This morning (4 September) held an exchange of views with the Commission on the findings of the Fitness Check of the most relevant chemicals legislation (excluding REACH) and identified challenges, gaps and weaknesses.
If you missed the hour-long exchange, you can watch it again here.
An amazon generated transcript of the exchange is below.
Wow, that’s loud. Okay, thank you very much. Colleagues. The our chair has vacated Thio. Go to another meeting and it falls upon me as one of the vice chairs to share this session of the committee on dhe. If we could have a bit of hush, thank you very much on DDE in this session, we will be having an exchange of views with the commission with DJ grow and DJ envy on the findings of the fitness check off the most relevant chemicals legislation which would include reach on dhe. The identify challenges, gaps and weaknesses on will have an opportunity to have a Q and a session with the two representatives from the commission. Who here today? I’m going to get the commission 10 minutes. Okay. So if I give 10 minutes the commission, that’s five minutes each. Please. First Al, give the floor to Mr Pet Patin Ellie of DJ Grow And then to Mr Sid ask us of DJ envy. So please, Mr Petty. Nelly. Yes, Thank you. Chair on our board members. European Union started work on a czar drew chemicals 50 years ago. Action at the U level in there of chemicals has been driving by its commitment to ensure a high level of protection on human health and the environment is realize in efficiency functioning off the internal market. The current legal framework covered chemicals in industrial activities or compassion of settings, consumer produce, pesticides, fertilizer, fertilizers, waste and water from the moment they are produced, toe when they air use and after they’re released into the environment. The fitness check Answer to the following three questions. What has European Union achieved in the area of chemicals? I’ll do more than 40 directives and regulation that each contains one or more provisions on chemicals, feet and perform together. What are the strengths and weaknesses off the UK Mika’s legislation? Our assessment covers all the steps off the decision making process at the European 11 from other unification to decision or risk management measures. We also looked at the implementation and enforcement off the rules by member states. These business check complements the valuation off the reach his election that was published last year. Together, this durable Russians cover the entire U chemical legislation. The fitness check concludes that overall, the youth chemical legislation is feet for dealing with the complexity off chemical hazards and risks. It reflects 50 years off continues efforts, strong commitment and progress. The you added value in the area off Canada’s is clearly high. Our chemicals policy and our decision making process are a suit off expiration for many countries outside of Europe. Decision making at your level memorization and coma standers in shoe, a Negro level of protection off human health and the environment across European Union that is also transmit the internal market and increase the overall efficiency we’re sharing knowledge is and resources. But we did identify some scope for improvement when it comes to the availability of resources for implementation and enforcement off the legislation and to our capacity to cooperate regarded articles important into the European Union. Public authorities struggle with ensuring both over consumer protection and fair competition between you and no. You Cos These include online sales. The share of products sold online is constantly increasing. A lot of them are coming from abroad. Economic actors cannot guarantee that product sold via dei online platform do not contain no not arise as are those chemicals essential. Other insect information is also often incomplete or Evan missing the lever of compliance with the rules depends on whether economic actors understand them and whether they are able to keep with the change in legislation, clarity in off the rules facilitate and increased compliance. This is especially important for more economic actors who who’s really struggled more in this regard. Because of resource constraints. There are still some inefficiencies in the assessment off others and risky carried out by the use scientific agencies. Additional efficiency gains could result from assessing a sort of chemicals in groups rather than individually and insulated context. European companies will face challenge do it to the globalization and the stronger Groot in the production of chemical outside Europe. Other challenge will come from rapid technological change like digitalization and increase focus on sustainability. The fast evolving geo political and economic context will challenge Europe’s current global leadership off the sustainability and sound. The management off chemicals and waste toe face this challenge we can build on the high level off technological development off you chemicals industry and its skilled and talented workforce. We can build on Internet market that is one of the biggest market in the world. It protects consumers across the U and the lows them to make informed the choice. Your citizens in general have much greater confidence in the chemical safety of product manufactured. The Indy you compared to those important and we can make much better use off Martek knowledge. They will also has to continue to take appropriate decision. They will also improve the way we communicate information to consumers and economic actors across value chains, and they can improve enforcement and market surveillance. And after these views, I’ll give the floor to my college students. Risk a studious thank you call in terms of protection off health and environment. The simulation shows that you can mock. Village relation has led to many notable achievements. For instance, exposures of citizens on environment to heavy metals as best those Polly chlorinated definite lt’s Ben’s n have bean significantly reduced the same time we have a number of very worrying. Growing trends, such as intact and bird population have been declining dramatically up to 50% in some instances over the last several decades. Male fertility problems are growing at an alarming rate in Europe rate in Europe, the incident rate of certain types of cancer and neurological diseases continue to increase. Someone our citizens All these trends have multiple causal factors. Chemicals and no no at least are strongly suspected to contribute to these adverse adverse effect. Our veneration tells us clearly, what are the main policy challenges to be addressed? One is consistency of regulatory measures, which is paramount to guarantee an adult level protection in particular for vulnerable groups. The lack off a horizontal approach can lead to uneven protection for the same vulnerable group between different pieces of legislation. For example, on Under Crime Disruptors, where right now we have a targeted cross cutting fitness check on going, and it will allow identify gaps, inconsistencies of those energies. Two. The identification and management off emerging risks and that requires specific attention. It could be supported by a European early warning system. Tau identifying alert decision. Make us on time about emerging risks. Three. The current state of knowledge about exposure to hazardous chemicals and the impact on health and environment needs to be improved. We need more data on hazardous chemicals they use is their fate and exposure for better information and tracking off hazardous substances in articles is required. This is also needed for the circle economy and five we do not have evidence that the current legislation has driven this substitution of hazardous chemicals at the significant rate, so stronger support toe green chemistry will be critical to the sustainability and competitiveness off you chemicals industry in the future. As Campbell Petty Nellie has set you chemicals legislation has proven to be most probably the most ambitious and effective in the world. It guarantees a high level of protection to citizens and environment, and you should be proud of it. But challenges are still many of their link to fundamental global economic, societal environmental issues. In June, Commission organized a high level conference to discuss the future of the chemicals policy. Together with the findings of the fitness check off the last year’s reach review, very useful inputs received by various stakeholders will feed into a more general reflection on the future off chemicals policy. The president elect of the European Commission has already outlined within her priorities the need to tackle hazardous chemicals and underground disruptors as part of broad ambition. Toe what zero pollution Europe. The next commission has thus a strong basis to define its vision and objectives for the future off European Union’s chemicals policy Thank you. What? Okay, thank you very much. We have with two indicates three indications so far. So keep most Okay, We haven’t any indication. I’m gonna go first to Peter. You first. Yeah, you know, thank you very much too. And thank you very much to the commission reach and the implementation of reaches important in order to protect citizens against dangerous substances. And let me emphasize that it’s important that the U addresses such matters. So it’s not done at a national level of the chemical industry was not enthusiastic about reach just to be to Satan. Polite terms. But if you discuss this now with the representatives of the sector is that the most important thing about Brexit is that reach will continue to apply in the UK that they don’t have a individual system with all off the problems with having different production procedures and different regulations. So that’s why having it’s important to have uniform legislation within the single market at the same time, it’s important and the commission dedicated This is well that this should not be addressed in an absolutist fashion. In other words, you have to look at the overall impact and If a substance during the production procedure is used, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s dangerous to humans. Uh, and that has to be prohibited. I could give two examples with which have had a lot of experience, and the commissioner is aware of this, that we have problems with it, the first situation with chrome, and we had a very, uh, close debate on that in Parliament. Some people wanted to prohibit a certain form of chrome. However, there was no danger to the consumer. It was just used in production and was not dangerous if used correctly. If we had a prohibition off, um, this in Europe, then we would have to have the products imported from third countries. And so this is of course, not better for the environment because the regulations aren’t that strict abroad. If the second situation is micro plastics, if we have a prohibition, this could have significant impacts. For example, were talking about artificial grass. The alternatives could be very the interest for the athletes. They could have additional injuries, so we can’t make it impossible to enjoy sports just because of our chemical legislation. So we need to have long transitional periods we would have to have innovative technology. And so I’d like to request the commission that they look at this in a balanced way and not just say Well, if this substance is dangerous in one situation, it has to be prohibited. You have to look at this in the overall perspective and see what kinds of alternatives are available that’s included in reach. And I think we should continue to pursue that principle. Ms has a gun. Thank you all for Duncan. Thank you, Joan. I’d like to thank the commission for that information. A thorough, uh, upgrading on third station is vital. Oh, we need a proper every structure now. Of course, if chemicals are dangerous to infants in no bottles, they must also be banned from toys. What about Courtney? Off chemicals. We have people dying early. If he has got unacceptable, we have to be to beam or ambitious. And tickle isn’t approach in, but banning chemicals right across the board in legislation. Our party is just a small fighting wanting to ban tests on animals in risk assessments. You can have ah, cleaner. Um, circular economy. If you do without these dangerous substances, if we allow them to continue with losing a whole generations with health. Listen, Thio objective scientists leave the chemical be outside the room. As they expert has said, there is no proper balance. And that has to stop. Uh, donkey. Well, um, crystal shallow contacted it, Thank you very much and thank you very much reporting this topic on the agenda. It’s very important to discuss our chemical legislation within the U, and I also think that it’s important. Just like we heard that there is a need for having stricter legislation and better chemical legislation. I don’t know if it’s reached, even though we’re discussing right now, because we have to be faster to react. Even we’re talking about individual substances when there’s a problem. And if we run the risk off having some member states making individual prohibitions, I understand that they would do so if there is dangerous substance. For example, the new Danish Rick, a government has decided to prohibit off flooring substances in baking paper and part baking parchment because we know there are some chemicals there that can then be transferred to food, so there is a need to react quickly. And if the U doesn’t react quickly than the member states react quickly. And I think we need a fast track for some of these substances. So when we have studies that show that there is a risk for human health, then we should be able to react now, not five years from now. I’m not 10 years from now now. So I think it’s important to, um, make sure that the individual member states aren’t having to react more quickly. And then we distort the single market. So I think we should have, uh, best protection throughout the world. But if even though it’s it’s not always good enough, and I think there’s room for improvement, so I think it’s very important that it’s it’s significant, uh, to include this in the upcoming commission program. We need a new approach to chemical policy so we can react faster when we see individual substances that are dangerous, especially if the’s are substances that have contact to citizens in their daily life. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Miss Reese, it seems you’re crazy. Don’t know. This was clear. Thank you, Chairman. Let’s think about this week. You clearly have the the best position on chemicals in mentioned Bond Push representative, I think weaken quite rightly feel shed right in this. There are points of fiction without going commission. Though we we talked about endocrine disruptors, I’m delighted to hear the Commissioner absent of, say, that court has stopped taking his underway. If you look at what happened with the renewal of the authorization of state, for example on our demands on pesticides from the work of our special committee, nonetheless, I want to speak on behalf of my colleagues duty. You can’t join us this morning and apologizes for his absence. I want to share his questions in English that some materials, including plastics, which coming contract with our food may contain a substance which are carcinogenic under crime, disruptors or other concerns. When will the commission finally deliver a comprehensive and ambitious legislative proposal amending the food Contact material regulation To tackle this pressing issue I’ve heard. While my colleague has heard that a proposal will be published for 2020 could you please confirm it? Second question Poor implementation by the member states has been identified by the Commission as a major barrier for achieving the goals of chemical and produce legislation concerning toys. For example, this has been said before or cosmetics to protect against harmful chemicals. How has the commission tackled thes implementation deficits? On last question, this fitness jack shows that despite the rub business off our legislation, there is no shift towards less dangerous chemicals. According to the final report in 2016 around 60% of the total production of chemicals classified as hazardous for the environment and around 40% for health this XX excessive sorry exposure to mix off chemicals account for thousands of premature death in Europe and biodiversity loss. What has the commission done to reverse this trend of people? Yeah, um, normally we always they have a long list of questioners and then we have, the commission responded. The end of the list is relatively short for this round, so I’m going toe. There’s a few more names as three more colleagues who wish to ask questions. But I won’t because there’s a lot of detail in these questions. I want to ensure that the answers are given so off we were running ahead of schedule, so we’ll have the opportunity to hear back from the commission after the next three questions, and then we’ll have the opportunity. Thio have more colleagues coming. So if I could now ask Ms Paulus, thank you very much. Thank you very much for the work on these refits. You really put in a lot of scrutiny and expert knowledge in the report. I don’t know who if you has had a look at the stock human. Um, actually, you did force years of study in order to find out we need more data, especially in hazardous chemicals and endocrine disrupters which affect human health and also biodiversity. You found out that the precautionary principle is addressed, but not extensively applied. Your father found out that substances off high concern a present in everyday articles affecting consumer health and also hampering circular economy, which has already been pointed out. Um, the pesticide stay on the market because the member states surpassed the surpassed the deadlines which which which were promised to the suppliers on dhe Many, many issues Maura about combination effects, about consistency, of actions to protect vulnerable population groups and so on. And so I’m a bit surprised on the other conclusions or or the action plans because I didn’t find any. I couldn’t find a vision for a sustainable chemical legislation, actually, which really addresses human health and preservation of natural resources, which are the base of a survival. Because those seem to be less important than the common market, which I find a bit destroying. And also you have addressed missing scientific knowledge. And my question is what action will be taken on that also, there’s still no outline for a non toxic environment, and I think the strategy should have been presented by the commission in 2018 if I’m not mistaken, and I would be interested in to know when we can expect this on. Lastly, Cootie elaborate a bit on the zero pollution strategy which Ms von Aline has promised and you have mentioned it. And you certainly have a plan for it, don’t you? Thank you very much. Thank you. Was Novak qualities embassy in? Thank you very much, Chair. I’ve spoken with many people who work in agriculture, and they have all guaranteed me that they are very satisfied with the legislation would have come to fight off from asserting pharmaceuticals. They have received trainings. Further education and traceability has been improved. Those air the pluses. However, there are also some negative aspect, especially when it comes to managing wastes and storing wastes. There is no unified classifications for that. And, ah, there are different measurement units used. Sometimes it’s kilograms, sometimes it’s stones. And then, on the other hand, we’re measuring in cubic meters and leaders, it is not unified. I would like to ask the commission whether you have foreseen some new actions in the field off managing waste and storing waste. Will there be a more unified classifications for these items? Thank you. Thank you. Chair Onda, Thank you to the commission. I have a few questions for you. I think my colleague treated you gentle on Dhe. I think I will be the bad cop here today because I am actually disappointed from looking at the fineness in the fitness shake you can on Lee get the impression that things are working Well, you get the impression that okay, some problems, but in general, we have a very good regulation here on day state. You commission, you state that the chemicals legislation is fit for purpose, delivers a high level of protection for people and environment. But let’s face it, that’s not the situation here. We see that we have a rise in Europe of very serious diseases, and we see a link to chemicals on dhe. So my question is very easy for youto answer. If everything is working so well, how does the commission explain that the disease is linked to the exposure off chemicals are in rice? In Europe? We see that there’s not, at least with the endocrine disrupting chemicals and their effect on the public health. And that brings me to my second question. Why is the commission not acting to expand the protection against under crying, disrupting disruptors so that all sectors in society is covered, such as plastic textiles, drinking water, cosmetics? We know that people are not protected today and it harms their health. We want to see more action from you on dhe. I also have a question off compliance. According to a recent study by the German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment and the German Environment Agency ah, third off the hype and production volume chemicals made or imported to Europe since 2010 break you laws designed to protect public and environment from harmful exposure. Just 31% were declared as legally compliant, with the rest needing more investigation on the reach. Regulation applies companies to report to Russia whether they’re substances are causing cancer neurotoxic, mutagenic, br cumulative or harmful to children or human fertility. So why is that? The commission is authority authorizing substances, although the required information is missing on my last question. Finally, the Snd group wants to know when the commission intends to present a long overdue you strategy for non toxic environment. People have the right not to be exposed of dangerous chemicals. It is easy to talk the talk, but we need you tow actually also walked the walk and deliver because we need to strengthen the protection for Europe’s citizens and environment. Thank you, thank you very much. I’m very conscious that we’ve had a lot of detail in the questions, and I want to make sure that the questions that have been asked get a proper answer, not saying that you wouldn’t give a proper answer. But what does happen a lot in these sessions is that we have a long list of questions with a lot of detail and then only a short period at the end for the commission to answer as we are running ahead of schedule, I would like to invite the commission to respond to the questions that have been put so far. I’m aware of additional speakers for the next round. I will give priority to new speakers in the next round. But if you have asked a question and you feel that your question hasn’t been fully answered, please do raise your hand again to have the opportunity to seek an answer for the second time. Mr Putin Alien. Mr Said, ask us. I’m gonna propose 10 minutes to answer what we’ve heard so far between you. If that’s acceptable to you and then we’ll go back for more questions from my colleagues. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Concerning the consideration off Mr Lee’s. Ah, I’d like to say that this is exactly the functioning off the Reacher regulation rich regression tried taking account all the aspects and for these reasons, in the heck of urgency there are two committee. There is the Risk Assessment Committee and the other committed the second that assess the social and economic impact After these committees that they draw the conclusion and the commission take the decision based on all these information. So the economic and societal aspects are taking a counter and that we try to find the better balance off course. Sometimes that the better balance is something that is there the subjective, because what is the better balance for someone is not for others. And we see also before the summer for some opinion on crewmates because her mates is being mentioned. I did that There are several. Mm. There are different views also, uh, in the parliamentary A concerning the did the enforcement enforcement off court is a challenge because the regression is very complex and the players are very different. There are big companies and s Amis, and most of enforcement is for member states because they have the authority for enforcing rules. So what you are trying at European level, you are making our rules clear and simple. We try to avoid duplication and effort winning, assess the other risk off substances, or when companies need to generate data for such assessments that could improve the implementation and enforcement. The new president elect, in their political agendas, announced the intention to focus on tighter enforcement. So she says that Europe will always fight for a level playing field and we’ll be strong against the doors of compete by damping the regulation or subsiding disease for the external trade. So we will need now orderto give a full of up to these political aspirations. As you know, that the process for setting up the new commission is still in the preparatory phase, so we cannot give ah detailed information simply because of these. They do not exist, not because we don’t want to give information. But the work is ongoing and there is already a commitment from the president about the food contact materials. There is some work that he’s already on going. There is an evaluation study that is, ah, going at Eton and the DEA’s evaluation will leak. We look also on out. Today’s the issue in a career in a way that can assure every more protection to consumers. But we should say that for food contract materials, there is already a very demanding regulation that already give in high level over our protection. Of course, maybe we can do better and we’re for these reasons. We are making an evaluation, but we are not starting from the scratcher and that there is also another study in depend. Extend a study on these matters that will be finalized soon and when finalize, it will be a publisher concerning the compliance and the German study that has been published on the media. Yes, this is a concern off course disease also related to the availability of resources, because the number of fights that have been submitted is extremely high. So the a European a European chemical agency, is obliged to work Bye bye sampling. But off course you have taken the result off these studies very seriously. So now the agency is preparing an action plan. The actual planet think is quite ready and we start as soon as possible with implementation for farting improving the assessment off ice that has to meet it for for the agency and for the other questions they let the Michaeli statist wants. Thank you, Carlo, and assume that’s the animal testing. I think there is an equivocal commitment by European Union as well as the legal requirements to reduce animal testing, which is still happening because we don’t have all this for 40 functional alternative methods. But those methods are increasing animal testing in principle is going downwards, but there will be an opportunity to discuss it once we have produced in the next month’s the Report Off Laboratory Animals Directive. This is where we will be showing what the progress is and what the challenges are as we got to the question, Why were commission and European Union is not acting faster on to the floor? Indebted substance have been given. This example is the right example. Indeed, this is what fitness check has found is that efficiency can really be improved in the action and in some cases, it Jess, take long time to come to the final decision. For good reason. Because we have to analyze the situation we have to analyze economic situation. Socioeconomic analysis also needed gather lots of data before we proceed with the action. This is what we call the better regulation as well. But that’s why in the fitness ship, we have addressed decision where, in a way hinted that perhaps acting through the group’s off substances rather than one by one would be one way to do it and in fact, flooring it. The substance is one example, because right now we have restricted several dozen of them. But there are thousands of floor injected substances, so going after a bigger group through the so called grouping approach will allow us to act fast and with less cost and to do it really more efficiently. Um, as for the substitution, what has been done for the by the commission to reverse the trend? Indeed, this is the same. Let’s see similar finding that we have that we have observed also under the reach of elevation. In fact, the numbers are reducing. While it may be a bit misleading, um, outlook that the numbers are hazardous, chemicals are on, the market is so high. In fact, a lot more chemicals have bean classified as hazardous because we have analyzed them and there is a consensus that their hazardous, which was not case it was not before as soon as they classify as such than the risk management measures that set in. And this is when the reduction of exposure to such hazardous substances is kicking in. So this is the process. This is how the whole construct of the chemicals legislation is done and is aimed in the that reducing the exposure to to a dangerous, dangerous substances. Then there was a question. Why no action if the Russell Man issues and problems identifying the fitness check? The purpose of the fifth mission was to identify issues to really cut across that look across more than 40 pieces of law and to see other issues. And there are issues thes have been identified. But the exercise of fitness check is not to propose actions is to identify issues. It’s really tour. Do the check theat actions are to be outline in the next face, and this is for the next commission to be done. This is what we are waiting as eagerly as you want to see. What is the program off the next commission? What are the precise ideas by by the commission’s? That’s why, as competently said, we cannot say more than we have set right now because we need to wait for the new commission to come in. But as for the question on non toxic environment strategy, this is a requirement under the seventh Environmental Action Program, which, by the way, is still valid until next year, so we still have time to do it. But the trouble with a non toxic environment strategy is that, as it was designed to to develop the non toxic drama strategy was meant to deal with four issues with nano materials within the crimes with substances radicals with mixtures and all these are pertinent issues where there is work ongoing in each and every field of them. But as you can see from the fitness check and if you also remember, if you had the chance to take a look at the Reach review as well as many other evaluations and fitness checks that ongoing or have been finished or will soon be finished, there is a lot more than these four issues. And that’s why, ah, most probably will have to have a more far reaching goal. It’s a wider outlook and the policy action in this than than what non toxic environment strategy calls for. But again, this is for the next commission to say, and this is a possibility that under the zero pollution ambition has been allowed announced by from the land. These actions will will be found there, um uh and I would probably just at what What kind was set on the compliance with the reach and the substances that are are in compliance with it. Indeed, the action plan is already there is agreed with the chemicals European Chemicals Agency. We are also amending tthe e, an ex ists, and the reach itself through implementing acts where we will be increasing. The checks on the substance is four times so there will be a heavy scrutiny and there will be a clarification legal clarification by when companies have to improve an update their docs in which they characterize the chemicals that they put on the market. That will really improve the compliance with the recent legislation and will improve also the protection off citizens and the vomit. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Also for keeping very succinctly to time. I think you’ve given a range of answers there. There were actually relatively comprehensive for the time that you’ve been given. But I’m aware that obviously some of the finer points of the questions that my colleagues have asked that they may want to come back when I’ve got two speakers for the next round. If colleagues who have asked the question I wish to ask for clarification, please do indicate at first Miriam Dolly. Thank you, Chair. I will look at it from a different point of view because I do understand that new forms of industrial cooperation between chemicals industries on other industries are emerging and that they are shaping new industrial structures. But we still lack proper emphasis on policies that done facilitate structured change in the chemical sector that truly address environmental health and societal challenges. On dhe, we need a chemicals industry that is a strong driver off results and energy efficiency on that also contributes to the carbon ization through nano technology by our economy order use off so too as a chemical feedstock. But I would like to understand from the commission how they are seeing the way forward or how they expect the U legislation on its implementation toe facilitate really untrue and in a concrete manner, a new alliance between chemicals, agriculture and waste first and foremost to offer new business opportunities in the green economy, but also to help make the concept off the circular economy reality. It is something that we have been working for, and it is something where your legislation can truly contribute on. Make sure that we have a situation where the circular economy takes into account. The chemicals industry on dhe is something that is beneficial for our citizens across the U. Thank you very much, madam. See? Thank you, madam. Thank you, Chairman. Well, I’ve got a whole series of questions because I was on pesticides committee in the previous legislature on this was on risk assessment on chemical substances. No, I was shocked. Quite a lot. Something by something that summer. That was that F sir, our food safety agency made a proposal on risk assessment for pesticides regarding bees in particular on they took into account chronic toxicity, in particular of pesticides, overtime on both larva and the bees. Well, the states rejected that in order to minimize the risk assessment with the commission’s complicity. Because the commission had made a proposal that was a much lighter. I’d like to get your opinion on that, because that really does, uh, illustrate the chemicals and their assessment. I mean, if we carry on like this, we won’t have any visa at all on the endocrine disruptors. Um, the French Health agency assess this based on the population, there’s a strong in ah involvement of six endocrine disruptors you can see therefore, that our European regulation is not pertinent because we know that these disruptors have health consequences and everyone has them because they’re not just in food, They’re not just in consumer goods, they’re everywhere. So that means that we are not being a rigorous enough to ban these substances. There’s something else we’re concerned about, and I would like to see an improvement. But legislation that’s on consumer goods, because when we talk about, uh, diapers for, ah, toddlers, we can’t force industry to admit what’s in them. When there was independent bodies who looked into this, we saw that there were pesticide residues. There were endocrine disruptors. So we’ve got to force, uh, that be this on feminine hygiene products on diapers that there be ah, labeling, uh, requirement. And then on nano particles, there’s they’re everywhere. And now there’s there in our foods there, in medicines, their vaccines, they’re everywhere on we don’t know anything about them. So I would really like the commission Thio decide that we’ve got to legislate on nano particles. So either we have a nano reach. Ah, when we say that we’ve improved reach will remember what we said in the Pesticides Committee. We realized that reach gave the registration. The industry put these chemical substance after the environment, even if the daughter wasn’t complete there again. We’ve got to change this. We don’t authorize. We don’t record them unless all of the dossiers are complete from industry. We’ve got huge gaps in the system because you’re to relax. You’re too nice to the industry. So there there’s things that need to be changed. And I think that in terms of the commission and in the Parliament were not hard nosed enough that we’re talking about the environment, we’re all affected by this. And we’re all dying a little by little of the cancer epidemic. Okay, that’s cool, Mr President. Thank you, Chairman will thank you to the uh huh beer of the committee for putting this important subject on the agenda and thank you to the commission for their explanations. Perhaps a bit of a provocative comment. You mentioned your concerns with regard to the industry’s hesitations on which my colleague Michelle Visage commented And you also expressed your fears about the isolated initiatives from member states. When you refer to the stakeholders, you’ve heard two governments, industry on dhe stakeholders. Beyond the U, there is one category of people who are able to weigh heavily on industries through their credit cards and on governments by their vote. Uh, Mike, that’s the consumers. As my colleague Peter Liza said, Legislation can be, ah, binary approach, authorization or ban. But it can and should also be made up of information to the main people involved. And that’s the consumers on consumer associations. Our pleading for a labeling system along the lines of the new tree score, which they quite rapidly accepted and which allows us to have information. And the public can make decisions based on this about the products they use. My question is, are you bringing European consumer associations active enough in the legislative process to make them pertinent on? Have you considered setting up a true system for informing consumers using a score or labeling approach that on the products they use? Okay, we have three speakers who have asked the question the previous round. I’m going to suggest that if you could keep your questions short, that will give our commission colleagues sufficient time to answer. Please, Crystal, Thanks. I will do it very short First of all, I asked about fast track procedure. When we find dangerous substances, would you give Ah, will you recommend us to in you to make a fast track procedure when we find dangerous substance, individual, dangerous substances? I think that could be helpful because it’s very complicated to change a whole range off whole set off for legislation. Second, I’m not sure that I got your message. Will you or will you not stop the Danish government from banning some of thes food contact material substances that are migrating into into the food? I would like to know that because it’s very important. It is the Florida substances stare trying to ban, and I think it’s a good idea, since you is not fast enough on this. Thank you. Powerless? Yes, it’s very sure to, um, I do have to insist on the strategy of non toxic environment, which was outlined in the seventh Environmental Action Plan. It’s legal requirement, and you’re just postponing and I don’t see how postponing will bring us further in ensuring a healthy environment for also people as well as biodiversity. Also, there has been some prolonged the scorer’s about reach, which is not our subject today, actually. But all the other things which I was just talking about, I was asking for action. Not for well. We will see what the next commissioners. You have spent four years scrutinizing all those things. Combination effect, endocrine disruptors, inconsistent tease sees in risk management decisions. And you don’t have any proposals on which action commission will take. And I find that pretty, pretty ho could I just put it without being rude? But I do expect from commission to do its job. Thank you. You were the pity me of politeness. Miss has become Dr. L Foresee it. Thank you, Chairman. I wanted to thank the commission for the answers, but they’re still being very vague. One answer on the General Crume six chromium six. Well, that is the problem. Industry finds new legislation excessive and they lobby strongly against it. The positions are divided er and that’s precisely why it’s so important that we listen to independent researchers, independent researchers and not people that because of political conviction or ah, other reasons are not independent. And I won’t ask the commission. Do you agree with the pesticides Committee? And if the in the refit. There are strong changes necessary. What exactly are you going to do? And when you used to love thank you chair on thank you to the commission for the answers. But I must agree with colleagues to say that some of the answers were not clear enough because off the serious situation that we face here on, I want to repeat not only what’s was mentioned by my colleague, that we need to see the long overdue you strategy for a non toxic environment. We have waited so long, it’s long overdue and it’s not serious that we don’t see it presented on. It’s really this in disrespect to the citizens that needs to know that we take serious their health and environment protection. And then I also need to highlight the serious situation when it comes to the end of crime disrupters. We have studies that show link to serious diseases on problems with fertility in our member states. On dhe I recently met, the professor talked about the situation where they studied pregnant women and they shake their body during the pregnancy and the women with higher levels of chemicals with endocrine disrupting and for endocrine disruptors They actually also have problem with the baby’s health. When they are born, they can see the link. So this is something that we need to protect the citizens from and for the future generation. This is really something that we will be and people will will judge how we behaved if we protected the babies or not. So I want to see that the commission delivers not only one area for under queen disruptors, but all the society. And we need protection in water, in drinking water, in cosmetics, in plastics, in all the daily life that we experience. So, please, I want more answers. How will you act when it comes to end or crying Disruptors? Thank you very much. Thank you, colleagues. I’m gonna give the floor to the commission to answer. Obviously you’ve heard a lot of concern from colleagues here in this committee. This is an issue of fundamental trust for citizens, of course, to have the confidence in the products they buy in the foods they eat in the water they drink and the exposure to chemicals in the environment that they live in. So I would stress please do try and answer all of my colleagues questions as best you can appreciate time. Sure, I know it’s difficult. Obviously you given a relatively comprehensive answers in the first round. But I would stress, obviously, if colleagues leave this committee with the sense that there are hanging threads that still have to be dealt with, We don’t want to just wait until the new commission takes office. We want to be sure that there is action being taken. So please give the floor to the commission. Yes, thanks. Uh, before hold liketo make a general consideration is not that we don’t want to be clear, but the he sure is that we can’t anticipate toe what will be the program of the next commission. Because it for the time being we have only a president elected in the political game. Lines off the president elected the issue over environment protection, off seasons, every prominent part because we have European green deal that was not only on climate, but also on the environment. We have other chapter is, um, protecting a European way off life protecting people. So all these is already the guidelines, but these are just guidelines. This is not a working program So for every game working program for saying the water the commissioner will do. We need that before there is a commission that is designated after day. Did the commission will take office the festive remember hopefully and that after we can decide and we can’t commit what will be done for. The timing is completely impossible for us to say exactly what the commission will do if we don’t know will be the commission. And if there is not a working program and I will try to tow, give more clarification on some questions. Festival roller to Mrs Dolly about the day industry. A very still a lot to do on the secret economy, but I think that the work that we have done in the last five years is already enormous. Five years ago, there was a lot of people that ever do not know what means. Circular economy under disc, a mission. It has been done in enormous work. As example. We can think about the plastics for the plastic that there has been a strategy and initiative. There has been a legislation, the directive on the single use plastics and about a plastic bottles that is one of the main concern for the environment and they will become not anymore waste. But they will become secondary materials in the frame off the circular economy and their disk a mission. There’s bean the communication on the end of West Cafeteria from ways to sink a secondary role material. So a lot of work has been done. But not everything can be done in the five year. So this is clearly a priority that is already in the political guidelines off. The president elected to continue these work on the on the circular economy concerning the very specific questions about the procedure for Bakri papers in the Denmark. Frankly speaking, I don’t know where we are for this procedure if there is a notification from Denmark for obtaining interrogation or if there is not. But these are case that there are hundreds off case like easy in the commission. There is a way to stop a well established procedure. But I am not aware of these specific case Immunology Apostle, I kissed you won’t get a formal now toothy question put in French on labeling for foodstuffs. The commission has been working for a long time now on labeling for foodstuffs in Europe. We have a very detailed information, all ready amongst the most advanced in the world. But perhaps what we’re missing is a bit of a summary. We have all of the foodstuffs and the ingredients, but we’re missing a summary. The new tree score is one of the proposals that’s on the table. Our colleagues from DJ Sante have already done a study on this. There are different options on the table, not just the new tree score. So I think once again it will be up to the new commission. Thio reached some conclusions on this study on Dhe if deems necessary. Thio Great. A legislative proposal. It’s up to them to decide in which way. Now again, I can’t anticipate what will happen afterwards, but there is a whole lot of work on the background that has been done and over the last few months, and I would expect that the next commission already has the necessary information to complete this work quickly. And I’ll give my colleague also rather briefly I owed also the answer on on the waste that was asked before in the previous round. I can only say that the new loss on the waist classifications and on the definitions have come into force last year. They still have to be transposed by the member states, and once it’s transposed, there will be a lot more clarity of what is this? What is not what is, has this waste what is not? So we have to enforce that legislation. We have to make sure that everybody is doing the right thing. But it’s a new law which still has not has not fully been transposed by the member states just because there is still time to do it. As regards the commission being lenient, it lenient towards pollinators and the declining population of bees, I would liketo probably redirect that question toe again to our colleagues in the health Department were responsible for this. But the only I can confirm that indeed, there is an alarming decline off the pollinators population in Europe, and it poses an enormous problem, not only the environment but also for agriculture, for the entire population. So certainly they will have to be action and on the situation is pretty pretty urgent and diet, and lastly, asked for probably two more questions. One on Donna Materials was also mentioned by Madame See through the change off, the requirements on the reach for the registration of substances in the uniforms had just come into force. It’s brand new legal requirement, which clarifies which Nana forms and in what way they need to be registered under the reach regulation. And that will really give a lot more information about where no other materials out who they are and that will also trigger analysis off their properties. And if they are dangerous to health and environment or not in in what way and that will allow us also to act on risk management on and the crimes. Uh, these are mentioned by President Elect as one of the topics where she wants to act. Ah commission. This commission adopted a strategy for under crime disruptors already last year, and there are the reaction on going. One of them is a cross cutting fitness check off all legislation to see where in the crimes addressed where they’re not aware they should be, is the consistency is there logic into a legal intervention and that result will be very important because it could lead to do the changes in the legislation, but we have to wait for the results. In the meantime, we will also be launching on your platform on underground Disruptors where all the information will be available there. So there will be really one stop shop place for everybody. Wants to know anything about endocrine disruptors, including studies. The best knowledge that we have so that will really inform lots of decision making and will also be launching a forum with scientists with various stakeholders, also rather soon in the coming months on in the car, and disrupt this in order to take forward that discussion into informal. So the fitness check which, as a set quit eventually thio legal changes. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, as aware, obviously of the constraints that you’re under and a very Priestess of the answers you’ve given Nonetheless, obviously we take note of of what you said. We take note of the promises and priorities that are on the lion has made in terms of her commitments. Obviously, we will take note off our concerns going forward. Andi answers you’ve given in terms of the commission of hearings that we will be attending. All I would say is that way do often have a situation, I think, where we find between mandates wth e outgoing commission often feels as if it’s unable to act in the final year or so of its mandate, preferring Thio DeLay until the next mandate. We then, of course, have a period where assessments are undertaken. An action often doesn’t take place until halfway through the next legislature on. But the issues that citizens face simply don’t have the luxury of conforming to the parliamentary and commission timetable that we have on. I think that there has to be a way of making sure the concerns and issues that we are raising here don’t get lost in the transition between commission mandates. My little spiel, thank you very much. Appreciate it’s It’s a tough gig, sometimes appearing before the committee. But we’re very appreciative of your time and your answers today on Dhe. Thank you very much for your time