Good news!
We have just heard from Howard Oakley, the artist who submitted a lengthy technical paper to the EU about the proposed cadmium ban in artists paints, that the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) have decided to not go ahead with the ban, for now at least. The efforts of all who left comments on their website and got the word out to other artists means we will have the colours so many of us need for our work.
The ECHA concluded that artist’s paints are a minor contribution to the overall cadmium input with a negligible level of risk and “that the proposed restriction is not justified because in reducing the risks from cadmium in artists’ paints alone, this restriction under REACH is not considered to be the most appropriate EU wide measure”.
Dr Oakley mentions his concern that while many individual artists wrote opinions, very few organizations presented arguments or studies. He says: “I fear that this is not the last such threat. Cadmium will return, and cobalt and other substances will reach the agenda in the future. If there is no-one prepared to present the case for painters in the UK or EU, we will always be easy targets.”
Read these earlier articles to learn more about the Proposed Cadmium Ban.
12 thoughts on “Cadmium Ban News”
Yay! Excellent news. However, sounds like some organisations need stirring up if this comes round again….do they actually care?
Oh good, I won’t have to vote UKIP now….
I wonder what organizations Dr Oakley has in mind should have responded – because I’d be more than happy to give them a kick if he’ll provide a list. There are some people who are really keen on banning all of the metallic pigments, even though they represent a negligible risk: those for whom ‘green issues’ transcend practical considerations and enter the realm of a religion. And I don’t see them going away (although would be more than happy to TAKE them away, to some distant island, bereft of any means of escape and of any form of communication with the outside world: where is rendition when you really need it?).
At least the EU has proved itself capable of reading and understanding evidence – it’s a step forward, and they mustn’t be allowed to slip back.
Perhaps the foremost should have been the Royal Academy of Arts, which declares itself to be “a voice for arts and artists”. I have emailed them and hope to link up with whoever in the RA is involved with legislation and professional standards. But shouldn’t every other of the major art institutions such as the RWS also have commented, even if only to express the negative impact on the works of their members? And among their illustrious and very knowledgeable membership, would there not be those who could have lent their knowledge and expertise to providing technical criticism of the proposal? One exceedingly obvious issue which almost passed notice was the assumption – in the modelling which supported the proposed ban – that those using watercolours and oils would wash their brushes to waste water, releasing a similar proportion of cadmium pigments. I tackled that, and a couple of individual comments did, but that should not have been beyond the expertise assembled in these institutions. This will not be the first such proposal for a pigment ban, and I suspect that our response to cadmium issues will be tested again in the future. Can we please be better prepared next time? Oh – and a big thanks to Jackson’s, Golden, and Michael Craine at Spectrum for all the support and work that they too put in. It made a big difference.
Hello Howard – well done. Please don’t hesitate to inform me if the threat should arise again. I’m in touch with many suppliers, artists, art lovers and would be eager to help disseminate information and request input. I’d hate for this to slip under the radar with those most affected unaware.
Fantastic news I’d been enquiring with my emp and they were useless didn’t know anything about it
it is a paradox. artists who paint nature and landscape the y do it with something that poisons the nature (regardless if the impact is big or not, it is a toxic, unnatural material). i wish artists’ love for nature wasn’t expressed only by painting, photographing etc. it, but actually considering the impact of their activities on the environment. finding an alternative environmentally friendly material, tools, methods will help us to sustain the nature, enjoy it, get inspired and keep us painting it
Historical note: there was no “landscape” until artists paid Ted it in the 15th C.
Poisons the nature?? Unnatural? Really TL? These compounds come from the ground. They’re minerals and ultimately will go back into the ground. Nobody’s poisoning nature. Get a grip!
How about contacting the Greek government and asking it to veto these proposals whenever they come up? You might find they are looking for ways to exact revenge on the northern European countries pushing these restrictions into EU Law.
Minerals and mineral compounds are materials sourced from the earth! They are not toxic enough to be of any threat, did you even read the post ? They simple are not bio-available (doubt you even know what that means) to be considered dangerous enough to ban in artists paints. It’s because of people like you that these proposals even get taken seriously (by more people like you).
I agree with you T.L.
Cadmium contains 4 radioactive
isotopes and just because we like a
colour it doesn’t mean that we should
sacrifice nature and people for our
own convenience. And yes, I have read
this (biased) post, but I also did
some research of my own. There are
regulations in Europe (apart from
individual artists pouring
contaminated water down the sink) but
what about where the Cadmium pigment
factories are, in China, poisoning
workers and polluting rivers?
Pingback: Cadmium in Crisis! - Jackson's Art BlogJackson's Art Blog
Comments are closed.