WRITTEN QUESTION E-4136/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. 28th Adaptation on Technical Progress to the Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC).
Date: 2001-01-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, carcinogenic substance, chemical product, dangerous substance, labelling, marketing restriction

C 187 E/144

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

If not, does the Commission intend:

1.

in the light of
20 November 1995,

the recent negotiations with Israel on updating the association agreement of

2. mindful of the fact that Israeli sporting associations have for years participated in European football
and handball tournaments and similar major events and are thus a permanent feature of the European
(cid:145)internal market(cid:146) in sport with the result that it would be justified and consistent to create a uniform
area of service provision for sporting activities that included Israel,

to work to ensure that the above association agreement is amended so that Israeli nationals are placed on
an equal footing with EU citizens in terms of freedom of movement pursuant to Article 39 of the
EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

This is a matter for the Member States.

The Euro-Mediterranean agreement establishing an association between the Community and its Member
States and Israel came into force on 1 June 2000. It contains no provisions on non-discrimination in the
area of working conditions between Israeli and EU citizens, nor does it contain measures on sport or the
participation of Israeli or EU citizens in handball matches.

There are no plans to amend an agreement which has only recently come into force.

(2001/C 187 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4136/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: 28th Adaptation on Technical Progress to the Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC)

The draft 28th Adaptation on Technical Progress to the Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC) (1)
proposes a Category 2 Carcinogen Classification for trichloroethylene, in place of the current Category 3
Classification.

Following extensive studies on several thousands of people,
relationship between exposure to trichloroethylene and an increase in cancer?

is the Commission convinced of a causal

Industry states that (cid:145)the criteria to the preamble of the EU Labelling Guide, which says that normal
conditions of handling and use should be considered, have not been applied and that,
in the two
epidemiological studies carried out, (cid:146)the exposure situations that are supposed to have caused the German
cancers were due to abnormally high levels of
trichloroethylene far above occupational exposure
standards(cid:146). Furthermore, industry claims that (cid:145)improved practices within exposure limits should protect
workers from the hazards of trichloroethylene(cid:146).

What is the Commission(cid:146)s response to these points?

(1) OJ L 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1.

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/145

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

(5 March 2001)

The classification of trichloroethylene is being considered in the context of Regulation (EEC) 793/93 on
the risks of existing substances (1) and Directive 67/548/EEC on the
the evaluation and control of
classification and labelling of dangerous substances. The European Chemicals Bureau (ECB) at Ispra in
Italy provides the technical/scientific support, consulting the Member States and industry via the
like
(cid:145)Carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and reproductive toxicity(cid:146)
trichloroethylene, are referred to the so-called (cid:145)Specialised Experts(cid:146) Group, made up of
independent
scientists from all Member States.

(CMR) working group. Difficult cases,

The Specialised Experts Group examines proposals for classification of chemicals on their scientific merits
alone. In this case, the Specialised Experts, meeting on 30-31 March 2000, recommended a classification
of carcinogen category 2 (R45). The CMR working group of Member State experts, meeting on 9-12 May
2000, almost unanimously supported this classification. This conclusion has been reached after several
years of detailed consideration of the overall scientific evidence. This evaluation included, but was not
limited to, the cited epidemiological studies. The Commission would like to draw the attention to the fact
that classification as a category 2 carcinogen (classification primarily based on animal experiments) is
proposed rather than as a category 1 carcinogen (classification based on epidemiological data).

The Commission would like to point out that such a classification would not automatically lead to
restrictions on the marketing and use of substances. However, the Commission will examine possible
marketing or use restrictions, under Directive 76/769/EEC 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 (2). Following normal practice for substances classified as
category 1 or 2 CMRs, the Commission will consider carefully the appropriateness of a possible ban on the
marketing of trichloroethylene to consumers. Furthermore, the Commission committed itself to special
consideration of trichloroethylene and other chlorinated solvents at the time of the adoption of Directive
the
94/60/EEC (the 14th Amendment
advantages and drawbacks of any marketing and use restrictions will be considered, in consultation with
the industry and other interested parties.

to 76/769/EEC) (3). Before coming forward with a proposal,

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.
(2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
(3) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2001/C 187 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4140/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Sheepmeat regime

Bearing in mind the publication of the (cid:145)Evaluation on the common organisation of the markets in the
sheep and goatmeat sector(cid:146) in November 2000 and the subsequent European Conference in Brussels on
20 November on the (cid:145)Track record and prospects for European ovine product organisation(cid:146) at which
Commissioner Fischler and Ms Mary Minch spoke and given that the present regime does not reflect
adequately the market situation, particularly for northern European countries (the UK and Ireland
especially), could the Commission outline what proposals it has to review the sheepmeat regime with
a view to attaining a just and equitable price/market support system?