Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 40kWORD 18k
4 April 2019
E-001666-19
Question for written answer E-001666-19
to the Commission
Rule 130
Guillaume Balas (S&D)

 Subject:  Endocrine disruptors: new report states that the Commission's response is inadequate
 Answer in writing 

Scientists are continuing to warn that the resources the EU makes available to implement its strategy on endocrine disruptors are not sufficient to reduce public exposure to these substances.

On 2 April 2019, during their presentation to the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions, researchers from the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) and the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) proposed a common definition of endocrine disruptors and highlighted the risks they pose.

Their chemical properties often make it impossible to determine at what level of exposure symptoms begin to occur because even small doses can trigger an endocrine response. The lack of consistency in current European legislation increases the risk to public health and allows scope for widespread public exposure to these substances.

1. Does the Commission plan to move towards a common definition of endocrine disruptors based on scientific data relating to, for example, pesticides, biocides, drinking water, cosmetics, toys, occupational exposure, food additives and even substances in contact with food?

2. Does it intend to establish a set of detailed, mandatory tests that all products must pass if they are to be placed on — or not removed from — the market?

Original language of question: FR 
Last updated: 17 April 2019Legal notice