ENDOCRINE DISRUPTERS
(20879)
5257/00
COM(99) 706
|
Commission Communication on a Community strategy for endocrine disrupters: a range of substances suspected of interfering with the hormone systems of humans and wildlife.
|
| Legal base: |
— |
| |
| Document originated:
| 17 December 1999 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 20 December 1999 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 24 January 2000 |
| Department: |
Environment, Transport and the Regions
|
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 2 February 2000 |
| Previous Committee Report:
| None |
| To be discussed in Council:
| 30 March 2000 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared |
Background
16.1 In its introduction to this Communication,
the Commission says that there is growing concern about a range
of substances — so called "endocrine disrupters"
— which are suspected of interfering with the endocrine
system, and which may cause adverse health effects, such as cancer,
behavioural changes, and reproductive abnormalities. In addition,
a potential problem for wildlife has been identified. It has therefore
prepared this Communication, which seeks to identify the problem,
its causes and consequences, and to set out a strategy with short,
medium, and long term actions aimed at responding to it.
The current document
16.2 The Communication points out that there
are two classes of substance which can cause endocrine disruption:
- "natural" hormones found in the bodies
of humans and animals, and in some plants;
- man-made substances, which include synthetically
produced hormones (including those which are identical to natural
hormones), and man-made chemicals, including certain pesticides,
designed for uses in industry, or produced, like dioxins, as a
by-product of industrial processes.
16.3 It says that "natural" hormones
easily break down, spend very little time in the body, and thus
do not accumulate in tissue. On the other hand, synthetically
produced hormones are designed to interfere with the endocrine
system, in accordance with dose-response relationships, though
it adds that there may be risk associated with direct or indirect
exposure, including unintended uptake by non-target populations
through residues in food or in sewage effluent. In particular,
man-made chemicals may have unforeseen adverse effects, over and
above the uses for which they are designed.
16.4 The Commission goes on to say that,
although the problem of endocrine disruption is not in itself
new, its Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the
Environment (SCTEE) has concluded that there are associations
between endocrine disrupting chemicals and a range of human health
disturbances, such as testicular, breast and prostate cancers,
a decline in sperm counts, deformities of the reproductive organs,
and thyroid disfunction, as well as intelligence and neurological
problems. However, it adds that a causative role has not yet been
verified, though possible pathways include direct exposure via
the workplace or consumer products, as well as indirect exposure
via the environment. The Committee also concluded that there was
strong evidence of endocrine disruption in wildlife, and that,
although this disruption is observed mostly in heavily polluted
areas, there is a potential global problem. In general, it concludes
that the vulnerability of a given species will depend on the intrinsic
properties of the chemical, the type of exposure, the ability
of the species to absorb or eliminate substances, and the sensitivity
of specific organs at different stages of development.
16.5 In considering the actions needed to
respond to this problem, the Commission identifies four lines
of approach.
— Further research
16.6 It says that the work needed in this
area includes identifying the selection criteria needed to place
substances on the list of suspected chemicals; identifying agreed
test and screening methods; better information on the functioning
of the endocrine system; investigations into the links between
exposure to specific substances and adverse health effects; and
the development of appropriate environmental monitoring tools.
— International co-ordination
16.7 The Commission says that the complexity
and cost of the research needed makes it essential for the work
to be planned as efficiently as possible, requiring co-operation,
not only within the Community, but at global level as well. It
also regards such co-operation as important in harmonising any
regulatory actions that may be needed.
— Communication to the public
16.8 The Communication notes that the general
public and the scientific community tend to have different perceptions
of the risks involved, and that there is a strong need to improve
communication to address this disparity.
— Policy action
16.9 In terms of substances under suspicion,
the Commission notes that a substantial number of chemicals are
already subject to regulatory measures against suspected endocrine
disrupting effects, but that this is usually done on the basis
of reported toxic effects, without the underlying mechanisms being
identified. It thus suggests that not all the effects potentially
caused by endocrine disruption may be fully addressed, particularly
in the case of the environment, and that it may be necessary to
consider more comprehensive controls over certain substances.
The Communication also stresses the importance of independent
scientific advice, and the key rôle in this respect of the
SCTEE.
16.10 It then goes on to examine the approach
taken in existing Community legislation, which it says is based
on a three stage approach, involving hazard identification, risk
assessment, and risk management. It adds that, for each of these
stages, the amount of scientific evidence can vary greatly, and
that the precautionary principle is thus a key consideration underpinning
this approach. It also notes that the European Court of Justice
has ruled that, where uncertainty exists over the risks to health,
the Commission may take protective measures without having to
wait until the extent of those risks becomes apparent.
16.11 The Communication concludes by setting
out a proposed strategy in line with the precautionary principle.
In the short term, this would involve identifying exposure pathways;
establishing a priority list of substances for further evaluation,
and to identify gaps in knowledge about their effects; using the
available legislative instruments; establishing monitoring programmes
to estimate exposure to, and effects of, substances on the priority
list; identifying specific cases of consumer use, for example
by children, for special action; information exchanges and international
co-ordination; better communication to the public; and consultations
with the so-called stakeholders (Member States, industry, and
non-governmental organisations). Looking further ahead, the Communication
suggests that there is a need to develop agreed test methods for
effects such as reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity; to
carry out further research into the mechanisms of endocrine disruption;
and to identify substitutes for those chemicals on the priority
list. In the long-term, the Commission says that, in order to
take account of endocrine disrupting effects, it will be necessary
to propose amendments to existing Community legislation covering
chemicals, as well as consumer, health and environmental protection.
The Government's view
16.12 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 2
February 2000, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr Mullin)
says that in general the UK is supportive of the approach proposed
by the Commission, but wants to see rapid action in implementing
the recommendations, particularly the development of appropriate
test methods for accurately identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals.
The UK Government also strongly supports the need for the Commission
to work closely with the stakeholders, pointing out that there
is concern in industry at the intention to publish a list of priority
substances for further evaluation, and that it will be essential
to ensure that the criteria for drawing up this list are consistent
and transparent. He adds that, although no specific legislation
is proposed in the Communication, the UK also supports the Commission
position that it will be necessary to analyse and take account
of the compliance costs of any given policy action, as well as
its potential impact.
Conclusion
16.13 Although, as the Minister points
out, this Communication does not itself propose legislative action,
it does nevertheless deal with an important issue on which there
is, moreover, a growing public concern. For that reason, we welcome
the Commission's initiative in seeking to establish a Community
strategy, and, although we note the quite proper markers which
the Minister has put up on the need to take into account the compliance
costs of any subsequent action, this is an area where it seems
to us that the potential risks justify a precautionary approach.
We therefore support the Minister's desire to see rapid action
on this Communication. We ask the Minister to keep us informed
of progress. We are, however, clearing the document on the basis
that we will have the opportunity to re-visit the subject as and
when the Commission comes forward with further proposals.
|
