WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2972/98 by Peter SKINNER to the Commission. Chrysotile Asbestos
Date: 1998-09-28
Institutions: European Parliament, SKINNER
Subjects: EC Directive, asbestos, carcinogenic substance, health risk, occupational health, public health, scientific committee (EU), scientific research, substitute product, toxic substance

C 142/64

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.5.1999

The Commission felt

there were no grounds for establishing the existence of alleged
3.
infringements of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures
for the award of public service contracts (1), and therefore decided on 7 October 1998 that no further action
would be taken.

that

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(1999/C 142/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2972/98

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Chrysotile Asbestos

Given that 10,000s of workers die each year from asbestos related diseases, there is genuine concern
across the EU that not enough action has been taken at a European level to halt the use, production and
marketing of white asbestos.

Can the Commission confirm that the Plenary session of the Scientific Committee on Toxicity,
Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) on the 14-15 September, adopted a formal opinion in which
Chrysotile Asbestos was found to be more dangerous than its substitutes?

In the light of these findings, does the Commission agree that rapid action is required and that the next
logical step is a European ban on Chrysotile Asbestos, perhaps taking the form of a technical amendment
to existing legislation which already covers the use, production and marketing of other forms of asbestos,
which would be speedier and could therefore save lives more urgently?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 1998)

The scientific committee on toxicology, ecotoxicology and the environment (CSTEE) opinion on the
comparative risk between chrysotile asbestos and the three main fibrous substitutes for the remaining uses
of chrysotile (cellulose fibres, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fibres and p-aramid fibres) reads as follows:

Both for the induction of lung and pleural cancer and lung fibrosis − i.e. the end point conditions
investigated to a greater extent − and for other effects, it is unlikely that either cellulose, PVA or
p-aramid fibres pose an equal or greater risk than chrysotile asbestos. With regard to carcinogenesis
and induction of lung fibrosis, the CSTEE has reached a consensus that the risk is likely to be lower.

This opinion complements the SCTEE’s conclusion of 9 February 1998 that ‘it may be appropriate in the
absence of definitive information to assume that there is no safe dose of chrysotile’. This conclusion was
confirmed in the CSTEE’s opinion of 15 September 1998.

However, it is important to note that the potential hazards of other non-fibrous materials, like steel or PVC
which can replace pressure pipes, were outside the scope of the CSTEE opinion and that the CSTEE
‘recommends expansion of research in the areas of toxicology and epidemiology of the substitute fibres as
well as in the technology of development of new, thicker (less respirable) fibres’.

Nevertheless, on the basis of the current knowledge of the science, the Commission has drawn up a draft
directive which would ban chrysotile asbestos, with certain exceptions and transitional arrangements. The
draft Commission directive will be discussed with Member States and industry experts in a meeting
arranged for 29 October 1998. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, it could be submitted to the
voting committee by the end of the year.