WRITTEN QUESTION E-0112/03 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission. Maintaining the ban on arsenic.
Date: 2003-01-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, EU law - national law, European standard, consumer protection, harmonisation of standards, market approval, product safety, semi-metal, toxic substance, wood product

C 222 E/152

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

(2003/C 222 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0112/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: Maintaining the ban on arsenic

It appears from the Danish press on 13 January 2003 that the Commission has just adopted new rules on
timber treatment, and that this will involve a weakening of the Danish ban on arsenic.

Arsenic is used in the treatment of timber used in the construction of bridges, houses, special fences and
electricity and telegraph poles. The problem is, however, that this is a substance which is harmful to both
the natural and working environments, which is the reason for the restrictive Danish rules.

Can the Commission give an account of the scientific background to the new rules, particularly in the
context of arsenic, and list the possible substitutes for arsenic which are less harmful to the natural and
working environment? What will the rules imply for the Danish rules and the possibility of upholding the
ban? And what harm to the natural and working environment does the Commission expect
that
authorising the use of arsenic will cause in Denmark and in the EU as a whole?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2003)

A risk assessment carried out for the Commission on the use of arsenic in wood treatment identified a
number of risks considered unacceptable including to children’s health from the use of arsenic-treated
wood in playground equipment and to human health from the disposal of arsenic-treated wood. The
disposal risk relates mainly to household burning of waste wood treated with arsenic. An unacceptable risk
of effects on aquatic organisms in certain marine waters was also identified. The Scientific Committee for
Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) evaluated this risk assessment and concluded that the
main risks had been correctly identified (1). The CSTEE further advised, in the light of a serious knowledge
gap in relation to arsenic-treated wood in landfills, to exercise caution by limiting the use of arsenic-based
wood preservatives to those situations where it is absolutely necessary.

As a result of this risk assessment, Commission Directive 2003/2/EC of 6 January 2003 relating to
restrictions on the marketing and use of arsenic (2) bans the use of wood treated with arsenic in consumer
applications (eg in fencing and decking). As regards professional and industrial uses, the directive allows
the use of a certain type of preparation containing arsenic only for treating wood for specific applications
provided that the structural
integrity of the wood is required for human or livestock safety and skin
contact by the general public during its service life is unlikely, and that the waste is treated as hazardous
waste by an authorised undertaking.

As regards alternatives, a web-based public consultation on the draft new Directive, conducted in line with
the Commission’s ‘Better lawmaking’ strategy, drew over 150 replies. Some of those replying believe there
are a number of alternatives on the market including several based on copper, boron, and an organic
active substance for many applications. However, there are not yet suitable alternatives for all uses, such as
wood used in permanent contact with water. As a result, the Directive allows certain uses of arsenic
treated wood.

The Commission is of the view that this Directive will bring significant benefits to the protection of
consumer health and to the environment in general within the Union. The Commission is also of the view
that the Directive can be considered proportionate as it allows certain uses mentioned above where the
risks can be properly managed. It should be noted that, as from 2004, the remaining uses of arsenic based
wood preservatives will be evaluated in the framework of Directive 98/8/EC (3), which may lead to further
restrictions.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/153

Article 2 of Directive 2003/2 requires Member States to adopt and publish the provisions necessary to
comply with the Directive by 30 June 2003 and to apply these provisions by 30 June 2004 at the latest.
The Commission is aware of the fact that there is a general ban in place on the import, sale and use of
arsenic treated wood in Denmark (4). Should Denmark wish to maintain these stricter national provisions,
it must notify them to the Commission in accordance with Article 95(4) of the EC Treaty. The Commission
will then assess whether these provisions fulfil the criteria set out in Articles 95 (4) and (6) of the EC
Treaty.

Further information on this can be found at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/sct/out18_en.html.

(1)
(2) OJ L 4, 9.1.2003.
(3) Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal

products on the market (cid:1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998.

(4) Notification 96/0242/Dk.

(2003/C 222 E/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0125/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Proposal for a Council regulation banning the export of torture equipment

On 30 December 2002 the Commission submitted the proposal for a Council regulation (1) banning
torture equipment. I support this initiative, as exporting torture equipment promotes violations of human
rights, whereas respect for human rights is an important element in the principles on which the EU is
based.

Given that such equipment is not used in the EU, that its use is not permitted here and that the Council
now advocates a ban on exports,
it seems appropriate to introduce a total ban (on development,
production and sales).

Will the Council revise the proposal accordingly and supply me with an overview of all manufacturers and
Member States which have exported such equipment to third countries in the recent past?

(1) COM(2002) 770 final.

Reply

(8 May 2003)

The Guidelines to EU policy towards third countries on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, adopted by the Council on 9 April 2001, state the EU will urge third countries
to ‘prevent the use, production and trade of equipment which is designed to inflict torture or other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. In the explanatory memorandum to the proposal referred
to by the Honourable Member, the Commission considers that the EU itself should take the very measures
that it urges third countries to take.

The discussion of the Commission proposal has not yet begun in the competent Council bodies. Therefore,
the Council is not in a position to answer fully to the questions.

The Council does not possess a list of manufacturers and Member States which have exported such
equipment to third countries in the recent past.