SinS 2025: ECHA calls for stronger collaboration between scientists and regulators to advance chemical safety

At the 2025 Solutions in Science (SinS) Conference in Brighton, United Kingdom, Suvi Takala, Head of Unit: Chemistry, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and agency of the European Union (EU), delivered a comprehensive address on the central role of analytical science in chemical regulation. She urged deeper collaboration between scientists and regulators across Europe – inside and outside the EU – to ensure effective policy-making, particularly as the pace of chemical innovation continues to outstrip legacy testing methods.

Takala began by outlining ECHA’s expanding responsibilities since it was established in 2007 to implement the EU’s REACH Regulation (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals). The agency now operates within a framework determined by ten pieces of legislation, including those concerning biocides, industrial emissions, battery safety and nanomaterials, and is expected to play a key role in future regulations on both toys and medical devices.

Although the ECHA may issue binding decisions and advise the administrative arm of the EU, the European Commission, any enforcement can only be carried out at the national level of given member states. Takala noted that this continued division of responsibilities between the EU agency at the core and individual member states, makes it ever more essential to pursue harmonised analytical methods in order to ensure consistent implementation across the bloc as a whole.

With more than 600 staff, most of whom are scientists, ECHA operates four scientific committees and four expert groups that evaluate risks, assess socio-economic implications and provide technical advice. Takala emphasised that the cornerstone of chemical safety lies in the accurate characterisation of substances, which informs assessment of risk, exposure evaluation and further down the line, regulatory decisions. However, many of the analytical methods currently in use are becoming outdated. She warned that reliance on obsolete techniques could result either in undetected hazards or, on the other, with the application of the precautionary principle in overly cautious restrictions that impede innovation.

Takala argued that regulation must therefore protect both health while enabling progress. If novel analytical methods are not incorporated into legal frameworks, industry may lack the incentive to adopt safer alternatives by merely continuing to comply with long-understood testing practices. Over time, public confidence could be eroded if regulation is seen as becoming misaligned with current science.

She drew a distinction between general research and regulatory science; the latter being defined by its need to produce legally actionable conclusions from empirical data. Regulatory scientists must interpret results through the lens of legal mandates – a process that demands what she described as ‘scientists with legal brains’.

At ECHA, legal and scientific staff work together to ensure decisions are both technically robust and legally sound. Given that many regulatory questions lie at the frontier of scientific understanding, she encouraged the wider scientific community to support regulators in identifying which methods are suitable for standardisation and regulatory use.

Takala highlighted three key areas where analytical capacity remains insufficient:

• Polymers: Although currently exempt from registration under the REACH framework, polymers have come under renewed scrutiny due to potential risks from additives and degradation products. Existing methods, such as gel permeation and high-performance liquid chromatography, lack harmonisation. ECHA has called for research to establish validated and consistent approaches.
• Hydrocarbons and waste: Materials derived from plastics and tyres are being explored as alternative fuel sources but may yet be found to contain hazardous impurities that are not seen in fossil fuel equivalents. Current protocols from ASTM International (formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials) and the Petroleum Institute are not suitable for these substances. Takala stressed the need for tailored analytical standards.
• Consumer product testing: Products including textiles, leather and toys may contain carcinogenic or chemicals that are harmful to human reproduction, yet enforcement authorities often lack affordable and sensitive tools for routine compliance checks. ECHA has identified the development of reliable, high-throughput screening methods as a regulatory priority.

She further identified three other areas where method development is urgent:

• Nanomaterials: Despite being regulated by law in the EU since 2020, nanomaterials pose analytical challenges due to their variability. The 2023 EU microplastics restriction introduced a threshold of 0.1 micrometres, but this still remains provisional pending further methodological  validation.
• Materials in drinking water: Components such as pipeline coatings and metal alloys fall under the European Positive List, which ECHA now manages. However, laboratory capacity is limited and many methods lack standardisation. At present, there is only one facility within the entire EU that can carry out fully compliant testing for metal alloys.
• Microplastics and antimicrobial resistance: These emerging threats are poorly addressed by current water quality monitoring tools. Microplastics vary in form and chemistry, complicating detection and risk assessment, while the threat posed by emerging forms of antimicrobial resistance requires an entirely different analytical approach.

Takala described the regulatory policy cycle as a continuous process – beginning with the definition of objectives, passing through option evaluation, consultation and legislation, and requiring ongoing review and revision. She noted that legal texts define only general obligations; technical guidance, informed by regulatory science, is what allows legislation to be enforced with strong effect.

She reaffirmed ECHA’s commitment to replacing animal testing with validated alternatives but insisted that any method – including analytical tools – must first show that it offers equivalent protection before regulatory adoption.

Takala then described three initiatives through which ECHA is engaging with the research community:

• The European Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals (PARC), a collaboration which involves more than 200 institutions in 29 countries. ECHA plays a role in aligning proposals with regulatory priorities. Institutions from the United Kingdom continue to participate despite Brexit.
• The Key Regulatory Challenge Report, first published in 2023 and now updated annually. The 2025 edition – which was published in June – now identifies five priority research themes to guide funding bodies and stimulate dialogue between regulators and scientists.
• The Analytical Methods Compendium, which responds to member state’s concerns about inconsistent testing. It offers a curated set of recommended methods for use by industry and inspectors, available via the ECHA website.

She concluded by calling for regulation to be ‘co-produced’ by scientists, regulators, industry and the wider public. Europe’s future chemical safety, she said, depends on a collective responsibility, mutual understanding and ability to convert emerging scientific knowledge into enforceable and socially meaningful policy and legislation.