The legislative proposals on endocrine disruptors were given a lukewarm reception by the European Parliament’s environment and public health committee on Tuesday 29 November.
The Council of the EU is also dragging its feet: on the eve of the deadline set, 18 member states had yet to submit their written comments to the European Commission.
In mid-June, the Commission put forward three criteria for identifying (and ultimately banning) chemicals which have a harmful effect on the hormonal system: (1) the appearance of adverse effects; (2) the endocrine mode of action (which allows the effect at cellular and molecular level to be determined); (3) correlation between the two previous criteria (see EUROPE 11573). It thereafter made some marginal changes to its proposals to address the member states’ concerns.
On Tuesday, in the face of criticism from the MEPs, the Deputy Director General for Food Safety defended the Commission proposals tooth and nail: “The debate has become politicised. The Commission has even been accused by some of not doing enough to protect health and the environment. But that is not true: the revised proposals maintain the high level of protection established by the pesticides and biocides regulations”, he stated by way of introduction before engaging in a more technical argument.
He brushed aside the opinion of the European Parliament legal department that the changes brought to the derogations in the pesticides regulation (Regulation 1107/2009) were illegal. “I’m aware of this opinion. However, the European Commission’s legal department has published an opinion that states the contrary. It says that the European executive does, indeed, have the right to amend the regulation on the basis on Article 78 of that same regulation”, he stated. He underlined that the Commission proposals continue to be in line with a “hazard-based approach”. The “risk-based approach” is only used in relation to derogations. “The risk may be high even though the concentration is low. We are much more precise with the idea of risk”, he said.
The difference between the two approaches is of some importance since it could, ultimately, lead to the European Union being referred to the WTO. Endocrinologist Jean-Pierre Bourguignon provides a very concise explanation of the difference, using drink driving as his example: the risk-based approach bans driving above a certain level of alcohol in the blood, whereas the hazard-based approach applies the general principle that one must not drink and drive.
In his concluding remark, Miko promised that “any substance identified as an endocrine disruptor will only be approved under the very strictest of conditions. Extremely dangerous substances will not be approved even though the exposure may be negligible”.
His words did not persuade MEPs, with the exceptions of Julie Girling (ECR, UK) and Peter Liese (EPP, Germany). The Greens/EFA and S&D Groups were particularly vociferous in their criticism, accusing the European Commission of bias.
In French daily Le Monde on the same day, almost one hundred European and American scientists complained that “industrial interests” were “deliberately twisting the scientific evidence” to prevent the regulation of endocrine disruptors. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)