Kenkichi Fujii

UN Framework – What will the new UN Framework for Chemicals and Waste Management mean for Asia?

The next phase of chemical management beyond the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) was the topic of a panel discussion at the Asian Chemicals Forum 2023. The fifth session of the UN International Conference on Chemicals Management was held in Germany in September 2023 with the aim of agreeing on a next platform after SAICM, likely to be called the UN Framework for Chemicals and Waste Management, or Global Framework on Chemicals (GFC).

The panel, 'UN Framework – What will the new UN Framework for Chemicals and Waste Management mean for Asia?' was designed to explore key issues related to Asia's contribution to the forthcoming framework. One of the key panelists, Dr Kenkichi Fujii, shared his thoughts on the topic in the following interview.

Panel Discussion Satisfaction

Dr. Kenkichi Fujii expressed his satisfaction with the discussion but mentioned time constraints as a problem. He emphasised the need for a longer, professional dialogue to exchange ideas and knowledge about chemicals, products and waste management in each sector. Dr Fujii suggested that an open dialogue between the panellists and the audience might be more successful.

Challenges in implementing the UN Framework

Dr Fujii reflected on the timeline for implementation of the UN Framework, particularly in the global management of chemicals and waste. Drawing on the experience of industrial initiatives in Japanese society, he emphasised that societal change, particularly in the adoption of sustainable practices, takes considerable time—roughly two to three decades in the case of Japan's fastest trial cases between 1996 and 2020 which resulted in a drastic reduction of plastic in household products. Dr Fujii mentioned that the adoption of sustainable practices in Japanese society was originally led by Kao’s voluntary industrial initiative, but also mentioned the potential impact of a regulatory platform in supporting and accelerating such social changes. He also mentioned that excessive or misleading regulatory requirements could vary in effectiveness due to cultural differences and environmental conditions between countries. He noted that Japan's success in developing a circular waste management infrastructure was made possible by strong support from local governments and highlighted that industry initiatives, consumer common sense and government support have facilitated the harmonized introduction of new sustainable concepts into society.

ASEAN Cosmetic Regulation and Implementations

Dr Fujii highlighted the unique landscape of cosmetics regulation within ASEAN countries. He explained that the ASEAN region has established the ASEAN Cosmetics Directive as a harmonized regulatory platform among the 10 ASEAN member states. This cosmetics regulatory framework is considered as best practice of regulatory harmonization in ASEAN, in contrast to other product categories which currently lack harmonized regulations. Dr Fujii pointed out the concept of objective risk management as a principle of regulation frameworks. For instance, some consumer products are regulated if they are considered or evaluated as a potential risk to consumers, society and the environment during their proposed product life cycle. Pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, chemicals and food additives have their own regulatory systems because of the risks they pose, and there is clear value in risk management by regulation. These regulatory requirements are often driven by risk-based prioritisation. For example, while pharmaceuticals and certain biocides require strict regulation due to their toxicity, cosmetics are in a borderline category. Historically, cosmetics have been expected to be safe to use due to their direct application to the human skin, leading cosmetic manufacturers to prioritise safety in their product formulations despite the absence of specific regulatory requirements. Currently, each cosmetic product in the ASEAN market has its own Product Information File (PIF) which contains the safety assessment report of the cosmetic ingredient as required by the ASEAN Cosmetics Directive. This risk-based safety and quality evaluation principle is a key platform not only for cosmetics regulation but also for chemicals and consumer products.

Animal Testing in Cosmetics

Dr Fujii discussed the historical context of animal testing in the cosmetics industry, emphasising the industry's efforts to move away from animal testing for safety assessments. He highlighted the original shift in European cosmetics regulations in 2003, which led to the development of alternative testing methods after a ten-year grace period in 2013. Despite initial concerns about the adequacy of alternative methods, many global cosmetics companies, including the interviewee's company, stopped testing cosmetics on animals around 2014-2015.

Dr Fujii mentioned the ongoing challenges due to conflicting regulatory requirements in different regions such as the EU-REACH, China-Cosmetics, and the US-OTC, which in some cases still require animal testing. He underlined the global cosmetic industry’s efforts and initiatives of the to develop OECD test guidelines on alternative methods to animal testing, which illustrates the cosmetics industry's commitment to innovative, harmonized next-generation safety assessment methodologies. He noted the positive impact of the cosmetics industry's move away from animal testing, which serves as a model for other sectors such as pharmaceuticals and food additives to follow suit in adopting non-animal testing methods.

Harmonisation of Cosmetic Ingredient Lists

Dr Fujii, a key stakeholder in Asian cosmetics data, showed deeper consideration to give a specific answer when asked how long it takes for a cosmetic ingredient banned in the EU to be banned in ASEAN countries. He emphasised the independence of Asian regulations from those in Europe. He pointed out that the Asian sector, particularly Japan, ASEAN, Korea and China, make independent policy making decisions based on sound scientific reasoning in cosmetics. For instance, ASEAN has its own regulatory scientific committee which is strongly responsible for regulatory decisions based on “regulatory science for independent policy making”. Dr Fujii highlighted the importance of individual decision making for countries aspiring to be world leaders, expressing that the approach is unique, reliable, and determined by region-specific needs. He noted that different regions have different regulatory frameworks due to different social platforms and priorities and advocated decisions tailored to the specific circumstances of each area. Understanding the diversity of regulatory governance in Asia is also an another key to promoting a globally harmonized platform for chemicals and cosmetics.

Future of the Asian Chemicals Forum

Dr Fujii expressed his support for the concept of the Asian Chemicals Forum and highlighted its potential as a valuable platform for expert discussions on regulatory changes. He emphasised the value of enhanced dialogue among Asian countries, and stressed the importance of sustainability and supporting future societies. Dr Fujii emphasised the need for robust national professional dialogues for future development. He also underlined the importance of the Forum as an opportunity for ASEAN countries to share their experiences and ideas independently while making valuable contributions to global discussions with other Asian countries, Europe and the US.

Conclusion

The interview provided insights into the challenges and complexities of regulatory frameworks, societal changes, and regional differences and highlighted the need for sound science and professional dialogue in shaping future regulatory approaches in the chemical and cosmetic industries.