Doslovný zápis z rozpráv

Pondelok, 9. marca 2015 - Štrasburg

15. Kritériá pre určenie endokrinných disruptorov (rozprava)

  Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung an die Kommission über Kriterien zur Erfassung endokriner Disruptoren von Nicola Caputo, Pavel Poc, Jo Leinen, Michèle Rivasi, Bart Staes, Soledad Cabezón Ruiz, Renata Briano, Elena Gentile, Pina Picierno, Renato Soru, Giulia Moi, Dario Tamburrano, Eleonora Evi, Marco Affronte, Rosa D'Amato, Barbara Kappel, Eric Andrieu, Nicolas Bay, Maite Pagazaurtundúa Ruiz, Fabio Massimo Castaldo, Laura Agea, Laura Ferrara, Isabella Adinolfi, Tiziana Beghin, Marco Zullo, Marco Valli, Ignazio Corrao, Fredrick Federley, Jana Žitňanská, Jean-Luc Schaffhauser, Patricija Šulin, Daciana Octavia Sârbu, Tibor Szanyi, Ricardo Serrão Santos, Christel Schaldemose, Marc Tarabella, Maria Arena, Nessa Childers, Biljana Borzan, José Blanco López, Iratxe García Pérez, Matt Carthy, Kostas Chrysogonos, Lynn Boylan, Anja Hazekamp, Paloma López Bermejo, Enrico Gasbarra, Alessia Maria Mosca, Mercedes Bresso, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Martin Häusling, Karin Kadenbach, Sylvie Goddyn, Mireille D'Ornano, Ivan Jakovčić, Pascal Durand, Diane James, Molly Scott Cato, Margrete Auken, Rolandas Paksas, Valentinas Mazuronis, Benedek Jávor, Yannick Jadot, Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (O-000017/2015 - B8-0107/2015) (2015/2605(RSP)).

  Nicola Caputo, Autore. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'interrogazione orale presentata con la condivisione e il consenso di molti colleghi, che ringrazio, prende ispirazione dall'articolo sugli interferenti endocrini pubblicato dal giornale inglese The Guardian lo scorso 2 febbraio. L'articolo denuncia l'insabbiamento da parte della Commissione europea della proposta che la DG Ambiente aveva preparato nel 2013 e che avrebbe portato all'elaborazione dei criteri per classificare una sostanza come interferente endocrino, avviando quindi una nuova strategia in materia.

Con questa proposta la DG Ambiente, ai sensi dell'articolo 5 del regolamento dell'Unione europea riguardante l'immissione sul mercato e l'uso di biocidi, vincolava la Commissione a definire i criteri per l'identificazione delle sostanze con proprietà di interferenti endocrini entro il 13 dicembre 2013. Tuttavia, a seguito di pressioni esterne ma anche provenienti da altre direzioni generali della Commissione, la proposta della DG Ambiente sembrerebbe essere stata bloccata e sostituita da una valutazione d'impatto, che purtroppo non sarà finalizzata prima del 2016, provvedimento che appare quindi strumentalmente finalizzato ad aggirare l'obbligo di presentare i criteri.

A quanto detto si aggiungono ulteriori criticità riguardanti la tabella di marcia preparata in vista della valutazione d'impatto. In essa la Commissione ha inserito un'opzione che concerne l'introduzione di deroghe socioeconomiche per l'immissione sul mercato di sostanze contenenti interferenti endocrini, lasciando quindi campo aperto, per esempio, all'uso dei pesticidi.

Considerando che nella sua relazione del gennaio 2013 il Parlamento aveva sostenuto con forza che l'autorizzazione di sostanze che contengono interferenti endocrini dovrebbe essere limitata, chiedo alla Commissione per quale motivo e chi ha autorizzato le deroghe per l'immissione sul mercato di tali sostanze. Nell'articolo del Guardian si sosteneva che ben trentuno pesticidi avrebbero potuto essere vietati, causando evidenti e rilevanti ricadute economiche negative a carico dell'industria. È facilmente intuibile come l'elaborazione dei criteri per definire gli interferenti endocrini avrebbe avuto conseguenze economiche non solo sul settore dei pesticidi ma su una vastissima serie di altri prodotti con i quali impattiamo nella nostra vita quotidiana e che contengono interferenti endocrini: imballaggi, prodotti per la cura della pelle, cosmetici, materiali per l'edilizia, apparecchiature elettroniche, mobili e pavimenti.

E quali sono invece i costi della mancata elaborazione dei criteri per la salute dei cittadini europei? Essi sembrano essere molto alti. È infatti dimostrato che negli ultimi vent'anni l'aumento di cancro, infertilità, pubertà precoce, malattie cardiovascolari e anomalie fetali e genitali può essere in qualche modo associato con l'esposizione a sostanze chimiche che agiscono come interferenti endocrini. Anche i costi in termini di spese sanitarie e della minore produttività a livello comunitario risentono della mancata elaborazione dei criteri. Secondo un recente studio infatti essi raggiungono i centocinquantasette miliardi di euro.

Va da sé che la presentazione dei criteri potrebbe quindi portare benefici importanti sia per la salute dei cittadini che per il sistema sanitario europeo. Come intende quindi la Commissione tener conto dei potenziali benefici che l'introduzione dei criteri potrebbe avere nella sua valutazione d'impatto? E inoltre, la Commissione ha intenzione di condurre ulteriori studi sui benefici che possono derivare dall'introduzione dei suddetti criteri?

Considerando poi che l'elaborazione dei criteri non avverrà in tempi celeri, vorrei sapere se la Commissione ha per lo meno intenzione di sensibilizzare l'opinione pubblica sul tema degli interferenti endocrini, presentando per esempio delle raccomandazioni ai cittadini utili a ridurre l'esposizione agli stessi. Ritengo infatti che nell'attesa dell'elaborazione dei criteri vadano al più presto sviluppate delle linee guida a livello europeo per far fronte a questo inquinamento silenzioso, troppo poco considerato dall'opinione pubblica e dai cittadini, che allo stato attuale non dispongono delle informazioni sufficienti per tutelare la loro salute.

Io stesso, peraltro, mi sono fatto interprete di queste esigenze di chiarezza, sensibilizzazione e tutela con una mia interrogazione nell'ottobre 2014, nella quale ho espresso viva preoccupazione per la presenza di ftalati interferenti endocrini connessi a problemi di salute di allarmante portata, anche nei giocattoli e negli articoli per bambini, al fine di migliorarne la flessibilità, modellabilità e durabilità. Essi hanno peraltro estesissime applicazioni e sono presenti in cosmetica come fissatori, nell'industria sanitaria e farmaceutica ed in numerose altre applicazioni industriali.

Infine, la recente ricerca sul bisfenolo A ha dimostrato la necessità di un maggiore coordinamento a livello europeo sui programmi dedicati agli interferenti endocrini. Faccio infatti fatica a capire come sia possibile che l'agenzia nazionale francese per la sicurezza alimentare abbia presentato tra il 2013 e il 2014 studi allarmanti su questa sostanza e gli esperti europei abbiano invece recentemente stabilito che l'esposizione al bisfenolo A non presenta alcun rischio per le persone.

Quindi, per tutto quanto sopra, non ritiene la Commissione necessario istituire un centro di ricerca sugli interferenti endocrini per effettuare attività di ricerca su tali sostanze e coordinare le conoscenze in materia a livello dell'Unione europea come aveva proposto il Parlamento nella sua risoluzione del 2013?

  Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I am pleased to attend this plenary session today to discuss with you the issue of endocrine disruptors.

I would like to start by quoting Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. ‘A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities.’ This is a fundamental rule applicable to all our policies. The issue of endocrine disruptors reaches to the core of this principle. Therefore, I would like to assure you that, as Commissioner for Health and Food Safety and all the more as a medical doctor, I will only make decisions which respect this very principle; there can be no compromises on health.

Now let us turn to your question. Endocrine disruptors are a highly complex issue. The decision that we take will have a significant impact on health, the environment, agriculture, trade and on a wide range of other sectors. Therefore, this is a priority file for me and my services. I would like to start by clarifying the current situation and its genesis as regards endocrine disruptors, rather than commenting on an article in The Guardian which refers to some so-called EU paper, on which I cannot respond.

To date, the Commission has not adopted or published any official Commission document on the issue of defining endocrine-disrupting chemicals. I would like to present the work that I have been doing since the beginning of my mandate, which started four months ago, as well as explain my intentions for the future.

Back in June 2014, the Commission defined a road map for the development of the criteria for endocrine disruptors. The road map, which I need to respect and follow, describes the legislative background and policy options that will be evaluated for the endocrine disruptors in the disruptors criteria. The road map also makes provision for an impact assessment. The work for it started already in 2013 under the joint responsibility of DG Environment and DG SANCO. As of November 2014, it was placed under my full responsibility. Let me briefly explain the reasons for carrying out an impact assessment.

Many countries have raised concerns regarding endocrine disruptors but in terms of transposition of the concerns into legislation we, the European Union, are pioneers and world leaders. The EU co-legislators have already set interim criteria which ensure protection of human health and the environment until a permanent decision is taken. The precautionary principle of this approach, which they followed, is one I support. Our future decision will set an example, and therefore it must be made in full knowledge of the facts. Yet endocrine disruption is quite a recent way of looking at the toxicity of chemicals. We see divergent views amongst scientists and regulators worldwide.

There are studies being published every day. Just last week new scientific information on the potential high cost to human health and society caused by hormone-disrupting chemicals was published in the press. We monitor these developments and take them into consideration. The new criteria will also affect several other pieces of EU legislation and different kinds of regulatory actions will be triggered. All these reasons objectively justify the need for the impact assessment. I would also recall that the seventh environmental action plan adopted by the European Parliament in 2013 asks the Union to develop harmonised results-based criteria for the identification of endocrine disruptors, which means criteria applicable to all chemical legislation. This is yet another reason for us to undertake an impact assessment in such a sensitive and complex situation.

The assessment, which will evaluate different scenarios to define the endocrine disruptors, is already on trial. The first phase of external studies was launched in November 2014. The Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer Protection is developing a methodology for the criteria to identify the endocrine disruptors.

The second phase of the study has already started and will be done by an external contractor. I understand that it will take some time until we complete all the actions set in the road map, but we need to make informed decisions and make them in full transparency. We have organised a public consultation and received 27 000 contributions. They are public and already available via a website. My services are working hard summarising their input.

Speaking about transparency, a website dedicated to the issue of endocrine disruptors will be made available very shortly. Additionally, I will be holding a round-table public conference very soon to discuss the outcome of the public consultation. In preparation for this conference we will also hold preparatory meetings with the main stakeholders, Members of the European Parliament and NGOs. If need be, I will organise more than one public meeting on the issue. I am committed to do my job seriously and in full transparency.

In parallel, since the beginning of my mandate, I have discussed the issue of endocrine disruptors with a number of Members of the European Parliament and a wide range of stakeholders. I have encouraged European ministers to formulate their approach to the question of endocrine disruptors. Just last week I met the French Minister and discussed the issues with her.

It is a complex, difficult file and the Members’ questions show their concern. I invite Members to cooperate with me, to exchange views with me and my services, and to participate in the debate and future events that I mentioned earlier. Meanwhile I am active on this issue. I will do my job in full transparency and will make no compromise on health.

  Jens Gieseke, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar Andriukaitis, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen. Freitag, der 13. Dezember 2013, war kein guter Tag für Europa. Das war der Tag, bis zu dem die Kommission Kriterien für die endokrinen Disruptoren hätte entwickeln müssen. Diesen Auftrag hat die Kommission vom Parlament erhalten. Ein Blick auf den Kalender zeigt jedoch, dass diese Frist schlicht nicht eingehalten worden ist. Gerade aus der Sicht der Bürger, die gegenüber der Verwaltung Fristen exakt einhalten müssen, ist ein solcher Verzug inakzeptabel.

Ich möchte an dieser Stelle ganz klar sagen, dass bei der Kommission in Sachen Einhaltung der Fristen deutliches Verbesserungspotenzial besteht. Viel zu lange wurde innerhalb der Kommission in unterschiedliche Richtungen gearbeitet. Wertvolle Zeit ging hierbei verloren. Die nun eingereichte Klage gegen die Kommission wird in dieser Frage sicherlich erfolgreich sein.

Es sollte uns als Gesetzgeber aber nicht darum gehen, recht zu haben. Wir sind gefordert, vernünftige und ausgewogene Gesetzesvorschläge zu machen. Die unterschiedlichen Auffassungen innerhalb der Kommissionsdienste und auch in der Wissenschaft machen jedoch deutlich, wie umstritten das Thema der endokrinen Disruptoren ist. Es gibt – das haben Sie ja gerade angesprochen, Herr Kommissar – keine einfachen Lösungen, und deshalb brauchen wir eine umfassende Folgenabschätzung. Die Entscheidung der Kommission, eine solche Folgenabschätzung durchzuführen, hätte sicherlich früher erfolgen müssen, das ist klar. Unser Hormonsystem ist äußerst komplex, und weder die Kommission noch die Wissenschaft oder die Industrie haben eine einfache Lösung parat. Wenn wir als Parlament ernst genommen werden möchten, so müssen wir die Kommission bei der Erstellung der Folgenabschätzung unterstützen. Wir brauchen die Folgenabschätzung für eine gute Gesetzgebung. Wir sollten jetzt nicht den Fehler machen, ideologische Debatten zu führen und uns mit pauschalen Schuldzuweisungen an Kommission, Wissenschaft oder Industrie zu überbieten. Die Kommission ist, wenn auch mit deutlicher Verspätung, auf dem richtigen Weg. Lassen Sie uns diesen Weg gemeinsam fortsetzen. Dann wird es uns gelingen, Gesetze zu verabschieden, die das Prädikat better regulation tatsächlich verdienen.

  Gilles Pargneaux, au nom du groupe S&D. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, nous avons affaire, je crois, à un des plus grands scandales en matière sanitaire et économique.

J'ai entendu votre proposition d'évaluation, puis de transparence et de débat public. J'en prends acte. Je vous connais, Monsieur le Commissaire. Je connais votre dynamisme, votre probité et votre volonté d'aboutir. En même temps, force est de constater qu'en 2009, ici même, un de vos prédécesseurs faisait la même proposition d'évaluation, de transparence et de débat public. Puis, finalement, plus rien! Plus rien sauf à constater un véritable serpent de mer concernant pourtant cette question qui est non seulement – comme je le disais – un scandale sanitaire mais aussi un scandale économique.

Il faut rappeler, comme l'a dit l'auteur de la question orale, notre collègue Caputo: baisse de la fertilité masculine, puberté précoce, obésité, diabète, malformations congénitales, cancer du sein, ce sont plus de 157 milliards d'euros, soit environ 1,23 % du produit intérieur brut de l'Union européenne, qui sont en cause avec ces perturbateurs endocriniens. Encore récemment, des observateurs et des scientifiques indiquaient que 31 pesticides auraient dû être interdits au sein de l'Union européenne.

Il y a quelques jours, en France, on disait que la culture de la pomme, qui est intensive dans un certain nombre de pays européens, entraînerait de graves conséquences en matière de santé, y compris pour nos enfants, qui mangent ces pommes dans nos cantines scolaires, partout en Europe.

Par conséquent, j'ai confiance, Monsieur le Commissaire, et en même temps, vous pouvez avoir mon soutien. Mais il va falloir, je le dis, pour redonner confiance...

(La Présidente retire la parole à l'orateur)

  Julie Girling, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, I did not sign this oral question. I thought about it very carefully, and one of the reasons is that it presupposes that the criteria for classification of substances as endocrine disruptors is a simple scientific decision that everyone in the scientific community can agree with. Well it is not. The author of the question attested just tonight that if the criteria for EDCs had been published, the entire issue of endocrine disrupters would have been solved, and this is clearly not the case. It is simply not the case. I have just come from the meeting of the Committee on the Environment where Mr Timmermans has been extolling the virtues of impact assessments, with seemingly the majority of Members agreeing with him, so I can assume that the signatories are not against impact assessments per se. I can only conclude that it is part of the ongoing campaign to oversimplify this issue by ignoring the safeguards that are already in place, not least through legislation such as REACH.

So what is this all about? The wording asserting that 31 substances would be banned if a blocked EU paper on hormone—mimicking chemicals had been acted upon comes straight from a document produced by the NGO Pesticide Action Network. This pan—analysis has been challenged by many scientists. This will always be the case. Sometimes scientific consensus emerges, but very rarely complete agreement. This is an ongoing discussion in the scientific community, which is divided on how best to identify and regulate endocrine—disrupters.

The World Health Organization has acknowledged that existing data are not able to demonstrate a causal link between exposure to EDs and adverse health effects. They quite clearly say that. The issue is further complicated by the different regulatory processes that exist in different pieces of sectoral legislation – a hazard—based approach in plant protection products and a risk—based approach in biocides – so we cannot even get that right.

I think the Commission is taking a sensible approach to this very difficult issue. I have been contacted by constituents in my region expressing concern about the potential socio—economic effects, and I do not think that those should be ignored.

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

  Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE), Blåt-kort-spørgsmål. – Fru formand! Jeg vil blot spørge Julie Girling, om hun ikke er klar over, at den undersøgelse, som Catherine Day satte i gang, udelukkende drejede sig om, hvad industrien kom til at betale, og nu har vi enslydende tal – senest i dag fra Le Monde – som siger, at vi står med 1,27 % af EU's BNP, hvilket skyldes skader fra hormonforstyrrende stoffer. Så er det dog ganske dristigt at sige, at man har adversive, når det man har – konflikten – er industriens interesser over for menneskers sundhed. Økonomien er langt hårdere for samfundet, når det er menneskers sundhed, end når det er industrienes lidelser.

  Julie Girling (ECR), blue-card answer. – Madam President, unlike Mrs Auken, I think industry is part of the European economy and part of our European society. Industry has its views, I have my views and she has her views. They will not always be the same and clearly sometimes they conflict. Many studies are available on endocrine disrupters. They have been funded in many different ways and they all come up with the same conclusion, bar one or two minor studies – namely that there is no causal link. That does not mean to say that I do not acknowledge that there may be an issue, but there is – according to the WHO – currently no causal link.

  Lynn Boylan, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Madam President, according to leaks within the European Commission, we have heard that an EU paper on endocrine disruptors was due to propose criteria for categorisations of endocrine—disrupting chemicals which would have led to an EU ban on a range of hazardous substances but, once again, amidst heavy lobbying from the major chemical industry, which stands to lose big profits on these chemicals the report has mysteriously yet to surface. Instead, what we hear is that the European Commission is proposing to release an impact assessment in 2016. It is disheartening to hear yet again another story of the Commission bending to its corporate bedfellows instead of implementing rigorous regulation to protect consumers and the environment.

There is no excuse for any delay. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support the immediate suspension of the use of certain harmful substances, and it is a view which is also held by certain influential Member States. So, given that EDCs are used routinely in everyday household items such as toiletries, cosmetics, food containers, plastics and pesticides to name but a few, it is extremely urgent that the precautionary principle be upheld and that action be postponed as the Commission plans. EDCs have been linked to a wide range of diseases and conditions such as – as we have heard – foetal abnormalities, infertility, autism, diabetes and hormonal cancers. This Frankenstein list of health causes is only compounded when we consider the staggering economic cost of EDC exposure.

  Bart Staes, namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, we weten allemaal dat de gezondheidskost van hormoonverstorende stoffen enorm is. Dat werd eerder al bewezen door studies van de Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie en UNIP, dat werd bewezen door de studie van professor Kortekamp, die trouwens gevraagd was door het DG ENVI van de Commissie, en dat is ook bewezen door de studie die vorige week openbaar is gemaakt en waarnaar u en de heer Pargneaux hebben verwezen. De wetenschappers zeggen heel klaar en duidelijk dat die kost minstens 157 miljard is, 1,23 % van het bruto nationaal produkt. Volgens deze wetenschappers zorgen hormoonverstorende stoffen inderdaad voor een lager IQ, voor meer zwaarlijvigheid bij volwassenen en voor minstens 5 % van alle gevallen van autisme. De toestand is dus zeer ernstig.

Het Europees Parlement heeft altijd de aanbevelingen van professor Kortekamp onderschreven. Er is behoefte aan klaarheid over de definitie van hormoonverstoorders. In 2009 en in 2011 zorgden de Raad en het Parlement er al voor dat er voorlopige criteria kwamen, maar de Commissie kreeg in 2009 ook de opdracht om tegen eind december 2013 te komen met permanente criteria. Ondertussen zijn er alweer 5 jaar verstreken, 5 jaar van debatteren, 5 jaar van gelobby van de industrie tot in de hoogste kringen van de Europese Commissie. Wat hormoonverstorende stoffen betreft, hebben incompetente wetenschappers gezorgd voor het zaaien van twijfel, een tactiek die we ook kennen vanuit de tabaksindustrie. Moord en brand schreeuwde de industrie. De secretaris-generaal van de Commissie, mevrouw Day, besloot eerst een impactstudie op te starten. Maar dat is toch ongelooflijk: een impactstudie op wetenschappelijke feiten! Het is alsof je op zoek gaat naar waar de kanker vandaan komt en dat je gaat vragen bij de industrie die de kankerverwekkende producten maakt: hoe het komt dat die kanker verwekken? Neen, voor zoiets moet je bij wetenschappers zijn.

De Commissie faalt dus op velerlei vlak. Ze komt haar juridische verplichtingen niet na. Er loopt een zaak voor het Hof van Justitie geïnitieerd door Zweden, gesteund door het Parlement en gesteund door de Raad. Ten tweede benadert ze de problematiek niet horizontaal, zoals opgelegd in het Zevende Milieuactieprogramma en in de roadmap. De Commissie beperkt zich tot pesticiden en biociden. Ten derde laat de Commissie lobbykrachten voorgaan op wetenschap.

Commissaris, neem uw verantwoordelijkheid, zorg voor snelle actie, zorg ervoor dat de gezondheid voorgaat op de belangen van de industrie.

PRZEWODNICZY RYSZARD CZARNECKI
Wiceprzewodniczący

  Piernicola Pedicini, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, benvenuto Commissario. Io voglio ricordare che la legislazione REACH, sulla chimica dell'Unione europea, aveva decretato il divieto su scala continentale dell'uso di pesticidi che abbiano un effetto da interferente endocrino e la Commissione è stata chiamata a prendere tutte le misure necessarie a proteggere la salute pubblica.

Tuttavia la precedente DG SANCO ha cercato di eludere, con tutti gli strumenti a sua disposizione, l'imminente divieto dell'Unione europea per i pesticidi che agiscono come interferenti endocrini. È solo superfluo ricordare che queste sostanze alterano la regolazione ormonale, causando effetti sul comportamento, sulla riproduzione, sull'incidenza del cancro e anche sull'insorgenza di difetti congeniti. Nonostante ciò, invece di fornire i criteri di sicurezza e una lista dettagliata degli interferenti endocrini, la DG SANCO ha lavorato a porte chiuse per aggirare il divieto della legislazione REACH, con l'avallo dell'agenzia europea per la sicurezza alimentare.

Per questo in commissione per l'ambiente, la sanità pubblica e la sicurezza alimentare abbiamo deciso di sostenere la Svezia che ha citato in giudizio l'Unione europea per l'elusione di questo divieto, a causa del quale poi c'è stata una ricaduta certa sulla fertilità di tante giovani e ragazze. E tuttavia rimane aperta la questione del ruolo svolto dalla DG SANCO e anche dall'EFSA, che non hanno agito a tutela della salute pubblica, tradendo quindi pienamente il loro mandato.

Pertanto noi vogliamo sapere quali provvedimenti sono stati presi per far emergere le responsabilità e quali provvedimenti sono stati presi per sanzionare adeguatamente i responsabili sia della DG SANCO che dell'Autorità europea per la sicurezza alimentare.

  Sylvie Goddyn (NI). – Monsieur le Président, ce n'est pas à la Commission de répondre à une question scientifique déjà tranchée pour savoir ce qu'est un perturbateur endocrinien. Plusieurs centaines de publications scientifiques le font déjà. Seuls les lobbyistes de l'industrie chimique font mine d'avoir une définition pour éviter toute dépense et préserver leurs dividendes.

Pourtant, les dangers des perturbateurs endocriniens sont visibles par tous et font l'objet de nombreuses études. La plus récente, publiée le 5 mars dernier, présente les conséquences annuelles de ces molécules chimiques sur le territoire de l'Union: 25 000 morts, 96 nouveaux cas d'obésité, 618 000 recours à une procréation médicalement assistée. Obésité, diabète, autisme, cancers: des vies sont en jeu.

Sourde aux questions de santé publique, peut-être la Commission entendra-t-elle l'argument économique. Dans cette même étude, le coût dû aux perturbateurs endocriniens est estimé jusqu'à 269 milliards d'euros par an. Et encore, cette étude admet ne pas tenir compte de tous les produits ni de tous leurs effets.

Si la Commission est incapable de protéger notre santé et nos économies, elle doit laisser les États membres libres de leur politique.

Avec mes collègues du Front national de la commission de l'environnement, de la santé publique et de la sécurité alimentaire, j'ai donc demandé l'audition publique de l'EFSA pour qu'elle s'explique sur ses conclusions délirantes concernant le bisphénol A. Voir les syndicats américains de l'industrie chimique se réjouir de ces conclusions est plus qu'alarmant.

L'heure n'est plus aux études d'impact ni aux définitions de bureaucrates, elle est à l'action d'urgence. Il y va de la santé de tous.

  Daniel Buda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, un proverb latin spune că „Toți oamenii vor să aibă sănătate, dar adesea fac totul împotriva ei”. O serie de organizații de profil, precum Organizația Mondială pentru Sănătate sau Academia Americană a Medicilor Pediatri, au atras atenția în ultimii ani asupra pericolului ridicat pe care perturbatorii endocrini și alte substanțe chimice asimilate acestora îl reprezintă pentru sănătatea umană.

Perturbatorii endocrini sunt substanțe chimice care, odată ajunse în corpul uman, împiedică creșterea și dezvoltarea normală a acestuia, aduc modificări negative metabolismului, ducând la diferite forme de cancer, infertilitate, obezitate sau diabet.

Uniunea Europeană, în ansamblul său, are datoria de a face din sănătatea cetățenilor săi o prioritate. În acest sens, consider că studiile de impact lansate de Comisie în acest domeniu trebuie să aibă ca principal obiectiv implicațiile potențiale ale perturbatorilor endocrini asupra sănătății umane și nicidecum implicațiile economice asupra industriei de profil sau a comerțului. Ne putem întreba: la ce ne va folosi o agricultură performantă cu o productivitate ridicată, însă cu o populație îmbolnăvită. Cu siguranță, am spune noi, la nimic.

De aceea, sunt de părere că este necesară adoptarea unor norme clare cu privire la combaterea perturbatorilor endocrini, a interzicerii acestora și a înlocuirii lor cu unele substanțe considerate sigure, astfel încât să găsim un echilibru perfect pentru a asigura protecția continuă a sănătății umane și a mediului și, în același timp, să oferim fermierilor produsele fitosanitare de care au nevoie.

Comisia Europeană, Consiliul și Parlamentul European trebuie să intervină de urgență în rezolvarea acestei probleme, cu atât mai mult cu cât expunerea populației la aceste substanțe generează cheltuieli de peste 30 de miliarde de euro în Uniunea Europeană, așa cum reiese de altfel din studiile realizate de instituțiile de profil.

  Pavel Poc (S&D). – Pane komisaři, my na tom tématu spolupracujeme, já, jak víte, spolupracuji s vaším GŘ a vy jste ten problém zdědil. Není to váš problém, vy jste ho ani nevytvořil.

Já si v zásadě vážím toho postupu i toho, že váš ředitel GŘ, pan Miko, vytvořil task force, aby řešila tuhle záležitost tak, jak vy jste ji zdědili.

Všichni mí předřečníci tady citovali studii endokrinologické společnosti z 5. března, nemusím to dělat znova. Víme, kolik nás to stojí, víme, co způsobí endokrinní destruktory. Fyziolog, lékaři nemusí nic vysvětlovat, to by bylo zbytečné.

Podstatné ale je toto: Komise, ne vy osobně, ale Komise jako taková porušila svoje závazky a je nyní žalována Švédskem a k té žalobě se skutečně přidal jak Parlament, tak Rada. Je to selhání, selhání Komise, selhání jednoho člověka, generální tajemnice Catherine Dayové, která zadala tu studii a tím způsobila zdržení legislativy.

Proč cui bono najdeme velmi snadno z podání ze 16. ledna ze strany Spojených států, kde se praví:

‘It is important that the Commission’s approach to endocrine disruptors does not foreclose U.S.—EU cooperation to increase transatlantic and global compatibility in the regulation of endocrine disruptors.’

Takže víme proč, víme, že korporacím se to nelíbí.

Pane komisaři, jestli Komise bude stát v tomto boji na straně občanů, budeme vás podporovat, pokud ne, budeme s vámi bojovat.

  Bolesław G. Piecha (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Rzadko to robię, ale chciałem wyrazić pełne poparcie oraz ukłony dla pana komisarza za jego rozsądek. Działanie pod wpływem chwili, pod wpływem doniesień prasowych niestety niesie znamiona populizmu, a nie rzetelnych opracowań naukowych. To są sprawy bardzo ważne i bardzo rozsądnie trzeba tutaj działać. Obejmują w zasadzie wszystkie sektory naszego życia, od rolnictwa po kosmetyki, suplementy, diety, itd., itp., z powietrzem włącznie. Sądzę, że powinno być przede wszystkim oceniane pełne ryzyko, a nie teoretyczne zagrożenia i doniesienia z pojedynczych dokumentów naukowych. To trochę za mało. Oczywiście, że takie zagrożenia istnieją. Światowa Organizacja Zdrowia też swego czasu popełniła błąd. Nie tak dawno zarekomendowała wszystkim państwom zakup szczepionki dla wszystkich obywateli przeciwko świńskiej grypie. Pragnę państwa poinformować, że 90% zasobów tej szczepionki zostało następnie zutylizowanych.

  Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL). – Voorzitter, het lijkt op een ordinaire doofpotaffaire die in de nationale politiek waarschijnlijk een motie van wantrouwen had opgeleverd. De Europese Commissie heeft een belangrijk rapport weggemoffeld, een rapport waarin wordt geconcludeerd dat 31 soorten landbouwgif verboden konden – en moesten – worden.

Door dit hormoonverstorende gif, waarmee groenten en fruit besproeid worden, lopen mensen grote risico´s; afwijkingen aan de foetus, mutaties aan de geslachtsdelen, onvruchtbaarheid, een verlaging van intelligentie en kanker, dat zijn zo een aantal voorbeelden. Mensen, dieren en onze leefomgeving worden letterlijk vergiftigd. Bijenvolken verdwijnen, vogelpopulaties dunnen uit en kikkers worden uitgeroeid. Die bezwaren wegen voor de Europese Commissie kennelijk niet op tegen de miljardenwinst van de industrie. De industrielobby heeft zelfs zoveel invloed dat de top binnen de Europese Commissie dit rapport doelbewust onder de pet hield, waardoor 31 gevaarlijke landbouwgiffen nog steeds op onze gewassen gespoten worden.

Ik vind een gezonde leefomgeving, gezond voedsel belangrijker dan kortzichtige handelsbelangen en ik ben benieuwd wat de Commissaris vindt. Ik roep de Commissie op om het rapport te publiceren, de stoffen te verbieden en gezond verstand te gebruiken zolang het nog kan, want u weet ook dat deze stoffen de intelligentie aantasten. Voorts ben ik van mening dat er een einde moet komen aan de Europese landbouwsubsidies.

  Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE). – Hr. formand! Og tak hr. kommissær for besvarelsen. Jeg vælger at fæste lid til løftet om, at der ikke gås på kompromis med sundheden. Vi har gennemdokumenteret nu, at disse hormonforstyrrende stoffer skader hjerneudviklingen hos ufødte børn. Det skaber infertilitet hos små drenge, og der er en række andre meget alvorlige konsekvenser, og vi kender også nu omkostningerne for samfundet. De blev nævnt her forleden dag, den 5. marts, og jeg nævnte før, at tallet ca. 150 mia. EUR kom frem i dag i Le Monde. Det, vi nu bliver nødt til at spørge Kommissionen om, det er – ja, jeg kan ikke bede om, at man udfaser Catherine Day, det kunne jeg godt have ønsket mig, men hun bad om, da hun var blevet lobbiet af den agrokemiske industri og den øvrige kemiske industri, at man kun undersøgte, hvilke omkostninger det havde for industrien. Nu bliver vi altså nødt til at få en Kommission, der kan pakke hende langt væk – ikke i plastik, for det er også fyldt med endocrine disruptors, så ikke mere plastik der – men sørge for at vi nu går ud som en god Kommission, der faktisk også gerne vil miljøet og vil sundheden og kan se på de reelle omkostninger for samfundet og inddrager disse konsekvenser, når vi nu skal lave en konsekvensanalyse, og ikke kun det agroindustrielle kompleks' bekymringer. Det ligger i vandet, det er over det hele. Vi har brug for en Kommission, der tør noget nu og ikke bare siger small on small things. Det har vi ikke brug for her.

  Eleonora Evi (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, i composti chimici che agiscono sul sistema endocrino minano il futuro di intere popolazioni animali e dell'uomo stesso, causando tra l'altro, una riduzione della fertilità ed un aumento delle patologie neonatali. Secondo un recente studio firmato da 18 tra i più eminenti scienziati in materia, il danno economico causato dagli interferenti endocrini è stimabile in 157 miliardi di euro l'anno, pari all'1,23% dell'interno PIL dell'Unione europea.

L'Agenzia ambientale europea, nel suo più recente rapporto, ha evidenziato che l'attuale livello di esposizione ad interferenti endocrini rappresenta uno degli indicatori di qualità con trend negativo. Dagli scambi di email intercorsi tra i funzionari di più alto livello della Commissione europea e pubblicati all'inizio dello scorso febbraio dal quotidiano The Guardian, emerge chiaramente che la Commissione ha ritardato l'applicazione dei criteri individuati dalla DG Ambiente per l'emanazione dei dovuti atti delegati. La loro adozione avrebbe portato all'eliminazione del 20% dei principi attivi usati e avrebbe coinvolto la produzione di triazoli e ditiocarbammati, che rappresentano l'80 % del mercato dei fungicidi per un valore di 8-9 miliardi di euro l'anno. In totale, si stima che 31 pesticidi pericolosi usati in agricoltura sarebbero stati vietati se i criteri elaborati non fossero stati bloccati da ragioni economiche.

Credo quindi che, oltre al ritardo nell'emanazione degli atti delegati assegnatigli, la Commissione debba anche spiegare se e come abbia tenuto conto del danno economico che il ritardo nell'affrontare il problema avrebbe determinato alla collettività.

  Biljana Borzan (S&D). – Gospodine predsjedniče, rasprava o endokrinim disruptorima nosi u sebi pitanje s kojim se u Europskom parlamentu često susrećemo želim li štititi gospodarstvo ili zdravlje.

Komisija se, u ovom slučaju, priklonila na stranu novca, točnije na stranu kemijske industrije i poljoprivrede i zato je naša obveza dignuti glas u ime onih koji su nas izabrali. Istraživanja su proturječna no čak i minimalan izračun štete koju endokrini disruptori iz pesticida potencijalno uzrokuju kroz zrak, deformacije fetusa, neplodnost, smanjenje kvocijenta inteligencije pozivaju na djelovanje.

Argument da bi zabrana pesticida koji sadrže te tvari trenutno naštetila europskoj poljoprivredi stoji. No mi kao zakonodavci moramo razmišljati dugoročno. Ako se jednom djetetu zbog endokrinih disruptora smanji kvocijent inteligencije, to je ozbiljan obiteljski problem. No, 100 tisuća takve djece je europski problem.

Novac koji dopuštanjem endokrinih disruptora uštedimo danas, sutra ćemo trošiti na saniranje štete koju uzrokuju, i zato mi je drago što sam čula riječi povjerenika da neće činiti ništa što je štetno.

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Nagyon szépen köszönöm a szót, tisztelt Elnök Úr! Tisztelt Kollégák, tisztelt Parlament! Hogyha a dohányzás elleni küzdelemben fölmutatott erényeink töredékét fordítanánk az endokrin szerek elleni küzdelemre, akkor azt kell mondjam, hogy már máshol állnánk. Itt évek óta toporgásról számoltak be többen is. A láthatatlan méreg elleni küzdelem, azt hiszem, nagyon fontos, és én nagyon örülök a Biztos Úr nagyon határozott elkötelezettségének, és különösen amit mondott: a zéró tolerancia. Szeretnénk ezt minél hamarabb látni a Bizottság intézkedéseiben. De nem csak a Bizottság intézkedéseiben, hanem a Bizottság tárgyalásaiban is. Nagyon nem szeretném, hogyha e téren a TTIP tárgyalások során Európa engedékeny lenne. Ott is zéró toleranciát kérek képviselni a Bizottság részéről. Köszönöm szépen a lehetőséget!

  Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Hr. formand! For hver dag Kommissionen tøver og undlader at gribe ind over for det kemikaos, der hersker, så koster det simpelthen på borgernes sundhed, og det er særligt vores børn, som er udsatte. Det koster også for vores miljø, og så koster det rigtig mange penge. Det er altså komplet uacceptabelt. Vi taler jo ikke om noget, der er nyt. Vi taler om en sag, vi har diskuteret i årevis, og hvor vi har haft masser af viden. Jeg synes, at Kommissionen skal begynde at lytte lidt mere til borgerne i stedet for kun at lytte til industrien. Ja, det er komplekst. Det er der ikke nogen tvivl om, men jeg tror, at vi bliver nødt til at tænke og indtænke forsigtighedsprincippet og i det mindste starte med at fjerne de stoffer fra vores hverdagsprodukter, som er mistænkt for at være hormonforstyrrende. Vi bliver nødt til at tænke på, hvad der er i borgernes interesse her. Borgerne kan simpelthen ikke forstå, at vi ikke har handlet endnu – og for at være ærlig, det kan jeg faktisk heller ikke.

Uwagi z sali

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – My w Unii Europejskiej przywiązujemy ogromną wagę do jakości, standardów, bezpieczeństwa produktów, które wytwarzamy. Najważniejsze jest oczywiście zdrowie konsumenta i jakość produktów. To dotyczy szerokiej skali różnych produktów, począwszy od zabawek dla dzieci poprzez wiele towarów, które użytkujemy na rynku, poprzez problemy najważniejsze, jeśli chodzi o żywność, która w sposób istotny decyduje o zdrowiu człowieka.

W tym kontekście padało szereg krytycznych uwag pod adresem używanych środków ochrony roślin. I słusznie. Ale jednocześnie też bierzmy pod uwagę, że te zmiany, które się dokonują, są bardzo znaczące. Można powiedzieć niewystarczające, musimy to bardziej monitorować, oceniać, ale przemysł środków ochrony roślin już dziś wnikliwie testuje nowe produkty, chcąc zapewnić bezpieczeństwo i skuteczność ich stosowania. Oczywiście musimy to dalej monitorować, kontrolować, ale ten postęp jest duży, widoczny i warto o tym pamiętać, bo musimy zachować – oczywiście zdrowie jest pierwsze – ale musimy też zachować konkurencyjność naszego rolnictwa w stosunku do innych regionów świata.

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit nicht aus den Augen verlieren – das wird aber nur dann funktionieren, wenn wir gesunde Europäerinnen und Europäer haben, das wird nur dann gelingen, wenn wir ein weiterhin fruchtbares Europa haben, wo nicht durch Fruchtbarkeitsstörungen infolge von endokrinen Disruptoren unsere jungen Männer keine Väter mehr werden. Wir können nur dann ein wettbewerbsfähiges Europa sein, wenn wir so weit wie möglich gesunde Menschen hier in diesem Europa haben, die nicht gefährdet werden durch endokrine Disruptoren. Das klingt so technisch. Sagen wir einfach, was es ist: hormonstörende Substanzen, Stoffe, die dazu beitragen, dass sich Menschen im Mutterleib nicht gesund entwickeln, Stoffe, die dazu beitragen, dass unsere jungen Menschen einfach auch nicht mehr über die Intelligenz verfügen, über die sie verfügen könnten, wenn diese Stoffe nicht mehr am Markt wären.

Verstecken wir uns nicht ständig hinter irgendwelchen Wirtschaftsinteressen und setzen dabei in Wirklichkeit auch den Wirtschaftsstandort Europa aufs Spiel! Wir brauchen die Menschen im Mittelpunkt, und wir brauchen für diese Menschen eine Gesetzgebung, die schnell kommen muss. Herr Andriukaitis, Sie sind nicht schuld daran, aber Sie können dazu beitragen, dass diese Schuld größer wird, oder dazu beitragen, dass dieses Europa gesund bleibt, gesünder wird und wirtschaftsstark bleibt.

  Anthea McIntyre (ECR). – Mr President, the Commission was right to launch an impact assessment into the different options for definitions of endocrine—disrupting chemicals. We now need to ensure that the final definition is proportionate and based on the science.

Not all substances that have an effect on the endocrine system are endocrine disruptors. For example, many plant-based foods such as caffeine in coffee interact with the hormonal system without leading to disruption or harm. Endocrine active substances should be treated like most other substances of potential concern and be subject to risk assessment in which both the hazard and the exposure are considered.

Rising world demand for food means that Europe’s farmers are going to have to produce significantly more in the years ahead. With over 850 million people in the world who do not have enough to eat Europe, with its favourable soils and climate, surely has a moral obligation to optimise agricultural output. But this cannot be realised if our farmers do not have access to an adequate range of crop protection products.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, još je Paracelsus rekao: „Svaka je tvar otrov. Ne postoji ni jedna tvar koja nije otrov. Samo doza čini tvar lijekom ili otrovom.“

Danas znamo da je to i izloženost nekoj tvari. U ovom slučaju govorimo o tvari koja negativno utječe na razvoj naročito mladog čovjeka, djeteta, na reprodukciju, na neurologiju, na imunološke sustave. Ovdje zaista govorimo o nečemu što šteti našem okolišu i zato sam za ono tzv. pravilo opreza. Pravilo opreza koje znači da se odmah isključuje sve ono što možemo isključiti jer dalekosežne posljedice mogu biti tragične za našu Europu, pogotovo za mlađe naraštaje.

U tom kontekstu, želim da ovaj intersektorski problem zaista bude čim prije na dnevnom redu ovoga Parlamenta i da zajedno s Komisijom donesemo pametne zaključke.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, há muito que aqui se vem falando na questão dos desreguladores endócrinos e há muito que se vem pedindo à Comissão Europeia que tome medidas concretas tendo em vista a proteção da saúde pública face aos efeitos perniciosos deste tipo de substâncias. Um passo necessário à criação de legislação contra o uso destas substâncias, usadas em produtos de uso corrente, é a adoção de critérios que permitam o seu reconhecimento. Este seria um passo necessário, que já devia ter sido dado até 2013, mas que a Comissão Europeia não quis dar até à data, enrolando-se em explicações pouco ou nada convincentes, como ficou bem à vista hoje, mais uma vez.

O que aqui parece estar verdadeiramente em causa é que outros valores se levantam e se sobrepõem ao que devia prevalecer: o interesse público, o princípio da precaução. Isto não pode ser separado das negociações em curso com os Estados Unidos sobre o TTIP, o Tratado de Livre Comércio, pesem embora as juras da Comissão em sentido contrário. É que sabemos que nos Estados Unidos o princípio da precaução de nada vale, e do que se trata mesmo com este Tratado é de nivelar por baixo em todos os campos, pôr o negócio à frente da saúde pública.

  Michèle Rivasi (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, je m'adresse à vous parce que vous avez, quand même, une lourde responsabilité. Nous vous faisons confiance parce que vous êtes médecin et que vous avez toujours dit privilégier la santé par rapport à l'économie.

Mais, là il y a urgence. D'abord, vous avez vu que la Commission Barroso n'a pas respecté son programme. Elle devait fournir ses critères horizontaux sur des bases scientifiques en décembre 2013. Qu'a-t-elle fait? Cela a été dit par nos collègues, elle a fait une étude des incidences économiques sur les industriels. Mais entre nous, ce ne sont pas les industriels qui vont définir des critères! On veut savoir quelles sont les incidences économiques sur l'industrie chimique. Donc, je vous le demande, comment allez-vous faire? Si vous nous dites: "Nous devons attendre la consultation, les 27 000 réponses", cela ne correspondra pas à ce que nous attendons de la Commission, c'est-à-dire qu'elle définisse des critères scientifiques. Nous vous demandons donc vraiment maintenant de dire à la DG Environnement, qui a travaillé sur ce dossier – et qui a les critères –, de privilégier la santé par rapport à l'économie. C'est cela que nous attendons de vous, Monsieur le Commissaire!

(Koniec uwag z sali)

  Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I have listened closely to this very interesting debate. I take note of your views and will pass them on to my colleagues for further reflection.

I am a medical doctor and I say very clearly that, first and foremost, health is number one. If we speak of impact assessment, we must speak about health, the environment, then agriculture, then complex issues related to all, but in all this complexity health is the number one issue.

The issue of pressure from industry was mentioned. Believe me, this is not correct. I am open and I would like to do my job in a transparent manner. I have 17 meetings with some of you here and with Ministers of Agriculture, Health and the Environment. I have meetings with experts, with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), with NGOs, meetings with Green 10 and so on. I am ready to continue to do my job in this way. We have, of course, established a taskforce inviting experts in order to see all the complexity and to establish a good picture, taking in the scientific evidence-based arguments.

Some speakers mentioned the issue of delay putting the health of European people at risk. This is not true. EU legislation in force already considers endocrine disruptors. In particular, consumers are protected from endocrine disruptors through European Union legislation on the authorisation of chemical substances to be used as plant protection products, biocidal products or industrial chemicals. We have such rules now and we use these rules to protect our people.

Regarding the possibility of doing this in a transparent manner, I would like to say that I am ready to invite you to our debates and, of course, the website will be ready where we can do it in a transparent manner.

  Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. – Even though a majority of MEPs and Member States agreed on the need to phase out the use of these kinds of pesticides back in 2011, they all remain in use because the Commission, which is in charge of adopting criteria to classify this kind of hazardous chemicals, has stalled on the matter. The Commission has instead decided to prepare a redundant impact assessment.

This kind of procrastination is very valuable to the chemical industries that sell such products but quite useless and dangerous to our health. We already have strong, scientifically solid criteria that are validated by the WHO and used for the purposes of identifying chemical substances that cause a range of health problems. Banning these is all the more urgent given that very small amounts of these chemicals suffice to seriously disturb the normal functioning of hormones in our bodies.

The Commission had a legal deadline, which expired at the end of 2013, to define which chemicals qualify as endocrine disruptors according to sound scientific criteria. Instead it was circumvented by a strategically timed impact assessment that is not only poorly framed in terms of economic costs, but serves the industryʼs interest in profiting from inaction. This is unacceptable and the Commission must answer for it.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), na piśmie. – Zdrowie konsumentów jest najważniejsze, dlatego europejscy rolnicy, przetwórcy i producenci żywności starają się utrzymywać wysoko postawioną poprzeczkę, jeśli chodzi o wytwarzanie żywności przy zachowaniu najwyższych standardów. Nieustannie zatem prowadzone są badania oraz testowane są nowe technologie i produkty, które pozwalają jeszcze bardziej unowocześnić i udoskonalić produkcję. Dzięki temu także środki ochrony roślin są coraz lepsze i bezpieczniejsze. Nieuzasadnione wycofanie z rynku takich produktów oznaczałoby klęskę dla całego systemu produkcji żywności, a europejskie rolnictwo utraciłoby całkowicie konkurencyjność na rynkach światowych.

Apeluję o rozwagę, aby działania wyłączające nie były zbyt pochopne, a opierały się na gruntownych analizach i niepodważalnych badaniach naukowych, które określą, czy dana substancja ma jednoznacznie szkodliwy wpływ, w tym przypadku na układ hormonalny. Nie zapominajmy także o tym, że być może jesteśmy w stanie wykluczyć środki ochrony roślin z rynku europejskiego, ale niestety nie ze światowego. A przy obecnej globalizacji nie jesteśmy także w stanie całkowicie kontrolować, co jemy czy czego dotykamy.

  Sophie Montel (NI), par écrit. – Il s'agit là d'un sujet essentiel puisqu'il concerne directement la santé publique. Il est donc pour le moins surprenant de constater que la Commission semble se poser des questions sur la corrélation prouvée, qui existe entre l'utilisation de certaines substances chimiques et les dérèglements endocriniens. En effet, depuis des années déjà, les scientifiques sont très nombreux à alerter sur ce problème. Aujourd'hui les lobbyistes de l'industrie chimique feignent encore d'avoir besoin de preuves tangibles, dans le seul but évidemment de préserver leurs bénéfices.

Et pourtant, la dernière étude dresse un bilan sans appel de l'utilisation de ces molécules chimiques dans l'Union européenne: 25 000 morts, 618 000 recours à une procréation médicalement assistée, sans parler des 96 000 nouveaux cas d'obésité. Voilà bien la réalité, les substances chimiques peuvent entraîner des maladies graves et mortelles: cancers, obésité, diabètes…

Si l'argument de la santé publique n'en est pas un pour certains, peut-être seront-ils plus sensibles à l'argument économique. Car ce sont 269 milliards d'euros par an qui sont dépensés pour traiter et soigner les patients, victimes des substances chimiques.

Le temps n'est donc plus aux études, aux analyses mais à l'action. Mais l'Union est-elle là aussi capable de protéger?