Madam President, we now have a considerable amount of knowledge of endocrine disrupters. There have been many suspicions, but many causal relationships have been clarified concerning how endocrine disrupters affect animals and humans. We know that they can result in lower reproductive capacity. We know that they can cause deformities in the sexual organs, in both animals and humans, and we know that they can cause severe diseases, including testicular cancer and breast cancer. However, at the same time, there is still great uncertainty concerning the collective consequences of the many endocrine-disrupting substances. In reality, then, it is impossible to form an overview of the situation, including the situation where future generations are concerned. In my opinion, this is a really frightening prospect. Until now, the attitude has been that there must firstly be an acknowledgement of the risks posed by substances and that action is not taken until the damage has been done. Naturally, this situation is untenable. That is why it is a good thing that the Commission has led the way with a communication concerning an EU strategy for endocrine disrupters. However, I think that the Commission's strategy is a little too hesitant. It could easily be slightly more ambitious. I think that what are needed are some more aggressive and effective initiatives in the short term. And it is this that I am trying to rectify in this report. First and foremost, it is important that the list of substances that are, or are suspected of being, endocrine disrupters be drawn up and that this be done very quickly. In the report I have proposed that this should be done before the end of this year. It is also important that we have the necessary resources for the list to encompass all the relevant substances, expected to number approximately 560. At the same time, it is essential for the most dangerous substances on the list to be identified so that initiatives can be taken immediately to intervene in respect of the most dangerous substances. Various measures may be taken: bans, phasing out over a shorter or longer period of years and other restrictions on use. It ought to be possible to draw up this list of dangerous substances by mid-2001. In this connection, I believe that it is important to conclude that it must be done without waiting for further testing. We must also do it through aggressive use of the precautionary principle, in which connection I also think it is important to give consideration to particularly vulnerable groups. I am thinking of pregnant women, infants and certain groups of workers who run a particularly high risk of being affected by these substances. I also think that a major effort should be made to establish effective monitoring in the Member States and under the auspices of the EU. Industry must be required to report on which chemical substances are being put onto the market, in what quantities they are being used and what the expected effects are. We all also know that more resources must be put into research into both the extent of the problem and the consequences of it, as well as research into test methods and special research on mixture effects and synergetic effects. We know that these substances can interact in a particularly unfortunate way. In this connection I also believe that special research into the risks is important and, moreover, that we should ensure that the research is independent, i.e. that we do not base our political initiatives on the producers’ own research. Where research is concerned, we also know that international cooperation is important, including cooperation with the United States and Japan. As part of future legislation on chemical substances, I believe it would be a good thing if we succeeded in establishing a special framework, some special chapters on endocrine disrupters. There must be a legislative framework that is based on the precautionary principle and on the principle of a reverse burden of proof. At the same time, a timetable should be set for the testing of existing substances. In suggesting a legislative framework, I am also saying that I believe the rules should be binding. All experience of voluntary agreements in this area is poor. I would like to thank the rapporteurs for the various groups and thank the Commission for the cooperation we have had in connection with the drawing up of the report. Regarding the amendments, I will simply point out that my own is a linguistic improvement to Paragraph 15 of the report and that I cannot recommend that we vote for Mrs Grossetête’s three amendments. I believe that the proposals are largely inspired by the chemical industry, members of which have made the effort to contact me. The intention is clear: they wish to try to put obstacles in the way of action being taken here and now, and I believe it is important to emphasise that the advice we are getting from the scientific ethics committee is, in fact, advice and that it will not become actual legislation. It is ourselves in the Commission, the Council and Parliament who must lay down the legislative frameworks, and not the scientific committees. They serve as advisers in the same way as we receive advice from the other side.

Political group: PSE