Insights

The recent integration of the near-field module into USEtox represents a major methodological advancement for assessing the sustainability of chemical substances. However, this innovation does not—and should not—replace consumer risk assessments conducted with regulatory tools like ConsExpo. Here's why both approaches are essential in a comprehensive SSbD strategy.

The purpose of this article is therefore to explain why USEtox Far-Field and 'EUSES'-based Risk Assessment cannot be interchanged, and why using USEtox for both safety and sustainability is not recommended.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is widely used to quantify the environmental footprint of products, processes and services. Yet a crucial part of the LCA machinery — impact assessment models — remains largely misunderstood. These models translate emissions and resource use into impact scores, and they are developed by different academic groups, using different assumptions, datasets and modelling philosophies.

In May 2025, during the SETAC Europe Annual Meeting in Vienna, I presented a perspective that is increasingly shaping the future of chemical management in Europe: the need to better connect Risk Assessment (RA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to support Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) innovation. Although these two disciplines evolved independently, their convergence is now essential for designing chemicals and materials aligned with the EU Green Deal and upcoming sustainability requirements.This article summarises the main messages of that presentation and highlights a decade of work conducted at the Joint Research Centre (JRC), Radboud University and now pursued through Net-Zero Impact.