WRITTEN QUESTION P-3788/00

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Scientific Committee's evaluation of proposals conderning Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs)

In September this year, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Eco-toxicity (CSTEE) and the Environment published its opinion on the BKH report which proposed a priority list of substances to be assessed as potential EDCs: Towards the establishment of a priority list of substances for further evaluation of their role in endocrine disruption preparation of a candidate list of substances as a basis for priority setting (BKH report MO355008/1786Q).

Is the Commission aware that this CSTEE opinion relies heavily on the views of the chemical industry CEFIC and that these appear to be the only outside comments to have been used, apart from other EU scientific bodies? Does the Commission agree that this gives the Scientific Committee's opinion the appearance of a biased consultation procedure in which views of only certain parties have been taken into account?

In these circumstances, does the Commission intend to rely heavily on the CSTEE opinion when assessing actions to be taken on the basis of the BKH report, and how does it intend to balance its final conclusions so that it takes account of submissions from other stakeholders including Member State authorities and an international environmental NGO?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Regarding the opinion of the Commission scientific committee for toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment (SCTEE) on the BKH report Towards the establishment of a priority list of

substances for further evaluation of their role in endocrine disruption preparation of a candidate list of substances as a basis for priority-setting (5 September 2000), it must be stated at the outset that this report does not identify a priority list of substances but, as the report name indicates, a candidate list of substances as a basis for priority-setting.

Concerning the process of consultation of the SCTEE, the committee was, on this occasion, requested by the Commission to comment on the BKH report only. While the outside comments considered by the committee, relative to the BKH report, came only from the European chemical industry council (CEFIC) and the European crop protection association (ECPA) (the SCTEE commented specifically on this additional information at the end of its opinion) other sources of specific Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC) information were considered, as stated by the SCTEE in its opinion on the BKH report (see below a transcription of the relevant bit of the SCTEE opinion), some of which were also received from the outside:

mldr the SCTEE has also made use of the Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Plants (SCP) on Endocrine Disruption relevance in the context of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (Opinion expressed by the SCP on 2 December 1999). Further, reference is given to the previous SCTEE Opinion on Human and Wildlife Health Effects of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, with Emphasis on Wildlife and on Ecotoxicology Test Methods, expressed on 4 March 1999. The SCTEE has also received information on the classification and labelling on 66 prioritised substances from the EC Joint Research Centre (SCTEE/2000/12 Add. 5A) mldr and Cantox Health Sciences International has provided the SCTEE with documentation on the thyroidal effects of resorcinol (SCTEE /2000/12 Add. 3).

It must be noted that some of those individual submissions do include several other references made available to the committee. The SCTEE secretariat alone provided the SCTEE with well over 120 different ones received from several different sources, including Industry and non-governmental organisations (NGO's), and one must also consider the extremely large list included in the SCTEE opinion on Human and Wildlife Health Effects of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, with Emphasis on Wildlife and on Ecotoxicology Test Methods; this publication alone has 438 different scientific references.

Concerning the question of how the SCTEE opinion will be taken into account, the Commission has clearly indicated that there are two steps in the process of establishing a priority list of substances for further evaluation of their role in endocrine disruption first the preparation of the candidate list contained in the BKH report and second a priority -setting exercise involving consultation of the SCTEE and the stakeholders. While the SCTEE as well as industry have been critical of the BKH report, the majority view of Member States and NGOs is that the BKH approach is a pragmatic one which is reasonable for a first cut of the data and that it can be used as a first step in developing the priority list.

On 8/9 November 2000, the Commission hosted a stakeholder consultation meeting in Brussels at which there was broad support for a priority list of actions aimed at addressing different segments of the candidate list. Examples of priority actions include (i) the further evaluation of substances for which there is evidence of endocrine disruption or potential endocrine disruption in the BKH report and which are not currently addressed in existing legislation, and (ii) the gathering of basic data on the many substances in the BKH report which were deemed to have insufficient data to decide on endocrine disrupting potential.

The Commission is now preparing a progress report on the implementation of the Community strategy for endocrine disrupters(1) in which it will set out in detail the actions to be taken in specific timeframes. These actions comprise a balance between the need for immediate action and the need for further evaluation of individual substances, taking into account the specific comments of the SCTEE on the scientific shortcomings of the BKH report.

(1) COM(1999) 706 final.