Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-05-Speech-2-247"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060905.25.2-247"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
I should like to thank Mr Florenz, because every time he asks questions on this subject he really helps our policies.
It is true that it is estimated that 25% of all cancers in the European Union could be attributed to smoking. The World Health Organisation, the Finnish and German Governments and US agencies have already classified environmental tobacco smoke as a human carcinogen. As I have said to Parliament on many occasions in the past, action towards a smoke-free Europe is one of my main priorities. Before the end of 2006, the Commission intends to put forward a document on smoke-free environments, which will discuss the way forward to tackle passive smoking in Europe.
It is true that DG Sanco’s informal consultation did not mention the classification of ETS as a carcinogen, firstly because it had a preliminary and informal character and it tried to get the opinion of selected players. However, we place great importance on Parliament’s view that classifying tobacco smoke as a carcinogen would be advisable.
The problem is legal and not political, because we agree. There is a gap in the European legislation, so I would cover two aspects. Firstly, we have the problem that the existing legislation in the European Union that deals with dangerous products and substances does not cover smoke as such, but only products placed on the market. Therefore there is a gap there in the legislation.
At the same time, the approach was similar to the legislation that deals with protection from carcinogens in the workplace. These two pieces of legislation unfortunately apply only to substances and preparations placed on the market. Under the purposes and intentions of these pieces of legislation, tobacco smoke as such is not considered a product.
We have two approaches. On the one hand, in the consultation document we are to bring forward on the smoke-free environment, we shall ensure that we refer to the classification of ETS as a carcinogen – the one made by WHO, the US, Germany and Finland, so that we give the right information. At the same time, as components and ingredients of the smoke are already classified under European legislation as carcinogens – such as arsenic, butadiene, benzene, nitrogen oxides and other oxides – we shall ensure that we make reference to that as well. Therefore, legally we cannot say at this point that ETS is a carcinogen, but we can say that ETS contains components and substances which are carcinogens. I think the message is quite strong. This is what we can do in the immediate future.
However, in the mean time and in the long run, we hope to find ways and explore the possibilities of how we can use or amend in that respect European legislation so that we have the possibility of classifying ETS as such as a carcinogen. This can be done both by exploring amendments to our legislation. There is also an ongoing debate now on the review of the legislation on carcinogens in the workplace, and perhaps we should consider including that as well. That would apply to the workplace, but it would be a first step.
In conclusion, we will present every possible aspect in the paper which will be published soon – before the end of the year. However, in the meantime we will look at how to improve our existing legislation to ensure that we also have the legal competence to classify ETS as such as a carcinogen."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples