In a written question to the European Commission, two MEPs have stated their concern regarding the fact that the institution is proposing a reduction in the limit of special bisphenol-A migration in contact with food rather than a total ban of that substance. Bisphenol-A is recognised by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as being “extremely dangerous”.
A majority of the members of the European Parliament committee on the environment have refused to oppose the Commission’s proposal for a regulation, to the great disappointment of those recommending a total ban on bisphenol-A (see EUROPE 19371).
Addressing Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Vytenis Andriukaitis, two French MEPs of the S&D Group, Eric Andrieu and Guillaume Balas, put their argument strongly. They are convinced that the draft regulation refutes the latest scientific assessments on endocrine disruptors which, they say, demonstrate that such a threshold is inappropriate for protecting consumer health.
“The European Commission’s proposal does not seem to take such elements into consideration. Under Article 169 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), the Union must help to protect consumer health”, they stress. They therefore ask:
1) Why has the Commission chosen to set a threshold rather than ban bisphenol-A, this being to the detriment of application of the precautionary principle (Article 191 TFEU)?
2) Why has the Commission not taken measures to protect pregnant women when papers on this show there is a risk to foetal development caused by exposure to endocrine disruptors?
3) Is the Commission able to give an exact date for the publication of the EFSA study on this subject? And what will the follow-up measures be?
The European Commission must provide a written response to this written question within six weeks. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)