Report on the risk assessment of MBDB in the framework of the joint action on new synthetic drugs : EMCDDA Risk assessments.
Date: 1999-06-17
Institutions: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction
Subjects: data collection, exchange of information, health risk, psychotropic substance

EUROPEAN MONITORING CENTRE FOR DRUGS AND DRUG ADDICTION

Report on the Risk Assessment of MBDB
in the Framework of the
Joint Action on New Synthetic Drugs

Report on the Risk Assessment of MBDB in the Framework of the
Joint Action on New Synthetic Drugs

1. Introduction

1.1 Date of introduction of Joint Action, purpose and scope
(Document I)

The Joint Action on new synthetic drugs was adopted by the European Council on 16 June
1997 in Amsterdam (O.J. no. L 167 of 25.06.1997).

The  purpose  of  the  Joint  Action  is  the  creation  of  a  mechanism  for  rapid  exchange  of
information on new synthetic drugs and the assessment of their risks in order to permit the
application of the measures of control on psychotropic substances, applicable in the Member
States, equally to new synthetic drugs (Article 1). Common action can be taken only on the
basis of reliable information and the results of expert assessment of the risks caused by the
use of and the trafficking in new synthetic drugs and the implications of submitting such drugs
to control.

The scope of  the  Joint  Action  focuses  on  psycho-active  substances  (end-products,  not
precursors)  with  limited  therapeutic  value,  which  are  not  currently  listed  in  any  of  the
Schedules  to  the  1971  UN  Convention  on  Psychotropic  Substances  and  which  pose
potentially comparable public-health risks as the substances listed in Schedules I or II of this
Convention (Article 2).

1.2 Notification of MBDB by the UK Presidency
(Document II)

The implementation of the Joint Action on new synthetic drugs started formally in January
1998. The EMCDDA and Europol had already begun testing a common reporting form to collect
and exchange information in the framework of the ‘early-warning system’ (Article 3).

formally 

On 27 February 1998, on behalf of all Member States, the United Kingdom Presidency of the
drug  N-methyl-1-(3,4-
European  Union 
methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-butanamine (or MBDB) to the EMCDDA for risk assessment under
Article 4. On 4 March 1998, the Horizontal Drugs Group of the Council of the European Union
requested all Member States to report any relevant information to Europol or the EMCDDA by
means of Article 3.

synthetic 

referred 

new 

a 

1.3 Exchange of information on MBDB (Article 3)

In the context of Article 3, the EMCDDA and Europol collected and exchanged a first set of
information about MBDB. This information was communicated to the Commission and to the
European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA). On  15  May  1998,  the
EMCDDA and Europol submitted a joint progress report to the Chairman of the Horizontal Drugs
Group of the Council and the Council Secretariat. The joint Report  was  presented  by  the
EMCDDA and Europol at the Horizontal Drugs Group meeting of 20 May 1998 (Document III).

1.4 Implementation of the risk assessment of MBDB (Article 4)

The risk assessment focuses on the evaluation of the possible risks, including the health and
social  risks,  caused  by  the  use  of,  and  traffic  in,  new  synthetic  drugs,  and  possible
consequences of prohibition. The risk assessment on MBDB has been carried  out  on  the
basis  of  the  information  provided  by  the  Member  States,  the  Commission,  the  EMCDDA,
Europol and the EMEA.

The risks of MBDB were assessed by the special meeting convened by the EMCDDA under
the auspices of its Scientific Committee. This meeting was held at the EMCDDA in Lisbon on
9–10 November 1998, and chaired by Dr Desmond Corrigan, Chairperson of the  Scientific
Committee. The Committee designated Dr Salme Ahlström, Vice-Chairperson of the Scientific
Committee, as the Rapporteur of the special meeting for risk assessment of MBDB.

According to Article 4, the participants in this special meeting are the following:

  Members of the Scientific Committee of the EMCDDA.
  Additional experts nominated by the Member States to participate in the special meeting for

risk assessment of MBDB.

  Representatives of the Commission, Europol and the EMEA.

1.5 Report on the risk assessment of MBDB

Article 4.3 states: ‘On completion of the risk assessment, a report will be drawn upon the
findings. In the report all aspects shall be addressed. All opinions on these aspects shall be
reflected in the report.’

According to Article 5, the report will be forwarded to the Council: ‘The Council may, on the
basis of an initiative to be presented within a month from the date on which the report of the
results  of  the  risk  assessment  pursuant  to  Article  4  (1)  is  established  and  acting  in
accordance with Article K.3 (2) (b) of the Treaty, adopt unanimously a decision defining the
new synthetic drug  or  drugs  which  are  to  be  made  subject  to  necessary  measures  of
control’.

1.6 Documentation considered

  Text of the Joint Action of 16 June 1997.
  Formal referral of MBDB to the EMCDDA.
  Joint EMCDDA–EDU Progress Report (20.05.98) – Chapter II: Preliminary  information  on

MBDB collected and exchanged under Article 3 of the Joint Action.

  An  Outline  of  Principles  for  Risk  Assessment  of  New  Synthetic  Drugs  (Guidelines)

ST/SCO/9/98 (rev. 1).

  Technical Annexes A and B: The pharmacotoxicology and neuropsychology  of  MBDB,

Report to the EMCDDA. Doc. NO. ST/SCO/10/98.

  Technical Annex D: Public health risks: epidemiological evidence, EMCDDA.
  Technical Annex C: Sociological/criminological evidence, EMCDDA.
  Europol contribution to the risk assessment on MBDB.
  Existing  legal  provisions:  MBDB,  Legal  Situation  in  the  EU  Member  States,  EMCDDA

background document.

  National Risk Assessment Reports: France, the Netherlands, Germany.

2. Guidelines for the risk assessment
(Document IV)

A Steering Group of the Scientific Committee, with the support of the staff of the EMCDDA,
prepared  draft  guidelines  for  risk  assessment  of  new  synthetic  drugs.  This  draft  was
submitted to the Scientific Committee at its plenary meeting of 17 April 1998 and sent also to
the institutional participants in the risk assessment. After taking account of their opinions and
amendments,  the  Scientific  Committee  adopted  the  draft  guidelines  at  its  meeting  of  1–2
October 1998 (ST/SCO/9/98 (rev.1)).

In accepting the assignment of risk assessment, the Scientific Committee had adopted some
basic principles.

1.  The concept of  risk  will  be  understood  in  its  dual  meaning,  which  includes  both  the
element of probability that some harm may occur (usually defined as ‘risk’) and the degree
of seriousness of such a harm (usually defined as ‘hazard’).

2.  The first phase of the scientific risk assessment of a particular drug will be carried out

independently of its legal status.

3.  Consideration of appropriate measures and of the possible consequences of control of
new synthetic drugs will cover a wide range of options and will not necessarily imply
prohibition and law enforcement.

4.  Scientific evidence on new synthetic drugs will often be limited, so it will be necessary to

evaluate the possible risks with reference to similar, known drugs.

5.  In the final evaluation the issues of reliability (quality) of information and relevance of the
specific  risk  issues  that  are  involved  (health,  social  risks  and  consequences  of
prohibition)  should  be  separately  weighted.  The  final  policy  consequences  of  risk
assessment will have to be decided within the framework of national or local drug policy
priorities.

The meeting having considered the above documentation and comments made by participants
adopted the ‘Revised Guidelines for Risk Assessment’ ( Document IV A).

3. Description of MBDB
(Document VIII)

The risk assessment of MBDB has been performed by reference to MDMA because both are
usually sold as ecstasy. A review of the scientific literature on MBDB reveals that the data is
much more limited than the information available on MDMA which is itself incomplete.

3.1 Chemical description

The meeting noted that MBDB is N-Methyl-1-(1,3-BenzoDioxol-5-yl)-2-Butanamine. It is the 
-
ethyl  homologue  of  MDMA.  MBDB  can  be  synthesised  from  1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-
butanone  (BDB).  BDB  can  be  synthesised  from  piperonal  and  1-nitropropane  or  1-
bromopropane.

MBDB is synthesised by chemical reactions similar to those used to produce MDMA, but with
different precursor chemicals (1-nitropropane or 1-bromopropane) and cannot be produced
by accident during attempts to synthesise MDMA. Hence it is synthesised by design  from
materials which will provide the extra carbon atom which distinguishes MBDB from MDMA.

3.2 Pharmaceutical description

MBDB is mainly sold as tablets for oral consumption and occasionally as capsules or powder.
The drug is virtually always sold as ecstasy. It has the same pharmaceutical appearance as
MDMA. The logo may be indicative of the content of the tablet, but usually the user is unable to
distinguish MBDB from MDMA tablets.

4. Health risks
(Documents V and VIII)

 4.1 Individual health risks

(a) Acute effects: The major acute neuropharmacological effects of MBDB in the rat are an
increase in serotonin release in the brain and the inhibition of serotonin and noradrenaline re-
uptake. These effects compare well with those of MDMA, although the latter is more potent as
a re-uptake inhibitor and releaser. MBDB may also slightly increase dopamine release  and
inhibit dopamine re-uptake, but with a far weaker potency than MDMA. This is important, as
dopamine release has been implicated in the serotonin neurotoxicity caused by MDMA and in
the reinforcing qualities of substances such as cocaine and amphetamine.

A study using PET scanning techniques in heavy  long-term  ecstasy  users  has  shown  a
decrease in a structural component of brain 5-HT neurones.

The few toxicological data available suggest that MBDB may cause serotonergic deficits and
neurotoxicity, although the potency of MBDB to cause this effect is smaller than that of MDMA.
Severe acute reactions in man as have been reported for MDMA have not been reported for
MBDB.

(b) Dependence: Based on animal studies the dependence potential of MBDB appears to be
small, probably even smaller than that of MDMA.

(c) Psychological effects: There are little data on the neuropsychological effects of MBDB in
man.  Neuropsychological  findings  for  MDMA  have  been  described,  but  these  are  not
necessarily identical for MBDB. Concern has been expressed in one  Member  State  about
compulsive patterns of use of ecstasy which have been reported in some studies of heavy
consumers. The main subjective effects of MBDB in man are a pleasant state of introspection,
with greatly facilitated interpersonal communication and a pronounced sense of empathy and
compassion between subjects.  In  this  respect,  MBDB  again  resembles  MDMA.  However,
there are also differences. MBDB has a slower and more gentle onset of action than MDMA,
produces less euphoria and has less stimulant properties. The class of substances to which
MBDB belongs has been named ‘entactogens’.

 4.2 Public health risks

(a) Availability and quality: The availability and quality of MBDB across the EU is also hard to
assess precisely. Based on the analysis of seizures, only a small proportion of tablets (pills)
sold as ecstasy contain MBDB (typically  around  1–2%,  though  this  varies  over  time  and
between countries, ranging from almost zero to about 5%). In some cases MBDB is the only
active ingredient, although on available data it appears more commonly to be combined with
other substances (notably 2C-B or MDMA, sometimes LSD or other analogues of MDMA). On
the basis of limited information, the typical dose of MBDB is reported to be about 100–130mg,
although higher (200mg) and lower amounts are reported.

(b)  Knowledge  and  perception  of  MBDB  among  users:  There  are  very  limited  data  on
knowledge and perceptions of MBDB. It appears that consumers of ecstasy are often aware
that what is sold as ecstasy sometimes contains other substances, but rarely know what
those substances are. Apart from the studies of Nichols et al. (1986) and Shulgin and Shulgin
(1991) there are anecdotal reports from some EU countries of users who were aware that
they had taken MBDB. These reports are not entirely consistent and may be based on atypical
users, but they generally suggest that MBDB is experienced as having lower stimulant effects
as  well  as  lacking  the  alteration  in  sensory  perceptions  associated  with  MDMA.  The
predominant impression from these reports is that users prefer MDMA to MBDB, although a
few reports reflect more positive reactions to MBDB. It is difficult  to  interpret  these  latter
reports because the content of the tablets is uncertain, and the characteristics of the users
and the effects they were seeking were not reported.

(c) Prevalence and patterns of use: It can be assumed that the patterns of use of MBDB are
almost always the same as for MDMA and that the prevalence of (inadvertent) use depends
on the extent to which MBDB is present in tablets sold as ecstasy  on  the  market.  There
appear to be individuals who have consciously used MBDB, but it is probable that these are
atypical consumers with a particular interest in, and a sophisticated knowledge of, synthetic
drugs. It is also possible that there are local groups of ecstasy users where MBDB has on
occasion appeared on the market as MBDB. Since users of MDMA, especially more regular
users, are also very likely to consume other drugs (cannabis, alcohol, amphetamines, etc.),
MBDB appears to be a very small element in a much wider phenomenon.

(d) Characteristics and behaviours of users: Consumers of MBDB do not differ from users of
dance drugs in general. Given the current marginal position of MBDB in the overall pattern of
synthetic drug use, it is unlikely that there are any important risk factors or vulnerable groups
associated with MBDB in particular.

(e) Indicators of health consequences: There are no reports of emergencies  or  treatment
requests involving MBDB. It is possible that accidents or other episodes involving MBDB, if
they occur, are overlooked. However MBDB together with other drugs has been reported in
one fatal road traffic accident. It is possible that the lower stimulant effect of MBDB, and the
introspective state of mind that it has been reported to induce, might mean that the risk of
excessive  dancing  is  reduced.  At  present  no  evidence  is  available  on  long-term  health
consequences and possible public health costs.

(f)  Context  of  use:  Risks  and  risk  factors  linked  to  the  circumstances  and  rituals  of
consumption of MDMA include excessive dancing in hot and crowded settings; accidents that
may result from sleep deprivation or  perhaps  direct  impairment  of  driving  skills;  and  also
combined use with other drugs (especially alcohol, but also amphetamines, cannabis, LSD
and cocaine). It is likely that these apply to MBDB, although to a lesser extent than MDMA.

Because of the scarcity of information on MBDB, the meeting welcomed the integration of
bio-medical and socio-economic aspects of drug abuse research in the EC 5th Framework
Programme for research and technological development, and hoped that support would be
granted to research projects sharing the common objective of developing a coherent and
consistent data package on the individual, public health and social consequences of the use
of synthetic drugs.

5. Social risks: sociological/criminological evidence
(Documents VI and VII)

(a) Social consequences: There is no evidence specifically on MBDB. The available evidence
on MDMA does not show any major harmful social consequences for users arising directly
from its use, in terms of  family  or  other  social  relations,  problems  concerning  education,

employment or marginalisation. On the basis of comparison with MDMA, and given that MBDB
constitutes a small proportion of the much broader ecstasy market, it is very unlikely that there
are  any  significant  harmful  social  consequences  for  the  user  that  could  be  attributed
specifically to the use of MBDB.

(b) Consequences for the social behaviour of the user: There is no evidence specifically on
MBDB  and  consequences  linked  to  disorderly  conduct,  acquisitive  crime  or  violence.
However,  it  might  be  considered  even  more  unlikely  than  with  MDMA  that  there  is  any
important link between the use of MBDB and such consequences. The effect on driving is
unknown but, as with any drug, is a matter of concern.

(c ) Other social consequences: There is no indication that MBDB in particular is associated
with any major value conflicts or has any important implications for social institutions beyond
those described for MDMA.

(d) Wholesale manufacture and distribution: The Europol contribution confirms the information
collected by the Reitox National Focal Points about the current level of small-scale distribution
and trafficking of MBDB when compared with other synthetic drugs. Seizures in the European
Union have been limited, both in number and quantity, compared with  the  total  number  of
seized ecstasy tablets. Information from law-enforcement agencies in the Member States has
not revealed whether criminal groups specifically manufacture MBDB with a view to avoiding
legal controls. Some Member States have indicated the involvement of organised crime in the
large-scale manufacture of and trafficking in MBDB.

6. Possible consequences of prohibition

6.1 Legal status

An analysis of the legal status of MBDB in the 15 Member States shows that the drug is
controlled in eight of them: Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and
the UK. In the Netherlands, it was decided not to prohibit MBDB, after the National Assessment
Working  Party  advised  against  intervention,  but  recommended  direct  monitoring  and  the
evaluation  of  this  decision  in  due  course,  or  in  case  of  new  facts  emerging.  In  some
countries, the control on MBDB was adopted through the generic definition of substances
within the legislation. In others, MBDB was put under control by analogy of the substance to
MDMA.

6.2 Possible consequences of prohibition

The meeting agreed that a discussion on the effects of prohibition should take account of the
consequences:

1.  to the users of the substance;
2.  to the distributors and manufacturers of the substance;
3.  to the perceptions and social representations (images) of the substance and its use;
4.  to public health issues;
5.  to law-enforcement agencies and public security issues;
6.  to drug prevention (demand-reduction issues).

For  each  of  these  aspects  there  exist  positive  as  well  as  negative  consequences  of
prohibition and at the same time the very indecisive data on the substance, its use and its
effects were pointed out, so that the discussion of possible consequences is to a certain
extent based on speculation. Generally it can be said that there are two obvious scenarios: to
prohibit or not to prohibit MBDB; and a third scenario of looking at other possible options of
control besides prohibition together with a close monitoring of any adverse effects of not

prohibiting, and to have the possibility of rapid action as soon as any negative developments
occur.

  The first scenario would be that the prohibition of this new drug would be a public health
preventive measure because of the similarity of MBDB to MDMA. As underlined  in  the
Opinion  of  the  French  Commission  des  Stupéfiants  on  MBDB,  the  lack  of  systematic
research  of  this  substance  in  biological  or  other  samples  may  possibly  create  an
underestimation of public health problems which could eventually be caused by the new
drug. MBDB is not generally recognised as having any therapeutic value and is not only
produced industrially.

The prevention of trafficking  risks  might  be  another  argument  to  consider,  taking  into
account the essential chemical, pharmacological and toxicological similarity of MBDB  to
MDMA which is already subject to control, and the hypothesis that the  introduction  of
MBDB in the market was an attempt to substitute MDMA and other substances already
placed under control. Different forms of legal status  in  different  Member  States  could
hinder  effective  international  co-operation  between  law-enforcement  agencies.  One
Member State reported a steep decrease in MBDB seizures after prohibition.

  The second scenario would be to advise against prohibition.  The  reasons  include  the
relatively low prevalence of MBDB use and supply; evidence suggesting that MBDB is less
attractive  to  users  than  MDMA;  the  low  involvement  of  organised  crime;  as  well  as
expected adverse effects of prohibition like the appearance of new variants. Prohibition
was also expected to be an element of criminalisation and marginalisation of – up to now –
socially integrated users. This opinion would recommend active monitoring of the market
for MBDB and also of the involvement of organised crime, as well as regular evaluation.
This scenario includes advice for users and giving information about substances on the
market. One Member State reported a significant decrease in MBDB consumption  after
such a strategy was put into operation.

Another complementary point of view would be to consider that, due to the current lack of
evidence of a significant presence of MBDB on the market, the publicity suddenly given to
this drug by putting it on a European Union control list might produce an adverse effect.
Media focus on a ‘new synthetic drug’, which had almost ‘disappeared’ from the market,
might provoke moral panic and/ or interest among new users in trying it and might even
boost the supply of the drug.

Prohibition was also expected by some experts to hinder or bias research or possible
medical uses of the substance, whereas other experts did not expect such a result. It
was suggested that another potential effect of prohibition might be to increase the illicit
demand for precursors and, hence, to raise the price of those chemicals, with possible
consequences on the licit trade and industry.

  Other  options  would  include  consideration  of  a  range  of  measures  for  control  and
prevention that fall between full prohibition and non-prohibition. These could be based on a
catalogue of measures of control and prevention based on the best practices in this field
in Member States. This may be expected to minimise the possible risks associated with the
consumption of MBDB, as it is sold as an ‘ecstasy-like’ dance drug. These options would
also envisage a better monitoring of the effects and the trends and patterns of use of
these  synthetic  drugs.  In  connection  with  this  third  approach,  the  need  for  further
sociological and toxicological research on MBDB was considered necessary.

7. Conclusions

The Scientific Committee of the EMCDDA, extended with experts from the Member States
and Representatives of the Commission, Europol and EMEA, are required under Article 4 to
draw up a report on all aspects of the Risk Assessment and reflecting all opinions on those
aspects

7.1 

7.2 

7.3 

7.4 

7.5 

7.6 

7.7 

7.8 

The scientific evidence presented to the meeting shows that MBDB has effects which
are similar to those of MDMA, although most studies show that MBDB is less potent
than MDMA. However, factors related to dosage and the use of other related drugs
might increase the neurotoxicity of MBDB.
Arising from 7.1 and because  MDMA  is  subject  to  control  in  Member  States,  one
opinion is that MBDB should be subject to similar measures which would also allow
appropriate  action  by  law-enforcement  agencies  against  the  manufacture  of  and
trafficking in MBDB.
Also arising from 7.1, a second opinion is to advise against such an intervention for a
number of reasons including the relatively low prevalence of MBDB use and its supply
and because some evidence suggests that MBDB  is  less  attractive  to  users  than
MDMA. This opinion would recommend active monitoring of the market for MBDB and
of the involvement of organised crime, as well as regular evaluation of the situation
and ongoing research.
The meeting endorsed the view that toxicological data on MBDB are so scarce that
any definitive scientific risk assessment would be hazardous. The experts were of
the view that to render a risk assessment valid, all kinds of toxic effects should be
taken into account including the effects of interaction of other drugs, and that as a
priority a toxicological study should be performed in order to identify possible chronic
consequences of neurotoxicity.
The expert participants noted that MBDB had been identified in  14  Member  States.
Information provided to the EMCDDA through the Reitox National Focal Points suggest
that MBDB is almost always sold and consumed as ecstasy. Users are aware that
different  ecstasy  tablets  may  have  different  effects.  In  most  cases  they  do  not
attribute these differences specifically to MBDB. Anecdotal reports from some Member
States suggest that MBDB may not be as attractive as MDMA to users.
No specific evidence of social risks directly linked to MBDB have been reported. This is
probably also due to the fact that it does not have a separate identity as a product on
the market or within the reporting mechanism in some Member States.
The  meeting  noted  that  indications  from  Europol  did  not  point  to  a  high  level  of
manufacture of, trafficking in and involvement of organised crime with MBDB when
compared with other synthetic drugs. It was pointed out that the total number of MBDB
tablets  seized  in  the  European  Union  was  relatively  low  compared  with  the  total
number of seized ecstasy tablets. It was further noted that MBDB had no generally
recognised or accepted medical, pharmaceutical or industrial use.
A matter of concern may be the fact that the main precursor chemicals of BDB which
may be used in the synthesis of MBDB are widely and commercially available:
  piperonal, commonly used in the perfumes industry; at the EU level, piperonal is
included  in  the  Regulation  (EEC)  no.  900/92  of  31  March  1992  modifying  the
Regulation  (EEC)  no.  3677/90  related  to  measures  to  be  taken  to  prevent  the
diversion of a number of substances for the illicit manufacture of narcotics and
psychotropic substances in third countries. Directive (EEC) no. 109/92 deals with
similar controls relating to the Internal Market.

  1-bromopropane  and  1-nitropropane,  two  high-volume  chemicals  (production
exceeding 1 million pounds in the US). These substances are not under the same
regulation as piperonal, safrole, isosafrole and other precursors commonly used in
the manufacture of synthetic drugs.

Lisbon, 10 November 1998

Suggestions made by the meeting on the risk assessment of MBDB concerning
measures for improving the risk assessment of new synthetic drugs in the
future

The meeting noted with concern, and wishes to draw the attention of the Member States and
the European institutions to, the general lack of information on important parameters relating to
the health and social risks and the possible consequences of prohibition of MBDB:

  The meeting emphasised the need for information on the chronic effects of neurotoxicity
and on the general toxicity of MBDB. In this regard, the possible  long-term  psychiatric
consequences of MBDB and related drugs should be studied.

  The  meeting  agreed  with  the  need  for  basic  monitoring  of  drugs  on  the  market,  for
information on patterns of use and reported effects, and for research on the impact on
driving.

  The meeting suggested that the Scientific Committee of the EMCDDA should give further
consideration,  within  the  context  of  Articles  3  and  4,  to  improving  risk-assessment
methodology  in  this  field  including  criteria  for  allocating  scores  and  weighting  the
evidence.

  The meeting suggested to the European Commission, the European Council  and  to  the
Member States that, in the event of further risk assessment of new synthetic drugs under
the Joint Action, a more complete data package should be developed which would make
the assessment more scientifically rigorous.

  The  meeting  recommended  that,  when  a  new  synthetic  drug  is  notified  for  risk
assessment, and where preliminary research shows it to be necessary, that a supply of
that drug be obtained from a validated recognised producer and that a laboratory with
recognised expertise in toxicology testing be contracted to provide standard toxicity data
of a quality comparable (as far as is practicable) to that used in the risk assessment of
inventory  of  suitable
other  chemical  compounds  within 
laboratories within the EU should be prepared.

the  European  Union.  An 

Lisbon, 10 November 1998