Back in July 2019, I looked at the few cases when the Commission asked the RAC to re-look at their decisions (see link).
During the adoption of the 14th ATP, (link) the Commission flagged that they were putting on hold the adoption of the RAC’s June 2017 Opinion on DTPA.
(6) With regard to the substances pentapotassium 2,2’,2’’,2’’’,2’’’’-(ethane-1,2- diylnitrilo)pentaacetate, N-carboxymethyliminobis(ethylenenitrilo)tetra(acetic acid) and pentasodium carboxylatomethyl)iminobis(ethylenenitrilo)tetraacetate (DTPA), the classification as acute toxicant category 4 and specific target organ toxicant – repeated exposure (category 2) recommended in the RAC opinions of 9 June 2017 should be included in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, since sufficient scientific evidence is available justifying those new classifications. With regard to the substances pentapotassium 2,2’,2’’,2’’’,2’’’’-(ethane-1,2-diylnitrilo)pentaacetate and N-carboxymethyliminobis(ethylenenitrilo)tetra(acetic acid), the classification as eye irritant category 2, recommended in the RAC opinions of 9 June 2017, should be included in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, since sufficient scientific evidence is available justifying those new classifications. However, the classification of the substances pentapotassium 2,2’,2’’,2’’’,2’’’’-(ethane-1,2- diylnitrilo)pentaacetate, N- arboxymethyliminobis(ethylenenitrilo)tetra(acetic acidand pentasodium (carboxylatomethyl)iminobis(ethylenenitrilo)tetraacetate (DTPA), as toxic for reproduction category 1B should not be included since it requires further assessment by RAC in view of new scientific data on toxicity for reproduction presented by the industry after the RAC opinions were forwarded to the Commission (emphasis added).
The mandate from the ECHA Executive Director to the Chair of the RAC has just been published (link).
It will be interesting to see what happens when the RAC re-examines the new science.