深夜福利国产精品

Introduction

Chemicals are used in all facets of life, from industrial processes to consumer products, providing value to individuals and the economy.[1] Their improper management, however, can pose a threat to human health and the environment.[2] Public attention to the use of chemicals has risen, especially as the costs and impacts of pollution becomes more evident.[3] Decisions about the sourcing, production, use and end of life of chemicals also affect many other societal goals, such as combatting climate change and biodiversity loss, achieving net zero and a just energy transition, shifting to a circular economy, creating jobs, realising the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and building a sustainable economy for future generations. Therefore, it is of crucial importance to get these decisions right, informed by scientific evidence and expertise.

As the global professional body for the chemical sciences, the RSC has a role to play in establishing principles and best practice for our community. In 2020, we set out our Strategy for a sustainable chemicals revolution that addressed the need for a new approach to managing chemicals to deliver economic growth and benefits from chemical innovation while combatting pollution and protecting human health and the environment. Now, after five years of expanding our work in this area, and in the context of massive economic and societal change worldwide, such as geopolitical fragmentation of supply chains, acceleration of net-zero transitions, and rapid innovation in materials and digital tools, we have developed an updated vision for chemicals management. Created in consultation with our community of experts and with input from stakeholders across the sector, this policy position aims to set out principles and approaches that should underpin any sound chemicals management system, regardless of the variation between countries and jurisdictions on specific laws, regulations, and decisions.

This vision is global in scope and will be used to support the RSC鈥檚 engagement with national and international bodies, as well as being a resource for our members and stakeholders. A consistent philosophy toward the use and regulation of chemicals can help the global community benefit from the use of chemicals and achieve shared goals of protecting human health and the environment, improving resource stewardship, fostering collaboration, and promoting innovation, growth and development.

1. Evidence-informed decision making

Chemicals regulation and management decisions are informed by the most up-to-date techniques and evidence, and the scientific basis for decision making is clearly documented and accessible.

Independent expert input: Policy makers and regulators should build into the decision-making process opportunities for input and review from independent experts, from scientific and technical fields as well as social science and humanities, including local and community knowledge where appropriate.[4] Experts can assist with tasks such as horizon scanning, strategic thinking and prioritisation, socioeconomic analysis and assessment of impacts. Independent and transparent review of scientific data on chemicals is important to verify and interpret the information submitted to the regulator. Advisory committees made up of independent experts, with robust conflict of interest policies, can provide authoritative advice to policy makers and regulators and improve confidence in decision making.[5]^,[1]

New methods: Policy makers and regulators should support the development and integration of innovative methods for assessing chemical risks. [6] Next Generation Risk Assessments (NGRAs), including use of New Approach Methods (NAMs), can provide valuable data for hazard and risk assessment. 

NAMs aim to replace, reduce, and refine animal testing in chemical safety assessments by employing in vitro methods (outside a living organism), in silico methods (using computational approaches, including AI and machine learning), and other non-animal approaches. These methods offer several benefits, including the ability to screen a large number of chemicals more efficiently than traditional approaches, providing evidence for assessing chemical groups, and producing data that can be more relevant to human health endpoints, facilitating more accurate risk assessment and decision making.[7] In particular, grouping approaches and read-across, which help to speed up the evaluation of data-poor substances by extrapolating from data from existing evaluations of similar substances, can help regulators to deal with the expanding volume of chemicals on the market.[8]

NAMs could also help improve the assessment of chemical mixtures, which are currently under-researched.[9] It is difficult to predict the occurrence or composition of mixtures, especially when chemicals enter the environment. Determining the aggregate effect from exposure to multiple chemicals is also not straightforward, as the combined risk may be greater than the sum of parts.[10] NAMs facilitate rapid assessments to enable prioritisation across the vast number of potential mixtures, as well testing for compounding toxicological impacts from the interactions between chemicals.[11]

NAMs are an emerging area of science, and building confidence in these tools is essential for transitioning to NGRAs.[12] Further work is needed to validate new methods, develop an evidence base that is appropriate for regulatory risk assessments, and provide clear guidance for industry on safety data requirements. Integrating NAMs requires multisectoral engagement and sustained support from scientific, industrial, NGO, and regulatory communities, including government funding for targeted R&D.[13]

A 鈥�one substance, one assessment鈥� approach: Scientific and technical work to support regulation should be carried out by the most appropriate body 鈥� typically a chemicals agency, environment agency, or similar body 鈥� and then be used by other agencies to inform decision making. While the data from substance assessments may be applied differently in different contexts (e.g. industrial, environment, consumer products), especially once combined with use and exposure data, the fundamental scientific nature of chemicals stays the same. Conducting one scientific assessment as a basis for all further regulatory action can help improve efficiency and streamline processes by avoiding duplication of work. Evidence gathered from industry should also be made available to all relevant experts within government, in order to reduce the need for industry to repeatedly produce the same data. This approach could also improve consistency in decision making, as all regulators will be drawing conclusions from the same data.[14]

Systematic review and adaptation: Regulators should have in place a process for reviewing risk assessments and regulatory decisions, which integrates up to date information on chemical use and exposure and any other relevant new data. These could include updated toxicity and environmental data that inform risk assessments, and innovations in materials to inform alternative assessments and socioeconomic impact assessments. A regularised process for adapting and updating risk assessments and corresponding control measures should allow this new information to be taken into account in a considered and systematic way.

For example, new toxicological data should enable restrictions to be strengthened and/or more targeted, while supply chain data could inform exposure scenarios and complementary actions in other regimes such as product and waste regulations. As chemical hazards can manifest differently, depending on their use case, and as more data becomes available over time, regular review could help to overcome any gaps in an initial risk assessment. Regulators should share the expected review schedule with stakeholders so they can provide relevant information and be prepared for any potential changes.

Transparency and accessibility: The scientific rationale for decision making should be clearly documented and publicly available.[15] While some data may need to be kept confidential, for example to protect intellectual property rights or comply with data protection rules, regulators should document the decision-making process, including anonymised or summarised data and an account of how these were interpreted.[16]

Regulation may choose to follow the FAIR[2] principles for scientific data management.[17] These principles support the goals that regulatory decision making is transparent and understandable and can help to facilitate the use and reuse of data. As an example, the European Union is currently developing such a database as part of its 鈥榦ne substance, one assessment鈥� legislative package.[18] Accessible data would ease the process of reviewing and updating regulatory decisions, facilitate better decision making throughout the supply chain, and be useful for scientific research more broadly.

2. Proactive innovation

A modern approach to chemicals management should actively promote the research and development of safer, more sustainable, and more circular chemicals, materials, products, and processes.

Innovation for safety, sustainability, and circularity: Scientists are developing new ways to formulate chemicals, processes, and products, that take a broader view of their goals that include safety, sustainability, and circularity, in addition to technical functionality. Innovation in the chemicals and materials sector will be key for enabling the technologies that address societal needs, such as medicines and green energy, as well as promoting economic growth and job creation.[19] New techniques and processes can also help the chemicals and other manufacturing industries to become more sustainable, for example through developments in non-fossil feedstocks for chemicals and plastics production. 

In addition to searching for materials with improved performance, innovation should happen where we can identify improvements to the safety, sustainability, and/or circularity of substances. Proactive research and development can help enable a shift to better chemicals and materials, benefitting human health and the environment as well as industry, who will have access to improved materials to support regulatory compliance and take advantage of new market opportunities. For example, researchers and businesses are working to develop alternatives to PFAS, a group of substances which have very useful properties but that have recently come under scrutiny for causing harm to human health and the environment. Developing and commercialising PFAS alternatives will be key for enabling change in sectors where PFAS are currently an essential material.[20]

Various tools and frameworks have been developed to support this research and innovation, including:

• Principles of green chemistry[21]
• European Union initiatives,[22] such as: 
  • Safe and sustainable by design, an approach to designing chemicals that are functional while minimising impacts on human health and the environment.[23] 
  • The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, introduced in 2024, requires that physical goods are designed to be more reusable and repairable, more energy efficient, circular, including addressing the use of hazardous substances that may inhibit circularity.[24] It also promotes information sharing through supply chains, for example with digital product passports.  
• Alternatives assessment frameworks which can be useful when evaluating whether to substitute chemicals.[25] 
• Digital tools which can help speed up discovery, streamline manufacturing processes, improve links across supply chains, and address sustainability challenges.[26]

Incentives: Chemicals regulation traditionally focuses on restricting known hazardous substances. A more proactive approach to chemicals management should go beyond this by actively and regularly setting priorities for (re)designing substances to reduce waste and be more safe, sustainable, and circular, even if they are not currently being restricted for health and safety reasons. There are many types of incentives that governments can use to encourage the development and adoption of more favourable substances.

Standards: Voluntary and mandatory standards could be developed, by governments or by independent standards bodies, to verify the safety, sustainability, and/or circularity of materials. Voluntary standards would rely more on a market pull to give them weight, whereas mandatory standards required by government would ensure that changes occur in the formulation of materials or production processes. However, the imposition of mandatory standards can be restrictive, inadvertently excluding new innovations that were not anticipated when the standard was introduced. A combination of mandatory and voluntary actions could be useful to enforce standards where the data is clear, but also to encourage innovation.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is an example of an internationally recognised standards body that provides guidance across a range of sectors and applications.[27] Many countries also have their own standards setting bodies, but international coordination is ideal due to the cross-border nature of trade in chemicals and products.

Procurement: Procurement is a tool that governments can use to provide a market pull for new materials. For example, requiring that products meet specified sustainability or circularity standards in order to qualify for government purchases will provide a predictable level of demand for new products on the market. Procurement activity can also model positive purchasing behaviours for other businesses or society at large.[28]

Government support for R&D: Governments should support innovation toward safer, more sustainable and more circular materials. Support could be financial, such as providing research grants or support for research infrastructure, or structural, such as alerting universities and businesses to the top research needs based on current regulatory actions, facilitating data sharing, or developing legal frameworks to support startups.

Alternatives assessment: Policy makers and regulators could provide a list of preferred or pre-approved substances to make it easier to identify and assess alternatives to comply with regulation. The opportunity to be included on such a list could also be an incentive for innovators to bring new products to market and could speed up regulatory approvals by using pre-assessed materials.

An example of a regulator-led alternatives assessment is the US EPA鈥檚 Safer Chemicals Ingredients List, which 鈥榠s a list of chemical ingredients, arranged by functional-use class, that the Safer Choice Program has evaluated and determined to be safer than traditional chemical ingredients. This list is designed to help manufacturers find safer chemical alternatives that meet the criteria of the Safer Choice Program,鈥� a labelling system that certifies products that use safer chemical ingredients.[29]

3. Proactive and predictable regulation

Regulations and regulators should be agile and strategic, with an aim to identify and prevent harm while providing clarity, guidance, and long-term certainty for industry.

Horizon scanning: Chemicals regulators and policy makers should maintain an active programme of horizon scanning for new and emerging issues, in addition to monitoring existing chemicals and legacy contamination.[30] These could include, but are not limited to, new substances, new uses of existing substances, new toxicological evidence, and supply chain data. Regular assessment and integration of new data should inform the risk assessment process, including the need to review existing decisions. One major source of data to support horizon scanning is environmental, human, and wildlife monitoring programmes (including citizen science), which can help to define the sources, pathways, and receptors of chemical pollution and identify hotspots for action.[31]

The horizon scanning process should include input from stakeholders, such as industry and civil society, who can provide unique insights into the uses and effects of chemicals. For example, industry should inform regulators of the development of new chemicals and when the use of existing chemicals changes. Local communities may have insights into the effects of pollution before they are noticed on a wider scale, and academics pioneering new methods could help to refine toxicological assessments (see New Methods section for more). Collaborative horizon scanning can also help to identify areas where regulation or government action can support innovation, improve predictability for industry and assist industry in preparing for regulatory transitions.

Pollution Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs) track the release of chemicals and pollution to the environment. These databases can include point sources of pollution, such as emissions from factories, as well as diffuse sources, such as roads.[32] As a public database, a PRTR is also an important tool for sharing data and information with stakeholders including the public and local communities.[33] PRTRs are implemented on a country or even regional level, although the OECD also has a dashboard that compiles data from multiple countries. Some examples include the and .

Lifecycle approach: Chemicals regulators and policy makers should consider the full lifecycle of a substance when making risk assessments and regulatory decisions.[34] It is important to account for expected uses, exposures and outcomes in the initial evaluation process of chemicals. Coordination across the lifecycle can help to minimise the risk of 鈥榖urden shifting鈥� of negative impacts from one part of the value chain to another.[35]

A holistic lifecycle approach to chemicals management should consider relevant factors to determine the safety, sustainability, and circularly of substance, across manufacture, use, and end of life. Some questions include but are not limited to:

1. Safety (hazards to human health and the environment) 鈥� is the substance hazardous to human health, wildlife, or other environmental matrices? At what level of exposure do effects occur, and are the harms manageable? Where do hazards occur in the lifecycle 鈥� during production, manufacture, use, or end of life? Do the effects change when the chemical is in a mixture with other substances, and does it produce any transformation products in the environment?[36]
2. Sustainability 鈥� Is it energy intensive to manufacture, use or reuse? If it is released into the environment, can it be recovered or is it biodegradable, and will it pose an ongoing risk? 
3. Circularity 鈥� does the substance use virgin raw materials or are there alternative sources of inputs such as recycled or recovered carbon, biomass, or recycled minerals? Is it a single-use substance or can it be recovered and reused at end of life[3]? Does the use of a substance make end of life recovery or treatment more difficult or hazardous?[37]

Regulators also need to consider the use cases for chemicals, including how they are used in industrial processes and/or consumer products, and what benefits society gains from their use.[38] Understanding the applications of chemicals is important to understand the economic and social consequences of allowing or restricting their usage. For example, some materials that are energy intensive to produce can provide energy-saving benefits during their use. Others are very durable, which can extend the lifetime of a product but may be more difficult to reuse or recycle.[39]

A holistic approach to considering these trade-offs is crucial for making the optimal decisions about the use of chemicals. Decision making frameworks (such as multicriteria decision analysis) that account for multiple and sometimes conflicting goals, varying levels of uncertainty, and diverse stakeholders, can help policy makers and regulators to assess issues of concern and prioritise areas for action.[40]

An example of the consequences of a narrow approach to chemicals regulation is the issue of hazardous materials in e-waste.[41] Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) contains many hazardous substances, including heavy metals, such as chromium, and organic compounds, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), brominated flame retardants (BFRs), and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). People and the environment can become exposed to these toxic substances during the end of life management of WEEE. For example, WEEE in landfill can break down, releasing substances that leach into the ground and water systems. Similarly, recycling and material recovery from WEEE can lead to exposure of workers to hazardous substances during disassembly and sorting processes. While appropriate processing and use of PPE can help to minimise exposure, it is also important to consider these end of life consequences during the design and formulation of products, as well as regulatory authorisations for the use of such substances, to reduce unnecessary use and promote innovation of safer alternatives.

Decision-making frameworks: Policy makers and regulators need a clear framework to guide the prioritisation of what issues to address and how to take decisions.[42] Prioritisation needs to occur at multiple levels of the process, including identifying societal priorities, identifying substances of concern, and understanding how to weigh trade-offs.[43]

There are several questions that regulators could ask to help assess and categorise issues of concern:

There are also internationally established environmental principles that can help decision-making processes about the impact of chemicals. For example, the Rio declaration on environment and development integrated concepts of environmental protection with human and economic development to create 27 principles to guide sustainable development. The RSC鈥檚 Principles for the management of chemicals in the environment[46] illustrates some of the relevant principles for this area:

• Integration principle: environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of all policies and activities.
• Sustainability principle: the needs of the present generation should be met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
• Pollution prevention principle: reducing or eliminating pollution at source based on taking an integrated approach to environmental protection.
• Polluter pays principle: the costs of pollution control and remediation should be borne by those who cause pollution rather than the community at large. This obligation could also be extended to the cost of monitoring and collection of data.
• Rectification at source principle: environmental damage should be rectified, compensated or treated at or as near to source as practicable and waste should be dealt with as close as possible to where it is produced.
• Precautionary principle: where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

The UN Environment Programme developed a report in 2020 on 19 chemicals and waste issues of concern, which could be used as a starting point for international efforts. Although the report called for urgent action across all 19 issues identified, it also acknowledged the need for a prioritisation mechanism, due to the large number of potential issues in the chemicals space and the limited capacity of institutions.[47]

Approaches to evaluating risk: The level of risk that society is prepared to tolerate is largely a political question. While regulators need the independence to provide sound advice and make decisions based on the evidence, some questions cannot be answered by pure scientific evidence alone, and sometimes scientific evidence is uncertain or evolving. Therefore, regulators need a framework that provides guidance on the level of acceptable risk in order to evaluate and weigh the potential hazards to humans and the environment and benefits to society from the use of chemicals and navigate any trade-offs.[48]

Some areas that regulators need guidance on include:

• What to do when the scientific or exposure data are uncertain, and therefore the risk profile is difficult to characterise?[49]
• How do we balance the uncertainties that come with innovation?
• How much risk is society willing to tolerate?[50]
• What are the broader priorities of the community, and how does this decision affect these priorities? For example, countries may have different developmental needs and capacities, which may impact their approach to chemicals management. 

The precautionary principle[51] is one way to address some of these uncertainties. The precautionary principle states that neither a lack of information nor scientific uncertainty should delay action or regulation when there are potential severe and irreversible consequences. This approach can be used as a part of a risk-based regulation system.[52]

Enforcement: Any rules and regulations must be monitorable and enforceable. Lack of enforcement of chemicals regulations can lead to lower confidence in the system from industry and the public. Non-enforcement can result in a lack of clarity for businesses and may have effects on international competitiveness.[53] Rules must be written in a manner that is clear, with defined actors and benchmarks for compliance and meaningful consequences for non-compliance, and regulatory agencies need to be properly resourced to carry out monitoring and enforcement.[54] Well-defined and enforced rules can also help level the playing field and provide the regulatory certainty needed to promote investment.

4. Collaboration

Chemicals are a global challenge, and their management relies on collaboration within and between governments, regulatory bodies, and civil society.

National and international collaboration: Chemicals and pollution cross jurisdictional boundaries, whether via trade or in the environment. Therefore, chemicals management cannot operate in a silo. Chemicals regulation should be designed to be collaborative with other regulatory areas, for example waste management schemes, and with international partners, such as regulators in other countries or multilateral bodies. Scientists and civil society also have a role to play, to bring technical expertise as well as knowledge and buy in from local communities.

Building on global frameworks: Chemicals regulators and policy makers should both utilise and contribute to global systems. There are several international initiatives and institutions that work on chemicals, waste, and pollution prevention and management. From binding treaties to global frameworks and science-policy interfaces, countries are already working together at the international level to share best practices and strengthen collaboration. Some examples include the (GFC), the , the on mercury, the on ozone depleting substances, and the recently established (ISP-CWP).[55] Bodies such as the UN Environment Programme, the WHO, and the OECD host work programmes on chemicals issues as well.

In particular, governments should draw on the GFC, as the most up to date chemicals management agreement, to support national action plans in order to situate their activities within the international ecosystem. The GFC and ISP-CWP also includes capacity building plans to make sure that all countries are enabled to achieve national and shared goals. Governments and international organisations should also learn from the pitfalls encountered from previous arrangements, such as the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM). Predecessor of the GFC, SAICM suffered from insufficient information sharing, lack of scientific advice, and uncertain commitment from stakeholders to the voluntary agreement.[56]

Sharing data and best practices: Countries should share learning and best practices. To support trade, there is a need to be consistent in the assessment of toxicological evidence, and for all trading partners to trust the outcome of risk assessments, based on specific exposure scenarios for products and processes. Regulators could consider adopting mutual recognition agreements, where regulatory assessments or decisions made in one country are accepted in another.[57] For example, mutual acceptance of hazard assessments could help to prevent duplication of effort and reduce animal testing, since the inherent physical and chemical properties of a substance does not change based on location. Regulators can then supplement this data with any additional information needed to meet local requirements or contexts.

OECD guidelines and mutual acceptance of data agreements are an example of such standards that are already widely accepted by many nations.[58] The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) is another internationally accepted system that has enabled consistent and harmonised hazard communication across borders, facilitating trade and the safe handling of chemicals.

Capacity building: It is important for countries that are developing their chemicals regulatory regimes to be able to benefit from the experiences of countries with a longer track record in chemicals hazard assessment and environmental and human health monitoring, as well as have access to international organisations and programmes. For example, preexisting chemical databases could be shared to facilitate data reuse and inform decision-making, especially for countries that have lower institutional capacity.[59] International scientific collaboration can also help to develop skills[4] and expertise that can applied in a local context.[60]

However, the traditional paradigm of chemicals assessment based on animal testing is resource intensive and slow, difficult to operationalise, and sometimes inappropriate for the types of issues faced in the global south. All countries should be supported to learn and share best practices on new approaches and technologies, including for example, real time localised pollution monitoring and AI-informed predictive hazard analysis, that can be implemented more flexibly and adaptively.

Notes

[1] The UK is a good example of how scientists can be integrated into the process: ; ; The UK Health & Safety Executive (HSE) provides a useful example of how this can be done:

[2] FAIR stands for Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability.

[3] See, for example, the waste hierarchy:

[4] The development of a skilled workforce is key to support innovation and growth, as well as to contribute to a strong and capable policy and regulatory system. For more on the RSC鈥檚 work on skills, see /policy-and-campaigning/discovery-and-innovation/future-workforce-and-educational-pathways and /policy-and-campaigning/policy-library/job-and-skills-for-a-circular-economy

References

[5] RSC (2019) Toxic chemicals in everyday life

[12] Sewell F, Alexander-White C, Brescia S, Currie RA, Roberts R, Roper C, Vickers C, Westmoreland C, Kimber I. (2024)

[15] Carusi, A., Wittwehr, C. and Whelan, M. (2022)

[16] OECD (2025)

[20] Figuiere, R, Miaz, LT, Savvidou, E, Cousins, IT (2025)

[22] European Commission (n.d.)

[27] International Organisation for Standardization (n.d.)

[29] US EPA (2025)

[30] RSC (2023) The Royal Society of 深夜福利国产精品鈥檚 Written Statement to OEWG2, as it relates to the establishment of a science-policy panel (SPP) for chemicals, waste and the prevention of pollution

[32] OECD (n.d.)

[33] OECD (2023)

[35] RSC (2024) Response to the Environmental Audit Committee inquiry on e-waste

[36]

[37] Chatham House (2023)

[38] Figui猫re R, Wang Z, Gl眉ge J, Scheringer M, Siegrist A, Cousins IT (2025)

[39] RSC (2023) Sustainable composite materials

[41] Fidra (2025)

[45] Gouin, T, Bitsch, A, van Duursen, M, Escher, SE, Hamers, T (2024)

[46] RSC (2018) Principles for the management of chemicals in the environment

[47] UNEP (2020)

[49] RSC (2022) When the science is uncertain, what is the role of risk-based approaches and precautionary control in chemicals policy?

[52] RSC (2022) When the science is uncertain, what is the role of risk-based approaches and precautionary control in chemicals policy?

[53] CEFIC (2021)

[54] KEMI (2018)

[55] Alexander-White, C, Welton, T (2025)

[56] SAICM (2019)

[57] OECD (n.d.)  

[59] Wang, Z, Walker, GW, Muir, DCG, Nagatani-Yoshida, K (2020)

[60] RSC (2023) The Royal Society of 深夜福利国产精品鈥檚 Written Statement to OEWG2, as it relates to the establishment of a science-policy panel (SPP) for chemicals, waste and the prevention of pollution