Brussels, 05/12/2006 (Agence Europe) - To say that the Green/EFA group at the Parliament is disappointed with the informal compromise reached on 1 December between the parliament and the Council on the REACH recommendation, is a euphemism (EUROPE 9320 and 9319). But there is no question that the parliamentary ecologists are going to lay down and die. Carl Schytler (Swedish Green) and Caroline Lucas (British Green) were distraught that the war they have been waging to get this new legislation adopted on registration, assessment authorisation and limitation of chemical products in the EU, which is “robust and can offer citizens of the EU and the environment genuine protection against a multitude of toxic substances in everyday life in Europe and beyond” has come to nothing. They stressed this to the press on 5 December and deplored that one of the minimum demands from the environment and public health committee at the European Parliament, the principle of obligatory and automatic substitution of all the most worrying substances when safer alternatives exist, was “sacrificed to the protection of short term profits of a handful of large chemical companies”.
In terms of the compromise, only PBTs (persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic substances) and vPvB substances (very persistent, very bio-accumulative and very toxic substances) will be subject to demands for automatic substitution, explained Carl Schytler. He also said that the definition should be improved on these substances to cover a possibly wider range. CMR substances (carcinogenic, mutagens and dangerous to the endocrine system) can be authorised if they are used by industry, subject to suitable controls. The MEP warned that, “these substances will certainly not be authorised for direct sales to the consumer but nothing will prevent them being present in article of consummation sold to consumers. This represents a real risk”.
Caroline Lucas denounced the “dirty tricks” by the EPP-ED, in particular, over the last six weeks of negotiations. She also said that it was going to be difficult to explain to people that even if a less harmful alternative exists, substitution will not be automatic. She stated that the attitude of Karl-Heinz Florenz (EPP-ED, Germany), chairman of the environment committee at the Parliament ceased being neutral when it was required because he preferred to play the role of EPP spokesperson in informal trialogues between the EP, Council and Commission. Carl Schytler added that, “nine amendments that had been rejected by the environment committee were reintroduced and every time they were at the point of winning, Mr Florenz invoked the absence of a mandate for negotiating in this sense”. Other sources of disappointment deplored by the Greens/EFA were the disappearance in the EP/Council compromise on the relationship between safety for all substances produced or imported in low volumes, the absence of a genuine duty of vigilance on the part of producers as mentioned in the sixth framework programme on the environment, the absence of a guarantee for accurate information for consumers on all chemical substances contained in products for consummation. In relation to the Council's common position, only the provisions on animal welfare were improved, affirmed Carl Schytler.
If Parliament does not raise the threshold when it speaks in the second reading on this legislation on 13 December in Strasbourg, the Green/EFA are convinced that the EU will have missed a unique opportunity, that of radically reforming chemical products policy whose first objective was to scientifically screen around 30,000 chemical substances already on the European market but which ignores most of the potential hazards to public health and the environment due to the lack of sufficient information. They are already preparing a response and intend to submit two amendment packets on 6 December in the evening which they hope can convince the plenary session to not give into a “disgraceful” compromise. The first packet of amendments will be alternative compromise to the bottom line on which the other political groups “can agree” and Parliament can get a qualified majority (367 votes). The second series of amendments aims to improve the EP/Council compromise in the even that it is adopted. The two Green MEPs said that they wanted the parliamentary plenary session to have the chance to vote for an alternative in favour of protecting human health. (an)