Chemicals target list under fire

Date: 13/07/2000

By Renée Cordes

MEPS and environmental groups have attacked a preliminary list of potential hormone-disrupting chemicals drawn up by the European Commission to be targeted for further study.

They claim that the list is too limited in scope to reduce exposure to the controversial substances significantly.

The Commission's experts have identified 66 chemicals which have been pinpointed by at least one scientific study as potential endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which mimic natural hormones and could affect the development, growth, reproduction and behaviour of animals and humans.

Substances defined as high priority from an original list of 564 include well-known toxic agents such as DDT, PCBs and dioxins as well as some pesticides, phthalates and styrene. Officials say the draft list will be used as a basis for work on a definitive version to be finalised at the end of this year or in early 2001.

Late last year, the Commission outlined a raft of measures to tackle the potentially harmful effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals. It also argued that consideration should be given to introducing measures to reduce exposure in line with the precautionary principle, which advocates imposing restrictions even in cases where there is no conclusive evidence of potential damage to health or the environment.

But MEPs and green campaigners claim the Commission is failing to follow the precautionary principle, arguing that the EU executive should put equal effort into carrying out further studies into all the chemicals on the original list. "This is very urgent," said Danish Socialist MEP Torben Lund, the European Parliament's rapporteur on the issue.

Lund's report, adopted by the assembly's environment committee this week, argues that the Union should set an example for other countries to follow. It also expresses deep concern about the uncertainty surrounding the possible problems related to endocrine disrupters.

The report, due to be voted on at the Parliament's plenary session in September, insists the future legal framework should be based on the precautionary principle and that manufacturers should be required to show at least a "reasonable certainty of no harm" when a product is put on the market.

It also argues that future EU legislation should put the onus on companies to test chemicals already on the market by the same standards as those required for new substances.

Green campaigners have also attacked the Commission's whittled-down list as lacking teeth. "This is a very unambitious approach," said Axel Singhofen, EU toxics advisor to Greenpeace International.

MEPs and environmental groups have attacked a preliminary list of potential hormone-disrupting chemicals drawn up by the European Commission to be targeted for further study.