WRITTEN QUESTION E-0414/00 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission. Hormone-mimicking substances.
Date: 2000-02-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, endocrine disease, market approval, medical research, toxic substance

C 26 E/38

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0414/00

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Hormone-mimicking substances

A Danish study has shown that octylphenol, a hormone-mimicking substance, may damage male gametes
at the foetal stage.

Another Danish study just published in the periodical (cid:145)Human Reproduction(cid:146) shows that one Danish male
in two between the ages of 18 and 20 has reduced sperm quality.

No quasi-hormonal substances are banned in the EU yet, for one thing because we do not know which
substances may be hazardous to human beings.

1. What is the Commission doing at present to investigate the effects of quasi-hormonal substances on
human beings and animals?

In view of the Danish studies will the Commission take action to have the use of hazardous quasi-

2.
hormonal substances including octylphenol banned?

3.

Could there be a connection between damaged male gametes and sperm quality?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

In December 1999, the Commission adopted a communication on a Community strategy for endocrine
disrupters (1). The strategy aims to identify the problem of endocrine disruption,
its causes and con-
sequences; and to identify appropriate policy action on the basis of the precautionary principle in order to
respond quickly and effectively to the problem.

The strategy focuses on the key requirements of further research, international co-operation, communica-
tion to the public and appropriate policy action. Recommendations are made for actions in the short-,
medium- and long-term to cover these requirements.

One of the key short-term actions is the establishment of a priority list of substances for further evaluation
of their role in endocrine disruption. In a first step, the Commission has launched a study to conduct an
independent review of peer-reviewed scientific literature as well as the identification of sources and
pathways of exposure of humans and wildlife and a quantification of production volumes. In a second
step, there will be wide consultation on the results of the study. It is expected that the priority list will be
established before the end of 2000. At that stage, the Commission will be in a position to consider what
actions are necessary to address hazards or risks relating to specific substances. In this context, it should
also be noted that Directive 1999/51/EC (2), which is a technical adaptation of Directive 76/769/EC
relating to restrictions on marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (3), takes
note of the possible endocrine disrupting activity of one such substance, tributyltin (TBT).

Regarding the possible connection between damaged male gametes and sperm quality, the Commission
scientific committee for toxicity, eco-toxicity and the environment (SCTEE) presented its opinion (cid:145)Human
and Wildlife health effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals, with emphasis on wildlife and on eco-

26.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 26 E/39

toxicology test methods(cid:146) on 4 March 1999 (4). The Committee concluded that, for human health effects,
(cid:145)there are associations between endocrine disrupting chemicals, so far investigated, and human health
disturbances(cid:146) such as testicular, breast and prostate cancers, decline in sperm counts, deformities of the
reproductive organs, thyroid dysfunction as well as intelligence and neurological problems. However,
a causative role has not been verified.

(1) COM(1999) 706 final.
(2) OJ L 142, 5.6.1999.
(3) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
(4)

Internet address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/sc/sct/out37_en.html.

(2001/C 26 E/052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0417/00

by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Budget nomenclature encouraging the practice of false subsidies

As the answer to Written Question P-2367/99 (1) on budget nomenclature encouraging the practice of
false subsidies indicates that Mrs Schreyer failed to understand the first question, I shall rephrase it as
follows:

1.
According to the Committee of Independent Experts, (cid:145)with regard to subsidies, the Part A/Part B
nomenclature, far from leading to clarity, adds to the confusion(cid:146), as a result of which (cid:145)a large
proportion of subsidies are in fact disguised contracts(cid:146). The Committee states even more clearly, in
recommendation 4, that (cid:145)the present budget nomenclature, based on the distinction necessitated by
The Financial Regulation between Part A (administrative expenditure) and Part B (operating expendi-
ture) is impracticable. It is frequently circumvented when appropriations are earmarked under the
budget(cid:146). Would the Commission therefore simply state whether or not it intends to retain, with regard
to subsidies, the Part A / Part B nomenclature?

As the Commissioner did not even try to answer my second question, I shall rephrase it as follows:

2. Which subsidies disguised as contracts were brought to the Committee(cid:146)s attention, who were
those responsible, what steps does the Commission intend to take and according to what time-scale?
The Committee of Independent Experts(cid:146) second report states that (cid:145)a large proportion of subsidies are
in fact disguised contracts(cid:146). To the best of the Commission(cid:146)s knowledge, was this statement based on
the Independent Experts(cid:146) impressions, and in that case, what does the Commission intend to do to
defend its own reputation? Or was the statement made on the basis of objective findings, and if so,
does the Commission intend to ascertain where responsibility lies and take action in respect of those
responsible?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 115.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

1. With the current budgetary nomenclature laid down in the financial regulation the Commission
budget is separated into two global parts (cid:129) Part A for administrative expenditure and Part B for
operational expenditure. As the scope and size of the Community budget has evolved,
this global
separation has become blurred and it no longer provides adequate clarity and transparency to the actual
allocation and reporting of resources.

In the framework of activity based budgeting, the Commission is studying possible changes to the budget
nomenclature. These changes will aim to introduce a policy-driven budget and to increase the transparency
of the Commission budget. However, for sound management reasons the Commission continues to regard
a distinct separation of administrative and operational expenditure in the implementation of the budget of
primary importance, but does not have the intention to retain the present Part A and Part B division.