WRITTEN QUESTION E-0947/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Flame retardant ban.
Date: 2001-03-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: dangerous substance, environmental protection, environmental risk prevention, marketing restriction, public health

C 318 E/158

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

and Pacific (ACP) countries, may benefit from Member States(cid:146) action relating to reception conditions,
integration and voluntary repatriation and resettlement in the country of origin.

For the budget years 2000 and 2001 available credits for the Fund of € 56 million under budget line
B5-810 were allocated to Member States on the basis of the method foreseen in Article 10 of the Decision.
This method takes into account the specific number of persons, targeted by European Refugee Fund
action, who must have entered the Member States in the course of 1997, 1998 and 1999.

Member States are responsible for the implementation of action supported by the Fund including the
selection of actions and their financial management and administration except for 5 % of the funds used
for financing project of Community interest. The Commission is not in a position yet to give any
indication regarding the nationality of the Fund(cid:146)s beneficiaries.
It has to be noted anyway that no
discrimination is made on the grounds of citizenship of any particular third country.

(1) OJ L 252, 6.10.2000.

(2001/C 318 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0947/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Flame retardant ban

1. Will the Commission indicate the progress of its proposals to ban some brominated flame retardants
from use and specify which Member States, if any, oppose the Commission proposals?

2. When does it expect to be able to announce a ban, and what dangers does it foresee for consumers if
delays continue?

Is the Commission satisfied, given the current scientific evidence, that the extent of its proposed ban

3.
is adequate to ensure consumer safety. If so, why?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answers provided to previous Written
Questions on the same subject E-0033/01 by Mr Meijer (1), E-2616/00 by Mr Davies (2), E-2504/99 by
Mrs Thors (3), P-1976/99 by Mrs Sch(cid:246)rling (4), E-3004/98 by Mr Eisma (5) and to the Oral Question H-776/
99 by Mrs Sch(cid:246)rling during question time at Parliament(cid:146)s December 1999 part-session (6).

1.
The Commission adopted on 15 January 2001 a proposal to ban the use of a brominated flame-
retardant, pentabromodiphenyl ether, from 1 July 2003 (7). The proposed Directive, amending for the 24
time Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on restrictions on the marketing and use of dangerous
substances and preparations (8), has been forwarded to the Parliament and the Council for final adoption
according to Article 251 (ex Article 189b) of the EC Treaty. The Commission(cid:146)s proposal has been subject to
a preliminary examination by the Council Working Party (cid:145)Technical Harmonisation(cid:146). The Parliament has
not yet given its opinion in its first reading.

The Commission(cid:146)s proposal is based on the Commission Recommendation of 5 March 2001 (9) on the
results of the risk assessment and risk reduction strategy for the substance in the framework of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of existing substances (10).
The Commission(cid:146)s Recommendation was unanimously endorsed by the Member States.

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/159

The Commission proposes the ban to take effect eighteen months after adoption of the proposed
2.
Directive by the Parliament and the Council thus giving Member States the required time to transpose the
Directive into national legislation.

The proposed ban aims at reducing risks to the environment. The risk assessment concluded that risk to
consumers from exposure to the substance is negligible since in the EU it is only used in polyurethane
foam which is enclosed in products. However, a concern over increasing levels of pentaBDE in breast milk
was expressed.

The Commission considers that the proposal is far reaching and thereby affords a high level of
3.
protection to the health and safety of consumers. The proposal to ban all uses of pentabromodiphenyl
ether also takes account of the Precautionary Principle as interpreted in the Commission(cid:146)s Communication
on the precautionary principle (11) as it addresses the concern about increasing levels of pentabromodip-
henyl ether in breast milk from sources not yet identified.

The proposal will not result in greater risks from fires or greater risks to the environment given the
availability of suitable alternative flame-retardants.

Furthermore, the Commission has adopted a Proposal for a Directive on the restriction of the use of
certain hazardous substances in electrical equipment (12) (RoHS).

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.

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001.
(2) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 134.
(3) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000.
(4) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000.
(5) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999.
(6) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1999).
(7) COM(2001) 12 final.
(8) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
(9) OJ L 69, 10.3.2001.
(10) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.
(11) COM(2000) 1 final.
(12) COM(2000) 347 final (OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000).

(2001/C 318 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0949/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Musk labelling

Is the Commission satisfied with the current labelling requirement of (cid:145)parfum(cid:146) for artificial musks used in
perfumes, air fresheners and washing powders?

Does it agree that this may cover musks known to mimic hormones and which persist and accumulate in
body fat?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2001)

The current provisions of the pertinent legislation on cosmetic products, Council Directive 76/768/EEC of
27 July 1976 (1), require the products to be labelled with the generic term (cid:145)perfumes(cid:146) to refer to the
individual fragrance substances making up a perfume, including artificial musks.

The Commission is aware of published reports questioning the safety profile of certain artificial musks and
in particular their potential for bioaccumulation and hormone mimicking effects.