Brussels, 13/06/2016 (Agence Europe) - The choice of the European Commission to use the World Health Organisation (WHO) definition to identify endocrine disruptors is not expected to be to everybody's taste, as borne out by the results from the public consultation carried out from 26 September 2014 - 16 January 2015 (see other article).
The Commission appears to have opted for the lowest common denominator. Health organisations effectively wanted criteria based on the WHO/IPCS definition and the different categories (scenario 3) so that potential and endocrine disruptors were not ignored. In a previous position, the EDC Free Europe organisation, which is hostile to these chemical substances, said that only taking into account the WHO/IPCS definition constituted an over simplistic approach. The organisation said that such an approach hampers a comprehensive and efficient examination of the state of science and that this erroneous definition would also exclude all the different chemical substances that required a more far ranging examination to determine whether or not they were endocrine disruptors.
At the other end of the spectrum are farmers and industry, according to whom, the definition by the WHO constitutes an interesting approach on the condition that other elements characterising the danger are added to it (scenario 4). The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) and the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC-ECPI) for example, called for taking into account the severity, irreversibly, potency and toxicity of lead.
The report on the public consultation published by the Commission demonstrates, however, that the scenario retained (scenario 2), namely, the WHO/IPCS definition has won more criticism than it has praise. It asserts that this option benefits from the support of several third country and international organisations, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS) and the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). The report, nonetheless, identifies a number of areas of criticism, such as a reductive reading of the precautionary principle. One argument against this approach identified in the consultation report argues that "option 2 would be in contradiction with the precautionary principle by advocating action only after the risk has been totally assessed. In reality, the proof required to act in this way would never be available due to insurmountable problems for organising appropriate assessments or quite simply because the research required has never been undertaken". The other criticism involves test methods, danger and risk, as well as causal links. For further information about the report please see:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/docs/2015_public_consultation_report_en.pdf (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)