WRITTEN QUESTION E-0033/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. The increased incidence of bromisum containing flame retardants in human beings and foodstuffs comparable with PCBs.
Date: 2001-01-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, atmospheric pollutant, health risk, human nutrition, marketing restriction, toxic substance

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/29

The Commission will ensure that the programmes it co-finances are implemented in accordance with
current legislation and that all activities are consistent and compatible with Community policy, including
environment policy. It must be emphasised that the Hydrological Plan is very general in character. When it
comes to assessing whether individual projects are compatible with, for example, the Water Framework
Directive or the Habitats Directive, far more detail will be required, as dictated by the legislation in
question.

(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2001/C 261 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0033/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: The increased incidence of bromisum containing flame retardants in human beings and foodstuffs

comparable with PCBs

Can the Commission confirm that bromisum containing flame retardants show a similarity in terms
1.
of their toxicity with the PCBs that attracted much attention in the 80s because of their poor biodegrad-
ability, that they also end up via the food chain in the fatty tissue of human beings and interfere with
hormones and that, according to Swedish research, they accumulate in the mother(cid:146)s milk with the result
that children suffer damage to their memory and motor system even before birth?

2.
Can it further confirm that the release of such flame retardants into the environment also takes the
form of discharges during production, losses during the impregnation of plastics and the scrapping of
products treated with these substances and that they increasingly turn up in meat, fish and crops intended
for human consumption and are even encountered in fish that are washed ashore?

3.
Is it true that attempts have been made to place voluntary restrictions on the use of such flame
retardants with the relevant industry but that, in the meantime, their use has increased with the result that
the scale of the risks involved bears a strong resemblance to that of PCBs in the recent past?

4.
Can it confirm that Germany banned toxic flame retardants back in 1986 but that, at the same time,
the relevant industry in other countries remains opposed to such a ban, while the Dutch government is of
the opinion that it must await the search for alternatives and an EU-wide ban on the most toxic varieties
in 2008?

Do circumstances exist that prevent Member States other than Germany from anticipating or going
5.
further than the future ban referred to in paragraph 4? What action is the Commission taking to remove
these obstacles?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answers provided on the same subject to
Written Questions E-2616/00 (1) by Mr Davies, E-2504/99 (2) by Mrs Thors, P-1976/99 (3) by Mrs Sch(cid:246)rling,
E-3004/98 (4) by Mr Eisma and to the oral question H-776/99 (5) by Mrs Sch(cid:246)rling.

C 261 E/30

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of
the risks of existing substances (6), the European Chemicals Bureau in co-operation with the Member States
has co-ordinated the scientific discussions resulting in the adoption of comprehensive risk assessments on
three commercially available brominated flame-retardants.

The three substances are:

(cid:129) Pentabromodiphenyl ether (pentaBDPE), (CAS 32534-81-9) Rapporteur: United Kingdom;

(cid:129) Octabromodiphenyl ether (octaBDPE)) (CAS 32536-52-0) Rapporteur: France and United Kingdom;

and

(cid:129) Decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDPE)) (CAS 1163-19-5) Rapporteur: France and United Kingdom.

The risk assessment report on pentaBDPE concludes that the substance is highly persistent and bioaccu-
mulative and is widely found in environmental biota, including the fatty tissue of fish and marine animals.
It has also been detected, albeit at relatively low concentrations, but possibly increasing levels, in human
breast milk. Following these conclusions the Commission has adopted the 5 March 2001, a Recommenda-
tion on the results of the risk evaluation and the risk reduction strategies for the substances: diphenyl
ehter/pentabromoderivative and cumene (7), recommending that marketing and use restrictions on the
marketing for the substance should be considered in the framework of the Directive relating to restrictions
on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (Council Directive 76/769/EEC
of 27 July 1976 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 (8)).

The risk assessment report concludes that the higher brominated congeners, OctaBDPE and DecaBPPE, do
not appear to bio-concentrate and so have a low potential for bio-concentration and bio-accumulation.
However, the risk assessment reports for both these congeners conclude that there is a need for better
information to adequately characterise any possible risks. A further programme of work is therefore in
progress; in particular, the possibility of degradation in the environment to the lower brominated diphenyl
ethers is being investigated further. This conclusion was supported by the Scientific Committee on
Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment in its opinion on 19 June 2000.

There are some chemical similarities between brominated diphenyl ethers and PCBs. However, there are
also differences, in particular regarding the degree of bio-accumulation potential and toxicity among the
different polybrominated congeners. These are reflected in the results of the risk assessments.

The Commission has adopted a proposal for a Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous
substances in electrical equipment (9)
(RoHS). The Commission is also considering restrictions in the
framework of Directive 76/769 relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous
substances and preparations. According to the RoHS proposal Member States shall ensure that with effect
from 1 January 2008 the use of certain heavy metals and two groups of brominated flame retardants,
polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) and polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), are substituted by other
substances. This Proposal is currently being discussed in Council and Parliament.

Nevertheless, the flame retardant industry has since made a voluntary commitment to the environment and
health programme of the organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD) to better
control the use of the brominated diphenyl ethers. During the period of the voluntary action, imports of
PentaBDPE into the Community have decreased.

Furthermore, to the Commission(cid:146)s knowledge, the German Chemical Industry Association has voluntarily
committed itself in 1986 to not using PBB and PBDE for production purposes.

Potential unilateral national bans on the substances before harmonised risk reduction measures are taken at
Community level could be incompatible with the provisions of Articles 28-30 (ex Articles 30-36) of the
EC Treaty. However, such bans may be justified on grounds which constitute fundamental requirements

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/31

recognised by Community law (among others the protection of health and life of humans, animals or
plants) but shall not be discriminatory or constitute an unjustified restriction on trade between Member
States.

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 134.
(2) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000.
(3) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000.
(4) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999.
(5) Debates of the European Parliament (December II 1999).
(6) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.
(7) OJ L 69, 10.3.2001.
(8) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
(9) COM(2000) 347 final.

(2001/C 261 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0037/01

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Council

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Effects on soldiers(cid:146) health of shells tipped with depleted uranium

The deaths from leukaemia and other forms of cancer of soldiers who took part in the Nato bombing of
the former Yugoslavia and the broader consequences for their health have caused widespread indignation
among European public opinion and have dented the credibility of the national governments and the
European institutions.

Does the Council intend to undertake comprehensive and systematic scientific studies concerning these
consequences and to announce the findings? What other measures does it intend to take to establish who
is responsible and to protect the citizens of Europe from these consequences?

Reply

(31 May 2001)

The Council acknowledges the great concern of the public opinion relating to the use of depleted uranium
in munitions. During their discussions on the occasion of 22 January 2001 meeting of the Council,
Ministers expressed their commitment to seek full clarity on this issue.

There was general agreement that in the first instance it was for NATO, as the institution organising crisis
management in Balkans, to assemble the information from participants on the use of depleted uranium, on
the locations of troops and on medical data. Ministers also called for full transparency and open exchange
the Member States, as well as with other organisations
of
investigating this matter.

information between the authorities of

Furthermore the Council noted that several bodies (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
World Health Organisation (WHO), NATO, the committee set up by the Commission) are currently
examining this issue and the first reports are expected to be published shortly. Once these reports are
available, the Council has agreed to re-examine this issue in order to assess whether any specific initiative
or measures at EU level are warranted.