WRITTEN QUESTION E-0200/02 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), Per-Arne Arvidsson (PPE-DE)and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Asbestos regulations in the European Union.
Date: 2002-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, United States, asbestos, cooperation policy, dangerous substance, report, scientific committee (EU), scientific research

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/197

At this stage the Commission does not intend to take further action on the matter due to the reported
German regulation.

As to the wider context of age discrimination, Article 13 of the EC Treaty foresees that the appropriate
legislative action may be taken to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or
belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 provides
that discrimination based on, inter alia, age is prohibited in employment and occupation. Member States
must introduce the national measures to give effect to this directive by 2 December 2003 though they
may, if necessary to take account of particular conditions, have an additional period of three years from
that date to implement the provisions on age and disability discrimination. Moreover, Member States may
provide that differences of treatment on grounds of age shall not constitute discrimination if, within the
context of national law, they are reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including legitimate employment
policy,
labour market and vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are
appropriate and necessary.

The Commission is therefore unable to intervene in this case to ensure the application of the principle of
equal treatment in relation to age in advance of the date of transposition of the Directive.

(2002/C 160 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0200/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), Per-Arne Arvidsson (PPE-DE)
and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Asbestos regulations in the European Union

(6 February 2002)

Following studies by Professor Julian Peto of the Institute of Cancer Research in the 1980s which suggested
that ‘white’ asbestos was just as dangerous as ‘blue’ and ‘brown’ asbestos (which had been identified in the
1950s by Professor Richard Doll as being extremely hazardous to human health),
the European
Commission introduced directives lumping the two together.

Is the Commission aware that subsequent reports commissioned by the UK Health and Safety Executive
carried-out by Dr Alan Gibbs and Professor F. Pooley suggested that Professor Peto may have misread the
data, that further internal Health and Safety Executive studies, including a paper by John Hodgson and
Andrew Darnton, concluded in the year 2000 that the risk from ‘white’ asbestos (which confusingly shares
the same name as ‘blue’ and ‘brown’ asbestos despite having an entirely different chemical structure) is
‘virtually zero’, that in 1992 a senior US court declared that more people are likely to ‘die from inhalation
of toothpicks than from white asbestos fibres’ and that, following the release of 40 tonnes of ‘white’
asbestos as a result of the collapse of the World Trade Center last September, the US Environmental
Protection Agency declared that this posed no danger?

Will the Commission undertake to request information from the US and New York health authorities over
the coming months as to the environmental impact of this enormous release of ‘white’ asbestos into the
atmosphere and, without in any way questioning the need for measures to protect humans from the effects
of ‘blue’ and ‘brown’ asbestos, will the Commission ask its own scientific advisory body to look into the
conflicting scientific evidence over ‘white’ asbestos and produce its own report on the matter to ensure
that all asbestos legislation is appropriately targeted and that industry is not required to bear huge and
unnecessary costs to protect against non-dangerous substances?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Via Commission Directive 1999/77/EC of 26 July 1999 adapting to technical progress for the sixth time
Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative

C 160 E/198

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous
substances and preparations (asbestos) (1), the Commission has taken the decision to ban all forms of
asbestos fibres in the Community, including chrysotile (also called white asbestos), in order to protect
human health from exposure to these substances. From the scientific knowledge available, all forms of
asbestos have been recognised as proven human carcinogens by numerous scientific bodies. Most of the
Member States have already prohibited asbestos.

In conformity with the tenth recital of Directive 1999/77/EC, the Commission will ask the Scientific
Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE) to undertake a further review of any
relevant new scientific data from 1999 on the health risks of chrysotile asbestos and its substitutes,
including the studies mentioned by the Honourable Members. On that occasion, the Commission will also
draw to the attention of that Committee the purported release of white asbestos resulting from the collapse
of the World Trade Center of 11 September 2001 and if, in the light of the mandate to be submitted, any
further information is considered necessary by the Committee, arrangements can be made to provide it, if
available.

(1) OJ L 207, 6.8.1999.

(2002/C 160 E/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0206/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2002)

Subject: 2nd CSF payments

The period for completing payments in respect of programmes under
31 December 2001.

the 2nd CSF expired on

Can the Commission provide a detailed breakdown of all commitments and any amounts disbursed for
each structural fund per operational programme, and of the outstanding balance to be paid to Greece in
respect of those programmes?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-3001/01 (1).

(1) See page 54.

(2002/C 160 E/246)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0215/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Botswana

In relation to Botswana can the Commission provide a list of projects approved for funding from the EU
budget for 2001 and indicate the total amount of investment for that year?