• Dansk
  • NL
  • EN
  • FI
  • FR
  • DE
  • EL
  • IT
  • NO
  • PL
  • PT
  • RO
  • SL
  • ES
  • SV

Worse than expected: Commission criteria for endocrine disruptors won't protect human health

(Epilogue to: A Toxic Affair – Season Finale)

Yesterday's European Commission proposal on scientific criteria defining endocrine disruptors (EDCs) is the latest dangerous outgrowth of a highly toxic debate. The chemical lobby, supported by certain Commission factions (notably DG SANTE and the Secretary-General) and some member states (UK and Germany), has put significant obstacles in the way of effective public health and environment regulation.

Up until the last, fierce debate in the European Parliament, the biggest concern had been a proposal of a 'potency criterion', which could have exempted a significant number of pesticide products from being banned. But as became clear yesterday, the Commission has found another – perhaps even more effective – way to pander to the chemical industry's interests.

The criteria presented by Health and Food Safety Commissioner Andriukaitis stipulate an impossibly high burden of proof prior to any potential ban of chemicals acting as endocrine disruptors. The Commission proposal requires a demonstration of causality between an adverse effect in humans and an endocrine mode of action.

As stated by the Greens in the European Parliament, this goes against standard classification practice for similar substances, such as those with adverse effects on reproduction. Should the current criteria be upheld, many, if not all, suspected EDCs will escape a ban.

According to the WHO, the scientific literature cannot yet offer strong evidence of the type of causal link aimed for by the European Commission. However, its latest assessment of the state of science on endocrine disruptors underlines that there is “sufficient evidence to conclude that adverse endocrine-mediated effects have occurred in some wildlife species”, even if evidence of such adverse effects on human health is weak.

It will likely take scientists a very long time to move from this weak evidence base to a proof of causality. In the meantime, many suspected EDCs could be allowed onto the market and, by default, into the people's bodies.

On this, Leonardo Trasande, Associate Professor at the NYU School of Medicine's Department of Population Health, says:

“The implications of waiting for perfect evidence for causation include disease, disability and loss of life in future generations of Europeans. The cost of these ongoing policy failures will reverberate long after [...]”.

Both the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Pesticide Action Network have likewise emphasised this threat to human health posed by an impossibly high burden of proof.

It should also not be forgotten that DG Environment had already analysed the most recent body of literature of toxicological and epidemiological studies relevant to EDCs in 2013, and was ready to release scientific criteria for their definition. At the time, DG SANTE (then called SANCO) fought hard alongside the chemical industry lobby to undermine DG Environment's work on this, and was rewarded for that by President Juncker by being put in charge of the work on EDC regulation. As we now know for sure, DG SANTE has effectively crushed a key piece of environmental and health legislation.

It is now up to the European Parliament and EU member states to reject the current proposal and strongly back the public interest in this regulatory tug of war.

Up until the last, fierce debate in the European Parliament, the biggest concern had been a proposal of a 'potency criterion', which could have exempted a significant number of pesticide products from being banned. But as became clear yesterday, the Commission has found another – perhaps even more effective – way to pander to the chemical industry's interests.The criteria presented by Health and Food Safety Commissioner Andriukaitis stipulate an impossibly high burden of proof prior to any potential ban of chemicals acting as endocrine disruptors. The Commission proposal requires a demonstration of causality between an adverse effect in humans and an endocrine mode of action.As stated by the Greens in the European Parliament, this goes against standard classification practice for similar substances, such as those with adverse effects on reproduction. Should the current criteria be upheld, many, if not all, suspected EDCs will escape a ban.According to the WHO, the scientific literature cannot yet offer strong evidence of the type of causal link aimed for by the European Commission. However, its latest assessment of the state of science on endocrine disruptors underlines that there is “sufficient evidence to conclude that adverse endocrine-mediated effects have occurred in some wildlife species”, even if evidence of such adverse effects on human health is weak.It will likely take scientists a very long time to move from this weak evidence base to a proof of causality. In the meantime, many suspected EDCs could be allowed onto the market and, by default, into the people's bodies.On this, Leonardo Trasande, Associate Professor at the NYU School of Medicine's Department of Population Health, says:“The implications of waiting for perfect evidence for causation include disease, disability and loss of life in future generations of Europeans. The cost of these ongoing policy failures will reverberate long after [...]”.Both the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Pesticide Action Network have likewise emphasised this threat to human health posed by an impossibly high burden of proof.It should also not be forgotten that DG Environment had already analysed the most recent body of literature of toxicological and epidemiological studies relevant to EDCs in 2013, and was ready to release scientific criteria for their definition. At the time, DG SANTE (then called SANCO) fought hard alongside the chemical industry lobby to undermine DG Environment's work on this, and was rewarded for that by President Juncker by being put in charge of the work on EDC regulation. As we now know for sure, DG SANTE has effectively crushed a key piece of environmental and health legislation.It is now up to the European Parliament and EU member states to reject the current proposal and strongly back the public interest in this regulatory tug of war.
 

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) finally sent us the raw data of three important scientific studies it used for its evaluation of glyphosate, the "Mysterious Three". But due to legal concerns, large sections of the data have been redacted.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) told CEO today, and publicly announced on their website, that they would disclose most of the raw data of studies on glyphosate used in the EU's toxicity assessment of glyphosate.

The official EU assessment of glyphosate was based on unpublished studies owned by industry. Seven months later, the pesticide industry still fights disclosure and, so far, successfully. We obtained a copy of their arguments.

This May is dense on the EU chemicals regulation front. Crunch time for two major files: the European Commission needs to publish the identification criteria for endocrine disrupting chemicals, and together with EU States must decide how, or not, renew the market approval of glyphosate, an herbicide produced and defended by Monsanto. Last week, the Professor Alan Boobis happened to be involved in both.

CEO welcomes the very strongly worded final ruling by European Ombudsman Emily O'Reilly in her inquiry into the Commission's implementation of UN rules for contacts with tobacco industry lobbyists.

CEO joined forces with nine other civil society organisations working for equality, non-discrimination, transparent decision-making and strong ethics rules: in an open letter to the European Parliament we urge MEPs to oppose Oettinger’s appointment as the Comission’s head of human resources.

After nine months of hearings, the draft report of the EU Parliament's inquiry into the Dieselgate scandal has it black on white: the European Commission and EU member states had known since 2004-05 that diesel cars' nitrogen oxide emissions were far above legal limits - yet neither took action.

Our new report shows how industry lobbies present employee protection against work-related cancers as an 'unnecessary' burden on companies, and explains which tactics have been used to weaken and delay the European Union's revision of the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive.

Subscribe to our newsletter