8. 8. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 208/43 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the protection of workers from the risks 
related to exposure to carginogens at work (sixth individual Directive within the meaning 
of Article 8 of Directive 80/1107/EEC) 
(88/C 208/13) 
On 15 January 1988, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 118 A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 18 May 1988. The 
rapporteur was Mr Etty. 
At its 256th plenary session (meeting of 2 June 1988), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by 94 votes to 8, with 15 abstentions (vote recorded). 
1. Introduction 
With the rise in the use of chemicals and technology, 
the exposure to carcinogens of workers and the popu­
lation at large poses a growing threat to human life. It 
is therefore crucial to adopt effective measures against 
these substances. Attempts to register cases of occu­
pational cancer in the Member States have been piece­
meal and the incidence of unreported cases can there­
fore be assumed to be several times higher than indi­
cated by official figures. This conclusion can be drawn 
from recognized epidemiological research. Carcinogen­
ic substances usually also have a mutagenic effect. In 
the case of certain carcinogens there is speculation as 
to possible damaging effects on embryos and fertility. 
1.1. Effective action against cancer risks in the work 
environment is not only of considerable importance for 
a large proportion of the labour force and for many 
employers but also because it can have an indirect 
impact on health protection for society at large. 
1.2. The Committee welcomes the introduction by 
the Commission of a legal instrument, the draft Direc­
tive of 10 December 1987, to combat cancer hazards at 
the workplace. This step is in line with the request 
made by the Committee in its May 1985 Opinion on 
occupational cancer. 
1.3. The draft Directive does not however do suf­
ficient justice to workers'health protection require­
ments, given the serious threat of work-related cancer. 
It lags far behind the proposals made by the Economic 
and Social Committee in May 1985 (OJ No C 188, 
29. 7. 1985). In this context reference should be made 
to the Committee's Opinion on the 'Limit Value Direc­
tive' of June 1987. The principal weaknesses of the draft Directive are 
listed below: 
— There is no legally binding, comprehensive ranking 
for the preventive measures to be adopted; the pre­
ventive aims are in fact considerably watered down 
by exemptions. 
— No provision is made for banning exposure to car­
cinogenic substances or for mandatory substitution 
of safe or less dangerous substances; it would be 
technically preferable for prohibitions to be 
included in this Directive, rather than the banning 
Directive. 
— No maximum limits for exposure to carcinogens 
are laid down, nor is there an injunction to reduce 
current levels by using state of the art technology; 
sharp disparities between the Member States are 
therefore inevitable on this central issue. 
— There are no arrangements for dealing with the 
increased risk created by multiple carcinogens, 
although they are typical of the working environ­
ment of a large number of workers. 
— There is no provision for a Community-wide stan­
dardized procedure for measuring and analysing the 
scale of exposure to carcinogens. 
— The proposal does not provide for mandatory meas­
uring of carcinogenic levels; this is imperative, in 
the light of the threat to human life. 
— No provision is made for involving employers and 
workers in decision-making on measures to be 
adopted at plant or intercompany level; employers 
and workers should also be involved in the appro­
priate EC bodies in order to ensure a rapid classifi­
cation of carcinogens based on the latest scientific 
findings; reference should be made here to the Com­
mittee's Opinion on the 1988 framework Directive 
(CES No 454/88). 
No C 208/44 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 88 
— The preventive requirements which the draft Direc­
tive imposes on Member States are fragmentary; 
this applies in particular to (a) official monitoring of 
observance of legislation on registering carcinogens 
and related illnesses (b) arrangements for putting 
protective legislation into practice, e. g. by setting 
up measurement and analysis centres and providing 
information on health hazards, in particular in order 
to help small business. 
These eight criticisms are dealt with in detail in the 
'specific comments'. 
1.4. Given these shortcomings, the draft Directive is 
not calculated to harmonize existing conditions in this 
area while maintaining the improvements, as provided 
for by Article 118 a of the EEC Treaty. The Directive 
in fact paves the way for distortions of competition 
since its non-mandatory provisions are liable to lead to 
wide variations in safety levels between the Member 
States. It must be remembered that minimum require­
ments within the meaning of Article 118 a play a crucial 
psychological role in the development of industrial 
health and safety standards and the relevant legislation 
in the individual Member States. In fact, there is a 
danger that the tendency to harmonize legislation in 
the EC will lead to the erosion of high safety standards 
and the substitution of lower safety levels commensur­
ate with EC minimum requirements. 
2. Comments on the explanatory memorandum 
The Directive is confined to '1st and 2nd category' 
carcinogenic agents (p. 11 pp.). This is indefensible if 
workers' health is to be fully protected. It would be 
much more logical to include '3rd category' carcino­
gens, where their carcinogenic effect has been demon­
strated in experiments on animals. There can be no 
justification for waiting several decades to check wheth­
er these substances also cause cancer in humans. Epi­
demiological research into cancer in humans should 
only be considered as scientific back-up for bacterial 
short-term tests and experiments on animals, insofar as 
such experiments are necessary. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 1 (Objective) 
Appropriate (separate) provisions on the prevention of 
work-related cancer must be introduced to give all 
maritime transport workers and air transport workers 
the same legal protection as other workers are afforded 
by the present draft Directive. 3.2. Article 2 (Definition) 
It should be specified that the Directive also applies to 
the handling of products whereby carcinogenic agents 
may be released. The Directive should also contain 
provisions covering carcinogens not listed in Annex I 
or II but classified as carcinogenic by the producer or 
importer. In such cases Member States, producers or 
importers should be required to inform the Commission 
immediately that the product is classified as carcinogen­
ic. The Commission should in turn be required to carry 
out an appropriate assessment procedure without delay. 
3.3. Article 3 (Assessment) 
Article 3 should be headed: 'Field of application, regis­
tration and assessment of risk'. This change is necessary 
since, in the practice of industrial health protection, 
the process of registering a risk (e. g. the nature and 
concentration of carcinogens) is quite distinct from the 
assessment of the health hazard. 
3.3.1. The wording of Article 3 (1) in all official 
Community languages should make it perfectly clear 
that the Directive applies to activities in which workers 
either are actually exposed or may be exposed to car­
cinogens in the course of their work. 
3.3.2. A new paragraph should be inserted requiring 
employers to establish the nature and scale of risks of 
exposure to carcinogenic substances. Employers should 
have to record and establish, by means of regular 
measurement, the level of carcinogen concentration at 
the workplace or in the work environment. Article 4, 
2 (d) concerning the use of adequate measurement 
procedures for carcinogenic agents falls short of health 
protection requirements on two counts: (1) 'measuring' 
is referred to as one of several courses of action which 
can be applied 'as appropriate'. (2) the measuring 
requirement is curtailed by the suggestion that measure­
ment procedures are necessary 'in particular for the 
early detection of abnormal exposures'. In order to 
assess cancer risk, measurements must, however,. 
always be carried out where there is the slightest indi­
cation of carcinogens being released. It can be assumed 
that carcinogens are generally present in far higher 
concentrations in a work environment than in the 
environment at large. Carcinogen concentration should 
also be measured even when they are below certain 
limits. This is necessary because there is the possibility 
that the cancer risk increases when workers are exposed 
to more than one carcinogen. 
3.3.3. A standardized measuring and analysis pro­
cedure should be introduced for all Member States. 
8. 8. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 208/45 
This is essential if health and safety standards are to 
be harmonized on the basis of this Directive. Concrete 
measures could be outlined in a third annex. 
3.3.4. Risk registration should also cover exposure 
via, for example, the skin and not only via respiratory 
tracts. 
3.3.5. Risk assessment is to be endorsed but details 
should be given. In addition to the nature and extent 
of exposure, account should also be taken of the dur­
ation and the combined effect of several carcinogens. 
3.3.6. Employers should be required to keep written 
records of all aspects of registration and assessment of 
risks. 
3.4. Preliminary comments on Articles 4 to 9 
Articles 4 to 9 should provide for prevention proper i.e. 
the absolute prevention or reduction of work-related 
cancer risks. As they stand however, the provisions do 
not meet workers' health and safety requirements, given 
the scale of the threat which carcinogens pose. The 
large number of derogations (use of the qualification: 
'insofar as is reasonably practicable'), the lack of a 
mandatory ranking of protective measures, the absence 
of maximum limits for carcinogen concentrations at 
the workplace and the fact that preventive measures 
are not mandatory for Member States almost totally 
undermine the protective objectives of Articles 4 to 9. 
There is a gross discrepancy between the aim of afford­
ing protection and the fact that the measures designed 
to achieve this end are not sufficiently binding. 
3.5. On Article 4 (Measures for the prevention of 
exposure) 
3.5.1. The heading of Article 4 should be amended 
to read as follows 'Prevention or reduction of exposure'. 
3.5.2. The protective aim indicated in the heading of 
Article 4 and described in Article 4(1), i.e. the preven­
tion of the exposure of workers to carcinogens, is to 
be welcomed. Since the measures proposed to achieve 
this aim are however not mandatory, they are unsuit­
able. 
3.5.3. The prevention or reduction of the exposure 
of workers to carcinogens is contingent on whether this 
is 'reasonably practicable'. [Art. 4 (1) and (2)]. Contrary 
to the Commission's statement, this does not automati­
cally follow from the 'Guideline Directive on the protec­
tion of workers from the risks related to exposure to 
chemical, physical and biological agents at work (80/ 
1107/EEC)' on which the Directive is based. Article 3 
(1) of the Guideline Directive does permit Member 
States to decide whether the exposure of workers to carcinogens is to be completely avoided or kept at as 
low a level as is 'reasonably practicable'. Consequently, 
Article 4 (14) stipulates that the use of industrial 
materials can, where necessary, either be limited or 
totally banned where the use of other available means 
does not afford sufficient protection. In view of the 
lethal threat posed by carcinogens, stringent rather than 
'reasonably practicable' measures must be adopted. 
Article 3 (1) also provides an opportunity for defining 
what a 'reasonably practicable level' might be, either by 
reference to latest technological research or by devising 
transitional industrial processes with a lower health 
risk. 
3.5.4. Article 4—in conjunction with Article 
6—defines the level of protection to be achieved but 
the definition is piecemeal since it makes no reference 
to exposure bans for carcinogens or to maximum car­
cinogen concentration levels for the working environ­
ment. Legislation on statutory protective levels must 
take account (a) of the threat to workers' health and 
(b) the facts of business life. Most workers will be 
unprotected unless specific maximum limits for carcino­
gen concentrations in the working atmosphere are 
observed. Maximum limits are also required to avoid 
distortions of competition as between the Member 
States and different plants and sectors in Member 
States. 
Article 4 should therefore gear protection levels to the 
health hazards involved. The following steps should be 
provided for: 
— measures to prevent any exposure where this is 
necessary for health considerations, or is technologi­
cally practicable, 
— reduction of exposure to the lowest technically prac­
ticable level in individual plants, 
— establishment of maximum permissible exposure 
values, coupled with a requirement to reduce these 
maxima by specific deadlines, 
— setting of a trigger threshold for the application of 
certain measures, e.g. compulsory use ofbreathing 
equipment, 
— emergency measures in the event of permissible 
maxima being exceeded. 
3.5.5. Article 4 does not stipulate any ranking for 
protective measures. In fact it leaves employers at lib­
erty to apply the proposed measures in the light of what 
is reasonably practicable and 'appropriate' [Article 4 
(2) in conjunction with Article 4 (1)]. 
No C 208/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 88 
Article 4 should stipulate the following mandatory 
order of priority for protective measures: 
— a ban or restrictions on the use of carcinogenic 
materials, products and hazardous working pro­
cedures, including a ban on exposure, 
— mandatory replacement of carcinogenic materials, 
products and hazardous work processes or instru­
ments by safe or less dangerous alternatives, 
— technical measures for (a) the planning, develop­
ment and construction stages of new plants (b) 
existing plants and procedures, 
— blanket establishment of exposure limit values, to 
be reduced gradually over defined transitional per­
iods in line with technological progress, 
— work organization measures, such as the reduction 
of the pace of work, shorter exposure times, training 
and further training; instructions on behaviour, 
— personal protective equipment and hygiene meas­
ures. 
The Member States should be required to ban exposure 
to carcinogens where this is necessary to protect wor-
kers'health. This would not be at odds with the banning 
Directive since it also covers manufacture. Harmoniza­
tion of legislation would also be promoted if the issues 
addressed by the banning Directive were tackled in the 
present draft Directive. In addition, a distinction must 
be drawn between (a) a blanket exposure ban under an 
EC Directive—such as the ban on the four sub­
stances—and (b) the separate requirement for the Mem­
ber States to use exposure bans as a flexible instrument 
for action in specific cases. 
3.5.6. The objective of protecting workers from 
exposure to carcinogens [Article 4 (1)] is to be wel­
comed. The requirement to use closed systems should 
however be geared to technological progress. Appropri­
ate transitional periods could be considered for adjust­
ing old plants to technological progress. 
Closed systems are aimed, first and foremost, at the 
manufacturing industry, i.e. essentially the chemical 
industry. The use of closed systems in the user industries 
or user firms, including craft undertakings, is a much 
more difficult proposition. It should be borne in mind 
in this respect that many more workers are exposed to 
carcinogens in user industries than in manufacturing 
industries. 
Closed systems will not protect all workers concerned 
from exposure. Malfunctions may occur and even 
where closed systems are used, the vast majority of exposures to carcinogens occur during repairs, cleaning 
or maintenance work. 
3.5.7. Employers should be required, using available 
technology and other in-plant facilities including work 
organization, to reduce exposure as far as possible, 
irrespective of maximum permissible values for carcino­
gen concentrations in the working atmosphere. The 
draft Directive on limit values also requires individual 
employers to endeavour, irrespective of maxima, to 
achieve the lowest possible exposure of workers. It is 
assumed that individual sectors and plants have com­
pletely different technical and work organizational 
facilities. 
3.5.8. Maximum limits for carcinogenic concen­
trations in the working atmosphere should be laid down 
and must not be exceeded. These maxima should be 
linked to technological progress and tapered off over a 
transitional period. To achieve this, industry should 
be required to develop technology, including working 
instruments, to permit maximum levels to be reduced 
accordingly. 
3.5.9. Article 4 should link permissible exposure 
levels (including zero-exposure) to the scale of the can­
cer risks [see page 30 (bottom) and page 31 (top) of the 
ESC recommendation]. The ultimate objective must be 
to prevent all cancers as far as possible. It is however 
clear that this objective can only be achieved gradually, 
taking account of priorities and the scope for reduction. 
Immediate blanked implementation would require the 
closure of very many industrial-commercial undertak­
ings. 
3.5.10. Employers should be required to draw up a 
programme, normally a written programme, for action 
against carcinogenic substances, embracing short, 
medium and long-term measures and the volume of 
investment required. Workers or their representatives 
should be involved in drafting the programme. A writ­
ten programme designed to identify all cancer risks and 
preventive measures is a sine qua non not only for a 
systematic campaign against these health hazards but 
also to enable the competent national bodies to fulfil 
their supervisory role. 
3.6. Article 5 (Information for the competent authori­
ties) 
Article 5 relegates the Member States to a purely passive 
role in combatting occupational cancer risks, since 
8. 8. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 208/47 
employers are merely required to supply the competent 
authorities with certain information, if requested. 
Given the scale of the threat from carcinogenic work 
materials, the Member States or the competent authori­
ties must play an active role in protecting workers' 
health. They should ensure that employers and workers 
are adequately informed as to the risks. The Directive 
must therefore make it compulsory for employers to 
supply the competent authorities with information. 
This is the only way for the Member States to reverse 
the present situation and enable them to assess the scale 
of cancer risks in the working environment and, on the 
basis of such identification, to pursue a tight, effective 
and assertive national campaign against such risks. This 
is crucial, not only as regards legislation, but also 
for the fulfilment of national supervisory duties, the 
implementation of research projects and the develop­
ment of on-the-job assistance for both employers and 
workers' representatives. Such assistance is necessary 
since in the industrial nations, approximately 75 % of 
the workforce is employed is small and medium-sized 
undertakings. Unlike larger concerns, small and me­
dium-sized employers do not have industrial safety 
departments capable of tackling the entire range of 
problems involved in protecting workers against car­
cinogens. They should therefore be provided with 
appropriate advice by the competent bodies. 
In addition to the data listed in Article 5, employers 
should be required to supply the following information 
to the competent authorities: 
— a copy of the firm's programme for registering 
occupational cancer risks and taking preventive 
action, 
— information on involvement of workers, 
— information on industrial processes in which car­
cinogens are produced, albeit unintentionally as 
far as manufacturers or users are concerned (cf. 
Annex II). 
3.7. Article 6 (Abnormal exposure) 
3.7.1. In the first line of Article 6, the word 'unfore­
seeable' should be deleted. 
There is no apparent reason why the protective 
measures provided for in Article 6 should only apply 
to unforeseeable malfunctions. If a thorough safety 
analysis is carried out, malfunctions can in most cases 
be predicted. 
3.7.2. Article 6 does not require employers to prevent 
malfunctions which create abnormal levels of exposure. 
Employers should however be obliged to carry out 
safety analyses so as to enable them to prevent or 
reduce abnormal exposure to a minimum by adopting 
appropriate protective measures. 3.7.3. Article 6 does not define 'abnormal exposure'. 
Such a definition is however essential (a) for protecting 
workers' health and (b) for harmonizing conditions in 
the Member States whilst maintaining the improve­
ments which have been made (cf. Art. 118 a of the EEC 
Treaty). 
We should recommend defining abnormal exposure as 
exposure in excess of the maximum authorized limit 
value (which may, in the case of particularly dangerous 
carcinogens, be zero exposure). 
3.7.4. Employers should be required to inform the 
competent authorities and workers about such mal­
functions without delay. 
3.7.5. Article 6 should entitle workers (a) to refuse 
to work in the event of given maximum exposure limits 
being exceeded, and (b) to lodge complaints with the 
competent authorities if the employer does not rectify 
the situation without delay. 
3.8. Article 7 (Maintenance work, etc.) 
3.8.1. Article 7 is intended to provide protection to 
workers engaged in activities which lead to abnormal 
levels of exposure but are not covered by Article 6. 
There is no reason why the workers concerned e.g. 
those engaged in maintenance, repair and cleaning 
work, should not enjoy the same health protection as 
workers affected by malfunctions. It should be borne 
in mind that this type of the work is frequently carried 
out by temporary staff or other outside staff. 
For this reason, not only Article 6 (b), but also Article 
6 (a) and (c) should apply. 
3.8.2. The comments made on Articles 3, 4, 5, and 
6 also apply here. 
3.9. Article 8 (Access to areas) 
Article 8 should stipulate that, in addition to workers, 
other persons, such as inspectors working for the com­
petent authorities, should have access to the areas in 
which the activities defined in Article 3 (1) take place. 
3.10. Article 9 (Protective clothing and equipment) 
3.10.1. The heading should be amended to read: 
'Hygiene measures, protective clothing and equipment'. 
The qualification in point 1, 'where this is reasonably 
practicable' is clearly at variance with the need to 
protect the health of workers as regards: the provision 
of areas for taking meals, appropriate protective cloth­
ing and equipment, separate storage of working/protec­
tive clothing and street clothes, appropriate and 
adequate washing facilities, storage of protective equip­
ment and the checking, repairing and cleaning of such 
No C 208/48 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 88 
equipment. (The German version makes no reference 
to the cleaning of protective equipment and clothing.) 
These requirements to be met by employers must be 
defined as absolute necessities. Exceptions are unaccept­
able in this area which constitutes the weakest link in 
the chain of protective measures. Furthermore, all the 
obligations should be positively drafted i.e. employers 
should have to provide areas in which workers can eat 
and drink without being exposed to carcinogens. The 
wording should stipulate clearly that employers are 
required to adopt the said measures and that workers 
are required to adhere to them. 
3.11. (Information and training) 
3.11.1. Employers should be obliged to involve wor­
kers in decision-making (cf. ESC Opinion of 1985) on 
protective measures. The heading of Article 10 should 
accordingly be amended to read as follows: 'Partici­
pation, Information and Training of Workers'. 
3.11.2. Article 10 (1) gives the misleading impression 
that workers have a specific responsibility—in additon 
to employers' xesponsibility—for the measures to be 
taken in the cases listed. It should be specified that 
employers have sole responsibility for application of 
these measures in the workplace. This does not mean 
that employers may not delegate certain duties to wor­
kers but, in that event they must also delegate the 
requisite authority. 
3.12. Article 11 
A new paragraph should be added requiring employers 
to draw up a complete plant list of exposure conditions 
at individual work places or in individual working 
areas. This information constitutes the basic require­
ment for assessing the risk to the health of the workers 
concerned and for providing the health surveillance 
stipulated in Article 12. 
3.12. Article 12 (Health surveillance) 
3.13.1. The health surveillance to be carried out by 
the authorities (paragraph 1) should also apply to per­
sons who were involved in work involving cancer risks 
but have since left that work (e.g. pensioners). This is 
necessary, as it is well known that the majority of 
occupationally induced cancers break out after being 
dormant for between 10 to 35 years after exposure. 
This means that most of the people affected will already 
have ceased to be involved in the dangerous activities concerned by the time they begin to suffer from the 
disease. 
3.13.2. The second sentence of Article 12 (2) gives 
the misleading impression that hygiene and individual 
measures can be implemented directly on the basis of 
medical check-ups. In view of the delayed action effect 
of carcinogens, this will be possible only in exceptional 
circumstances, i.e. when check-ups reveal preliminary 
signs or symptons of cancer. 
3.14. Article 13 (Record keeping) 
3.14.1. The records to be kept should include 
measurements of levels of exposure at work places or 
areas, together with a description of the conditions of 
exposure. This information provides the vital basis of 
assessment for determining the link between cancer and 
exposure to carcinogens. 
3.14.2. The period for which records have to be kept 
should be extended to 40 years, as cancers may occur 
even more than 30 years after exposure. 
3.15. Article 14 (National statistics) 
This provision should be broadened to require Member 
States to keep systematic records of cases of occu­
pational cancer (cf. the Economic and Social Commit­
tee's Opinion of 1985). This would substantially reduce 
the percentage of undiagnosed cases of occupational 
cancer which are not recognized and thus do not figure 
in the national statistics. 
The statistics should also cover notified cases of occu­
pational illnesses (suspected cases). 
3.16. Annex 1 and Annex II (List of carcinogenic 
agents, industrial processes) 
Annex I lists only a fraction of the substances classified 
as carcinogenic on the basis of scientific findings in 
individual EC Member States and other countries. 
The aim must therefore be to complete the list in 
Annex I as soon as possible. 
3.17. Annex 11 
The main purpose of Annex II should be to list the 
carcinogenic substances or compounds which are not 
in circulation and which are usually undesired, but 
unavoidable, by-products of technical processes. The 
main emphasis should be placed on listing the carcino­
genic agents; the technical or industrial processes associ­
ated with these agents should serve as illustrations of 
the type of hazard encountered in the work environ­
ment. There is no real point in listing whole branches 
Official Journal of the European Communities No C 208/49 
of industry as being associated with carcinogens and 
consequent health risks, as in done in Appendix II. 
The aim must therefore be to compile the most compre­
hensive possible list of individual carcinogenic sub­
stances or compounds. Where it is not absolutely clear 
which substance (or substances) in a compound is the 
carcinogen, tracer components should be used, such as 
benzopyrene in respect of polycyclic aromatic hydro­
carbons. 
A clause should be drawn up making it possible to 
extend the Directive to cover technical processes where 
there is a risk of cancer but no carcinogenic substance 
or compound can be identified. 
EC-level workers' representative bodies should be given 
the right to participate in the work on extending 
Annexes I and II. We would refer here to the discussions 
on the EC draft Directive on limit values for non-carcinogenic substances. Responsibility for extending 
the list of carcinogenic substances in Annex I must not 
be confined to directorate general (DG) XI, as has 
previously been the case. DG V should at least be 
entitled to particpate in the work on an equal footing. 
Steps must also be taken to enable international scien­
tific findings on carcinogenic substances to be assessed 
as quickly as possible. 
3.18. Annex 111 [Practical recommendations for the 
health surveillance of workers, as referred to in 
Article 12 (7)] 
The information to be made available to the doctor 
and/or competent authority should cover not only the 
workers concerned but also the exposure conditions in 
the firm. Details of exposure conditions would make it 
considerably easier to monitor workers' health. 
Done at Brussels, 2 June 1988. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
APPENDIX 1 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following amendments, having received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the course 
of the discussions: 
Introduction 
Delete final sentence ('In the case (...) and fertility.'). 
Reason 
In spite of the 'speculation' referred to in this sentence, there is no firm evidence of damaging effect on 
embryos and fertility unless the actual organs of reproduction are affected by cancer. 
Results of voting 
For: 31, against: 77, abstentions: 5. 
No C 208/50 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 88 
Point 2 
Delete and re-word the paragraph as follows: 
'The Committee notes that the Commission intends adding to categories 1 and 2 as evidence from its 
evaluation programme (currently at the rate of one evaluation per week) gives reason for inclusion as a risk 
of cancer. Category three remains as a group of substances which may give rise 'to possible carcinogenic 
effects but in which the available information is not adequate for making a satisfactory assessment.' 
Reason 
Categories 1 and 2 in the Commission proposals concern substances (a) 'known to be carcinogenic to man' 
and (b) 'which should be regarded as if they are carcinogenic to man'. 
These are the only levels which are realistic to cater for within the terms of a Directive dealing with 
carcinogens in the workplace—animal experiments are removed from this concept. 
Results of voting 
For: 34, against: 72, abstentions: 8. 
Point 3.5.2. 
Change last sentence to read: 
'Since the measures proposed are however not mandatory they may not encourage achievement of this 
objective.' 
Reason 
Self-explanatory. 
Results of voting 
For: 29, against: 77, abstentions: 12. 
Point 3.5.5. 
Change the second paragraph as follows, and add the subsequent three indents: 
'Article 4 should stipulate the following additional mandatory protective measures: 
— The employer shall determine if the carcinogen can be replaced so far as is reasonably practicable 
• by a substance which is not hazardous to health, 
• if not, then by a substance less hazardous to health, 
• if not, then by a less carcinogenic hazard to health. 
The employer shall inform the result of the research to the competent authority if required to do so. 
— If replacement (substitution) of the carcinogen by a non- or less-hazardous substance is not possible, the 
employer shall ensure manufacture and use of the carcinogen takes place in a closed system, as far as is 
reasonably practicable. 
— If it is not possible to use a closed system, the employer shall ensure that the exposure of workers is 
reduced to as low a level as is reasonably practicable, and shall provide appropriate and adequate 
protective clothing.' 
Reason 
The actions of the employer toward the health and safety of the workers in his control are not clearly enough 
defined. It is desirable that both sides of industry know where they stand. 
Results of voting 
For: 32, against: 74, abstentions: 9. 
8. 8. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 208/51 
APPENDIX 1 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following members, present or represented, voted for the Opinion: 
Mr/Mrs/Miss: Amato, Arena, Ataide-Ferreira, Beltrami, Beretta, Bernasconi, Bleser, Boddy, Bredima-Savo-
poulou, Breyiannis, Brigand, Lobo-Brandao R. Cal, Carroll, Cavazzuti, Ceyrac, Christie, Clavel, Collas, 
Cortois, Curlis, van Dam, Dassis, Delhomenie, De Tavernier, Dos Santos, Drilleaud, Droulin, Dunet, van 
Eekert, Etty, Eulen, Flum, Forgas, Frandi, Gayetot, Geuenich, Giacomelli, Glesener, Gomez-Martinez, 
Hammond, Hilkens, Houthuys, Horsken, Jaschick, Jenkins, Kitsios, Laka-Martin, Larsen, Laur, Lojewski, 
Low, Luchetti, Maddocks, Mainetti, Margalef-Masia, Martin-Almendro, Martin-Castella, Mourgues, Muhr, 
Muller, Muniz-Guardado, Murphy, Nielsen B., Nielsen P., Nierhaus, Nieuwenhuize, Noordwal, Orsi, Perrin-
Pelletier, Petropoulos, Polyzos, Proenca, Pronk, Proumens, Raftopoulos, Rangoni-Machiavelli, Robinson, 
Rouzier, Saiu, Schmitz, Schnieders, Schopges, Silva, Spijkers, Stadelin, Tixier, Tukker, Vallejo-Calderon, 
Vanden Broucke, Velasco-Mancebo, Vercellino, Wick, Yverneau, Zufiaur-Narvaiza. 
The following members, present or represented, voted against the Opinion: 
Mr/Mrs/Miss: Fresi, Gardner, Lancastre, Moreland, Poeton, Rolao-Goncalves, Storie-Pugh, Tamlin. 
The following members, present or represented, abstained: 
Mr/Mrs/Miss: Arets, Aspinall, Boisseree, Dodd, Kenna, Kirchfeld, Kroger, de Normann, Nugeyre, Pearson, 
Pelletier, Salmon, Schade-Poulsen, Solari, Tiemann. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on financial support for Portugal for a 
specific industrial development programme, PEDIP (!) 
(88/C 208/14) 
On 29 April 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
Given that the Council, which was asked to decide on this proposal as soon as possible, 
asked the Committee to give its Opinion urgently, Mr Cal was instructed, as rapporteur-
general, to draw up a draft Opinion for the June 1988 plenary session. 
At its 256th plenary session of 1-3 June 1988 (meeting of 3 June 1988) the Economic and 
Social Committee (unanimously) adopted the following Opinion. 
1. Preliminary comments 
1.1. When Portugal signed its Act of Accession, the 
Community recognized that the Portuguese economy 
faced special problems. A ten-year programme for the 
development of Portuguese agriculture was drawn up, 
and it was agreed that a parallel effort would have to 
be made in the industrial sphere in order to modernize 
the manufacturing sector and adjust it to the Com­
munity and international economies. 
(') OJ No C 120, 7. 5. 1988, p. 9. 1.2. The Portuguese Government submitted a blue­
print for a specific industrial development programme 
for Portugal, PEDIP, to the Commission in February 
1986. 
In October 1986 the Commission sent the Council a 
Communication on the PEDIP [doc. COM(86) 552 
final], and at the beginning of 1987 a group of experts 
was sent to Portugal to identify priorities for Com­
munity aid for the period from 1988 to 1992, in line 
with the general approach of the outline framework 
Directive reforming the structural funds.