A useful update from Kestutis Sadauskas (DG ENV) on the chemical strategy today. The Environment Committee members, who will lead on the revision of CLP and REACH, give a good sense of where the Committee sees things.
And, a final, as ever polished review from Bjorn Hansen on ECHA.
Otter ai transcript
Pascal Canfin 00:04
Are the representatives and then the guests? Yeah. So the floor is yours again.
Kestutis SADAUSKAS 00:16
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are indeed, close to celebrating the first anniversary of the chemical structure persistently, we are proud of this strategy. And also happy to acknowledge that it incorporates most of the recommendations that were made by European Parliament resolution last year, July. This strategy is really a key building block for the European Green Deal because chemicals, quite literally the basis of our future, when we think of low carbon zero pollution of resource efficient technologies, we actually I think about chemicals, the chemicals, they in everything we do and contribute to our well being, but at the same time, they can cause harm. We hear some alarm bells ringing from areas from various areas. Many of our people suffer from diseases like diabetes or obesity, where endocrine disrupters could be involved. exposure to harmful chemicals is also one of the causes behind cancers, respiratory diseases, and diseases to our immune system. Persistent chemicals, like p FOSS have contaminated entire regions, and they’re even found in some areas in drinking water in soils where crops grow also in crops themselves. certain sections of the population, including the most vulnerable, like children, are still exposed to harmful chemicals through consumer products in particular, that’s why we need to act. And the commission remains Therefore, as committed as ever to the strategic vision of toxic free environment, where chemicals contribute to the society but also avoid harm to the planet and the current and the future generation. Let me give you a short update of where we are with implementations of 85 actions of the strategy. First of all, we’re working on the revision of the two cornerstone of the chemicals digitization reach and the CLP regulation of classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals. The roadmaps for those revisions were published in May, and stakeholders gave us feedback. The two revisions will deliver on some of the main actions of the strategies such as establishing hazard classes, find the coin disruptors, introducing mixture assessment factor under each and restricting the most harmful substances in consumer products and for professional users. The Commission has also started the revision of some product legislation particular on food control materials, cosmetics and toys to achieve the objectives of this stretch, in particular to restrict the most harmful substances in those product categories. We have recently launched a number of studies to support our technical work. For each alone we have 10 studies and we are in constant dialogue with stakeholders who are consulted on the various steps, we plan to adopt those proposals next year. While we are revising legislation not to restrict the most harmful substances in consumer products, we’re also prioritising those substances for restrictions within the implementation of reach regulation. For that we are working on the roadmap together with chemicals agency, which has been already discussed with member states and stakeholders and that will be published by the end of this year. Also, when talking about the most harmful substances, I would like to update you on what we’re doing. As regards the highly fluorinated substances common contamination the P FOSS combination, the strategy of clients a set of actions in the sense, which aim at ensuring that the use of P FOSS is phased out in you unless it’s proven essential to society and the rich European Commission requested the chemicals agency to prepare restriction Lucien old papers in fire fighting firms, which are the cause of many environmental contaminations. The work for restricting, restricting all the other uses of papers has also started an initiative of some member states and the commission will prepare the legal texts for the restriction as soon as the procedure in chemicals agencies finished. More Actions on those substances I think plays on the other piece of reducing for example, industrial emissions on food safety on surface and groundwater. While we are in the process of revitalization, we’re also developing horizontal concepts which will be beneficial across policy areas. First, the concept of essential use, for which the commissioner will propose criteria and guidance next year. The concept will enable us to phase out the most harmful chemicals faster, while allowing the uses which are is for society, the second key concept is safe and sustainable by design chemicals materials. Again, we will propose criteria and nap options for the police application SDL. These criteria should bring clarity to what the concept means aligned policy measures and funding and attract investors. Obviously, the input of the stakeholders and our work will be absolutely essential to develop sound concepts. Safe, safe and sustainable by design brings me to another important building strategy promoting research and innovation in particular to drive the transition to safe and sustainable chemicals. The Commission has already mobilised European Union funding opportunities in particular under horizon Europe and life programmes and is working with member states to streamline the transition into the recovery and resilience national plans and cohesion programmes. A key milestone for orienting funds through a strategic approach will be the strategic research and innovation agenda for campus that we plan to publish around mid 2022. The strategy also announces one substance one assessment process to make decision making faster, as well as more consistent and predictable. This year, we already public establish a coordination mechanism which includes also new expert group with member states and EU agencies to discuss how to harmonise safety assessment across chemical digitization. We also plan to make three legal proposals one a horizontal proposal for the distribution of tasks on chemicals to EU agencies. A proposal on transparency and reuse of data to allow us national authorities to commission testing and proposal for chemical agencies found the regulation to improve predictability and stability of of these agencies financing. The one substance one assessment approach also includes the development of a common open data portal on chemicals. We plan to have this platform ready by the end of 2023. Finally, we are all aware that stroke legislation does not fulfil its objectives without effective enforcement and full compliance. In the strategy we propose actions for improving both. The rich revision should make it possible to revoke registration numbers for non compliant cases, establish an audit capacity and to strengthen the principle no data no market. enforcement is a member state competence but at the EU level we are supporting through additional measures and tools of market surveillance and to increase cooperation with online markets. This topic brings me to my final point, the high level roundtable this group was established this year and will advise the committee on enforcement at as its first topic for discussion November. The roundtable is composed of 32 members from via wide stakeholder community who not only support us in the journey with advice and insights, but they also fulfil the role of ambassadors for the chemical thresher facility. The European parliament was also invited to attend the meetings and your presence will be surely appreciated. That meeting by the way is taking place on the 25th of November. So Mr. Chair on the other members, as you will see, as you will probably see, we have been very dynamic in starting up many strands of action to achieve our ambitions. The revision of legislation making more coherent, the study’s prep work to define essential lucency for sustainable visit and increased digitalization of knowledge and data and chemicals. We really count on your continued support. Thank you.
Pascal Canfin 08:45
Thank you very much. So we move to the questions with the coordinators or their representatives. And I formally open the Kgi to assess the number of questions to see if we do it in one row or two rows. So first with the EP DS occur.
Jens Gieseke 09:15
Yeah.
09:16
Yes, thank you, Chairman, dear colleagues.
09:20
In Europe, we’re very proud of the fact that our industry has the world standards that have the highest order.
09:28
And there are lots of SMEs that really are at the top of the game in this and everywhere we can say that it’s a very strongly regulated market. And we tried to step up of the rigidity of the rules, being very strict and being mindful of the fact that we need to stop people from going elsewhere and stop producing for European markets. There is a threat to human health in Italy, moving away from a rational re use
10:00
Certain metals in a preventive approach cannot be the right approach, I think it is doomed to fail.
10:09
I think there’s a potential danger for people in their health, doesn’t that mean that actually
10:16
that potentially we may end up with chemicals being used. At the end of the day, it is the actual risk of that needs to be managed, for example, your use of ethanol for disinfecting your cell phone. But of course,
10:33
it’s a matter of dosage that determines how hazardous it is. And playing a role in the risk assessment. That’s a quite a serious consideration.
10:44
In the European recycling industry, we need to ensure that we effectively control and not just think just in academic or abstract terms, and of course, to having the stringent rules and will not necessarily always be the most efficient way. And scientifically, I support the commission in saying that, in Europe, we have an incredible amount of know how and expertise, particularly in our national institutes. And here, for example, in the Federal Institute for risk researcher in Germany, there’s a lot of know how to be tapped into and I think that we should get them to cooperate more. Thank you.
Pascal Canfin 11:22
Thank you. We moved to Utah for a Sunday.
Jytte Guteland 11:32
Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Mr. sadowski. Thank you for joining us in the committee today talking about this important topic. As you know, we from less than the group, we have welcomed the chemical strategy and the intention to step up the work against hazardous chemicals. We support the one substance one assessment approach, and we believe that we need to do a step up on the work against endocrine disrupters, P, FOSS and other hazardous substances. We need to tackle the cocktail effect once and for all this is something really important particularly to protect vulnerable populations, not at least children who is very exposed, can you give us a little more detail on how you intend to amend reach to introduce the mixture assessment factor. I also want to express my support to the Belgian coalition who last week called for a ban on non essential p FOSS. It is unacceptable that substances pro hit that for 40 years ago can still be found in our bodies. That is quite extreme. And it shows that we are not. We are far from doing what we need to do politically here. Lastly, I want to raise the global dimension today, cop 15 starts to promote global solutions to loss of biodiversity. And in a few weeks, we also have cop 26 as we are more interlinked than ever, as the product decide is so crucial to tackle the use of hazardous chemicals. We need to go global and find Global Solutions also for chemicals. What is your view on having a Paris Agreement also for chemicals. Thank you.
Pascal Canfin 13:26
Thank you, we moved to further increase for renew
Frédérique Ries 13:31
FC bakumatsu Did I miss CRC. So this gets real messy little puzzles. For me new citizens. Thank you very much for being here. And it’s absolutely crucial the commission should be here and help us by giving us the play state of play with respect to the new chemicals policies. Remember that 15 months ago, Parliament established lean lions so I would like the means taken by the Commission to take the right direction. Reach was an essential step but that was in 2005 2006. Now we need the lions for the second phase and I’ve got three questions we have to be brief. Three years ago eco the European chemicals agency explained something that made a lot of ruckus in the meeting lit more than 71% of chemicals manufactured had shortfalls as to their danger on dangerous 654 companies were were not respecting reach and some of the products were not in conformity and dangerous and hazardous stealth. Secondly, endocrine disruptors indeed the Commission has committed itself to establish a different second category of risks with the endocrine drop in disruptors with respect to the CLP When will you We’ll be putting forth your legislative proposal to this effect. When will you commit to prohibited style substances which have been identified as endocrine disruptors in daily consumption, for example, cosmetic, certain products that are in contact with foods, when are you going to do this now, with respect to P FAS, this huge group of chemicals like carpeting, anti inflammatories, and others are many of these chemicals are being used in five member states, like Belgium, have said they’re going to go further on looking into this. And you mentioned the European strategy of phasing out non essential pieces in reach. And you mentioned 2023 2024 2025. But for 40 years, we’ve had evidence being accumulated, could we not speed up this because it’s very difficult for the European citizens to imagine that this is being put off for five years
16:07
Pascal Canfin 16:07
We moves to the greens Bas Eickhout
Bas EICKHOUT 16:12
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And also thanks to the commission. Because Indeed, this this chemical strategy is very important, and maybe sometimes a bit forgotten. And when we are talking about the challenges we are having for the next decades, we are always talking about Climate Neutral economy by 2050, a fully circular economy. But the commission also said as part of the Green Deal, we will be toxic free by 2050. And for that, of course, its chemical strategy is quite crucial to achieve that. And for that reason, we also welcomed the chemical strategy, however, and this is what we were hoping to hear a bit more but but hopefully, with a couple of questions, we can get a bit more insight there. The chemical strategy was very good in announcing plans that will come some even this year and a lot next year. But that doesn’t mean exactly right away that it’s clear when it will take into effect. And I think this is also quite important. So it’s good to have proposals, but the commission should also make clear when those proposals will have an effect on it. And maybe to start off with a couple of concrete questions. And I hope concrete answers. First of all, for 2021, you still are planning I hope the roadmap for restrictions based group approach. So the question is, of course, are you still planning to do that this year still? And then a very important question is which group restrictions Will you tackle first? I think that is very important to to get a hands on, then in the it’s like near to my colleague at lunch I have we have a question on the introduction of the mixture assessment factor that is prepared for 2020 to one and how will reach be adapted for that because it’s a crucial elements, but we would like to know how exactly it will play out. And the last point, we are very happy with the announcement of consumer products free from pbts. And endocrine disruptors also to be proposed in 2022. But when will consumer products effectively no longer contain chemicals that cause cancer? I think that is an answer that we would like to hear very precise as well. Not only that you will produce something next year, but also when we can have cancer free products.
Pascal Canfin 18:28
Thank you. We move to ID or your menu is not in the system. No speaker for ECR and we have for the left Anja Hazekamp.
Anja HAZEKAMP 18:47
Thank you, Pascal. And thank you Mr. Santos cuz the cosmetics regulation has introduced the ban on animal testing since 2013. However, we are dismayed that the EU is still authorising extensive testing for cosmetic ingredients and the Reach for the exposure of workers and environment, even for chemical ingredients only used in cosmetics. The Guardian recently reported that 63 reads registered chemicals used only in cosmetics were subjected to 104 new animal experiments. Since in 2013, the ban was implemented. Existing safety assessment approaches without using animals could be and should be used for ensuring safety of workers and environments exposed to cosmetic ingredients. Does the commission agree that the spirit of the cosmetics regulations should be applied to both consumers and workers as well and clarify the requirements to rely solely on non animal data for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients in the Upcoming revisions of the two regulations. And can the commission clarify that the requirement to rely on non animal data for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients must be applied, and animal data rejected regardless of the location and purpose of animal tests conducted after the cut of periods described in Article 18 of the EU cosmetics regulation. Thank you.
Pascal Canfin 20:28
Thank you, I will go directly to the catch the eye list I have for the time being two speakers multinode sick and Utah Palouse, so if you want to put your name in the list, please do so in the next minutes. We start with multinode seek for renew.
Martin Hojsik 20:46
Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Sadaskus, for interesting presentation. Indeed, I agree with bothan, belated Happy birthday, that the chemical strategy and kind of the the toxic phenol mandate is essential, I think, without a recount where we have a circular economy, because otherwise we have a circle of toxic chemicals. Hence, I really want to dig deeper in what you said. One thing is the authorization and restriction. I wonder what’s the best setup to achieve the regulation of the Moses that has chemicals and highest protection of his environment in terms of speeding up? Well, the substitution
Bas EICKHOUT 21:28
and restriction and whether there’s any feedback from the consultations with stakeholders and Member States on the non essential uses? You mentioned something but if you could go a bit deeper on how do you see it firming up as well as saved by design? I think this is really important. And I may be overheard the mixture assessment factor. So what’s the progress there? Under augment for restrictions? Now, will the robot allow addressing groups of substances to speed up assessment and protection? And what’s the sense in the prioritisation? Or is there a sense in characterization of among chemicals? And how they will be addressed on the ADCs. And I really support also what what further Greece was saying. I just puzzled why there is need to do an impact specific Impact Assessment we know that is a problem. And I think we need to act and if you’re gonna do that, how you’re going to assess the savings in terms of human health and environment because we have a substantial human health costs. Also to some extent, not only about the health care, but very serious improvement of quality of life. And last but not least, on the beef us. I okay, I don’t want to see light but what you’re gonna do to protect public health and environment before it something comes out in 2024. Let’s say thank you very much.
Pascal Canfin 22:59
Thank you and I have still two speakers for the catch the eye for the greens, starting with Jutta Paulus.
Jutta Paulus 23:11
Massey Pascoe, and thank you again, Mr. Sarah record. Sorry for, for presenting to us what the commissioner is planning to do. And I’m really glad that you have already taken up some of the demands of our green action plan for sustainable chemistry which swin give out and I put together last year or the year before, I can’t remember it’s so long already, where we said well, the we must change the principle from no data, no market to no proper data, no market. So I’m really glad that you are saying that the commissioner will revoke registration numbers when the data is incomplete or faulty. I would like to remind all colleagues that are still sceptical for the need of a sustainable chemistry that novel entities such as chemicals are a planetary boundary where a limit value cannot be defined because of lack of knowledge. So if we have not enough law knowledge to assess the dangers, we should really keep the precautionary principle in mind and try to limit the contamination of the environment as much as possible. I would like to thank especially Madame Reece, poor for putting forward the problem of PFS. I get mails constantly from citizens from NGOs that are really in worries, especially in Germany we have a lot of contaminated military sites where the drinking water or surface water is contaminated with those chemicals. So I would like to know how when and how is the commission going to act on PFS not only in the registration is But also what is the commission planning to do with those contaminated sites? Will there be aid to communities and citizens that are affected? And will also the the polluter pays principle be applied even if the polluter is a military facility? Thank you.
Pascal Canfin 25:24
Thank you. And we move to the last question from Michele Rivasi.
Michèle RIVASI 25:34
Max. Thank you Pascal. And thank you commission for all that information. I would like to come back to
Frédérique Ries 25:44
over this sustainable strategy for chemicals. The Commission committed itself to providing a model to make sure that hazardous chemicals prohibited in the EU will not be produced for export. You namely said you were ready to modify write legislation, which would be pertinent by 2023. And then there was a written question from one of my colleagues, and you changed your wording, you’re it’s a lot more vague. And you’re saying well, we could revise the regulation and prayer consentement. And with the regulation on registering an evaluation or assessment of chemicals and authorization of chemicals, could the commission clarify their wording? The why the change has been made? Can the commission is are they ready to make sure that chemicals would no longer be manufactured, or find a way to prevent the export? And then if you export chemicals, which are prohibited in Europe, that actually come back on in the consumers ditches. Now, how does the commission intend to take measures to make sure that those hazardous chemicals not are not used in production of crops imported into Europe and don’t come into our food? This is very important, because how can we prohibit products that we feel are terribly hazardous, but manufacture them to export into other developing countries or countries of Latin America? Which come back to us in the food chain?
Pascal Canfin 27:29
message? Thank you for back to the commission. MrSadauskas..
Kestutis SADAUSKAS 27:38
Thank you for so many questions. I’m not sure I will be able to reply to all of them, not least because not everywhere. This. I don’t have the full answer because a lot will come out from various analysis that will be conducted in the next month. But let me try to say no, we reply to the most important ones. On Mr. Guzik has questioned cooperation between authorities I fully agree and this is what we try to do it also throw one substance one assessment because we noticed that very often various authorities as well as academic institutions do extremely good analysis and very good assessments. But they’re not relevant for for regulation. I mean, we cannot use them because they’re done in different ways to different standards through different protocols. This is what we want to avoid wasting very good academic minds, you know, and writing very theoretical assessments, but rather to prepare assessments that we can use, or national authorities can use. So I I fully agree that we are sitting on some of the best data in the world and we have to make the best use of it and therefore data sharing can relevance I think, is one of the big objectives here. The there’s been question on the on the addiction assessment, and they can say that we are analysing how to do it. Like all the other things, we’ll have to follow the better regulation rules to which everybody is committed, including assessment of the impact and mixture assessment will be part of part of this, but I think we have already some some ideas. Well, first of all, we have this factors which are being used in other parts, especially in the food safety area, but more importantly, what we are considering is looking into the looking into the chemical safety assessment and to those especially that that is documented in the Chemical Safety report and the reach and that will allow us a factor of the safety for all the chemicals that registered under each. So you know this is in principle the direction in which we’re going but more precise, form and shape how it will take We’ll have to be seeing once we have the assessment of impacts. And once we are closer to the legal drafting of the proposal. Speaking of idea from Utah Lieutenant on Paris agreement for chemicals, I would really hope that the strategic approach to international measurement of chemical the psyche will be one of those, well, not necessarily that it would amount to that level of, of being so notorious, but at least effective. We have some international instruments and agreements in the chemicals management. But we also need an overarching approach. And by the way, the strategic approach has basically expired last year. And we have to chart the new way and the work is underway. And I really hope that we will be able to set ourselves very ambitious international agenda, but everybody will have to play their part because Europe is very often accused by its own internal stakeholders of moving faster and further than anybody else. And to becoming irrelevant in this, we have to drag everybody else along. Otherwise, indeed, we might risk being a bit irrelevant for any international international arena, not to say that we are going to slow down, but we need everybody to play to play their part. Frederik Aires, asked about the compliance where we are after finding soft in compliant. Dos? Yes, I can say that we are on track in together with a chemical agency whose executive director you will hear later he probably could give more testimonies to this. But we have we had an action plan between commission and chemicals agency how to reduce in compliance, which indeed was was there. And so far things are improving, the quality of the process is improving, but it’s not to, to to avoid admission that is that the registrants are struggling, it’s not an easy easy go because it takes a lot to give to generate all the information to make compliance. So situation is improving, but it will take still time in order to get to a fully satisfactory situation. There was question by Frederic Aires and also by Mr. Hawley sick about about the P FOSS. And you know what happens in the meantime, well, indeed, for the for this fluorinated substances, we have to follow the rules and the law to the of course doing that as far as we can. And we need to base ourselves on the best available analysis and that analysis will have to come from the chemical agency who is doing risk assessment and is also assessing the socio economic angles to that so once we have the dossier of once we have well prepared proposal a dossier analysis from the chemical agents who will be able to act bit the one that we have asked on the firefighting foam on all the other Hydra fluorinated substances that she had that which is being prepared by member states. So I really hope that these Member States several member states will prepare a good quality dose here to the chemicals agency so that we can receive this and then we can proceed with the action in the meantime the polluter pays principle applies. So member states who have the full responsibility implementing this, this this principle have to act and when they find a polluted site, they have to identify who is responsible for that in line also with environmental liability directive and the principles they’re in and to hold everybody accountable if there is a proof that the damage has been done, and these actors have to also remedy or to pay to pay for that remedy. So the principles are there but of course you know that to be more precise and to prevent the whole pollution that’s why we need to we need to all these associates from the from the agency which I’m pretty sure will come really in good quality. Frederick is also asked one the endocrine disruptors will be done. Well, it’s been some of them they are already bent in in the in the legislation, but we don’t have a horizontal and systemic approach here. So the different pieces of legislation be in cosmetics or toys or reach itself or even under the classification, labelling. The proposals will come next year, then we’ll need to negotiate I mean you will need to negotiate together with the council and we hope that these negotiations will will conclude successful very soon so that we can put in place the measures to address the endochondral surplus in in various products especially in the in the consumer products. passing out about the cancer free products when they’re I can say well I mean for some of the products is already banned, in principle, you know, the last restriction I think I can I can recall was the rich cancer ban in the textiles. But of course, we have to be sure that that we address carcinogenic mutagenic reproductive substances in consumer products all across. And that requires both introducing these these categories and identifying the substances under the so called chemical legislation as well as making sure that they are properly restricted or banned under the legislation which is relevant for the consumer products. So it’s sort of two step approach or the parallel approach. Again, we’ll talk about college inflation, so it will take some time. But I think if we send the signal to the market already now that this is the direction of where we’re going, even before the laws are enacted, this will be taken up as a very serious message to the market players who probably will start phasing out these substances even before before we require, answer to Madame hadden comes approach to animals. animal testing, as in cosmetics, we have the requirement to reduce animal testing. So there is no question about it that is both a general requirement as well as under under different pieces of legislation. For example, when we implement the reach regulation, if companies want to want to do an animal testing, they have to get the permission, and only when it’s absolutely indispensable, especially in life saving cases, things like for pharmaceuticals, elsewhere, this is one it is allowed. So I think we can admit that for now, we don’t have fully animal free testing methods here, there yet, but but the field is really increasing and the push will definitely come and in fact, the one action, which is one substance, one assessment would help here, why is that so because what would be able to reuse the data, the non animal data, even animal data wave was used. For the other assessments like this, we avoid animal testing, which is not necessary, which is repetitive and which can be avoided some pretty sure that we are going in this direction, not guaranteed that we’ll go for the animal free because we simply cannot do this, but the progress will definitely will definitely be there. To Mr. Hawley six question on the substitution. Is there any feedback from the stakeholders? I would say, well, in principle is too early to say because we are still conducting the public consultation under the CLP regulation. And we still haven’t started that for the rich. So it’s still early to say but I think anecdotally or randomly we can say that indeed this is happening, but to which extent, and is the speed satisfactory, I can say we need we need more evidence on this. On this. Also, he asked why you assess the impact of endocrine disrupters. If we know that the damage and how we will assess Well, we will use the better regulation rules and principles in it. In principle, the bet is made. The Commission has said it wants to remove endocrine disruptors from the from the consumer products. But of course, we need to calculate what it means and how we’re going to do this. And when we do the impact assessment, we absolutely always calculate the health benefits. So it’s not to say that it’s easy because calculate what the health benefits will be brought about is usually very tricky. It’s a lot more difficult than simply to calculate the cost to the businesses, which are very precise and a lot more easy to capture. There is a lot more modelling involved in the in the benefits, but but we will definitely do this because if we don’t count all this pros and cons in the best way, then simply we don’t get the full story. question to you couples and restoration in places even military on papers, and again down to the members themselves. But if the damage has been done, the remedy has to be there. So so it’s again down to the member states themselves to to ensure that that this is done, but in principle it has to be done. And then the last question I would like to address is Madame reverses on export restrictions. Indeed, we are planning to act upon it, we are still looking for the best tool for that very possible that it will be the prior informed consent regulation, the big regulation, so to say, but the principle is there. The resolve is there. But we need to find how best to do it. And I’m pretty sure that that we’ll be able to find that too. So with this, I hope that I’ve managed to answer this part of these questions.
40:00
Thank you.
Pascal Canfin 40:03
Thank you. So we will have plenty of opportunities to get back to this issues very, very soon. Regarding the upcoming initiatives, on legislative initiative you you mentioned thank you to the members. And we can move now to the next agenda item, agenda item number 11. We are running a bit early compared to the agenda, I would just to check if Mr. Hansen is with us, he is with us. So welcome to the envy committee, Mr. Hansen, for this annual exchange of views with a car. And I must say the last exchange of views with you personally, in university capacity. So I will leave martinos or chick as the contact person of account for a cow sorry, for this parliament to comment on the assessment regarding your leadership and management. But before moving to the envy contact person, meaning multinode fix, of course, the floor is yours, Mr. Hansen, for 10 to 12 minutes, to have an overview of the activity of ECHA last year, but also, maybe more importantly, to work to give us the flavour of the next month. So the floor is yours.
Bjorn Hansen 41:42
Thank you ever so much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. canfin? Honourable Members of Parliament. I hope you can hear me. Yes, perfectly. Very good. Thank you. And yes, indeed, I’ve decided to retire on personal reasons, family reasons, as of April 1. So this will be the last time that I have the honour to talk to you about a camp and our achievements, I do hope that I managed or you will manage to give me a couple of minutes towards the end. So I can give you a little bit of a personal reflection, because the actual important thing is for my report now, but a couple of minutes to personally reflect on my four years at the ACA, which would be great, it would be a much welcome. Thank you, then I will not include that in my in my first 12 minutes here. And basically, the last dialogue we had was in December 2019. But of course in 2020, a lot happens. And I’ll be referring to that. So this is what I’ll be reporting on is a bit what has happened since December 2019. I did have the honour to be able to report to you right before the summer, this year on the conclusions of our report
43:06
of
Bjorn Hansen 43:07
our assessment of five years of functioning of Regency LP, but I’ll also include a little bit of that in my report here. Now since my last appearance in our dialogue, of course, a lot has happened. There’s the COVID-19, the worldwide change to remote and now the worldwide remove or move back to a mixture, taking advantage of both the remote setting and the face to face setting settings to optimise to improve to create better opportunities for working. We I’ve also gotten the Green Deal and the chemical strategy. So there’s a lot of policy debate, which is centred around the discussion of, of chemicals. And in as such, what we’ve been doing in Aika since 2019, and I’ll come with a few details later on. But what we have been doing, I would say is consolidating the work that we’ve been doing, focusing primarily on our legislative tasks, increasing efficiencies, and thereby increasing our outputs and our impact. So we’ve also, since we last met, had quite some discussions on various topics led in PVC, the authorization process under reach, but also others. And I’ve had similar discussions with member states and the commission and I think there’s been a continuous all this discussion has continuously helped me and the agency better understand our role in the European Framework and deliver scientific advice to, for example, you the commission and council. And I think this is also greatly improved the way we understand ourselves and thereby also how we can better serve you. Now what I’ll come with is a bit of an update on the individual activities since last time, I will come with a reference to some of the learnings that we’ve had over the last five years. And I will raise upfront the issue of animal welfare. In my in my introductory remarks, if I go and look at the core or main piece of legislation that we are helping the institutions implement, then I start with reach. And there, I would say that reach registration, we know, the last substances got phased in in 2018. So we’re now at a rather high intensity registration phase, but very continuous and rather predictable. And this basically means that all substances are now in the system. And we’re continuously receiving updates and new registrations for for chemicals entering the market. On a valuation kestutis already mentioned this before, we have significantly increased the number of compliance checks we do. I reported in December to 2019, that we expected a doubling of the amount of compliance checks we did in 219. We indeed overshot that target into 19. Last year, we were a little bit below that target. This year, we’re again over the targets I would say overall in the last three years, we have more than doubled the normal output from before the discussion on compliance check. We’re therefore meeting the 20% target now put into legislation from 5% of all doses that need to be compliance checked. And we expect Where are we see that we’re on plan to finish by 2027 the backlog of checking compliance of all those shares on the European market and registrations. So by then we will have a clear picture of how many and which substances are still of concern leading risk management at EU level which substances are of less concern. And indeed, we will have clear track of testing on substances. On restrictions. We have delivered opinions on door shares, which are broader, covering more substances more uses than ever before. So these are much more impactful restrictions. I think a good example is our microplastics restrictions proposal developed by the European chemicals agency and also where we’ve done a proposal and opinion to the commission. Also the tattoo inks is an example of this. And as already discussed in the previous discussion with kestutis we are working on PFS the firefighting foams will be coming in January. And in a collaboration with a number of member states to complete restriction proposal will be coming to our scientific assessment over the summer of next year. So on restrictions full speed forward and becoming more and more impactful. On authorization, I would say the main things that we have done is we have clarified better what our role is and also how we can communicate the result of our scientific assessments so that the Commission can better fulfil its role and you Parliament can better scrutinise this we’ve implemented in all the work that we’re doing under authorization and thereby also continuing and full speed, delivering opinions in that area on classification and labelling and occupational exposure limit values. This is more or less routine, higher intensity work, but we are getting more and more requests for more high impact substances. For example, the development of an occupational exposure limit value for asbestos, bio science, I think, I think there was mentioned in the previous discussion about that as well have shown their importance in this pandemic in particular and in relationship to disinfectants. So it’s important to is very clear we in eka have increased our support to member states for them to fulfil their obligations because obviously there is a resource issue in member states to fulfil there’s this is paying off there is an acceleration, but we’re not too optimistic that the programme will finish on time as the sat down in the legislation, because of lack of resources in Member States. We look at some of the additional tasks we’ve been getting that we label environment tasks, but these are mainly because they come from our Sheffield imdg environment, then we have delivered on the database in the waste Framework Directive on substances in articles which was required, we are delivering on the drinking water directive helping the commission implement. And there we did get the resources we needed to do the work for which we’re very grateful. And also on the AIDS environment action programme, we are anticipating to get resources and have already started the work and to develop chemical indicators based on existing information and existing it infrastructures that we have. So that’s a bit of a report in terms of the work that we’ve done. Up until now, if I look at the learnings that we have, overall, looking back in the implementation of the legislation, then looking at reach, we definitely see that substance evaluation, which is one of the evaluation legs being done in reach is not meeting its objective. Whereas compliance check with some tweaks, for example, enabling the registration number to be withdrawn as kestutis mentioned, which would enable that process to be both efficient and consistent. In the restrictions area, we see overall, it’s working very well, but can of course be improved by looking at broader and even more impactful restrictions. On authorization, we definitely believe that it subsystem is working towards the objectives of authorization, but it is not very efficient, and therefore, some approach looking at the strengths of both restrictions and authorization, but also other legislation, which probably be more efficient and consistent. Overall, we observed that resources are limited in member states and authorities. So member states and authorities are having trouble meeting their obligations under the current legislation. And this is hampering on the delivery of reach CLP. But here also I’ll throw in biocides compliance of industry is an issue not only in terms of the data that we inika test compliance on, but overall. And this is therefore not only reach evaluation issue, it’s an overall issue. And we do think that therefore this needs to be reflected upon on how to overcome or how to better target either compliance or getting industry to be compliant. And finally, we’ve also learned that the inter linkages between reach and CLP and other legislation, I’ve definitely not delivering the efficiencies and consistency that we had all hoped for Originally, we see that there is very little, if any significant interaction and usage of the work on reach under other legislation. Like some of the learnings, we definitely see overall, that’s reach as an instrument is getting getting there towards the objective set, both in terms of human health and environment, internal market competitiveness, and on promoting non animal methods. But we are slower than expected, and we’re having less efficiency and less consistency than expected.
53:51
So
Bjorn Hansen 53:55
that’s I think, we’ll conclude my report on what we’ve learned if I turn to the animal animal welfare issue, then I think we’ve made progress in the agency in terms of looking more and more at only funnelling those substances for which we expect risk management to be needed to be subject to compliance check. And thereby for generating the data. We are implementing with about 100 people in the agency the requirement to test at with to test only as a last resort. And we’re also doing a few things which actually go beyond our mandate in order to promote animal welfare issues, and in particular in the area of sharing data and predicting data. So in sharing the data were a driver in promoting international worldwide format for sharing data and we also are the ones Who actually pay and develop the OECD, he can portal which is unified portal to get access to data held by all authorities around the globe. Now, if I look a bit forward, I think on the animal welfare issue, it is worth noting that it’s a total win win win win situation for all parties involved, if we would be able to move away from animal tests, it would mean that we will be able to get results about the undesirable effects of chemicals much faster. That’s great for industry because they can test their chemicals in much, much earlier in their marketing phase, and thereby screen them themselves from marketing substances that shouldn’t be marketed. Rather than the current system, where effectively we wait until 1000 tonnes before the profits are so high that the tests can be paid for that actually demonstrate that the substance shouldn’t have been marketed to start out with. So that’s one exemplification of the fact that such testing would be advantageous also for competitiveness, also for the internal market also for innovation. So I think there are many other arguments on top of also the very valid ethical arguments of not using animals for such purposes, that basically say, we all have the same objective. The main issue here is that the current system for risk managing chemicals worldwide is based on animal studies. Look at the wh o definition for endocrine disrupters, it’s about seeing effects in a full animal. And therefore, in changing the system, the whole system needs to be changed. And that decision, and also the assessment to do so is a policy decision, which of course we are is a policy assessment and decision, which we of course, would be very, very happy to contribute to with our knowledge and insights. So I think with that, Mr. Chairman, I’ll stop my introduction in terms of what we’ve achieved, what our learnings are, and then the specific point on animal welfare. Thank you.
Pascal Canfin 57:31
Thank you very much. So we move now to the envy contacts person for your agency, meaning multinode fsic. floor is yours for a couple of minutes.
Martin Hojsik 57:43
Thank you very much, Pascal, then, Mr. Hanson, there’ll be on now first of all, let me really thank you for all the work that you have done for improving chemical policies in the EU and I really had was an honour for me to work with you over the last bit more than two years, even though the physical meetings were very, very limited. Now, he will also said to me that we did not make it as an entry for for a visit to occur before we leave the office, I hope it will make it later in the year to meet with a new director, who will have really big, big task to kind of step in your shoes. So leave them behind, although there it’s something which I’m hoping that the new director will have a similar mission like you have, and that is making the Europeans protected, the European environment protected and at the same time supporting the competitiveness of the chemical industry. But let me get also to some of the points that you raised. And I then have a couple of questions for you
Bas EICKHOUT 58:53
to not only because of the karma writing your departure kind of thanking you, but sorry, but also really looking into the challenges ahead. Now the commission mentioned several options for the future of authorization and restriction. I wonder what articulation of authorization and restriction you think would work the best to really achieve the regulation of the most hazardous groups of substances that are produced and used today. And what is at stake if we delete the authorization. Now, we know that there is despite the rage being rolled out, there is still data missing regarding many chemicals on the market, that we are exposed to, which leads to the problems such as skoltech cocktail effects and emerging threats from unknown substances. Now, reach aimed at is aimed at creating information registration to ease an increase the restrictions of hazardous chemicals. Now, it nevertheless takes us still too long to answer and before we make a transition from data
1:00:00
To regulation,
Bas EICKHOUT 1:00:02
what are in your view the key things to improve to achieve a quick phase out of hazardous chemicals? And should we be requesting data for low tonnage chemicals and polymers, or anything else? And how do you think we should be better with data?
Martin Hojsik 1:00:19
On the non compliance and you touch it in your speech? I’m wondering, really,
Bas EICKHOUT 1:00:26
what is the discussion with the commission regarding the possibility to revoke registration number for non compliance registered? And
Martin Hojsik 1:00:35
what about the request for mandatory and regular updates on registrations? There’s
Bas EICKHOUT 1:00:41
now also many really complex and overdue restrictions that will be soon proposed the member states for example, on p FAS and bisphenols. Now, how will Aker support the member states through the whole process? And do you think that we should be more strict regarding delegations? What do you think is the biggest obstacle to achieving zero pollution, ambition and truly circular economy? Because we talked about in previous presentation also is for me, kind of the chemical strategies importance that but we have to look at chemicals as a really important part of the puzzle in terms of circular economy, climate, biodiversity and human health protection. So what are the issues? According to that we are overlooking and will be keen on visionary statement and where do you see the role of the cautionary principle the whole thing? Are we actually using it?
1:01:34
And last but not least,
Bas EICKHOUT 1:01:37
and I’ve been always talking about I think every single meeting and also in the budget committee and a budget discussions money. Now, how do you think is Aika suited in terms of the financial stability and the financial forecast? Should I keep on pushing the commission for more money for Okay, thank you.
Pascal Canfin 1:02:01
Thank you very much. So we move to the catch the eye and I have for the time being for speakers myos pyaar, Ki for the VP uj, Paris for the greens by say quit for the greens and another GM for the left. So if you want to put your name on the list, please do so in the coming minutes. So we start with my SPRI key for APB.
Maria Spyraki 1:02:36
Thank you, Pascal. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much for giving me the floor. There. Mr. Hansen, it was an honour and a pleasure to work with you during the last few years, especially when it focused on the chemical strategy of sustainability, which I was one of the authors on behalf of VPP. I would like to table a two questions regarding the performance effect that you’ve already mentioned, when it comes to rates, where and how do you see that all effects? Under the new EU chemical strategy for sustainability? And how much prepared is the agency for taking over any potential new tasks in terms of resources and capacity? It’s about the funding. And if you do foresee any need for structural changes within the agency in order to meet the new needs? And if so, will they affect the delivering of the current task needed first of all to reach and of course, to ba si tu CLP regulations? And my second question is of these few of them have tested which one of these said that it is very, very sensitive. And I would like to ask for your opinion. If Finally, a is right or not easy reality or not. But based in in recent assessment, there are a lot of scenarios that the there’s likely to be an increase in testing of numbers from animals as a result of the comment was made in the IMF in the chemical strategy for sustainability. So when the number finally be increased, and if it is, how much Thank you very much.
Pascal Canfin 1:04:26
Thank you, we move to the greens Bas Eickout
Bas EICKHOUT 1:04:33
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman Pascal. And first of all, I also would really like to thank Mr. Hanson beer and if I could say I think for the exchange of views we had on on many of the issues around your agency and chemicals and the role of chemicals in our future society indeed. I always very much appreciated how you did that. So from my point of view, it’s really sad to hear that you are
1:04:58
quitting your job and
Bas EICKHOUT 1:05:00
I understand the reasons but still it’s it’s a it’s a pity. So I very much appreciated that and I really would like to stress that. So probably then also having done that, then maybe we can also achieve would like to ask a question more on a you know, stepping back a bit looking at how the authorizations are going at the EU level. I think what what what you are seeing developing is probably something that makes you a bit sad about it is the kind of the, the legalisation and more and more court cases that are around some of the authorizations were quite often we as a parliament were forced to take that step against a commission, because we felt that the Commission was not dealing properly with reach. And quite often until now, the court also said that we will write in that judgement, let’s see how there’s still some ongoing court cases, as you’re very well aware, I think you are also very well aware that of course, every time a car was used as an arguments, law, they have done a rock opinion, and we follow and, and if you then go into the rock opinion, for example, quite often, you gave all the arguments, but it was sometimes quite hidden in it. So also giving the opportunity for politicisation of xR basically using Akka in either way. So it would be very much interested to hear from you how you see that development and how you think Akka can do better in in not being used politically, basically. And for example, I could imagine that you just refuse any opinion, if there are no proper data. So there is an authorization request. And you say, Well, now we can all write what we know. And then maybe somewhere, make the point very clearly that there was insufficient data to give a final conclusion. But if you don’t write that very clear, then it will be used anyhow, your opinion. So probably sometimes, it’s just also better to say, we’re not doing we’re not issuing an opinion as long as the data are not there. And and I would just be wondering how you see that development and how, you know, could change its role in these authorization fights that probably we will see more often still. And for the rest, it was really a pleasure to work with you. Thank you very much.
Pascal Canfin 1:07:14
Thank you, we moved to Utah police. See for the greens.
Jutta Paulus 1:07:24
Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Mr. Hanson, I really would like to echo my colleagues here that it is a true pity that you’re leaving, as you’re so dedicated to the chemicals issue and your successor will have really big shoes to fill. I don’t know your your number, but you probably know what I’m talking about. And that has really been a pleasure working with you. As to the future developments. I think there is one loser when it comes to animal testing, becoming less important. That is of course the breeding facilities, but I’m not very sorry for them. But that leads to my next question, how do you assess the possibility of translating the diet data which was developed using animal testing to a new approach, because Up to now, non animal tests have to be adopted to fitting the results of animal testing for example, when it came to eye irritation or skin irritation, whether humans can model test was adopted adapted to deliver worse results actually asked to be comparable to the rapid tests formally used. So what route Do you see to to solve this issue? And secondly, I would like to know what you your assessment on the benign by design approach. So to say that you do not put chemicals to registration or the market if they are not benign by design in the first place, thus saving a lot of rabbit D work afterwards. And let me let me end with just telling you again, that we will miss you terribly. Thanks.
Pascal Canfin 1:09:18
Thank you, I’m sorry, I don’t have any gift for you.
1:09:22
But when when you come in person to Brussels also we’d be happy to organise something
Pascal Canfin 1:09:29
when relevant. So we’re now we move to the left and an ASIC.
Anja HAZEKAMP 1:09:37
Thank you, Pascal. There. Mr. Hanson, thank you for your presentation and also for your work. And before you leave a QA I have many questions for you. In your presentation, you mentioned animal welfare several times and how we need a system change to completely phase out animal testing. Could you please elaborates on how to achieve such a system change in your opinion. And I’m very glad that you focus on animal welfare in your presentation. Can you explain what what is changed? Because just a few months ago 18th of May you work spoke at a European innovators forum and then you stated that we currently need are 14 years away from being able to effectively predict toxicity of chemicals without the use of animals. However, we didn’t see any evidence to support your statement then and we would expect the director of Akka to put maximum efforts to implement Article One of reach to the promotion of alternative methods considering this aspect of reach mandate is currently left behind in your role of executive director of an EU agency. Don’t you think that you are not only misrepresenting the current state of safety science, but also undermining ongoing research efforts in investments at EU level that are prerequisites for innovation and better site safety. EFSA, aima, the United States EPA and FDA all have puts in place roadmaps to proactively reduce and replace animal testing and integrate non animal methods. Yet, ACA actions remain limited to just three points. When we look at the 2021 2024 workplan. Given the parliaments disappointment, Acas limited ambition in this regard, which we registered in our report on the ACA discharge, can you explain why this still does not appear to be a priority for acca? And will you now be working on a similar roadmap? And then my last question, the European Medicines Agency in its regulatory science strategy to 2025 says that non animal methods including organoids organs on a chip computer models can be more predictive than tests on animals and therefore better at protecting animal health, people health and the environment. Ms innovation Task Force has been charged with the responsibility of advising medicines developers free of charge on the best way to use non animal methods. Do you agree with a man that what? and What plans do you have for similar work within ACA? Thank you.
Pascal Canfin 1:13:06
So we don’t have any other members for the catch the eye before going back to you beyond we have the Yeah, we give the floor to the pier representative on the care management board for comments. And I’ll when Martin was with us remotely.
1:13:37
Smoking this person was big button. Thank you.
1:13:56
Martin, please press on this big button. So you have the line is blue on the bottom of your page. It needs to turn red for you to be able to be heard and seen.
Pascal Canfin 1:14:23
Okay, unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be working. So back to you beyond and, of course, that’s the time for your personal remarks as well.
1:14:48
Mr. Hanson is pressed on this big button. Thank you.
Bjorn Hansen 1:14:55
Thank you very, very much and the best present I think that anybody could give me from the European Parliament is what you’ve already given me in terms of the words that you have expressed. So I thank you dearly for that. And I’ll carry that with me in my early retirement with with with great, dear love and care. To your questions, I’ll I see one package of questions around animal welfare, testing abilities, but also innovation and that fits a little bit all together. It’s linked also to use the policies. Question I believe it was on on design, benign by design. So I’ll do that in the end. That’s more forward looking. And then I’ll just go through the questions as they were. Martin, first of all, many thanks to I’ve enjoyed deeply working with you and your enthusiasm and your your vision. And I’ve learned a lot from that. restrictions and authorization. And the way we see it is that both restrictions and authorization have their impact on industry and on their behaviour. And the way they do that are different. So that means that if you delete one or the other, you will remove one instrument that you have in acting on industry, in particular authorization we see is a very powerful tool to push substitution in a lot of settings, and therefore by removing it, you wouldn’t have that tool at your disposal. The way we see the world there, I would almost throw all chemicals legislation in it and look at it in terms of one substance, one assessment, in effect, the substance and the harm it does somewhere. It doesn’t matter which legislative framework or instrument you are using. Neither the substance nor the the human or environment that’s being harmed care, what they care about is that that harm ceases. And therefore, the right way to look at it from our efficiency consistency perspective is to find the most efficient instrument to address this specific concern, and not divide up the ledger, the substances between the legislation. So basically, you should find the legislative instrument or instruments and processes, which best in the most efficient, and the most consistent way can address the concern. And that’s why we believe they’re looking at Rick reach restrictions and reach authorization more as to ways of addressing problems. And therefore for any given substance, you might want to use one for some uses another for other uses. In terms of the data Miss missing. Basically, we believe that by 2027, we will be there in having identified which data is missing and needs to be generated compared to which data is there and shows that either a substance is a problem or not a problem or where industry has maybe not done as good a job as they should have. But we really don’t believe that the substances of concern anyway. So we will have a much clearer picture in 2027, when we finished the compliance action plan. As to what are the problems and there we already now have quite some idea about the scope of the problems that we will face in the future that we will have by then when we know so much more. What is needed to quickly phase out chemicals of concern, but I think that and I’ll get to that later on. It’s linked to the animals and the benign by design. It’s you need information early on rather than late to be able to figure out if a chemical is of concern. And you need to do that before investments are made but later Later More about that later. In terms of non compliance Yes, we believe that it would be very efficient if we could get if we could withdraw the registration number when there’s non compliance. Basically, what we see is that the longer the chain of events is involving more people between what we observe in occur and the action taken, the less effective action is and therefore If we find a problem with an only representative who is situated in one member state who is actually representing an importer in a different member state, and we see a problem, that interaction and getting things coordinated takes a very long time and very often becomes ineffective in terms of enforcement. So we believe that’s a definite way of getting there. In terms of regularity and mandatory updates. The main thing that we think this could bring us is stable fee income. We don’t believe particularly that just mandating people to update their registration or shades that they necessarily will become more compliant with that mandate. But it is good for our stability and fee income. P fast, I think I mentioned that, that will be coming out for the fire fire firefighting foams in January, and we will with Member States by summer next year. Basically, we are helping the member states, we’re actually developing the registration dossier with what we call substance identity and grouping. So basically identifying what is the substance actually, and what groups or subgroups of pee fast can you find, in order then, to carry that grouping approach through in the restriction recall, there are several 1000 of these substances. So there is quite some inventory work to be done. And that’s what we’re doing. Circuit secularity zero pollution ambition and looking forward. Well, I think the realisation which is in embedded in the Green Deal, that the materials we have today are not circular. And all materials are a mixture of chemicals. So if the material is not circular, it’s either because the material is wrong with the chemicals in and or we don’t have the right chemicals making the materials. And it’s probably more than that we don’t have the right chemicals to make circular materials. So there’s an enormous amount of innovation that’s needed to get us away from the chemicals that produce materials that are not circular today, we also have the challenge of energy consumption that industry chemicals industry, it doesn’t help only if, if the supply is green, also the consumption needs to be reduced. And that all is driving new chemistry and the need for new chemistry. And if that is coming combined hand in hand, with a much better productivity of toxicity back to the discussion I’ll come with with within the end. And then we actually can have a system where you can design chemicals to be circular, or at least avoid them being unsafe, if they’re designed to be circular. To your eye, we’re using the precautionary principle enough. I mean, that’s for you to judge, I think from my site and the work that we do, we very systematically include assessments of uncertainties in the work that we do. And we vary systematically, when you have a substance which is problematic. approach it by telling industry that we will have to we recommend the commission to restrict that use unless you show us differently. I think the microplastics is a good example of that, where basically we concluded microplastic presence in the environment is not a good idea. Therefore any use needs to be restricted that make leads to emissions. And the whole story was about which uses should be restricted when in order to enable substitution and not market disruption. So I do believe that we’ve managed to implement it systematically. But it’s of course for you, our part of it but it’s for you to as Parliament commission council to decide whether we’ve done this good enough. And we’ve actually enabled you to take the risk management decisions, the precautionary decisions that that you need to take the if I look at Maria’s and thank you also Maria, it’s been also a great pleasure working with you and brainstorming with you and also understanding your great ideas and how we can help support implementing them. In terms of the role of account, and competence and resources, first awkward resources. I believe that we have managed in the agency to consolidate our efforts in such a way that we can deliver what is expected of us at the moment. So I don’t play for more resources to do the work that we’re doing today. But I do plea that we don’t get given tasks without there being an analysis of new resources that come to us Should we get new tasks nor that If you want us to do more within the current stance that we’re doing, then we also need more resources. In terms of competence for the future, I’m confident in it because strategy, HR strategy and the way that we look at our people as a resource in the agency, that the competencies we have will be continuously developed to be the competencies that are needed in the future. So I’m very confident that we can continue being a competent Centre for chemicals management, also looking at the changes that will be coming with the chemical strategy. And with time they’re sorry, then to bus. The issue of legalisation and politicisation of arguments, I think there are two separate the legalisation simply shows that the work that’s being done matters. And the courts, I find are tedious and workload, but they provide clarity, where there are differences of view. And therefore the fact that we go to court, the fact that you disagreed with the commission, and we took the commission to court where we played a role was helpful to find out what is really the way that reach should be implemented. So I believe deeply in our legal system as being the way of creating clarity when there are entities or or people who disagree, and that way find a solution. And I believe that it’s working that way and showing us to do that. The politicisation, I believe that we in eka have learned a lot over the last years, that it is actually our responsibility to communicate to you in Parliament to the commission and to Council and also to member states in a way that you understand. And I think that we’ve not been able to we’ve not done that good enough in the past. And we are definitely improving. So we’ve been communicating what we think, what we think, but not necessarily in a way that what we think comes across clearly. And I believe that the what, what what we’ve done on authorization has improved that communication. And we’re definitely learning from this. And we’re trying to improve in all areas to better explain what we’re doing and thereby not be used politicised in the way that that you were mentioning Boston. Yes, indeed, I agree that this is I’ve observed this happening. But I think it’s our role to explain better for this misuse to be be reduced, and also to ubass. Many, many thanks for the kind words. Finally, before turning to animals and innovation, basically, if we can have an opinion that says, no opinion, because we don’t have data, yes, that option is always there. Up until now, we’ve not had to use it. But there have been cases where we understood our role and what we needed to deliver in one way, and you in a different way. And the court has now helped us figure out how that is. So maybe this is this situation may occur more frequently in the in the future, because the court has told us some technicalities in terms of how to do authorization where we, in the past didn’t get enough information, and still have an opinion. And now we need more information to produce an opinion. If I tried to do the system change and animal welfare and how we implement how we see forwards. Then back to my introductory statement, the perfect world would be one where a company in its research laboratory manages to make one gramme of a chemical. And that would be enough to send into huge high throughput screening of in vitro and partially and computer based calculations, which would then say this chemical is sustainable, is safe and sustainable or is benign by design or not. And I think that is definitely the vision and the the landing point where we all want to get to, but there are quite a lot of steps to get there. And just to say, I never said it will take 40 years. I said it will take decades if the efforts would continue as they are being done now. And yeah, if they’re being done the way they’re doing now, and if the legislation doesn’t change, meaning that we see They’ll need to use animal studies to identify endocrine disrupters. And of course, a lot of things can change we can, it can become a political priority, it can accelerate. Now, for me, as I mentioned in the intro, there are basically two systems either we rely on animals, and then we work as hard as we can to make one by one replacements. And with that, and I believe there’s a lot of room for improvement to speed up that assessment. And my decades basically came from the fact that I’ve been working now 31 years in the areas of chemicals management, and I’ve seen in these 31 years, what tests have been animal tests have actually been replaced. comparing that to the challenge of replacing the extended one generation reproductive toxicity study, which is designed to identify endocrine disruptors, and they’re looking at the last 31 years, I do believe that we definitely won’t manage within the next 10 years to replace fully that study. So how do we get there is basically to have an open discussion on what are the the advantages of the various test systems, and then basically feed into a policy decision on whether it’s time to change to a non animal or when is the time right, and if that should be done to change from an animal system to a non animal system. Again, it of course, has repercussions, because the uncertainties in the current system, we understand, and there are definitely uncertainties and imperfections in the current system. But there’s not a unit an equal understanding of the uncertainties on the other non animal methods. And we need to have a proper discussion, in order for policy to take the decision if and when to switch. And if not switching how best to accelerate the progress towards non animal methods. One to One replacement. Again, it’s a policy decision. But it’s one where there’s a huge advantage for everybody if we would be able to get them in terms of a roadmap or a strategy. My reflection on it is that we have one obligation and one clear obligation, and that is to ensure testing is done on animals as a last resort, the whole organisation works on that we’re all geared up, and it’s completely delivering on that. We don’t have a mandate to be to develop alternative methods, that is not part of a cause mandate. It’s, there are other entities who have that mandate. But even though we don’t have a mandate, we still actively work on the data bit, which basically is all about ensuring that data generated in one place can be used everywhere else in the world. And we’re also very active in developing a toolbox, which enables the best application possible of non animal methods. I think just some indicators of how active we are. The acronym na n num was invented in eka that there’s another trilateral project called ophcrack. Working with the US and the Canadians on this, this was acres initiative to do this work, we started it. So it’s not that we don’t work on this. We it’s just these are not main core legislative tasks that we have. And therefore we’re not reporting maybe as as well to you as we should have about all the activities that we’re doing. I think that more or less concludes the statements that answering the questions. My two minutes are simply to say that I feel enormously privileged in my whole career, I’ve worked 31 years for the European institutions in the commission and an acre to have been allowed to fill the positions, at least temporarily, to be you know, the custodian of various positions, and be allowed to be part of this absolutely amazing and wonderful democratic system that we have in Europe, which includes you interrogating me, but it also includes me trying to explain to you what, for example, in this case, it guy thinks, I think it’s absolutely amazing that our system works so well as it does and it’s very much thanks to the individual people who feel like I hopefully managed to do the posts that I’ve been able to do. And it’s this fantastic collaboration, energy and will to achieve a solution together. Which is is fascinating and is driving the union. And I must say, I’ve every day I’ve had the pleasure to work with parliament, I come home, I tell my wife how absolutely amazing our democracy is and how fantastic it is to work be part of that machinery. So without final words, just to say I’m extremely grateful and thankful I’ve been able to have fulfilled these roles and been the custodian of the posts, whether it was here or in the commission. If I look forward, for for the European chemicals agency, I think you have an agency there a competence centre on chemicals that if you give it stability in posts, not in money, because it’s its competence lays in the people in the staff. And we need the money to pay the salaries, but money without staff, you can’t spend. You have a very competent, very enthusiastic and very, very service oriented organisation where people there are really, really ready to deliver on the European mandate. And I believe that the agency is in a good position now to be able to continue working in this direction, so many, many things.
Pascal Canfin 1:36:28
Thank you, Bjorn. And that would be cancer, free, toxic, free, pollution free. Thank you, from all the members, to you for all what you have done and what you’re all what you have been doing, because of course, retirement is closed, but not there yet. So thank you again, for your career, as you said and your commitment. So we move now to the next agenda item meaning the vote the opening of the vote on taxonomy. So we have to wait formally at 415. So there will be a break now and then we will start again. We’re under the chairmanship of vice I quit at 445 on the battery text. So see you at 415 for the opening of the vote. I’m thinking I will be alone in the room. Yes, thank you for that and then see what 445