Industry deplores MEP vote on environment and health plan 

MEPs backed the report by Frédérique Ries (ALDE, Belgium) with 576 votes for, 48 against and 13 abstentions at the parliament's plenary sitting of 23 February 2005.

The report dismisses the environment and health action plan 2004-10 mainly for falling short on the legislative proposals initially promised in the European environment and health strategy (SCALE).

"The absence of scientific certainty and the need to carry out additional research […] cannot be used as an excuse for delaying the introduction of essential and urgent measures to reduce children's and adults' exposure to environmental pollution," the Parliament stated in its final resolution.

The precautionary principle lies at the heart of controversy in this debate. The main question here is to determine how and when sufficient information is available to take further legislative steps.

To step up preventive action, the Parliament is calling for restrictions to be placed on the following substances:

• six products from the phthalate family (DEHP, DINP, DBP, DIDP, DNOP, BBP) in domestic products for indoor use and in medical devices, except where such a restriction would have a negative impact on medical treatment, (see EurActiv,  7 Oct. 2004)
• chlorinated solvents used in the manufacture of paint, coatings and polymers,
• mercury used in dental amalgams and in non-electrical or non-electronic measuring and monitoring devices (see EurActiv, 1 Feb. 2005) 
• cadmium (see EurActiv, 21 Dec. 2004)
• four pesticides (see EurActiv,  9 July 2003)

Moreover, the Parliament is calling for research priority to be given to "everyday consumer product categories that contain chemicals which can lead to allergies and cancer in humans". 

While welcoming the vote in general terms, the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), said it "deplores the use of a list of discriminated chemicals" in the Parliament's resolution, arguing such a "blacklist" will "cause confusion among consumers and downstream users". While saying it agrees with the objectives the plan, CEFIC recommends the use of "existing legislation" and putting the emphasis on combating "life-style related ill-health caused by tobacco, alcohol, poor diet and lack of exercise". It concluded by saying the Parliament's position on using bio-monitoring to fill information gaps was "in line with the industry stance".

"The action plan proposed by the Commission did not deserve its name because it did not contain any concrete preventative action" declared the rapporteur, Frédérique Ries (ALDE, Belgium), after the vote. "It is rather a programme to evaluate the incidence of the global environmental on health," she said. 

The Greens/EFA reiterated earlier criticism about the plan, calling it an "inaction plan" focusing only on research and not on concrete legislative measures. 

Responding to MEPs in Parliament, Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said bio-monitoring would "play an essential role" and would bring actual value-added to the action plan. He outlined the CAFE programme (Clean Air for Europe), and the controversial REACH chemicals regulation as action already being undertaken. "The precautionary principle is at the core of environment policy and it will continue to be the cornerstone of our action," said Dimas.

In a first reaction, the environment network at the European Public Health Alliance (EPHA EEN) said it was important that the Parliament took a strong position on the issue. "I think even the Commission realises that the plan is insufficient," said EPHA EEN's policy officer Christian Farrar-Hockley.  Farrar-Hockley admitted there is currently "no scientific proof of link between clinical data and environmental stresses". However, he said there is a "clear case" for action on environmental pollutants which are "taken for granted" (so-called 'level 1'). He says these include dioxins, PCBs, lead, mercury and phtalates. "At the end of the day, what's important is that a monitoring system is set up".