Stenograma dezbaterilor

Miercuri, 25 mai 2016 - Bruxelles

19. Perturbatorii endocrini: situația actuală în urma hotărârii Curții din 16 decembrie 2015 (dezbatere)

President. – The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on endocrine disruptors: state of play following the Court judgment of 16 December 2015 (2016/2747(RSP)).

  Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, once again we have on our agenda the sensitive issue of endocrine disruptors, and specifically the setting of final criteria to identify these substances in the context of the Biocidal Products Regulation. As you will remember, during the plenary session on 2 February I made a commitment to present before the summer final scientific criteria for the identification endocrine disruptors. So I can reiterate that the Commission has a very firm intention to comply with this obligation and with the judgment of the Court.

I stand by this commitment and I can only again confirm that the two draft measures are an issue which will be on the College’s agenda on 15 June. The criteria to be presented will be specified objectively and based on scientific evidence. This was not only reiterated by President Jean-Claude Juncker in a letter sent in March to President Martin Schulz, but also repeated by myself at several public occasions.

As honourable Members will know, two separate draft measures will be presented simultaneously. As soon as the College endorses these two draft measures, they will be published on the Commission’s website so as to ensure maximum transparency.

Madam President, honourable Members, it is our collective responsibility to make informed decisions in the full awareness of all the consequences of our choices. I therefore hope that together we will adopt the best decision on this very important matter. I would like to say that I have kept it very brief. Thank you, and I will listen to your debate.

  Alojz Peterle, v imenu skupine PPE. – Varovanje državljanov pred nevarnostmi za zdravje je eden od treh strateških ciljev zdravstvene politike Evropske zveze, zato moramo hormonske motilce postaviti v center preventive. Na področju zdravja, kjer lahko zvezo občutneje približamo državljanom, je nujno in dopustno samo dosledno ravnanje Komisije.

Povečana pojavnost kroničnih bolezni, vključno z raki, povezanimi s hormoni, kot sta rak na dojki in rak prostate, ter večje število sladkornih bolnikov in reproduktivnih težav nas zavezuje k ukrepanju.

Še toliko bolj, ker imajo hormonski motilci, ki jih povezujemo z vsem naštetim, velik potencial za nepopravljive učinke, stroški zdravljenja pa so ocenjeni na visokih 150 milijard evrov letno. Ob dejstvu, da so iz več razlogov zdravstvene blagajne že sedaj omejene, je preventivno ravnanje na ravni zveze potrebno in tudi ekonomsko upravičeno.

Na včerajšnji seji delovne skupine za zdravje smo spet slišali znanstveno potrditev škodljivosti določenih kemičnih substanc, ki se ne uporabljajo le v kmetijstvu, še toliko bolj če se med seboj kombinirajo ali če je izpostavljenost dolgotrajna.

Zato močno obžalujem dolgotrajnost postopanja v tej zadevi, kar je obsodilo tudi Evropsko sodišče. Vseeno verjamem, da je bil čas smotrno porabljen in dobro izkoriščen za zbliževanje različnosti stališč, pri oblikovanju kriterijev in da ste, gospod komisar, pri tem igrali aktivno vlogo.

Za več zdravja in vzdržne zdravstvene sisteme so seveda ključne preventivne aktivnosti, v danih razmerah pa je predvsem potrebna delujoča Komisija. Pričakujem torej, da boste ovrgli predlog nezaupnice s predložitvijo dolgo pričakovanih kriterijev v napovedanem roku, to je do poletja. In hvala za odgovor, ki ste ga pravzaprav že dali.

  Jytte Guteland, för S&D-gruppen. – Fru talman! Tack herr kommissionär för beskedet idag och uttalandet inför mötet i juni. Jag är glad över det. Jag är också glad över tillfället att få tala om vetenskapliga kriterier för hormonstörande ämnen.

Men jag vill påminna om den historia vi har. Det här är ett av de mer påfallande fallen där EU-rätten medvetet ignorerats och åsidosatts för andra intressen. I mer än två år har kommissionen fullständigt struntat i att presentera vetenskapliga kriterier fast man sen december 2013 har varit skyldig att lägga fram desamma. Vi måste ha dessa kriterier. De är nödvändiga för att vi ska kunna fortsätta arbetet och fasa ut hälsofarliga kemikalier. Jag ska vara tydlig i det fall budskapet inte har gått fram. Det är oacceptabelt att ignorera skyldigheter som kommissionen är ålagd genom EU-lag. EU:s medborgare, Europaparlamentet, EU-länderna och EU-domstolen förväntar sig att kommissionen respekterar sin plikt genom EU-fördraget, att verka för medborgarnas hälsa, och det är inga bagateller vi talar om.

Hormonstörande ämnen finns överallt omkring oss. De finns i matförpackningar, i våra barns leksaker, i våra kläder, i vårt dricksvatten, och de kopplas samman med en lång rad sjukdomar. Diabetes, olika cancerformer och problem med fertilitet, och det är särskilt illavarslande att små barn och foster är extra känsliga för dessa kemikalier, vars effekter kan visa sig långt senare i livet. Därför är det välkommet att kommissionen nu signalerat att man äntligen kommer att diskutera de vetenskapliga kriterierna i kollegiet i mitten av juni. Kommissionen kan vara säker på att vi är många som kommer att följa det mötet noggrant, och jag vill här mana kommissionen att beakta Europaparlamentets tidigare positioner gällande kriterierna.

Lett av S&D-gruppen har parlamentet upprepade gånger kraftigt motsatt sig kommissionens förslag att införa potens som ett avgränsande kriterium för definitionen av hormonstörande ämnen. En sådan avgränsning skulle på ett otillbörligt sätt begränsa definitionen av hormonstörande ämnen och göra den vetenskapligt bristfällig och därmed oförenlig med klassificeringen av cancerframkallande, mutagena eller reproduktionstoxiska ämnen.

Just att potens inte tillåts bli en vägledande faktor i kriterierna är en nyckelfråga, inte bara för oss i S&D-gruppen och Europaparlamentet utan också för många medlemsstater. Jag vill därför åter igen understryka mycket tydligt för kommissionen att vi inte kommer att acceptera någon sådan modell. Bland de alternativ som analyserades är den färdplan kommissionen publicerade 2014. Då framhölls möjligheterna med ett alternativ utan potens som kriterium. Jag vill uppmana kommissionen att följa den färdplanen. Samtidigt är jag nu förhoppningsfull att det finns goda förutsättningar att kommissionen gör rätt för sig och presenterar dessa kriterier som ger högsta möjliga skydd för människors hälsa.

  Julie Girling, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, I should like to thank the Commissioner for his opening remarks. The Commissioner has accepted the December court ruling and has publicly committed to hastening the adoption of the criterion. I welcome that. In addition, we have legal advice from Parliament’s services which has acknowledged that taking further action against the Commission would be superfluous given that, as soon as the criteria are published, there would no longer be a case.

So I look forward to the work that we will begin in June when we see the criteria. I would just like to take this opportunity to restate my own position, which is that these criteria must be scientifically robust and fit for regulatory purpose. They need to ensure that human health and the environment are protected, taking into account the possible consequences for the agri-food sector and the need to encourage innovation and the development of new plant protection solutions.

Parliament must be serious about supporting the Commission’s initiatives on better regulation and improved evidence-based policy making. Then we should let it complete its work and save our energy for the evaluation and decision making that will follow.

  Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, when I was elected to this Parliament in 2009, I really did not expect to end up in this debate that we are having tonight, a debate in which I have to call upon the Commission, the guardian of the Treaty for the European Union, to respect a ruling of the European Court of Justice and to comply with it.

Let me quote from the legal opinion from the Parliament’s Legal Service, which is really crystal clear – and be aware that people from the Legal Service are the most cautious people on planet Earth, and when they are so crystal clear, there is really something there. Let me quote: ‘There is no doubt that, to date, the Commission has not yet taken the measures required under Article 266 of the Treaty in order to comply with the General Court’s judgment.’

That is more than crystal clear. Simply, the Commission is not complying with the Court’s ruling. So when the Commissioner starts his statement with: ‘Once again we are discussing this topic’, this is not because we as Parliament want to continuously discuss this. It is because the Commission is refusing to comply with the Court’s ruling – the Court’s ruling that was crystal clear in saying that no impact assessment of the social and economic consequences was necessary before the independent scientific criteria would be set.

In the correspondence between President Juncker and President Schulz, President Juncker was still talking about the necessity to first finalise this impact assessment. Commissioner, can you please assure us that the Commission is not going to firstly finalise this impact assessment before setting these scientific criteria? European Union citizens are losing trust in the European Union. So the last thing we need is a European Commission that is not even complying with the Court’s rulings.

  Anja Hazekamp, namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie. – Mevrouw de voorzitter, hormoonverstoorders zijn overal. Ze zitten in conservenblikken, in plastic flessen, in cosmetica, in kassabonnetjes en op bespoten fruit en groenten. En je kunt er heel erg ziek van worden: borstkanker, zaadbalkanker, vruchtbaarheidsproblemen. Dit is slechts een greep uit alle aandoeningen die je ervan kunt krijgen.

Deze week nog luidden artsen de noodklok vanwege deze stoffen in medische hulpmiddelen, zoals infusen en beademingsslangen. Kinderen kunnen hier voor de rest van hun leven ziek van worden.

De Europese Commissie weigert structureel deze ziekmakers van de markt te halen en zet daarmee moedwillig de gezondheid van vijfhonderd miljoen burgers op het spel. Ze negeert daarmee haar eigen wetten en lapt een uitspraak van het Europese Hof aan haar laars. Dat is een groot schandaal.

Mijn fractie heeft vandaag ingestemd met een resolutie over hormoonverstorende stoffen, maar deze Commissie heeft wat mij betreft een veel sterker signaal nodig. Wat mij betreft had deze Commissie hier na vandaag ook niet meer gezeten.

Deze Commissie zit in reservetijd. Mocht de Commissie niet onmiddellijk in actie komen, dan garandeer ik u dat er vóór deze zomer weer een nieuwe motie van wantrouwen komt. En ik ga ervan uit dat de Groenen, de sociaaldemocraten en alle anderen die zeggen volksgezondheid belangrijk te vinden dan niet de andere kant op kijken. Ik heb een duidelijke boodschap aan u, commissaris: u komt hier niet mee weg.

En voorts ben ik van mening dat de Europese landbouwsubsidies moeten worden afgeschaft.

  Bas Eickhout, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, the Commissioner said: ‘Here we are again’, as if we like being here again. The point is that, after several discussions we are having on the issue of endocrine disruptors, Commissioner, you continue to say: ‘We are working on an impact assessment’ and every time when we criticise, you say: ‘But the impact assessment…’. It is not that we are against an impact assessment; the point is, for this required action of the Commission, an impact assessment is not required. And every time you then replied: ‘But what is wrong, are you against an impact assessment?’.

You were always dodging the issue and therefore we asked for another legal opinion. There is a very clear Court ruling saying the Commission is not complying with its own rules. So we asked again for a legal opinion – my colleague Gerbrandy has already quoted from it, so I will take some other quotes just to make it very clear once more: ‘The General Court rejected the Commission's argument that an impact assessment was required’. It has been rejected! And still the spokesperson of the Commission back in December, in response to the General Court's ruling, was saying: ‘We are continuing, we are on track for the impact assessment’. In the letter from Mr Juncker to Mr Schulz, he was also pointing out that: ‘We are here, working on an impact assessment’. And the conclusion from the Legal Service – and that is indeed the same conclusion that Mr Gerbrandy was noting – is that the Commission has not yet taken the measures required under the Treaty.

That is why we are discussing this here again. We want scientific criteria. You are still not delivering on that. That they will be coming in June, it does not matter, you are too late with that, but you are still using the argument that an impact assessment is needed. We think you are ill-advised by your advisers. But it is really crucial to say this: we have to make sure that the Commission is following the rules.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Piernicola Pedicini (EFDD), domanda "cartellino blu". – Ho una blue card per l'onorevole Bas Eickhout.

Vorrei capire in quali circostanze il gruppo dei Verdi sarebbe disposto ad appoggiare una mozione di censura. Cosa deve succedere, per il gruppo dei Verdi, per arrivare ad appoggiare una mozione di censura? Perché mi sembra che ci siano tutte le circostanze, sembra strano che non l'abbiate appoggiata.

  Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – I knew this question would be coming. The point now is that we will get a proposal from the Commission, and then we will have to have a fight on what scientific criteria will be there. For example potency, which all the scientists say is not a scientific criterion – a good reason not to have it in. Will it not be in?

That is a fight that is really about the safety of our citizens. That is the fight we still need to have. So, before we make all kind of symbolic changes, let us first make sure that the right criteria are out there. That is the most important concern of the Greens, and I hope that we can have that fight together, so that we are sure that the right scientific criteria are there. After that discussion let us see what the Commission does.

  Piernicola Pedicini, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, credo innanzitutto che bisognerebbe spiegare ai cittadini che gli interferenti endocrini sono sostanze nocive, in particolare per la salute dei nostri ragazzi durante l'età dello sviluppo. Le possibili patologie correlate sono malattie riproduttive, comportamentali, malattie dell'apprendimento, cancro e, con buona probabilità, anche obesità e diabete.

Ma i cittadini devono sapere anche che la Commissione europea avrebbe dovuto definire la lista di questi interferenti endocrini ma non lo ha fatto. La Commissione è stata quindi condannata dalla Corte di giustizia per il suo mancato adempimento e, nonostante ciò, ha completamente disatteso le disposizioni della Corte di giustizia. Per questo noi abbiamo presentato una mozione di censura, perché un'istituzione non si può permettere di ignorare una sentenza della Corte di giustizia europea.

E allora al gruppo dei popolari, al gruppo dei socialisti, al gruppo ALDE, al gruppo ECR, cioè a tutti colori che non hanno appoggiato la mozione di censura, dico: fino a che punto dovete seguire le indicazioni delle lobby? Com'è possibile arrivare ad accettare anche ciò che supera il limite invalicabile della salute dei cittadini?

Un personale pensiero poi va al gruppo dei Verdi. I Verdi sono quelli che fanno i discorsi più belli qua dentro, peccato però che quello che dicono sia tutto il contrario di ciò che fanno. Io adesso ho capito perché i Verdi sono scomparsi dal panorama politico italiano, onorevole Bas Eickhout. Ai deputati di Podemos e ai comunisti del GUE, che avevano firmato la mozione di censura ma che poi hanno ritirato la firma per non accostare il loro nome a quello della Le Pen, dico che sono completamente fuori dalla storia. Sono come quei giapponesi che continuano a combattere perché nessuno gli ha spiegato che la guerra è finita. E sono convinto che, se avessero la possibilità di salvare una vita umana, prima andrebbero a controllare se da qualche parte c'è la firma della Le Pen. Adesso sono tutti compatti per una risoluzione che sappiamo benissimo che non avrà nessun effetto vincolante su questa Commissione. Per me, siete ridicoli.

A tutti coloro i quali invece hanno firmato la mozione di censura voglio fare il mio personale ringraziamento, voglio ringraziarli perché sono stati capaci di superare quella barriera ideologica che storicamente ci separa e che ci impedisce le cose che pure sono davanti ai nostri occhi. Questa non è una stupida guerra ideologica tra sinistra e destra, questa è una guerra maledetta tra sfruttatori e sfruttati, perciò noi ce ne andiamo a casa a dormire con la coscienza pulita stasera, perché abbiamo fatto il possibile per difendere la salute dei nostri ragazzi. Io non credo che altri possano dire la stessa cosa e, francamente, potervelo dire in faccia non ha prezzo.

  Mireille D'Ornano, au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, les perturbateurs endocriniens sont une menace structurelle grave et généralisée pour la santé des peuples, puisque nos concitoyens sont en contact avec ces substances au quotidien. C'est pourquoi un tel sujet mérite que les institutions européennes, qui se sont dotées de pouvoirs de réglementation et de régulation, prennent de réelles responsabilités. Et en cela, la Commission a failli à sa tâche.

D'une part, la période raisonnable entre la publication du règlement et celle des actes délégués n'est pas respectée. Or, ni la complexité institutionnelle, ni le besoin d'évaluation d'impact ne sont acceptables pour justifier un tel délai face à l'importance du sujet sanitaire. Je fais par ailleurs remarquer que, alors que le règlement européen est directement applicable dans toute l'Union, la Commission se donne le luxe de traîner pour publier des actes délégués. C'est une illustration de l'opacité réglementaire. C'est bien de vouloir mieux légiférer, mais encore faut-il l'appliquer à soi-même.

D'autre part, la gravité du danger exige que l'on ne débatte pas sur la méthode d'évaluation et que l'on n'attende pas d'avoir des preuves manifestes pour agir. Plus grave encore, utiliser une étude d'impact pour tenter de définir des critères de perturbateurs endocriniens avant la publication d'actes délégués revient à détourner le pouvoir réglementaire. La Commission fuit donc ses responsabilités et le dévoilement de ses vraies intentions. Cela participe aussi de la dégradation du sens de la prise de décision, du manque de transparence à la source même de la réglementation et de la dispersion du pouvoir.

La Commission a commis une faute lourde et grave et semble pourtant ignorer les demandes de la Cour de justice. Or, la motion de censure était un acte politique fort pour sanctionner la Commission. Non, cher collègue Lamberts, ce n'est pas un outil disproportionné, cela fait partie des règles du pouvoir et, aujourd'hui, j'ai l'impression que certains groupes peu courageux veulent sortir blanchis de cette affaire, où le Parlement serait bien complice de la Commission pour son inaction. Nous voulons des réponses claires de la Commission sur ces critères et ces fautes.

  Pavel Poc (S&D). – Pane komisaři, 3 roky to trvalo, konečně se dočkáme. Já jsem v osobní rovině hrozně rád, že jste nám dnes přinesl zprávu, že dodržíte své slovo z února tohoto roku. Jsem moc rád a těším se na spolupráci.

Ale Evropská komise, ne Vy osobně, ale Evropská komise nejprve nerespektovala povinnosti, které jí vyplývají z nařízení o dodávání biocidních přípravků na trh. Nepředložila, co měla před 3 lety. Pak Evropská komise nerespektovala rozhodnutí Evropského soudu, zvláštní. Komise sama sebe pasovala do role strážkyně Smluv, takže je na místě pár otázek:

1) Proč se Komise rozhodla nerespektovat rozsudek Evropského soudu a dokončila nebo pracovala na dokončení evropské dopadové studie místo, aby předložila kritéria tak, jak požadoval rozsudek Soudu?

2) Kdo je za toto rozhodnutí zodpovědný? Je to kolegium, jste to Vy osobně, Váš předchůdce, je to předseda Juncker, místopředseda Timmermans, kdo konkrétně? To je odpověď, kterou chceme. Já vím, že ji dnes nedostanu, ale snad jednoho dne ano. Jakým způsobem hodlá Evropská komise použít onu dopadovou studii, když základem pro kritéria musí být věda? Nic jiného.

Poslední, ale nikoli málo důležitá otázka se týká výstupu z vědecké konference pořádané v dubnu letošního roku v Berlíně, kdy se světový experti shodli v tom, že potence není pro identifikaci endokrinních disruptorů relevantním ani vědeckým kritériem. Takže ta moje dnešní klíčová otázka: Hodlá Komise, mám na mysli především komisaře a super komisaře, kteří nemají endokrinní disruptory v portfoliu, vzít v úvahu tento vědecký konsensus při rozhodování o tom, která z road map bude nakonec vybrána?

  Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – Mevrouw de voorzitter, het Europees Parlement blijft op hetzelfde hameren. De wetenschappelijke criteria voor hormoonverstoorders moeten er komen. Gezondheid, geloof me, staat voor elke burger bovenaan de prioriteitenlijst. De problematiek leeft daarom steeds meer, en begrijpelijk: heel wat studies linken de toename van onder andere kankergevallen, diabetes, obesitas en onvruchtbaarheid aan de blootstelling aan hormoonverstorende stoffen.

In februari beloofde u dat de Commissie nog vóór de zomer met voorstellen zou komen. Die zomer die begon zowat in mei, zo luidt de tekst van een populaire Nederlandse song. Ik heb goed naar u geluisterd, het wordt half juni. Oké, dat is nog net vóór het begin van de échte zomer en de langste dag van het jaar. Maar het is in elk geval echt vijf voor twaalf. De deadline van december 2013 ligt al tweeënhalf jaar achter ons. De Commissie moet woord houden. Dat is ze aan de burgers verschuldigd. Het gaat over geloofwaardigheid en vertrouwen. En de onzekerheid heeft lang genoeg geduurd, zowel voor consumenten als voor producenten.

(De spreker gaat in op een "blauwe kaart"-vraag (artikel 162, lid 8, van het Reglement))

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Köszönöm szépen a lehetőséget, Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Képviselő úrnak is majd az esetleges választ! Ebben az esetben Ön egy nagyon szép idősávot vezetett végig, hogy kb. mi várható. De azért én úgy emlékszem, hogy ebben az ülésteremben már nem egy hasonló esettel szembesültünk. És mindig, mindig, mindig valamilyen ipari érdekek sejlettek fel a háttérben. Ön hogy gondolja, hogyan lehetne ezzel a lobbierővel szembeszállni? Mert szerintem most már több a gyakorisága ennek az elviselhetőnél.

  Mark Demesmaeker (ECR), "blauwe kaart"-antwoord. – Ja, ik geef de collega natuurlijk gelijk. We hebben in het verleden inderdaad betreurenswaardige voorbeelden gezien. Daarom heb ik de Commissie ook een schot voor de boeg gegeven en gezegd: kijk, het is nu echt vijf voor twaalf. We hebben de belofte gehoord in februari, voor de zomer. Het wordt nu half juni. Dat is net voor de zomer. We houden de commissaris natuurlijk aan die belofte, maar we geven hem ook alle kansen.

  Kateřina Konečná (GUE/NGL). – Pojďme si shrnout fakty a já ještě pár faktů přidám k tomu, co jsme tu před chvílí slyšeli od kolegů.

Endokrinní distruptory způsobují rakovinu, mají dopad na plodnost, dokonce mají vliv i na obezitu. I kdybych si odmyslela tisíce lidí, které každoročně tyto látky zabíjí, což nemohu, tak jen samotný předpokládány ekonomický dopad vystavování lidí v EU těmto látkám má být 2x vyšší, než je dopad znečištění rtutí a olovem. Proto bylo přijato nařízení č. 528/2012 o zákazu používání těchto látek.

Co se stalo? Nic, čekáme. Čekáme minimálně 2 roky, pane komisaři, kdy jste ve své funkci. Já chápu, že tady v Parlamentu máte silnou podporu, ale Vy si musíte uvědomit, že v důsledku těchto scházejících kritérií musíme právě my tady v Parlamentu řešit reautorizaci nebezpečných látek, jako jsou ftaláty, glyfosát apod., salámovou metodou, ad hoc námitkami, hrát si na detektivy a vědce, aby se alespoň trochu ochránilo zdraví evropské populace. Já si myslím, že toho nejste hodni ani vy ani my. My všichni společně musíme začít konečně něco dělat a vy dělejte.

  Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, seven years ago this Parliament gave the Commission a legally binding mandate to come up with the endocrine disruptor criteria before 2013. So this deadline passed three years ago but the list is still not ready, and the General Court has stated that the Commission is currently in breach of EU law.

Both old and new inter-institutional agreements clearly say that impact assessments are not a substitute for political decisions. They must not lead to undue delays in the law-making process. But still the Commission is neglecting its duties and is tinkering with an impact assessment, thus violating both the inter-institutional agreement and the treaties when doing so.

Could the Commission, by the way, confirm if it is true that it was the TTIP negotiations, and the US negotiating position, that actually made the drafting of endocrine disruptor criteria so inconvenient? I hope that this is not true, because I would find it unbearable if the Commission is ignoring the Court decision for the interests of the US industries.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, con un ritardo di oltre due anni e dopo una condanna della Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea, i nuovi criteri per la definizione degli interferenti endocrini dovrebbero essere a breve resi pubblici, almeno si spera.

Tutta la discussione sui criteri scientifici verte su un termine: l'industria chiede di inserire il criterio della "potenza" nella normativa, mentre gruppi di interesse e pubblici chiedono a gran voce che esso venga escluso. Esistono sostanze la cui potenza come interferenti endocrini è bassa, ma che fanno registrare un'esposizione quotidiana molto alta – si pensi ad esempio ai pesticidi – e ci sono altri composti, invece, che hanno una potenza molto alta, ma che si trovano in concentrazioni molto basse, al punto tale che la salute umana ne sarebbe meno intaccata. Permettere la messa in commercio degli interferenti endocrini con bassa potenza sarebbe gravissimo, in quanto risulterebbe essere rischioso per l'esposizione ad essi che li trasforma in veleni mortali.

Sono quindi nettamente contrario ai tentativi della Commissione di introdurre il criterio della potenza per definire gli interferenti endocrini, ciò limiterebbe in modo inappropriato la definizione di "interferente endocrino", rendendolo scientificamente inconsistente e incompatibile con la classificazione delle sostanze cancerogene.

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κυρία πρόεδρε, δεν ακούσαμε και πολλά από την Επιτροπή για τους ενδοκρινικούς διαταράκτες και αυτό μας ανησυχεί ιδιαίτερα. Οι ενδοκρινικοί διαταράκτες είναι χημικές ουσίες που παρεμβαίνουν στο ορμονικό σύστημα και προκαλούν διαταραχές στη γονιμότητα, προκαλούν νεοπλασίες και διάφορες μορφές καρκίνου.

Οι ουσίες αυτές βρίσκονται σε πολλά προϊόντα που χρησιμοποιούν καθημερινά οι καταναλωτές, οι οποίοι όμως δεν γνωρίζουν καν την ύπαρξή τους στα προϊόντα αυτά. Βρίσκονται στα παιχνίδια, στα τρόφιμα, ακόμη και στο νερό. Πέρασαν ήδη δύο χρόνια κύριε Επίτροπε, παντελούς αδράνειας της Επιτροπής για τη λήψη μέτρων της προστασίας της δημόσιας υγείας των Ευρωπαίων καταναλωτών, αν και όφειλε να το πράξει.

Πρέπει λοιπόν να ληφθούν μέτρα για την αδειοδότηση και τους περιορισμούς των ουσιών αυτών στα προϊόντα. Εδώ και τώρα, λοιπόν, κύριε Επίτροπε, να συμμορφωθεί η Επιτροπή με την απόφαση του Δικαστηρίου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για τους ενδοκρινικούς διαταράκτες.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine povjereniče, zašto se čeka? Zašto se čekaju dvije godine? Imamo jasnu odluku Europskog suda. Zašto čekamo? Pa zar nam zdravlje građana ipak nije najbitnije? Svi znamo da endokrini disruptori utječu na zdravlje građana, na najteže oblike oboljenja građana, kao što su rak dojke, drugi oblici, hormonalni poremećaji.

Znamo koji su problemi s kojima se suočavamo kada koristimo različite proizvode, kada se sve to koristi i u poljoprivredi. Zar zaista gospodine povjereniče moramo čekati? Stavite se u ulogu Parlamenta. Parlament ne može čekati i vjerujem da Vi razumijete da mi ne možemo čekati.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I have listened closely to the debate and have taken careful note of your views.

First of all, my simple answer about responsibility: I am responsible. Please tell me if I am wrong. I am responsible, I am honest and I will continue my job with responsibility, yes, because I am responsible for the Commission being in delay. Is that enough? Is it clear?

Second, I would like to mention about scientific opinions. You mentioned scientists in common positions, speaking about potency and other things. Now, it was my intention to invite different scientists, to organise several debates, and then to organise a platform and today they have a common position. Of course in this position many issues are on the table.

Some of you raised questions about the issue that the Commission is in delay. Yes, of course. We started with a roadmap, with four options. It started with possibilities to deal with, how to describe and define, final scientific criteria. Interim scientific criteria are in place and you know this very well. And the Commission follows interim criteria.

Some of you spoke about how to regulate. All things related to the Plant Protection Regulation and the Biocidal Products Regulation are under Commission supervision and we follow interim criteria, and our consumers are protected in this area. We must tell the truth to our society but not feed fear. We need scientific criteria, not politically-based criteria. It is completely different.

In my hands is the document about those chemicals from 2012. You know it very well. It is a very good summary, a very good study, which shows how it is important. As you know, my professional background is as a medical doctor. I am very much interested in endocrine disruptors criteria. I know much more related to some problems which were just mentioned.

OK, we will keep in mind that we need very scientific and very reasonable criteria. Of course some of you mentioned the impact assessment. The impact assessment is one thing. But I started to debate about how to describe final criteria and it takes time. Two parallel processes were together, and of course an impact assessment helps us to make very informed decisions. This is also OK. I fully agree with the Court’s decision. Absolutely. But the Court was not against the impact assessment. The Court decision was very clear. Despite the impact assessment, despite different scientific opinion, the Commission must present final criteria. Of course the Commission was in delay, and we are ready to do our best and to present those criteria to you on 15 June once again.

And then it will be good to have not politically-based arguments but scientifically-based ones and I am ready to debate scientifically. And of course it has nothing to do with TTIP, absolutely. This is also a political argument to feed a lobby, industrial fears and so on, but it is not serious. The serious argument is that it is a very complex job. It is very difficult speaking about WHO scientists, about different scientific bodies, it is not so easy to present those criteria, and I am ready to do my best and present those criteria, of course, in line with the Biocidal Products Regulation and in line with the Pesticide Protection Regulation.

President. – The debate is closed.

  Sylvie Goddyn (ENF), par écrit. – Le 16 décembre dernier, la Commission européenne a été condamnée pour ne pas avoir proposé de définition des perturbateurs endocriniens. Cette définition est pourtant indispensable pour une règlementation. Présents dans de nombreux produits phytosanitaires et alimentaires, ces molécules sont à l'origine de nombreux problèmes de santé. Il était du devoir de la Commission de protéger la santé des Européens; elle a préféré défendre les intérêts des lobbys industriels.

En réaction à ce manquement, une motion de censure contre la Commission, avait été déposée et a malheureusement échoué. Seule cette motion était de nature à mettre la pression sur la Commission. Mais au lieu de ça, on nous propose ici une résolution, sans valeur obligatoire. C'est une tentative d'enfumage. Il s'agit pour ceux qui n'ont pas demandé la censure de faire croire aux Européens qu'ils se préoccupent de la santé publique. Les députés patriotes ne participeront pas à cette mascarade.

Cette résolution est une mauvaise opération de communication à destination des crédules. Pendant ce temps, rien n'est fait pour protéger la santé des Européens.

  Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – O Tribunal de Justiça da UE considerou que a Comissão Europeia infringiu o direito comunitário ao não respeitar o prazo de publicação das normas de comercialização de químicos nocivos para a saúde, como o bisfenol A, pesticidas ou solventes. A sentença do tribunal não inclui uma multa, mas obriga que o documento relativo aos critérios científicos para determinar a nocividade dos chamados disruptores endócrinos seja adotado o mais rapidamente possível.

Na origem da decisão está o processo aberto pela Suécia contra a Comissão, que deveria ter aprovado as normas no final de 2013. Dois anos de atraso denunciados por várias associações europeias que falam de um problema de saúde pública, quando os disruptores endócrinos estarão na origem de várias doenças como cancros ou mesmo o aumento da infertilidade. Este é mais um sinal sobre os interesses que são defendidos por estas instituições.