Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21552/delphi/2019/3/8
A. Rolke, H. Rath, J. Backmann
the of a revolutionary for the as the avail-ability of sustainability-related information on sales products. Consumers will be able to obtain all kinds of information on aspects they care about, even be-yond sustainability. This report examines the driving forces behind this development and the technological basis, and how these developments are taking place in different industrial sectors. We also show that this process is embedded in a much broader development, which will result in of and with and
{"title":"Digital Tools and the Right to Know","authors":"A. Rolke, H. Rath, J. Backmann","doi":"10.21552/delphi/2019/3/8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21552/delphi/2019/3/8","url":null,"abstract":"the of a revolutionary for the as the avail-ability of sustainability-related information on sales products. Consumers will be able to obtain all kinds of information on aspects they care about, even be-yond sustainability. This report examines the driving forces behind this development and the technological basis, and how these developments are taking place in different industrial sectors. We also show that this process is embedded in a much broader development, which will result in of and with and","PeriodicalId":375592,"journal":{"name":"International Chemical Regulatory and Law Review","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126681377","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
With the forthcoming database on substances of concern in articles as such or in complex objects (products) (hereafter SCIP database)1 the EU’s co-legislators have introduced a highly ambitious project for all parties involved at the EU, national and global level. The requirement is set out in Article 9(1)(i) and (2) of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, as revised by Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 (hereafter Waste Framework Directive, WFD or revised WFD). At its recent SCIP workshop 20192the EuropeanChemicals Agency (ECHA) presented and discussedwith numerous participants from industry, authorities and NGOs the current state of play of the database, which ECHA should establish by 5 January 2020. In particular, the scope of ECHA’s detailed information requirements for SCIP notifications was criticized from the industry side for exceeding legal boundaries, while others argued in support of the ECHA plans. This question is of high practical relevance. Essentially, the issue at stake is whether industry can rely on existing systems and data already communicated under Article 33(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH), or whether additional data has to be collected from often long and complex global supply chains for the purpose of SCIP notifications, which are due as from 5 January 2021. Against this background, the present article aims to take a closer look at the legal background for the new SCIP provisions and discuss ECHA’s detailed information requirements from a legal point of view, based on the underlying rationale of the European Commission (EC). We will see that the role of recitals in EU law for the interpretation of enacting terms is one of the key legal issues raised in this context.
随着即将推出的关于物品或复杂物体(产品)中所关注物质的数据库(以下简称SCIP数据库)1，欧盟的共同立法者已经为欧盟、国家和全球层面的所有相关方引入了一个雄心勃勃的项目。该要求载于关于废物的指令2008/98/EC第9(1)(i)和(2)条，并经欧洲议会和理事会2018年5月30日指令(EU) 2018/851(以下简称废物框架指令，WFD或修订的WFD)修订。在最近的SCIP研讨会20192上，欧洲化学品管理局(ECHA)与来自行业、当局和非政府组织的众多参与者介绍并讨论了ECHA应在2020年1月5日前建立的数据库的现状。特别是，ECHA对SCIP通知的详细信息要求的范围被业界批评为超出了法律界限，而其他人则支持ECHA的计划。这个问题具有高度的实际意义。从本质上讲，关键问题是行业是否可以依赖根据法规(EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH)第33(1)条已经传达的现有系统和数据，或者是否必须从通常漫长而复杂的全球供应链中收集额外的数据以进行SCIP通知，这些通知将于2021年1月5日到期。在此背景下，本文旨在深入研究新SCIP条款的法律背景，并基于欧盟委员会(EC)的基本原理，从法律角度讨论ECHA的详细信息要求。我们将看到，在欧盟法律中，对于颁布条款的解释，复述的作用是在此背景下提出的关键法律问题之一。
{"title":"The SCIP Database under Directive (EU) 2018/851","authors":"Tim Becker","doi":"10.21552/icrl/2019/4/4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21552/icrl/2019/4/4","url":null,"abstract":"With the forthcoming database on substances of concern in articles as such or in complex objects (products) (hereafter SCIP database)1 the EU’s co-legislators have introduced a highly ambitious project for all parties involved at the EU, national and global level. The requirement is set out in Article 9(1)(i) and (2) of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, as revised by Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 (hereafter Waste Framework Directive, WFD or revised WFD). At its recent SCIP workshop 20192the EuropeanChemicals Agency (ECHA) presented and discussedwith numerous participants from industry, authorities and NGOs the current state of play of the database, which ECHA should establish by 5 January 2020. In particular, the scope of ECHA’s detailed information requirements for SCIP notifications was criticized from the industry side for exceeding legal boundaries, while others argued in support of the ECHA plans. This question is of high practical relevance. Essentially, the issue at stake is whether industry can rely on existing systems and data already communicated under Article 33(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH), or whether additional data has to be collected from often long and complex global supply chains for the purpose of SCIP notifications, which are due as from 5 January 2021. Against this background, the present article aims to take a closer look at the legal background for the new SCIP provisions and discuss ECHA’s detailed information requirements from a legal point of view, based on the underlying rationale of the European Commission (EC). We will see that the role of recitals in EU law for the interpretation of enacting terms is one of the key legal issues raised in this context.","PeriodicalId":375592,"journal":{"name":"International Chemical Regulatory and Law Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121508895","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Swiss Ordinance on Biocidal Products is technically equivalent to the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR) of the EU. As a result, the requirements concerning the harmonised authorisation procedures and the lists of active substances in the EU and Switzerland are identical. Therefore, in 2015 both parties renewed the existing chapter on ‘Biocidal Products’ in the EUCHMutual Recognition Agreement, which until 2013 had been based on the Biocidal Products Directive. Due to mutual recognition of authorisations of biocidal products, technical barriers to trade are avoided while maintaining the high level of protection. Furthermore, Switzerland participates in several BPR expert groups on EU level. This international exchange of knowledge and experience offers the opportunity to continuously improve the assessment techniques and to contribute to its harmonised development. Switzerland has to comply with the acquis. Consequently its room for manoeuvre concerning pragmatic solutions, eg for niche products, is therefore limited. The population benefits from the high level of protection. On the one hand, industry benefits from the same requirements and the possibility of mutual recognition of authorisations. On the other hand, small and medium enterprises operating only on the relatively small Swiss market suffer under the costs for the dossier preparation and the fees. Overall, the positive effects are likely to predominate due to the high level of protection.
{"title":"The Authorisation Scheme for Biocidal Products in Switzerland","authors":"D. Kappes, Brunhilde Kolp Buchs","doi":"10.21552/ICRL/2019/2/5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21552/ICRL/2019/2/5","url":null,"abstract":"The Swiss Ordinance on Biocidal Products is technically equivalent to the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR) of the EU. As a result, the requirements concerning the harmonised authorisation procedures and the lists of active substances in the EU and Switzerland are identical. Therefore, in 2015 both parties renewed the existing chapter on ‘Biocidal Products’ in the EUCHMutual Recognition Agreement, which until 2013 had been based on the Biocidal Products Directive. Due to mutual recognition of authorisations of biocidal products, technical barriers to trade are avoided while maintaining the high level of protection. Furthermore, Switzerland participates in several BPR expert groups on EU level. This international exchange of knowledge and experience offers the opportunity to continuously improve the assessment techniques and to contribute to its harmonised development. Switzerland has to comply with the acquis. Consequently its room for manoeuvre concerning pragmatic solutions, eg for niche products, is therefore limited. The population benefits from the high level of protection. On the one hand, industry benefits from the same requirements and the possibility of mutual recognition of authorisations. On the other hand, small and medium enterprises operating only on the relatively small Swiss market suffer under the costs for the dossier preparation and the fees. Overall, the positive effects are likely to predominate due to the high level of protection.","PeriodicalId":375592,"journal":{"name":"International Chemical Regulatory and Law Review","volume":"119 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116710155","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Food Contact Material Regulations in Key Markets – An Awakening Giant","authors":"Ioan Paraschiv, Raymond L. Sobocinski","doi":"10.21552/icrl/2019/3/4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21552/icrl/2019/3/4","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":375592,"journal":{"name":"International Chemical Regulatory and Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128665933","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The French state secretary, Ms Brune Poirson, has announced1 that the French government intends to ban nanoscale titanium dioxide in food by the end of 2018. The announcement is of particular interest since titanium dioxide is broadly used as an additive in cosmetics, paints and further consumer-related products. Known as E171, nano titanium dioxide is present in many foods, primarily as a whitener or to increase opacity. However, in many cases E171 does not fall under the EU definition of ‘nanomaterial’ since it does not contain more than 50% nanoparticles as regards its size distribution. Recently published studies had updated the safety concerns about nano titanium dioxide.
{"title":"New Law and Policy","authors":"T. Schulz","doi":"10.21552/icrl/2018/4/10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21552/icrl/2018/4/10","url":null,"abstract":"The French state secretary, Ms Brune Poirson, has announced1 that the French government intends to ban nanoscale titanium dioxide in food by the end of 2018. The announcement is of particular interest since titanium dioxide is broadly used as an additive in cosmetics, paints and further consumer-related products. Known as E171, nano titanium dioxide is present in many foods, primarily as a whitener or to increase opacity. However, in many cases E171 does not fall under the EU definition of ‘nanomaterial’ since it does not contain more than 50% nanoparticles as regards its size distribution. Recently published studies had updated the safety concerns about nano titanium dioxide.","PeriodicalId":375592,"journal":{"name":"International Chemical Regulatory and Law Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133712993","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The existing regulatory framework for new chemical substances in China has been put in place for nearly a decade, delivering tangible results in advancing chemical management and promoting the well-regulated development of the chemical sector. In April this year, to address problems identified in its implementation, the Chinese authorities introduced a new scheme, known as MEE Order No. 12, which will take effect starting from 1 January 2021. With an enhanced focus on environmental risks, the new scheme is expected to enable more efficient and targeted regulation and contribute to the country’s environmental protection efforts.
{"title":"Between the Old and the New Scheme: Management of New Chemical Substances in China","authors":"N. Wang, N. He, L. Chen","doi":"10.21552/icrl/2020/2/4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21552/icrl/2020/2/4","url":null,"abstract":"The existing regulatory framework for new chemical substances in China has been put in place for nearly a decade, delivering tangible results in advancing chemical management and promoting the well-regulated development of the chemical sector. In April this year, to address problems identified in its implementation, the Chinese authorities introduced a new scheme, known as MEE Order No. 12, which will take effect starting from 1 January 2021. With an enhanced focus on environmental risks, the new scheme is expected to enable more efficient and targeted regulation and contribute to the country’s environmental protection efforts.","PeriodicalId":375592,"journal":{"name":"International Chemical Regulatory and Law Review","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122205127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Argentina is the second largest economy in South America, and it ranks third in all Latin America in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). With a population nearing 45 million people and a significant amount of natural resources, it is regarded as an emerging economy. Industrial production accounts for approximately 22%of the country’s GDP,1 and the country’s imports amount to approximately $67 billion,2 with chemical products taking almost 15% of those imports. It is therefore an attractive destination for exports coming from European chemical companies. Overall, the European Economic Area accounts for almost 20% of the total imports in Argentina. As is the case in many Latin American countries, the regulatory system currently established in Argentina, in relation to themanagement of chemicals, is somewhat complex and heterogeneous. Different pieces of legislation are in place that impact themanufacture, import and commercialisation of chemicals in the country, which frequently involve a wide variety of ministries, secretariats, and offices. It is useful to become familiarised with those regulatory bodies. The following list highlights the main regulatory actors involved in the management of chemical products in Argentina. • Secretaría de Gobierno de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (SGAyDS) –Secretariat of Environment and Sustainable Development • Ministerio de Salud y Desarrollo Social – Ministry of Health and Social Development • Superintendencia de Riesgos del Trabajo (SRT) – Superintendence of Labour Risks • Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca (MAGPyA) – Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Rising and Fishery • Instituto Nacional de Alimentos (INAL) National Food Institute’ • Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (ANMAT) National Administration for Drugs, Food andMedical Technology • Dirección deVigilancia de Productos para la Salud (DVS) – Directorate for Health Products Survelliance (under ANMAT) • Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (SENASA) – National Service for Agricultural Food Health and Quality • Instituto Argentino de Normalización y Certificación (IRAM) – Argentina Institute for Normalization and Certification
{"title":"A Review of the Regulatory Landscape on Management of Chemicals in Argentina","authors":"J. Sales, Agustín Harte","doi":"10.21552/icrl/2019/3/5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21552/icrl/2019/3/5","url":null,"abstract":"Argentina is the second largest economy in South America, and it ranks third in all Latin America in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). With a population nearing 45 million people and a significant amount of natural resources, it is regarded as an emerging economy. Industrial production accounts for approximately 22%of the country’s GDP,1 and the country’s imports amount to approximately $67 billion,2 with chemical products taking almost 15% of those imports. It is therefore an attractive destination for exports coming from European chemical companies. Overall, the European Economic Area accounts for almost 20% of the total imports in Argentina. As is the case in many Latin American countries, the regulatory system currently established in Argentina, in relation to themanagement of chemicals, is somewhat complex and heterogeneous. Different pieces of legislation are in place that impact themanufacture, import and commercialisation of chemicals in the country, which frequently involve a wide variety of ministries, secretariats, and offices. It is useful to become familiarised with those regulatory bodies. The following list highlights the main regulatory actors involved in the management of chemical products in Argentina. • Secretaría de Gobierno de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (SGAyDS) –Secretariat of Environment and Sustainable Development • Ministerio de Salud y Desarrollo Social – Ministry of Health and Social Development • Superintendencia de Riesgos del Trabajo (SRT) – Superintendence of Labour Risks • Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca (MAGPyA) – Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Rising and Fishery • Instituto Nacional de Alimentos (INAL) National Food Institute’ • Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (ANMAT) National Administration for Drugs, Food andMedical Technology • Dirección deVigilancia de Productos para la Salud (DVS) – Directorate for Health Products Survelliance (under ANMAT) • Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (SENASA) – National Service for Agricultural Food Health and Quality • Instituto Argentino de Normalización y Certificación (IRAM) – Argentina Institute for Normalization and Certification","PeriodicalId":375592,"journal":{"name":"International Chemical Regulatory and Law Review","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130146321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The 21st Century has witnessed intense renewed interest in commercialising new biobased chemicals, defined generally to include chemicals that are derived fromplants andother renewablematerials. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is the U.S. law that regulates industrial chemical substances, including biobased chemicals, used in applications other than food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides, or uses that are regulated by other federal authorities. TSCA was significantly amended in 2016, and stakeholders need now more than ever to understand how TSCA applies to biobased chemicals to appreciate the implications of new TSCA on their commercial operations. Doing so will better assure uninterrupted business operations and consistent TSCA compliance.
{"title":"Regulatory Opportunities and Challenges in Commercialising Biobased Chemicals","authors":"L. Bergeson","doi":"10.21552/ICRL/2019/1/6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21552/ICRL/2019/1/6","url":null,"abstract":"The 21st Century has witnessed intense renewed interest in commercialising new biobased chemicals, defined generally to include chemicals that are derived fromplants andother renewablematerials. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is the U.S. law that regulates industrial chemical substances, including biobased chemicals, used in applications other than food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides, or uses that are regulated by other federal authorities. TSCA was significantly amended in 2016, and stakeholders need now more than ever to understand how TSCA applies to biobased chemicals to appreciate the implications of new TSCA on their commercial operations. Doing so will better assure uninterrupted business operations and consistent TSCA compliance.","PeriodicalId":375592,"journal":{"name":"International Chemical Regulatory and Law Review","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132033249","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The substitution process is an important tool defined in the REACH Regulation to remove the risks derived from the use of hazardous chemicals. However, when the alternative substance is suitable in technical and economic terms, but it is just as harmful or potentially worse as the replaced one, the process results in regrettable substitution. The absence of information regarding the hazard properties of the substitute substance, inconsistencies on implementation of the European chemicals Regulations, and the lack of interest of some part of the industry to manage stringent classifications, are the main reasons why this situation is generated. Change in the paradigm ‘No data, no market’ to ‘No data, no problem’, and replacement with the ‘Least regulated alternative’ instead of the ‘Least hazardous alternative’ are the results of the regrettable substitution scenarios. In order to avoid this practice, EU Authorities and the chemical industry should work together to achieve solutions, like clarifying the objective of substitution, improving the regulatory processes, or involving industry and stakeholders into rigorous evaluations of potential alternatives to substances of concern. This will guarantee a level playing field for companies on the European market of chemicals in front of regrettable substitution.
{"title":"Risk of Regrettable Substitution under EU REACH: Level Playing Field in the EU Regulatory Context","authors":"D. Drohmann, F. Hernández","doi":"10.21552/icrl/2020/1/6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21552/icrl/2020/1/6","url":null,"abstract":"The substitution process is an important tool defined in the REACH Regulation to remove the risks derived from the use of hazardous chemicals. However, when the alternative substance is suitable in technical and economic terms, but it is just as harmful or potentially worse as the replaced one, the process results in regrettable substitution. The absence of information regarding the hazard properties of the substitute substance, inconsistencies on implementation of the European chemicals Regulations, and the lack of interest of some part of the industry to manage stringent classifications, are the main reasons why this situation is generated. Change in the paradigm ‘No data, no market’ to ‘No data, no problem’, and replacement with the ‘Least regulated alternative’ instead of the ‘Least hazardous alternative’ are the results of the regrettable substitution scenarios. In order to avoid this practice, EU Authorities and the chemical industry should work together to achieve solutions, like clarifying the objective of substitution, improving the regulatory processes, or involving industry and stakeholders into rigorous evaluations of potential alternatives to substances of concern. This will guarantee a level playing field for companies on the European market of chemicals in front of regrettable substitution.","PeriodicalId":375592,"journal":{"name":"International Chemical Regulatory and Law Review","volume":"332 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134429140","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Actions Brought Against Delegated Commission Regulation 2020/217 Concerning Classification of Titanium Dioxide","authors":"T. Schulz","doi":"10.21552/icrl/2020/2/9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21552/icrl/2020/2/9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":375592,"journal":{"name":"International Chemical Regulatory and Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129357937","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：