Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending for the nineteenth time Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (azocolourants)'
Date: 2000-05-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: consumer protection, dangerous substance, dyestuff, marketing restriction, occupational health, public health

C 204/90

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

Reason

It is recognised that a shift of burden of proof will create heavy burden and additional costs for companies, in
particular SMEs, as employers will have to retain documents relating to each decision concerning human resource
management, in order to have elements of proof in the event that action is taken against them.

Result of the vote

For: 54, against: 63, abstentions: 3.

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending for the nineteenth time Council Directive 76/769/EEC
relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations
(azocolourants)’

(2000/C 204/18)

On 10 April 2000, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentionned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 5 April 2000. The rapporteur was
Mrs Williams.

At its 373rd plenary session (meeting of 25 May 2000), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion by 73 votes to none, with 1 abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
This proposal from the Commission on the marketing
and use of certain dangerous products concerns the health and
safety of both consumers and workers.
Its motivation is
essentially to protect human health by prohibiting the use of
dangerous azo dyes so that those textiles and leather goods
which are coloured by them are no longer placed on the
market. Some of these products, such as toys, clothes and
shoes can affect the most vulnerable of consumers, in particular
pregnant women and small children.

co-ordinated, common action to create EU legislation which
will ensure harmonisation which will also apply to candidate
countries.

1.4.
The proposal must also be seen in the context of
the World Trade Organisation’s requirements, so that any
limitations on the use of azo dyes must be supported by well-
identified risks to consumers.

1.2.
The proposal is yet another safety amendment to the
existing Directive on dangerous substances (1), with its text
supplemented by technical annexes.

2. Background information

1.3.
The proposal also underlines the importance of har-
monisation in the Internal Market. Since some Member States
have already enacted restrictions of marketing and use of
certain carcinogenic azo dyes, there is a compelling need for

(1) 76/769/EEC, OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 201.

2.1.
Azo colourants (both dyes and pigments) are the most
widely used organic colouring materials. They all contain at
least one azo link. This azo link can be reduced in the body to
form the corresponding aromatic amine. The Proposal there-
fore is not to restrict all azo colours but only those soluble azo
dyes which would break down or cleave to form any of the
21 listed amines which are carcinogens. Most azo pigments
are not affected since they are virtually insoluble and therefore
do not cleave under normal conditions.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/91

2.2.
Azo dyes give very good coloration to all kinds of
articles including some gloves, bags, briefcases, chair covers,
shoes and straps made from leather, as well as clothes, bedding,
hats, toys and even wigs made from textiles.

Since the dangers of certain azo dyes became apparent,
2.3.
these have been largely replaced by other dyes (including other
azo dyes) though these alternatives are often more expensive.
This replacement has gone far in the EU but less far in some
other countries.

Since national legislation requiring a ban on certain
2.4.
azo dyes exists in some Member States, the Commission has
already taken positive action. It has initiated studies on risk
assessment, on cost-benefit analysis, and on an evaluation of
the effects of a ban in supplying countries.
In addition,
the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the
Environment (CSTEE) delivered an Opinion in January 1999
which concluded that the use of certain azo dyes gave cause
for concern. And in March 1999 the Working Group on
Limitations on Marketing and Use of Dangerous Substances
accordingly supported the Commission’s proposal for a ban
on dangerous azo dyes. The Group also suggested test methods
demonstrating compliance with the legal requirements.

3.4.
The Committee is also concerned about the use and
production of these potentially dangerous azo dyes in third
countries where safety standards are not necessarily as high as
those in the EU. In the first instance, this concern relates to the
protection, training and education of workers. In the second,
it concerns the import into the EU of consumer products
which have been made still using dangerous dyes. In the Far
East and Africa, for example, azo dyes can be used and
manufactured on a very local basis, with no controls, no
production statistics, and no official communication of the
types of colorants used.

3.5.
The Committee therefore calls for stringent control,
effective monitoring, and sampling at the first point of entry
of both products and dyes themselves imported from all third
countries.

3.5.1.
The Committee also urges the Commission to ask
Member States to propose to the WTO and ILO the prohibition
of the future production of dangerous azo-colourants.

4. Specific comments

4.1. Ambit of the Proposal

3. General comments: the Committee’s view

4.1.1.

This needs to be more clearly defined.

3.1.
Directive 76/769/EEC on certain dangerous substances
has now been modified very many times and has become
difficult to use. The Commission should therefore urgently
recast and update the whole base Directive.

3.2.
The Committee supports the Commission’s proposal.
It recognises that the emphasis is on the protection of human
health, which relates both to consumers and workers. It may
well be, however, that it is workers who are at the greater risk
in the processing of products containing the potentially
dangerous azo dyes, since their exposure is longer, more
frequent and possibly at higher concentrations. The Committee
therefore recommends the adoption of specific measures at
the level of the enterprise.

4.1.2.
The second paragraph of Section 2 of the Explana-
tory Memorandum clearly states ‘only the soluble azo colour-
ants ... pose a risk to human health. ... the azo dyes which by
definition are soluble plus a very small fraction of azo pigments
which are also soluble. As those pigments were not yet risk
assessed they are not the subject of the specific provisions of
this directive ...’.

4.1.3.
The distinction between soluble azo dyes and insol-
uble azo pigments does not appear clearly in the present
Proposal. The text therefore needs amending to clarify this.

4.2. Article 2

3.3.
The Committee draws attention to the need for man-
agement to keep records of workers who may already be
adversely affected by dangerous azo colourants, or who may
be affected at some time in the future, bearing in mind direct
causal links.

4.2.1.
This contains two alternative dates for adoption by
Member States. Both are unrealistically short, given the EU and
national legal processes. Application should be two years after
entry into force of the Directive.

C 204/92

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

4.3. Annex

4.4. Appendix B: Analytical methods

First table, second column: In English this starts
4.3.1.
correctly with ‘Azodyes’.
In several other languages the
distinction between azodyes and azocolourants has been lost.
The Commission therefore needs to check that all language
versions reflect the intention of the Directive.

Brussels, 25 May 2000.

4.4.1.
The analytical methods in the Annex are copied from
one Member State only. There have been some problems with
the reproducibility of these methods. They have therefore been
evaluated by work carried out under the MTI (Measurement,
Testing and Infrastructure) Programme of the fourth Frame-
work research programme and improved methods are being
agreed. The methods in the Proposal therefore should be
replaced by EU ones as soon as these have been finalised.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Elaboration of an initiative aimed at
establishing a regulatory framework for the employment of migrant agricultural workers from
non-EU states’

(2000/C 204/19)

On 21 October 1999 the Economic and Social Committee decided to draw up an opinion, under
Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure, on the ‘Elaboration of an initiative aimed at establishing a regulatory
framework for the employment of migrant agricultural workers from non-EU states’.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was instructed to prepare
the Committee’s work on the matter, adopted its opinion on 10 May 2000. The rapporteur was
Mr Wilms.

The Committee adopted the following opinion, with 65 votes in favour and one abstention at its
373rd plenary session on 24 and 25 May 2000 (meeting of 24 May).

1.

Introduction — Reasons for the opinion

1.1. Migrant workers — both male and female — are
employed in various sectors of the EU economy. They are,
however, concentrated in agriculture as it is in this sector
— more than in all the other sectors of the economy — that
they help determine the structure of the industry.

In contrast

agricultural workers, who represent an important group of
workers, have poor social security cover.
to
travelling journeymen (skilled craftsmen), who form part of an
old tradition and whose travelling is viewed positively, migrant
agricultural workers are, in the Committee’s view, victims of a
social taboo which can only be removed by taking long
overdue action. The fact remains, however, that there have
been no improvements in the situation of migrant agricultural
workers since the ESC adopted an own-initiative opinion on
this matter in April 1991, setting out detailed proposals for
improvements.

The Economic and Social Committee is addressing
1.2.
the
in this own-initiative opinion to the Council,
itself
European Parliament, the European Commission and the social
partners with a view to highlighting the fact that migrant

1.3. Migrant agricultural workers provide a major and
indispensable service to agriculture in the EU. Against a
background of an increasing shortage of skilled workers in
various Member States, their services are particularly vital.
Recent events, in particular the intensification of the single