 |  |  |  |
 |
|
|
Brussels, 22 March 2001
 Animal testing ban for cosmetics |
|
|
The marketing of cosmetics ingredients tested on animals is supposed to have been prohibited since 1998. This was decided in 1993 when the sixth amendment to the relevant directive was adopted. However, so far the ban has not come into effect. The main reasons cited by the Commission are the lack of alternative testing methods - only three have been validated so far - and the problem of WTO compliance. The Commission has now drafted the seventh amendment to the cosmetics directive, in which it proposes to ban the performance of tests on animals but not the marketing of products which have been tested on animals. The ban on testing will cover both finished products and ingredients. On Tuesday the Environment Committee unanimously adopted a report by Dagmar ROTH-BEHRENDT (PES, D) amending important parts of the proposal. At the beginning of the vote, two MEPs – Karl-Heinz FLORENZ and Marialiese FLEMMING (both EPP-ED) – withdrew an amendment calling for the complete rejection of the proposal on the ground that the existing directive was satisfactory and that the seventh amendment was a retrograde step. However, they announced they would table this amendment again in plenary. The amendments adopted by the committee would preserve the ban on marketing. The committee wants the ban to come into force immediately for ingredients where other validated testing methods exist, and in any case five years after the adoption of the directive. To ensure WTO compliance, producers in third countries would have to be treated in a way equivalent to Community producers, with no discriminatory treatment. The committee calls for funding from the Sixth Framework Research Programme for the development of new non-animal testing methods. It also wants the ingredients of cosmetic products to be listed in full. In line with the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products, the committee also adopted an amendment calling for fragrance allergens to be labelled. MEPs believe that a total ban is not necessary but that labelling is essential for consumers who need to avoid allergens. Ms Roth-Behrendt rejected accusations that this directive would represent a violation of WTO regulations. She referred to the recently adopted US "dog and cat fur act", a law prohibiting the production and the importing of fur products from cats and dogs. The justification given for the act is that such products are detrimental to public moral standards and to animal protection. The same moral standards, she argued, should refer to testing on animals. The report is scheduled for debate under the codecision procedure, first reading, at Parliament's April part-session in Strasbourg. 20.03.2001 Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection Press enquiries: |
| Manufacturers to pay for harmful effects of PVC |
|
|
PVC has come under fire, with its effects on human health and the environment being linked, for example, to fertility problems and emissions of highly toxic dioxins. The Commission has responded to these worries by publishing a Green Paper on environmental issues relating to PVC. The Green Paper has two objectives: firstly, to make a scientific assessment of the environmental impact of PVC throughout its lifecycle; secondly, to consider a number of options to reduce the most serious effects. The Green Paper looks at PVC products, the use of additives and waste management. The Committee for the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy adopted by a large majority on Tuesday a report on the Green Paper by Guido SACCONI (PES, I) in which it calls for the "polluter pays" principle to apply to PVC waste so that PVC producers are charged for any additional costs generated by the presence of PVC in waste (a need for better filter equipment, costs caused by corrosion, etc.). Owing to the problems PVC causes during incineration, the committee wants the Commission to bring forward legislation requiring separate waste collection of PVC products. The report also calls for research in the field of incineration, to include ways of recovering harmful hydrogen chloride. Hard and soft PVC, it says, should be separated, with hard PVC being landfilled because of its high chlorine content and soft PVC being incinerated as otherwise there is a risk that phthalates will be released. Additives often used in PVC, such as cadmium and lead, are toxic. The committee regards the undertakings given by the PVC industry in this area as insufficient and therefore wants Community legislation to phase out cadmium and lead-based stabilisers and to ban imports of them from third countries. On the subject of phthalates, which are often used as plasticisers (for manufacturing flexible PVC products) but are suspected of mimicking hormones and causing fertility problems, the committee wants the Commission to examine alternatives and establish targets to reduce their use, particularly in medical equipment. The committee regrets that the Commission has not carried out any lifecycle analysis of PVC products and alternative products and says this could be a field for research within the Sixth Framework Research Programme. It calls on the Commission to bring forward a long-term horizontal strategy involving the introduction of substitution policies. The committee wants the percentage of PVC waste which is recycled to be increased and therefore calls for research in the area of chemical recycling. It suggests a recycling model on the basis of the end-of-life vehicles directive. It also proposes the introduction of compulsory marking so that PVC can be distinguished more easily from other plastic waste to facilitate recycling. However, it believes legislation should only be adopted if precise objectives for the recovery of waste cannot be met through voluntary commitments by industry. Parliament will vote on the report at its April part- session in Strasbourg. 20.03.2001 Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection Press enquiries: |
| Commission's views on regulation of breast implants |
|
|
The Commission's views on the regulation of breast implants were the subject of a discussion between MEPs and Commissioner Erkki LIIKANEN at a meeting of the Petitions Committee on Wednesday. The discussion was partly based on two petitions to the committee from members of the public affected by or concerned about silicone breast implants. Further research, said Mr Liikanen, should be carried out into the possible - though admittedly unlikely - links between silicone implants and cancer. Patients should be given all available information on the pros and cons of breast implants to minimise the risk of complications. The Commissioner wanted all Member States to take this matter seriously. He added that in the past few months the Commission had been considering what requirements to impose on implants available on the market. He was glad to be able to hear Parliament's views on the matter because the Commission was due to publish its paper on the subject soon. Most members of the committee felt that strict regulation of breast implants would be a better alternative than a total ban, although a ban was precisely what Bill MILLER (PES, UK) did want. The question was asked why silicone implants should be used at all when alternatives existed. MEPs made four other main demands: patients to be provided with detailed information, strict rules to be adhered to on regular post-op monitoring, each Member State to keep a national register of implants listing technical specifications supplied by manufacturers, and a ban to be imposed on implants in women under 18 years of age. Roy PERRY (EPP-ED, UK) said that in extreme cases breast implants could have considerable psychological and physical benefits for women who felt they needed this type of operation. Margot KESSLER (PES, D) stressed the need for patients to be given neutral information, a view shared by Proinsias DE ROSSA (PES, IRL), who argued that such information should come from surgeons themselves, as their opinion was essential. Winding up, Mr Liikanen said that national registers of implants and the question of an age limit for this type of operation were matters for the Member States. The Commission could, however, take action to ensure the safety of products used within the EU. Lastly he told the committee that the Commission's paper should be ready before the summer once all outstanding issues had been examined (research, legal aspects, etc.). The Petitions Committee also announced that it would table a motion for a resolution on this subject at Parliament's May part-session in Strasbourg. 21.03.2001 Committee on Petitions |
| Commission gives replies on the Fléchard case |
|
|
Several current and former Commissioners appeared before the Budgetary Control Committee on 20 and 21 March to answer MEPs' questions about the Fléchard butter fraud case. Peter SCHMIDHUBER and René STEICHEN, Commissioners for the Budget and Agriculture respectively in the early 1990s, together with current Commissioners LAMY, FISCHLER and SCHREYER, appeared in turn before the committee to speak about this case involving fraudulent butter exports to the ex-USSR and known by the name of the accused company, Fléchard. The Commission had given MEPs its replies to questions on the Fléchard case sent to it by the Budgetary Control Committee on 28 February. The questions had been drawn up by the four MEPs on the working party set up by the Budgetary Control Committee to look into the matter (Mr Blak, Mr Bösch, Mr Mulder and Ms Stauner). The working party was created as part of the follow-up to Parliament's resolution of July 2000 granting discharge to the Commission for the 1998 budget. The resolution called for the Budgetary Control Committee to continue to look into the case and to examine, as part of the 1999 discharge procedure, general issues relating to the retroactive application of Community law, the criteria for applying the principle of proportionality in financial corrections etc. Mr Schmidhuber and Mr Steichen sought to place the decision to impose a 3 million ECU fine on Fléchard in the context both of the period and of the way the Commission functioned at the time. They said that, in the absence of evidence of fraudulent action by the firm in question and once the decision to impose the fine had been agreed by Financial Control, the matter was regarded as closed. In addition, this type of issue was "one of a number" for which an agreement needed to be found on the amount to be recovered. According to Mr Steichen, however, a higher fine could have been imposed in 1993 on the basis of the rules then in force (the regulation in question was amended in July 1993, allowing for a more lenient fine). "I am not criticising the agreement between these departments", he said. "This is just my personal view". A number of MEPs asked the questions: What lessons has the Commission learnt from the Fléchard case? What would it do differently today? What is the Commission doing to ensure such cases do not happen again? Commissioner Lamy said that the fine imposed was the outcome of a judgment made at the time regarding the facts and their consequences. There was no substantive proof of fraudulent intent by the firm. "This case boils down to a matter of judgment and, at the time, we acted accordingly", he said, before going on to explain that the requirement for a security of 17.6 million ECU to be lodged was designed chiefly to guard against the risk of the butter being brought back and sold on the Community market. He explained the calculation made to arrive at the level of the fine which was imposed in the end. "The final agreement between departments on the level of the fine was approved by Financial Control", he said. The three directorates-general involved (agriculture, financial control and the legal service) were present at the conciliation meeting of 7 January 1994. He added "The context of the procedures could, I admit, be criticised." He felt that the case would serve to ensure that, following the reform of the Commission, "everyone's responsibilities are clearly defined". He was convinced that, as far as the financial accountability of the Commission was concerned, "the nuts and bolts have been tightened up and the financial system today is much more reliable". Commissioner Fischler described the internal reorganisation of DG VI (agriculture) since 1995 as regards controls, anti-fraud measures (the creation of UCLAF and more recently OLAF) and procedures for the recovery of funds. He too believed that the procedures could be improved by establishing clear objectives but he stressed that the difficulties should not be underestimated. Within the administrative procedures, it was essential to act "proportionately". Nowadays, whenever the Commission received information about suspected cases of fraud, it referred the case immediately to OLAF, which could decide independently what enquiries to carry out. OLAF was also responsible for contacts with the authorities in the Member States. Commissioner Schreyer said that when determining the level of the fine to be imposed on Fléchard, the Commission had believed that the decisions taken were in line with the principle of proportionality. "In 1994, a settlement was reached in the light of the information available to the Commission and the ruling by the High Court of Ireland..." "Clearly we would have acted differently today: the Commission is required to refer cases to OLAF, which decides whether to undertake an investigation". The Commissioner also pointed to the numerous changes in laws and regulations since 1995. She stressed the importance of the changes currently being introduced, as part of the reforms at the Commission, in the areas of financial control and auditing. On the subject of a European Public Prosecutor, she pointed out that the Commission's proposal had not been accepted by the Nice European Council. She added that the Commission, with OLAF's cooperation, was preparing a Green Paper on the subject. This was due to be ready by the end of the year so as to enable discussions to resume with the Member States with the aim of completing the talks in time for the amendment of the Treaty in 2004. The Budgetary Control Committee will discuss the amendments to the Blak report on the 1999 discharge in the light of today's discussions with the Commissioners. The report will be adopted on 27 March. 22.03.2001 Committee on Budgetary Control Press enquiries: |
| Fines on Greece brought to an end after € 4.78 million |
|
|
The case of the polluting waste dump at Kouroupitos in Crete can be regarded as closed. Greece was condemned on 4 July 2000 to pay a fine of € 20,000 a day because the dump near Hania did not meet standards laid down by EU legislation. On March 8 Greece informed the Commission that the dump had been closed down on February 26. The Commission has checked this information and has now been able to confirm the closure of the dump. This means that Greece has to pay € 4,780,000 in total, of which € 3,600,000 has already been paid. The Commission expects to receive the outstanding sums for January and February in April and May respectively. Greece also announced that the first stage of the clean-up of the site had now begun. A new provisional installation for the temporary storage of waste had been opened and preparations for a permanent waste management scheme put in hand. Construction of both a composting plant and a landfill site should begin in late summer. In a lively debate, MEPs asked the Commission representative about other cases of non-compliance with Community environmental legislation. Air quality and urban waste water treatment were among the examples given. Committee chair Caroline JACKSON (EPP-ED, UK) wanted to know when action would be taken against Belgium in respect of the Brussels waste water problem. The Commission representative answered that infringement cases would be brought against any Member State guilty of non-compliance. MEPs took the opportunity to step up their demand for a list of Member States who should be named and shamed. Several MEPs proposed inviting the Commission representative to the committee's monthly meetings on a regular basis to report on ongoing infringement proceedings. More naming and shaming on the horizon? 21.03.2001 Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection Press enquiries: |
| Paving the way for mobility for teachers, students and voluntary workers |
|
|
A recommendation for second reading on the Council’s common position concerning mobility within the Community for students, persons undergoing training, young volunteers, teachers and trainers received overwhelming support across the political spectrum within the Culture Committee on Thursday. In its common position the Council has already incorporated 37 of Parliament’s 56 first-reading amendments tabled in October 2000. Parliament’s rapporteur Robert EVANS (PES, UK) accepts the Commission’s view that, unfortunately, researchers cannot be included in the recommendation because of the legal basis. In its amended proposal the Commission had stated that it prefers to issue a separate document on the needs of researchers as part of the follow-up to its communication on the European research area. The committee welcomes an important development since Parliament’s first reading, i.e. the Action Plan on Mobility agreed by the Council in December 2000. This Action Plan is conceived as a "toolbox" of 42 concrete measures designed to identify and deal with obstacles to mobility, thus complementing the proposed recommendation. A small number of amendments at second reading are intended to clarify what follow-up action is expected of both the Commission and the Member States, to take due account of the Action Plan on mobility agreed at the Nice summit and to remove from the Council’s text the potentially harmful restriction whereby a temporary stay in the host state would be restricted to "one year in principle". The debate on this report is scheduled for the May part-session in Strasbourg. 22.03.2001 Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport Press enquiries: |
| Environment Committee demands EUR 500 million for public health programme |
|
|
The Environment Committee is demanding that the funding for implementing the Community action programme on public health (2001-2006) be EUR 500 million instead of the EUR 300 million proposed by the Commission. The committee shared the view of rapporteur Antonios TRAKATELLIS (EPP-ED, GR) that 300 million was clearly insufficient to meet the ambitious objectives set out in the programme. MEPs also felt the budget should be increased because part of it had already been committed to extending existing programmes. Although the Commission's action programme was welcomed as such, Members felt that a major weakness was the absence of a coordinating centre. The committee therefore adopted an amendment by Mr Trakatellis proposing that a European Health Coordination and Monitoring Centre (EHCMC) be set up to collect, monitor and evaluate data and to coordinate measures and projects under the programme. In addition, MEPs stress that the applicant states should be closely involved in the planning and implementation of the programme. The committee also adopted a large number of amendments aiming to beef up the programme, calling for special support to be given to measures for dealing with major health issues and areas such as cardiovascular diseases, neuropsychiatric disorders, cancer, unintentional injuries (accidents), infant and child health, women's health, degenerative diseases of the nervous system associated with ageing, respiratory diseases, diabetes and diseases such as HIV/AIDS. The report (codecision procedure, first reading) is scheduled for the April plenary session in Strasbourg. 20.03.2001 Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection Press enquiries: |
| Last updated: 22 March 2001 | Legal notice |