President. – The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on a comprehensive European Union framework on endocrine disruptors (2019/2683(RSP)).

I would like to inform Members that, for this debate, there is no catch-the-eye procedure and no blue cards will be accepted.

  Violeta Bulc, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, 20 years ago, the Commission adopted its first strategy on endocrine disruptors. We can be proud of the progress we have achieved together since then. We are recognised today as one of the global leaders in dealing with these substances.

Since 1999, we have banned or restricted many endocrine disruptors. Furthermore, we have been the first to establish regulatory criteria to identify endocrine disruptors in the legislation on pesticides and biocides. We have also provided funding for research and have supported international organisations. However, this is not enough. Today, endocrine disruption is still a global challenge and a source of concern for many citizens. We cannot rest on our laurels and we need to step up our approach.

This is why, last November, the Commission adopted its comprehensive communication on endocrine disruptors. Adoption by the Commission confirms that we remain committed to protecting EU citizens and the environment. It also delivers on the commitment undertaken when working on the criteria for pesticides and biocides. The EU approach to endocrine disruptors needs to remain based on science and on the application of the precautionary principle. We have three objectives in mind. First, minimising overall exposure to endocrine disruptors. Second, accelerating the development of science; and third, promoting an active dialogue with all stakeholders.

The Commission has identified a comprehensive set of actions with different timelines to achieve these objectives. These are outlined in our communication and I am pleased to inform you that work has started on all of them.

The cross-cutting fitness check on endocrine disruptors should be finalised in the first half of 2020, with a 12-week public consultation planned for this year. In 2019, we also aim to organise the first meeting of our annual stakeholder forum and to launch a new web portal. Other actions announced in our communication have a long time frame, for example in the area of supporting research.

Honourable Members, I know that some of you are disappointed by the idea of the fitness check. I can assure you that we are not simply trying to kick the can down the road. We are all committed to evidence-based policy-making and evaluations and the fitness check helps us make better policies. Today we have different approaches to tackle endocrine disruptors in different sectors. The Commission agrees that there should be coherence in the treatment of these substances. However, before proposing changes to the legislation we need to see whether and what changes are necessary. Different treatment of the same substance does not mean incoherent treatment per se.

We have already undertaken some useful evaluations, but none of these has covered all of the relevant issues. Furthermore, we need to look at some issues in a cross-cutting way, such as the criteria to identify endocrine disruptors and the different regulatory consequences. The fitness check will fill this gap and will pay special attention to those pieces of legislation that regulate products used in the daily life of consumers, including the most valuable ones. I’m thinking, for example, of the legislation on toys, cosmetics and food contact materials. Evidently the fitness check will not start from scratch, but will build on data already collected in the previous evaluation. We want to finish this quickly so that the new Commission will have the information at hand to make an informed decision.

Before concluding, I would like to say a few words about the significant work that the Commission services carry out on a daily basis to implement existing policies that are relevant for endocrine disruptors. These are in many cases particularly important to protect vulnerable consumers. Just to give two examples: the Commission is finalising a priority list of potential endocrine disruptors used in cosmetics for swift assessment and possible follow-up regulatory action; and second, in the area of food contact materials, we are waiting for further scientific advice in Bisphenol A (BPA) and fatalities, and we are ready to act as soon as this is finalised.

I am confident that by advancing coherently in all relevant policy areas, we will achieve the objective that we all share. I’m looking forward to hearing from you on this topic, and thank you very much for your attention.

  Julie Girling, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I’m actually speaking today on behalf of Mr Gieseke, who is not able to be with us. But I would like, on behalf of the PPE Group, to broadly support the motion that Parliament is putting forward. We are in line with the objective of formulating a comprehensive EU framework on endocrine disruptors.

The motion highlights a number of areas where work is required and I guess if this was a school report, it would have some phrases such as ‘must work a little bit harder’. We certainly need the pace of investigation and validation of data to be speeded up and, whilst I appreciate the Commissioner’s points about the fitness check and I wholeheartedly support them, we are concerned about speed and we are concerned about making sure that we don’t let this particular issue slip. There needs to be investment in the whole issue of substances (we have highlighted that in Parliament’s text), substances used in mixtures and their joint and several effects. There is broad consensus on that.

It’s been customary this week for Members to use their last speech in this Chamber and we’ve heard an awful lot of ‘this will be my last speech’. Well, I’d like to just go to that theme for a moment because for me, as a British MEP, I want to just mention one thing about Brexit and how it relates to this subject because Brexit has taught me a lot. It’s taught me never to pursue with blinkers on anything that’s ideological. Be very careful with decisions based on emotion, on gut feel, on belief. Be very careful about creating acts of faith, as opposed to action based on evidence. It can lead to disproportionate and damaging action that later causes regret and difficulties finding a way back.

What’s that got to do with endocrine disruptors? Well, I think rather a lot because we do hear quite a lot of what I would call ideological hysteria about endocrine disruptors. I’m thinking here about Amendment 1, which is a good example. We will not be supporting it in the PPE. It calls for the same actions for suspected endocrine disruptors as for proven endocrine disruptors. This goes too far, it goes too quickly and it’s not based on scientific evidence.

Secondly, on Brexit, we were told not to listen to experts. Well, on endocrine disruptors we must. We must look carefully at the scientific criteria and evaluate in a calm and systematic way. Broadly, we can support this statement. We do not support the amendments and we look forward in the next mandate to moving forward on this subject.

  Miriam Dalli, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, postponing concrete action to regulate endocrine disruption is not a luxury we can afford. These chemicals are present in many products and materials around us, including plastic bottles, children’s toys, cosmetics and food packaging. Europe must do everything possible to phase out dangerous substances, particularly those with endocrine disrupting properties. But in order to do so, we need the political will and we need concrete action.

We feel that the European Commission did too little too late, because we have the strategic framework. However, there is still a lack of concrete action to provide full protection for human health and the environment. We are saying this because, even with the strategy, we are still excluding, for example, toys and cosmetics, and this only leads to a fragmented patchwork of different national standards, which makes it difficult for everyone, both for consumers, who do not know what level of protection they can expect, and also for producers, who suffer from diverging standards.

We need a European course of action, and it needs to put people’s health and the environment first. We expect the European Commission to expand the scope to address endocrine-disrupting chemicals also in materials and products such as toys, cosmetics and food packaging. As socialists and democrats, we are pushing for a legal framework that can help protect our citizens. We are also asking for a horizontal definition of E disease that is aligned with the WHO’s definition. We believe that people have the right to know that their everyday environment and the products they use are not harmful to their health, and on behalf of the Socialists and Democrats I call on the European Commission to acknowledge the European Parliament’s resolution and our legitimate concerns, as it is time to phase out endocrine disruptors once and for all.

  Frédérique Ries, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Monsieur le Président, je siège dans cet hémicycle depuis 1999 et, en 20 ans, on ne peut pas dire que le cadre européen sur les perturbateurs endocriniens ait évolué, alors que la science, elle, a avancé. Des chercheurs ont révélé l’impact de ces perturbateurs sur la santé humaine et animale, ainsi que leur lien avec certaines maladies chroniques, en particulier certains cancers, avec l’infertilité et avec certains troubles du développement neurologique. Ce lien est avéré.

L’Union européenne ne semble pas avoir pris la mesure de ce que l’OMS qualifiait, en 2013 déjà, de menace mondiale. Nous sommes très en retard. En 2015, la Cour de justice a condamné la Commission européenne pour son manque d’action en la matière. Quatre ans plus tard, on n’a pas beaucoup avancé, Madame la Commissaire, et cette nouvelle stratégie prend des airs d’acte manqué.

Par exemple, la définition des perturbateurs endocriniens ne s’applique qu’aux produits phytopharmaceutiques. On sait pourtant aujourd’hui que 80 % des expositions se font par voie alimentaire. Il faut donc les interdire dans les conserves, dans les barquettes, dans tous ces matériaux qui sont destinés à entrer en contact avec la nourriture, dans les cosmétiques, aussi, cela a été dit, ou encore dans les jouets. J’ai vérifié hier: seules huit substances sont répertoriées comme des perturbateurs endocriniens dans la base de données européenne. Il y en a plus de 1 000! Une étude publiée il y a quelques jours indiquait que des traces de 90 perturbateurs avaient été retrouvées dans une seule rivière en France!

C’est le grand écart: il faut accélérer les tests d’identification. Le bisphénol A, celui dont les effets néfastes sont les plus documentés, reste largement autorisé. L’Europe n’avance pas assez vite. Résultat: la Belgique, mais pas seulement, la France, l’Autriche, le Danemark, la Suède ont déjà commencé à avancer de leur côté et à légiférer. C’est sur ces sujets-là que la plus-value d’une harmonisation européenne prend tout son sens. Je vous engage à écouter les chercheurs pour protéger la santé et l’environnement des Européens. Cette stratégie ne va pas assez loin, nous devons agir plus vite et plus fort.

  Kateřina Konečná, za skupinu GUE/NGL. – Pane předsedající, já myslím, že je smutné, že zde dnes zase a znovu řešíme otázku endokrinních disruptorů. Komise svoji dlouhodobou nečinností ohrožuje zdraví celých generací svých obyvatel, kterým hrozí závažná zdravotní rizika. Od roku 1999, kdy Komise přišla s první strategií týkající se endokrinních disruptorů, jsme akorát promarnili čas, paní komisařko, ne že jsme udělali kus práce. Nebyli jsme schopni přijmout žádná vhodná opatření k minimalizaci expozice těchto látek vůči obyvatelstvu. Komise za celých poslední pět let neudělala v této věci nic, a to přesto, že jí to bylo soudně vytknuto jako pochybení.

Endokrinní disruptory jsou všude, v potravinách a ve vodě, v jejich balení, v naší kosmetice, v léčivých přípravcích a dokonce i v hračkách, které dáváme našim dětem. Neexistují žádné vědecké pochybnosti o mnoha škodlivých účincích, jež tyto látky mají. Dali jsme výrobcům dostatečně dlouhou dobu, aby s nějakým řešením přišli sami. Nepřišli samozřejmě s ničím. Naopak, přišli jsme na to, jak rádi manipulují s fakty a vědeckými studiemi. Konflikty zájmů vědců je zjevně potřeba řešit intenzivněji, než jsme dělali do teď.

Endokrinní disruptory musí být přísně regulovány stejně jako karcinogenní a mutagenní látky nebo látky toxické pro reprodukci. To znamená, že potřebujeme regulaci ve všech odvětvích, kde jsou v současné době přítomny. Musíme se ujistit, že je postupně co nejdříve úplně vyřadíme z používání. K tomu potřebujeme určit povinné požadavky na jejich testování a identifikaci. Musíme si uvědomit, že stejně jako v případě mutagenních či karcinogenních látek neexistuje žádná bezpečná prahová hodnota expozice vůči endokrinním disruptorům. Meze, které máme nyní, například pro bisfenol A, jsou stanoveny prostě příliš vysoko. Studie ukázaly nepříznivé účinky expozice bisfenolu A daleko pod těmito limity.

Kolegové, to, že bych Vás ráda poprosila o podporu naší rezoluce, je samozřejmostí. Také bych vás ráda informovala o tom, že jsme k rezoluci podali několik vylepšujících pozměňovacích návrhů, o kterých se domníváme, že lépe vyjádří frustraci, kterou v této době v souvislosti s nečinností Komise máme. Na závěr bych vám jen ráda řekla, že i pokud přijmeme další kritickou rezoluci, nebude to stačit.

  Michèle Rivasi, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, j’avoue que cette législature est une occasion manquée sur les perturbateurs endocriniens.

Mes collègues l’ont dit, l’OMS parle depuis 2013 de menace mondiale. Des milliers de publications scientifiques nous expliquent que les perturbateurs endocriniens sont en cause dans de nombreuses maladies chroniques: certains cancers hormonodépendants, l’obésité, le diabète, la perte du quotient intellectuel chez les enfants – parce que les femmes enceintes ingèrent des perturbateurs endocriniens et que cela peut avoir une répercussion sur le métabolisme des enfants –, l’infertilité, etc. Et vous, la Commission, que faites-vous? Vous gagnez du temps. Franchement, vous nous aviez dit avoir une stratégie en 1999, mais depuis 20 ans, qu’avez-vous fait? Qui vous a fait évoluer? C’est le Parlement européen qui vous a fait évoluer! Il a fallu qu’une ministre suédoise et le Parlement saisissent la Cour de justice européenne pour dire à la Commission: «Faites votre travail!». Vous étiez en dehors des traités européens pour définir, justement, ce qu’est un perturbateur endocrinien.

En tant que parlementaire, je me dis: heureusement que nous, les parlementaires, sommes là pour protéger la santé des citoyens européens. Que proposez-vous? Qu’on se serve du principe de précaution, qu’on minimise l’exposition des gens. Les rapports de Mme Demeneix, du CNRS, et de M. Slama, de l’Inserm, nous montrent qu’il y a une augmentation de l’exposition des femmes enceintes et de l’ensemble de la population, mais vous ne présentez aucun plan d’action précis. Cette résolution que nous vous proposons, elle vous dit: «Allons-y!».

Il n’existe même pas, sur le plan législatif, de définition commune, horizontale, des perturbateurs endocriniens présents dans les cosmétiques, les jouets, les additifs, les contenants alimentaires. Il n’en existe que pour les biocides et les pesticides. Et puis il y a REACH. C’est quand même incroyable! Quant aux tests d’évaluation, ils ne portent même pas sur l’ensemble des demandes d’autorisation des substances. De qui se moque-t-on?

Je vous demande vraiment, pour la prochaine législature, d’avoir un plan d’action, de reprendre les propositions des parlementaires pour éliminer ces perturbateurs endocriniens, au même titre que les cancérigènes, les mutagènes et les reprotoxiques. Il en va de la santé des citoyens. Notre objectif n’est pas de faire prospérer les lobbies, mais de protéger la santé des citoyens… (le Président retire la parole à l’oratrice)

  Violeta Bulc, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members very much for all their comments.

Almost 20 years after the first Community strategy for endocrine disruptors, endocrine disruption remains a global challenge and a source of concern for many EU citizens, as you have all pointed out. While we have made significant progress to understand better and manage endocrine disruptors, I agree with you that it is important that together we step up the EU’s efforts.

As I have already pointed out as well, the Commission’s services have already started working on the different actions announced in the strategy adopted last year. At the same time, we will step up our implementation of existing policies that are relevant for endocrine disruptors. This is an area where coordination across different policy areas is essential. I count on the support of this House to help us to continue to protect our citizens and the environment while preserving an internal market that delivers for customers and where businesses can thrive.

At the end, please allow me, on behalf of my colleague, Commissioner Andriukaitis, and myself, to wish you all the best for whatever steps you are planning to take in the future.

  President. – I have received one motion for a resolution to wind up this debate, tabled in accordance with Rule 123(2).

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 18 April 2019.

Written statements (Rule 162)

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), kirjallinen. – Hormonihäiritsijäkemikaaleja on joka puolella arkielämässämme. Niitä on paistinpannuissa, kalusteissa ja kosmetiikassa. Vaikka ihminen kuinka yrittäisi, hän ei yksin pystyisi suojautumaan kemikaaleilta. Siihen tarvitaan lainsäädäntöä. Hormonihäiritsijäkemikaaleista ei mikään ole suoranaisesti vaarallinen. Tiedämme kuitenkin hormonitoimintaa häiritsevien kemikaalien kielteisistä vaikutuksista – olemme tienneet niistä jo pitkään. Tiedämme, kuinka nämä kemikaalit vaikuttavat hormonitoimintaamme. Tutkimustulokset osoittavat hormonihäiriköiden vaikutuksen sperman laadun heikkenemiseen. Muihin tunnettuihin seurauksiin kuuluvat hormonitoimintaan liittyvät syövät, rintojen varhainen kehittyminen ja tyypin 2 diabetes. Hormonaalisille haitta-aineille on ominaista se, että ne vaikuttavat erityisesti kehitysvaiheessa olevaan elimistöön. Sikiöt, lapset ja murrosikäiset nuoret ovat suurimmassa altistumisvaarassa. Haitta-aineiden vaikutukset ovat peruuttamattomia, ja ne voivat vaikuttaa sukupolvien yli. On mahdollista, etteivät vaikutukset näy altistuneessa sukupolvessa vaan vasta seuraavissa. Haitta-aineet voivat vaikuttaa erittäin pieninäkin annoksina, minkä vuoksi niiden riskitekijöitä on ollut vaikeampi löytää suurten altistusmäärien kokeissa. Parlamentti on jo pitkään vaatinut komissiolta kattavia ja kunnollisia kriteerejä hormonihäiritsijäkemikaaleista, ja on häpeällistä, ettei kriteereitä ole vieläkään laadittu.