Legal incoherence in EU chemical safety law: A proportionality-based analysis of REACH and CLP

This paper critically examines the legal coherence of the EU's chemical safety regulations, REACH and CLP, in light of the EU's commitment to the phasing out of animal testing. While both instruments express normative support for non-animal approaches, their operational provisions remain structurally biased toward animal-based evidence. This bias persists despite scientific concern about the predictive value of animal data, and the demonstrable inefficiency of animal testing for chemical safety assessment, as well as the growing availability of scientifically sound non-animal methodologies. Alongside cultural and institutional barriers, such as regulatory conservatism and a rigid validation system, legal obstacles embedded in the legislative design of REACH and CLP also impede a paradigm shift away from animal testing. Applying the principle of proportionality, the article argues that the animal-centric operational provisions of these regulations are: (i) neither suitable nor necessary to ensure a high level of human health protection; and (ii) that they disproportionately encroach upon animal welfare, in relation to their benefits. The article therefore calls for a legislative recalibration, to realign REACH and CLP with primary Union law. Without such changes, the EU Roadmap toward the phasing out of animal testing in chemical safety assessment, risks having limited practical effect.