WRITTEN QUESTION E-0951/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Restrictions on the use of phthalates.
Date: 2001-03-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: marketing restriction, plastics, product safety, toxic substance, toy industry

C 318 E/160

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

Concerning musks in cosmetic products, the use of musk ambrette, musk moskene and musk tibetene is
prohibited. Furthermore, the Scientific Committee on Cosmetics and Non-Food Products (SCCNFP) has
adopted opinions on the use of the two most commonly used musks, musk ketone and musk xylene. It
concluded that these musks can be safely used in cosmetic products provided their concentration is below
a certain concentration limit. At the same time however, the SCCNFP identified the need for an evaluation
of consumer exposure from other sources e.g. laundry detergents and the need for more data concerning
the long-term toxicity effects of these materials.

Concerning washing powders, the use of musks in perfumes contained in washing powders falls under the
provisions of the Directive 1999/45/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning
the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to
the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparation (2).

The above should be revised when the risk assessment of these two substances, carried out in the
framework of Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993, on the evaluation and control of
the risks of existing substances (3), is finalised. As these are comprehensive evaluations of all available
data on the toxicity and the effects of chemicals, covering all exposure situations from all known uses, the
Commission would expect
the potential endocrine disrupting and
persistence and bio-accumulation properties of musks. Any risk management recommendations, stemming
from the conclusions of these risk assessments will provide the Commission with the scientific basis to
propose further measures as appropriate.

to have an in-depth analysis of

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
(2) OJ L 200, 30.7.1999.
(3) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.

(2001/C 318 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0951/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Restrictions on the use of phthalates

Is the Commission satisfied that the current restrictions on the use of phthalates are adequate to meet the
potential dangers? In particular, it is considering restrictions not only on teething toys but on other toys,
packaging, PVC flooring and windows, cosmetics and emulsion paint? Will the Commission outline the
potential effects suggested by the scientific evidence of certain levels of phthalates for hormone disruptions
and reproductive abnormalities? Is the Commission aware of alternative products that could be used to
perform the same tasks without the same side-effects?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

The use of six phthalates in toys and childcare articles intended to be mouthed by children under the age
of three is subject to a temporary ban in the framework of Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992,
on general product safety (1), pending a permanent ban under Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July
1976 on restrictions on the marketing and use of dangerous substances and preparations (2).

The Commission adopted in November 1999 a proposal to restrict the marketing and use of certain
phthalates in toys. The Commission(cid:146)s proposal consists of a ban on the use of six phthalates in toys and
childcare articles intended to be put in the mouth of children under the age of three and of a requirement
to label other toys for children under three that could be put in the mouth although not intended for that
purpose.

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/161

The Commission(cid:146)s proposal
according to Article 251 (ex Article 189b) of the EC Treaty.

is currently subject to consideration by the Parliament and the Council

The possible risks to health and to the environment of the phthalates most commonly used are currently
evaluated in the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993, on the evaluation
and control of the risks of existing substances (3). As these are comprehensive evaluations of all available
data on the toxicity and the effects of chemicals, covering all exposure situations from all known uses, the
the potential endocrine disrupting and
Commission would expect
to have an in-depth analysis of
reproductive toxicity effects of phthalates. The outcome of
the risk assessments will provide the
Commission with the appropriate scientific basis to propose further measures, as appropriate. In addition,
the particular use of phthalates in PVC has been raised in the Commission(cid:146)s Green Paper on polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) (4). The Green Paper has been discussed in the Council and the Parliament has adopted
a Resolution on 3 April 2001. Following these discussions and extensive consultations with other
stakeholders, the Commission intends to propose a Community strategy on PVC that will aim to address
all outstanding issues including those which may concern the use of phthalates in these applications.

The risk assessments will be peer-reviewed by the Scientific Committee on Toxicity Ecotoxicity and the
Environment (CSTEE) and will be summarised in Commission Recommendations published in the Official
Journal. Where unacceptable risks are identified, the Commission will consider additional risk reduction
measures, as appropriate, in those areas where concerns have been indicated.

Concerning the use of alternatives to phthalates, studies conducted at the request of the Commission
identified a number of potential substitutes to phthalates and to soft PVC. To obtain a view on their safety
profiles as compared with phthalates, the Commission requested the opinion of the CSTEE. In two separate
opinions, the CSTEE concluded that there were significant gaps in the amount of scientific information
available on the potential substitutes, which need to be filled in order to support their safe use. The
Commission remains optimistic that such information will become available in the near future.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
(2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
(3) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.
(4) COM(2000) 469 final.

(2001/C 318 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0958/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Making a distinction on grounds of nationality when governments apply tariffs and fines

Does the Commission feel it is reasonable for states to apply different tariffs and fines to persons

1.
who do not have the nationality of those states?

Are Member States within the European Union allowed, when setting the level of tariffs and fines, to

2.
make a distinction between persons having the nationality of the Member State in question and others?

3. What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the fact that Belgium has a category of (cid:145)Tariffs for foreigners(cid:146), laid
down by Royal Decree of 24 October 1997 which entered into force on 1 January 1998, that the police
invoke this list when they stop people for traffic offences and that these tariffs can be found on the
websites http://www.infocorner.org/verkeer/divers/index.htm and http://www.infocorner.org/verkeer/divers/
boetes2.htm?

Should this situation be changed, in the light of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is

4.
based on the equality of human beings, or in the light of European Union rules?