Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-25-Speech-3-298"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001025.12.3-298"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – First I would like to express my appreciation for the Parliament response to the Commission communication on a Community strategy for endocrine disrupters and for the work of the rapporteur, Mr Lund.
Parliament supports the Commission objective to identify a first set of endocrine disrupting substances by the end of this year and to identify specific cases of consumer use and eco-system exposure for special action without awaiting further tests. An analysis of existing legal instruments relating to endocrine disrupters will also be part of this exercise. Let me make two comments on this.
First, the Commission objective of the end of 2000 is based on a two-step process: firstly a candidate list compiled by consultants and secondly prioritisation. Commission adoption of a proposal for prioritisation will follow. So far, only the candidate list has been completed. The second step of this exercise involves consultation with stakeholders in which we aim to achieve as wide a consensus as possible on priority substances.
I cannot give a commitment now that all 553 candidate substances will be on the priority list without pre-empting the outcome of the stakeholders' discussions, which are under way. The Scientific Committee as well as industry have been critical of the candidate list, the BKH report. In contrast, initial comments received from Member States and NGOs indicate support for the report as a valid starting point. The Scientific Committee's criticisms of the scientific shortcomings of the report will be addressed in the next stages of prioritisation and further evaluation.
I would like to add here that some of the criticisms are based on the false assumption that a group of 60 substances identified in this report will be the priority substances. These substances are in fact part of a candidate list of 553 substances on which discussions on priorities are still under way. It is also important to bear in mind that the list to be established must be a dynamic one. New substances can be added or indeed initial substances removed as new evidence comes to light.
My second comment in relation to the priority list of substances concerns the request in the motion for a resolution for a decision on intervention on specific cases by mid-2001. In order to identify specific cases for special action from the priority list, a more in-depth evaluation will be required on consumer uses and eco-system exposure. In addition, the role of the scientific committees in providing independent scientific advice will be crucial in these specific cases. It is ambitious to expect to achieve these goals in six months. However, we will use our best endeavours to work as quickly as possible.
Finally, as you are aware, the Commission intends to present a White Paper on the overall chemicals policy by the end of this year. We are working on that right now and I have seen the first drafts. One of the fundamental principles for this policy is to ensure a high level of protection. Clearly the endocrine disrupting strategy must be consistent with the overall policy on chemicals. A number of specific elements in Parliament's motion for a resolution, such as the shifting of the burden of proof, a redefinition of the responsibility of manufacturers, a review of labelling legislation and grouping of chemicals for screening and testing, must be and are being addressed in the context of this overall chemicals policy. The views of Parliament expressed in the motion for a resolution will be taken into account in the White Paper under preparation.
Finally, regarding international cooperation and information exchange, the Commission is organising a workshop on endocrine disrupters in the first half of 2001 with the sponsorship of the World Health Organisation among others. This workshop will convene all stakeholders to take stock of progress and make further recommendations on the development of test methods and testing strategy, research and the establishment of monitoring programmes.
I should again like to thank Parliament for its support in addressing this issue and I would like to underline the Commission's commitment to implementation of its strategy and to taking on board the elements of the Parliament motion for a resolution in a comprehensive way.
There is hardly any conference on the topic of chemicals that does not touch on the subject of endocrine disrupters. One of the reasons for this is the significant potential damage that such substances can cause to animals and human beings and, most importantly, to the unborn foetus and our reproductive capacity. It is difficult to imagine a more unsustainable trend than one that would lead to deterioration in our capacity to reproduce.
The area of endocrine disrupters is a complex one where there are still many questions to be answered. There are certain things we know. For some we can make predictions with confidence and others where we are faced with considerable uncertainty. What we do know is that a number of man-made chemicals that have been released into the environment, as well as a few natural ones, have the potential to disrupt the endocrine system of animals, including humans. Among these are persistent bio-accumulative compounds that include some pesticides and industrial chemicals as well as other synthetic products. Many wildlife populations are already affected by these compounds.
There are adequate quantitative data showing a causal link between exposure to these substances and a reduction in reproductive success in wildlife. There are also some general conclusions that have been drawn by the research community such as the fact that the chemicals concerned have entirely different effects, as Mr Arvidsson said, on embryos, foetuses and perinatal organisms than on adults and that effects are more often manifested in offspring, rather than in a parent that has suffered exposure.
However, there are also many uncertainties since the nature and extent of the effects of exposure on humans are not well established. Information is limited, especially on concentrations of contamination in embryos. The need for further examination of the potential risks of such substances to fill the knowledge gaps so we can take appropriate action is the very reason why I presented the proposal for a Community strategy for endocrine disrupters. All of us have the right to know and the obligation to learn. Let me turn to the key elements of the strategy. The basis for it is the precautionary principle. I am pleased that Parliament supports the Commission objective to identify appropriate policy action on the basis of the precautionary principle in order to respond quickly and effectively to the problem of endocrine disruption.
This principle and the need to develop quick and effective risk management strategies in relation to endocrine disrupters was also stressed by the Environmental Council in its conclusions of 30 March. At the same time, Parliament perceives a lack of ambition in the Commission strategy concerning the need to reduce human exposure to endocrine disrupters and protect wildlife.
This I would like to address at the outset with a number of comments. There are two core components of the Commission strategy. One is further research and development and the other is the development of agreed test methods. Regarding research and development, the Commission's main instrument is the fifth framework programme on research and development. I am pleased to inform you that endocrine disruption has been highlighted as a priority research topic in the latest revision of the relevant programmes concerning human health and the environment.
The Commission is also planning a dedicated call for proposals on endocrine disruption which will serve to further reinforce endocrine disruption research. The recommendations in the Parliament motion for a resolution will be taken into account. Regarding the development of agreed test methods, this will require a two-to-four year horizon. Agreement on test methods aims to ensure that everyone involved agrees that the tests designed to detect the right elements and the test results can be interpreted in a uniform way. Without such agreement we will constantly be faced, not just with scientific uncertainty but with opposing views on the science. For this reason we believe that legislative action to reduce exposure in a comprehensive manner, on the basis of the precautionary principle, can be considered only when agreed test methods are available.
Agreed test methods are also necessary to launch a comprehensive exercise in the search for substitutes. Otherwise, possible substitutes may be open to the same suspicion as the substances they replace. At the same time we need to take into account existing scientific evidence. That is why we make provision in the short term to act without agreed test methods on the basis of the precautionary principle and on a case-by-case basis."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples