WRITTEN QUESTION E-0033/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: The increased incidence of bromisum containing flame retardants in human beings and foodstuffs comparable with PCBs

1. Can the Commission confirm that bromisum containing flame retardants show a similarity in terms of their toxicity with the PCBs that attracted much attention in the 80s because of their poor biodegradability, that they also end up via the food chain in the fatty tissue of human beings and interfere with hormones and that, according to Swedish research, they accumulate in the mother's milk with the result that children suffer damage to their memory and motor system even before birth?

2. Can it further confirm that the release of such flame retardants into the environment also takes the form of discharges during production, losses during the impregnation of plastics and the scrapping of products treated with these substances and that they increasingly turn up in meat, fish and crops intended for human consumption and are even encountered in fish that are washed ashore?

3. Is it true that attempts have been made to place voluntary restrictions on the use of such flame retardants with the relevant industry but that, in the meantime, their use has increased with the result that the scale of the risks involved bears a strong resemblance to that of PCBs in the recent past?

4. Can it confirm that Germany banned toxic flame retardants back in 1986 but that, at the same time, the relevant industry in other countries remains opposed to such a ban, while the Dutch government is of the opinion that it must await the search for alternatives and an EU-wide ban on the most toxic varieties in 2008?

5. Do circumstances exist that prevent Member States other than Germany from anticipating or going further than the future ban referred to in paragraph 4? What action is the Commission taking to remove these obstacles?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answers provided on the same subject to Written Questions E-2616/00(1) by Mr Davies, E-2504/99(2) by Mrs Thors, P-1976/99(3) by Mrs Schörling, E-3004/98(4) by Mr Eisma and to the oral question H-776/99(5) by Mrs Schörling.

In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances(6), the European Chemicals Bureau in co-operation with the Member States has co-ordinated the scientific discussions resulting in the adoption of comprehensive risk assessments on three commercially available brominated flame-retardants.

The three substances are:

- Pentabromodiphenyl ether (pentaBDPE), (CAS 32534-81-9) Rapporteur: United Kingdom;

- Octabromodiphenyl ether (octaBDPE)) (CAS 32536-52-0) Rapporteur: France and United Kingdom; and

- Decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDPE)) (CAS 1163-19-5) Rapporteur: France and United Kingdom.

The risk assessment report on pentaBDPE concludes that the substance is highly persistent and bioaccumulative and is widely found in environmental biota, including the fatty tissue of fish and marine animals. It has also been detected, albeit at relatively low concentrations, but possibly increasing levels, in human breast milk. Following these conclusions the Commission has adopted the 5 March 2001, a Recommendation on the results of the risk evaluation and the risk reduction strategies for the substances: diphenyl ehter/pentabromoderivative and cumene(7), recommending that marketing and use restrictions on the marketing for the substance should be considered in the framework of the Directive relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations(8)).

The risk assessment report concludes that the higher brominated congeners, OctaBDPE and DecaBPPE, do not appear to bio-concentrate and so have a low potential for bio-concentration and bio-accumulation. However, the risk assessment reports for both these congeners conclude that there is a need for better information to adequately characterise any possible risks. A further programme of work is therefore in progress; in particular, the possibility of degradation in the environment to the lower brominated diphenyl ethers is being investigated further. This conclusion was supported by the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment in its opinion on 19 June 2000.

There are some chemical similarities between brominated diphenyl ethers and PCBs. However, there are also differences, in particular regarding the degree of bio-accumulation potential and toxicity among the different polybrominated congeners. These are reflected in the results of the risk assessments.

The Commission has adopted a proposal for a Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical equipment(9) (RoHS). The Commission is also considering restrictions in the framework of Directive 76/769 relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations. According to the RoHS proposal Member States shall ensure that with effect from 1 January 2008 the use of certain heavy metals and two groups of brominated flame retardants, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) and polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), are substituted by other substances. This Proposal is currently being discussed in Council and Parliament.

Nevertheless, the flame retardant industry has since made a voluntary commitment to the environment and health programme of the organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD) to better control the use of the brominated diphenyl ethers. During the period of the voluntary action, imports of PentaBDPE into the Community have decreased.

Furthermore, to the Commission's knowledge, the German Chemical Industry Association has voluntarily committed itself in 1986 to not using PBB and PBDE for production purposes.

Potential unilateral national bans on the substances before harmonised risk reduction measures are taken at Community level could be incompatible with the provisions of Articles 28-30 (ex Articles 30-36) of the EC Treaty. However, such bans may

be justified on grounds which constitute fundamental requirements recognised by Community law (among others the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants) but shall not be discriminatory or constitute an unjustified restriction on trade between Member States.

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 134.

(2) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000.

(3) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000.

(4) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999.

(5) Debates of the European Parliament (December II 1999).

(6) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.

(7) OJ L 69, 10.3.2001.

(8) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

(9) COM(2000) 347 final.