Endocrine disruptors: the lamentable lack of ambition of the European Commission.

endoc art en

In the space of one week, the European Commission has caused at once the disappointment of the European parliamentarians, of the scientific community and of the environmental protection associations about endocrine disruptors.

 

Although it had a legal obligation to present test criteria for this family of chemical pollutants before mid-December 2013, the European executive had waited for two years and a half to report its conclusion through its Health and Disability Commissioner, the Lithuanian Vytenis Andriukaitis on June 15, 2016. These announcements prompted a general outcry in spite of Mr. Junker’s satisfaction: he welcomed that “the EU [was] the first regulatory system in the world to define these scientific criteria in the legislation”.

 

So, 2 years and a half, a conviction by the European Court of Justice and many European Parliament resolutions were necessary to make the European Commission present at last, an official definition of the endocrine disruptors. This definition can lead to a directive establishing a legal framework. And the least one can say is that these announcements pose the threat of a worrying decline in terms of health prevention according to many NGO.

 

Remember that the endocrine disruptors have an effect on the hormonal balance of many living species. For humans, these molecules can degrade some faculties such as growth, development, behavior and mood, production, use and storage of energy, the sleep function, hemodynamic and blood flow, sexual and reproductive functions. They are present especially in many pesticides and plastics, in some cosmetics or food packaging.

 

The critics on the text presented by the Commission concern the gradual abandonment of the precautionary principle even if it is included in the directive on pesticides adopted in 2009. This principle implies that every substance likely to contain endocrine disruptors and to contact humans have to be removed from the market as a precautionary measure. If some endocrine disruptors were subject to prohibition or to restriction, such as bisphenol A or phthalates, most of them are not subject to any control. And the Commission defends “risks assessment at a very high level of proof” for the substance already on the market “in order to measure more effectively their harmfulness”.

 

According to the NGO HEAL representing more than 70 NGO in the field of health an environment in Europe, this text brings decline because “we will have years of damages on health before being entitled to withdraw any endocrine disruptors from the market”.

 

Another point of contention is the very high level of proof of toxicity required by the Commission for some endocrine disruptors whereas some studies already demonstrate their dangerousness. For the Green/ALDE MEP Michèle Rivasi, the philosophy of the text goes against European law “which defends the principle of assessing substances depending on the intrinsic hazard they can constitute and not on the supposed danger they could create”.

 

Even if the phytosanitary industry has also expressed its “disappointment”, the diminutive ambition expressed by the European executive suggests that the economic interests have prevailed over the health-risks imperatives. Member states such as France or Italy has already announced that they would not support the bill when presented to the European Council.