use fuel everyday when we drive without worrying about those hazards, because we know that there is little to no risk to ourselves. Indeed, thanks to the proper containment of fuel in the fuel tank of the vehicle, which is designed specifically in order to eliminate any risk to the consumer, the fuel is used in a risk-free environment, hence the hazard is managed.

If you have any specific questions which are not addressed above, please feel free to contact the ScienceMatters Secretariat on secretariat@sciencematters.eu