1. Better regulation workshop for the safe use of detergents & maintenance products 10 June 2016: Overview of consumer studies available to date and NGOs positions Valérie Séjourné, A.I.S.E.

2. ● CLP and safe use – Overview at a glance 2 1992200220042009 2010 20122013 20152016 UN EU EC HA EU EC HA AISEAISE AISEAISE GHS Approval (followed by updates every 2 years) CLP x Substances x Mixtures ECHA study Eurob arom eter + other COM report COM Better regulation & REFIT Cleanright.eu portal Safe use icons v1 DetNet SU V2 Research Quanti 1 Research Quanti 1 Research Quanti 2 Research Quanti 3 Research Quali 1 TO COME Research Quali 1 TO COME Today ! Work shop Cleanright CLP page Cleanright CLP page DPD/ DSD Eurob arom eter

3. ● Eurobarometer, fall 2010 3 EU COMMISSION & ECHA’s WORK EU COMMISSION & ECHA’s WORK Quanti research, fall 2010 26574 citizens Perceptions chem products: More enclined to characterise chem product as harmful to envt than useful Large proportion unable to identify everyday household chem as chemicals (but still 70% associate detergents as such) Level of understanding differs a lot between countries Safety instructions used by majority of people 2/3 say they read safety instructions (but varies a lot ; much less for detergents : 26% « never ») Generally little understanding of safety measures needed « Danger » word better understood than « warning » Some CLP symbols widely recognised; others (eg low level – 46% don’t know) Detergents: overall feel « well to moderately informed » about potential risks

4. ● ECHA report, Jan 2012 & COM report Nov 2012 4 EU COMMISSION & ECHA’s WORK EU COMMISSION & ECHA’s WORK Key findings/reco: Basis, both quanti and quali research  Awareness raising activities… 1) … are needed to enhance general public’s understanding of the new CLP labels 2) … need to address national hazard perceptions ; public, families, schools, workers 3) … need to play on emotional drivers (use and storage); experience-related (vs info-base)  Exchange best practice (industry, Member States)  Industry to be encouraged to bring product appearance and packaging more in line with hazard info, promote appropriate safety behaviour  Changes to CLP pictos not recommended A new analysis of the CLP pictos will be needed after 2015

5. ● Consumer NGO (DE): STIWA, July 2015 5 Journal “test” of Stiftung Warentest, No. 07/205 Editorial: “Now the manufacturers are under the obligation to print danger symbols and warnings even on hand dishwashing detergents. Our chemist Dr Konrad Giersdorf says: “This is excessive.” His analysis proves: Most dishwashing detergents contain mild surfactants that are also used in shower products and shampoos. Their skin tolerance is good; the waste water burden is low. Excessive labelling causes uncertainty and can even become dangerous. Giersdorf fears: “The habituation effect might result in consumers no longer taking seriously the warnings on really aggressive products like drain and toilet cleaners.” Section “Home and Garden”: “Now ‘Attention’ is printed on many dishwashing detergents; most of them are as harmless as shampoos.”

6. ● Others AIM/BEUC Smarter logos – Feb 2014 High number of logos on pack – confusion! 22% unable to correctly identify proper meaning – mixed views Logos powerful; cross cultural ; testing and education is key When introducing new logos in EU legislation, make sure that: Presents same or additional benefit vs text Must be noticeable Must have been tested, taking into account cultural differences Targeted EU awareness campaigns to be undertaken Key principles: reliability, usefulness, accessibility, proportionality 6

7. ● European Commission workshop on the safe use of chemicals by SMEs, 16 September 2014 Extract of BEUC presentation: CLP is an important element to protect consumers and the environment from hazardous chemicals Clear information and precautionary statements are crucial. However, the capacity of people to notice, understand and use information is very limited and it may also differ amongst different consumers and age groups. “ Therefore, we believe that more should be done to make products inherently safe.” Lack of awareness may trigger unsafe behaviour. Spanish member CECU looked some year ago into the understanding of pictograms, confirmed what other surveys found: Some pictograms are very well recognised while others are almost never understood correctly. For food labelling, a minimum size is foreseen but need to make sure that for all products, information is legible to consumers “More needs to be done to make sure that people will understand” 7

8. ● European Commission public consultation on the regulatory fitness of chemicals legislation (excluding REACH), Extract of BEUC contribution May 2016 “Communication: ECHA, some Member States (e.g. NL) and some consumer organisations have undertaken a lot of efforts to familiarise consumers with the new 11 CLP pictograms. However, the new pictograms as such are partly less clear and not familiar to consumers and more efforts are needed.” 8

9. ● A.I.S.E. consumer research- safety focus 9 Quanti research, 2008 + 2011 + 2014 200 citizens in 23 countries = about 5000 respondents each time Online questionnaire - Research run by Insites Conuslting Focus: washing habits, sustainability, safety

10. ● A.I.S.E. safe use icons research 10 Development of common icons/sentences in 2004 Voluntary - Complementary to legislation Research conducted at the start + stakeholder consultation Complementary research done since (2008, 2010, 2014) Initial set: 2004 Adaptation in 2010 to 2 icons Update (capsules icons): 2012 KPIs Use in 2015: 5,501 millions units of products with at least 2 icons Summary Omnibus research 2010 Abstract Insites research 2014