Campaigners Challenge GB Fast-Track Chemical Approvals in High Court

Environmental campaigners have filed a claim against the GB Health and Safety Executive (HSE) over a new route to market approval for chemicals. The case turns on a narrow procedural question, but the outcome could shape how quickly chemicals approved elsewhere reach the British market.

What the claim argues

The papers were filed with the High Court in London this week by the campaign group Fighting Dirty. They argue that an amendment to the existing regulations was made unlawfully. The claim is directed at the HSE and at the secretary of state for work and pensions, who holds ministerial responsibility for the HSE. A judge will first decide whether the claim can proceed to a full judicial review. That decision is expected within two to four months.

The core of the argument is about scope. Fighting Dirty says the HSE told respondents during a public consultation, in February, that the fast-track programme would be "restricted to the EU." In its view, applying the legislation to additional, unspecified countries afterwards, without further consultation, was unlawful.

How the fast-track regime works

Every potentially hazardous chemical needs approval from the HSE before it can be placed on the GB market. That baseline hasn't changed. What's new is a shortcut. Under legislation that came into force in May 2026, a chemical is approved by default if it already holds approval in countries with a "similar" regulatory framework to the UK, provided those countries run a "transparent" classification process.

Here's the thing: that wording places a lot of weight on two judgements, neither of which is fixed in the text as quoted. One is whether a foreign framework counts as similar. The other is whether a classification process counts as transparent. Both are decided by the regulator, and that's the heart of the campaigners' objection. Their concern is that the HSE alone decides which countries qualify, with no independent check.

Reciprocal recognition schemes like this aren't unusual. Regulators often accept another jurisdiction's data or decisions to avoid repeating assessments, and that saves time and cost for both regulators and applicants. The trade-off is that the receiving regulator's confidence depends on how closely the other system matches its own standards and how openly that system classifies hazards. Where those comparisons are made informally, critics tend to focus on the lack of published criteria, and that appears to be where this challenge is aimed.

The concern about lower standards

Fighting Dirty argues the new rules could open the door to chemicals approved in countries with "weaker" standards or where toxic chemicals are more prevalent. It names the US and Brazil as examples. The source doesn't set out how either country's approvals would be assessed under the regime, and the campaigners' argument is about the principle of the mechanism rather than any specific chemical. Anyone tracking this should watch whether the HSE publishes the criteria it uses to judge similarity and transparency, because that's the detail that would settle much of the debate.

Fighting Dirty founder Georgia Elliott-Smith linked the issue to toxic pollution in towns such as Thornton-Cleveleys. She said it shows "the human cost when agencies that are supposed to protect us from harmful substances such as PFAS are too slow, too stretched or too focussed on economic growth to regulate effectively." She also said the fast-track regime "lets HSE decide for itself which countries qualify, with no independent check and no parliamentary vote," and that the government had "put industry convenience ahead of public health."

She was clear about the limits of the legal case, though. "But this case isn't about whether we agree with the policy," she said. "It's about whether the government acted lawfully and kept the promises it made to the public."

The case for alignment with the EU

The HSE has been responsible for building its own chemicals regime since the UK left the EU. Civil servants told the ChemUK trade show, on the same day the new legislation took effect, that they had struggled with the "significant workload" that Brexit created. A Department for Environment and Rural Affairs official said GB chemicals regulation would be near-identical to the EU's, "diverging only where necessary," which would "avoid the time-consuming, costly and unnecessary duplication of EU assessments."

That context matters. The fast-track route can be read as a practical way to avoid duplicating assessments that have already been done. The campaigners' point is that the practical logic has outrun the consultation that was promised, and that the lawful basis for the wider scope needs testing. Those are different questions, and the court will only address the second.

What to watch next

The HSE said it would not comment on ongoing legal proceedings, and the Department for Work and Pensions did not respond to a request for comment. So the next concrete milestone is the judge's decision on whether the claim can go to a full judicial review, expected in the next two to four months.

If the claim proceeds, the central question will be procedural: whether widening the scope beyond the EU required further consultation. If it doesn't, the regime stands as written, and the practical debate moves to the HSE's own judgements about which countries qualify. Either way, anyone supplying or registering chemicals for the GB market should keep an eye on which jurisdictions the HSE recognises under the new rules, because that list will determine which approvals carry over.