Today, 3 December, the Environment Committee voted against the objection.
The vote was: Against: 46; For: 19;4 abstentions
The ECR have the option to re-table the objection to the full Parliament (plenary) at the 16-19 December 2019. The threshold for adoption in the plenary is high: 376 MEPs out of a total of 751.
Today, 2 December, the Environment Committee of the European Parliament discussed the objection to the classification of TiO2.
If you missed it, you can watch the exchange of views, or read the automatic transcription below.
The vote is tomorrow morning, Tuesday 3 December 2019.
If the Committee backs the challenge, the full Parliament will vote on it on between 16-19 December. To succeed. it needs at least 376 MEPs supporting the objection.
If the Parliament objects, then the measure won’t enter into force.
so let’s start with the the reporter
another live scarf or ECL excuse me how
much time I have for four minutes
maximum okay thanks
yep an observer to transition of nearby
so discuss your Glencoe determines
Rashida she respond thank you Jim the
debate on titanium dioxide is already
underway colleagues I must say that I
wasn’t persuaded by mr. Hansen’s
argument says it’s not a question of
belief it’s a question of solid evidence
I am opposed having looked at all the
documents and with a view to the
environment and protecting our citizens
I find that this debate has been
dragging on to two years now and yet
there’s still no fresh evidence the
Commission doesn’t have any either
a very expensive study was commissioned
on rats and it was felt that the results
could be extrapolated just as they were
to humans well of course the important
thing here is classification we’re
talking about taking ti2 upper category
saying it’s a carcinogen but within the
context of health and safety at work the
reason for that is that most of the time
the substance appears in powdered form
well first of all we need to tackle this
substance in the directive dealing with
working conditions then what we’re
dealing with here is a situation where
people would not actually be exposed to
titanium dioxide in the same way as they
are now
furthermore it’s unacceptable in the
absence of any first studies that we
should change the classification in this
way the reason I say that is that
titanium dioxide is used in thousands of
products thousands of products and there
are no studies there’s no evidence which
would bear out the hypothesis that there
are presumed threats to human health
here titanium dioxide also has specific
properties particularly when it’s in
contact with nitrogen dioxide we’ve no
new evidence no new analyses so on top
of that there’s no financial analysis
that would give us a clear idea of the
cost of replacing this substance so
against that for context I think I have
every reason to oppose this proposal we
need to analyze working conditions first
of all perhaps the working conditions
directive needs to be amended on these
lands discussion structured with the
political groups so starting with the
EPP who takes the flow for the bb-better
thank you for giving me the flow well I
would like to explain that in please
simply we are not against the
classification of the tanum dioxide but
we are cpp find that the classification
as potential or suspected carcinogen
creates a lot of uncertainty and might
have negative consequences in various
industries in the recycling process of
the Saturn materials and the downstream
occupational health and safety standard
I note that the classification
we’ll only apply to waste in powder form
containing one percent or more of the
tannin dioxide
however powder is not divided
and therefore it creates room for
various interpretations that might
affect projects even financed by the use
such as the processing of bauxite
residue I also think that for such a
critical decision to be made more
scientific evidence should be required I
understand that it’s harm to health has
been provided by tests on rats and I
also recognize the time that it is
required for such studies to be
conducted and lead to safe conclusion
that’s why I would like to vote in favor
of the objections since the Commission
is ready to provide some further
explanation and of course additional
additional information on the only
proposal that the Commission has already
table thank you very much queue for a
sandy represent us here it’s not here I
don’t know the topic but I can tell you
that S&T; will not support the objection
but I will not be able to argue why but
this is our position I do apologize
it is science-based for Renu I think
which are here we must distinguish the
ring Europe is not fully united on that
majority of the group is against the
objection with with arguments that the
cancer is big risk and want to protect
them workers however myself
I’m arisen coming from industrial
affairs so I know what people do how to
protect them and I don’t agree with the
arguments of the chair of eka
the workers fellow training so even no
matter labeling if they don’t have good
training they will not be able
follow it here I see that there is no
reason to question whether the compound
is toxic or not but whether there is a
way how to find the sustainable way and
sustainable way is going via this
occupational limit because this can
address both concerns on the health risk
and as well of the professional agencies
working with that with that chemical and
to accent the risk is in the powder form
in high concentration and Lok long
exposure this really means with when
operating with the powder not all with
the final product which is produced and
then being distributed over the citizens
so myself personally I am in favor of
this objection thank you thank you for
the Greens Sperrys yes thank you very
much I must admit I’m a bit surprised
because I’ve recognized the EPP on that
you are very keen on fighting cancer and
so I find it a bit difficult to believe
that now we should be up you should
object to a label for cancer organic
substances I think this is a little bit
contradictory and it is not as what some
some have pointed out that we need more
scientific proof of that I mean we do
have as mr. mr. Hanson has said we do
have the aircar assessment we do have
the assessment of the iIRC which goes in
the same direction so we have a clear
assessment this is a cancer organic
substance and all we want is a label do
not breathe dust a sprain I think we
should give workers but also consumers
this level of information in order to
prevent them from harm thank you very
much
thank you for I have no speaker
for each chance no it’s it’s for for ID
okay please go ahead we miss seemed
thank you very much chairman well our
position is the one that we’ve supported
for a long time as you well aware on
because carcinogens I’m not sure that
it’s through applying an objection that
we can come back to the basic standards
when it comes to labeling and how should
I put it a revaluation of products
everything should be going in the same
direction to protect workers as the
greater to a great extent as possible
including through the companies so we
have to protect workers it’s not sure
that through this objection we can make
sure that we can protect workers
sufficiently yeah thank you Jim
although we’ve taken the first step to
classify a titanium oxide flea and born
consumers fluid something says such as
the painter being left out of the
picture if it’s been struck between
protect public health and business life
that’s the essential problem with this
regulation there’s a need to protect our
health and you therefore can’t make
compromises the financial demands the
the highest classification should apply
to these carcinogens you need a thorough
serious replacement strategy the
Commission hasn’t had any Democratic
support from Parliament and the member
states appalled authorizing GMOs that
they push them to on the basis of in
Thomas now
they are required to follow the risk
assessments committee in this instance I
read understand that how our colleague
can raise the objection
and and just brush aside consumers and
workers right to have the health
protection I cannot support this
objection which you know perfectly well
has been written by the lobby yeah Thank
You chair and I will speak in German
yeah how cool Egon death is clad as we
yes obviously in the EPP we are
confronted with this every time that we
want to fight cancer so like the greens
but we’re very precise when it comes to
looking at things and recently I spoke
to the German Cancer Research Center and
in there’s a lot of research on the
causes of cancer when it comes to the
chemicals we’re looking at it couldn’t
10th point any deaths in the EU we must
take it very seriously and our colleague
asked specific questions we said we’d
reject it we happy to look at the
specific points the fact is in Germany
though the organization dealing with the
protection of employees says the
exception is unnecessary or have
necessary rules to protect employees and
the labour minister who is from the
Socialist Party says the same thing we
must see whether this helps really I
have three specific questions the
Commission first of all is it correct
what the mover of the omission says that
there’s
the only evidence is with animals and is
there any evidence as regards humans can
we said that send us to us in writing by
tomorrow morning in the the Commission
note says the effects of recycling will
be minimum but what are the effects that
can be observed thirdly how exactly what
how exact is the labeling what is being
labeled there is a risk if there’s no
labeling if it says because if you
scrape off the paint it might cause
cancer what exactly is being proposed
‘old and employees need to know what
they should do so that there are exposed
to this dust and certain more things
which might be more problematic so what
will exact what type of labeling exactly
will they be so I will give the floor to
the Commission the govt to end this
session thank you very much thank you
for the opportunity to come here to
discuss our decision to classify it
Italian dioxide as a carcinogen category
2 so as you very well know the objective
of the of the CLP regulation is to
protect to achieve a high level of
protection of your health and
environment and this is done through the
identification of the hazards so the
intrinsic properties of the substances
there are two ways of classifying either
allow an industry to do surf
classification or through harmonized
classification which is initiated either
by member state or by by industry itself
the classification labeling and
packaging regulation indicates that for
carcinogen processes are carcinogens and
particles or category to harmonize
classification is the right way the
right way forward so the proposal that
the decision that we took was based on
the on the opinion of the risk
assessment committee in akka as you know
is the science-based committee that
looks into proposals by member states or
by industry and since the the risk
assessment committee emitted its its
opinion as some of you have rightly say
there has
not been any single piece of new
evidence that will put into question the
decision of the risk assessment
committee so the only science base
opinion that we have is that of rock so
our classification as I said is based on
rock but it’s also in line with the
conclusions that were achieved by the
International Agency for research on
cancer which is a w-h-o agency that
identified that engine dioxide as a
possible carcinogen to humans and it’s
also in line with other measures taken
by the Commission and in the European
Union such as to ban the use of titanium
dioxide in nano form in cosmetics that
can be strained also because they can be
hailed so so we believe that our
decision is a solid science-based let me
just comment on the issue of whether the
classification level in a packaging is a
better option compared to that of worker
protection legislation these two pieces
of legislation are compatible they are
not incompatible they are compatible and
complementary in fact the fact that a
substance is how it has a harmonized
classification under CLP allows well
obliges industry to provide a safety
data sheet when they are supplying the
substance which allows workers to
properly handle this after the substance
in a safety in a safe way so it’s the
obligation of providing a safety data
sheet that will trigger positive effects
in worker protection
additionally harmonized classification
assists the setting of exposure limit
values and there under occupational
health and safety legislation but it’s
very important to note that the issues
of titanium dioxide and the concerns
that the use of titanium dioxide races
is not limited to work the protection is
also an issue for the self-employed that
are not covered by worker protection
legislation and an issue for consumers
that may also be exposed to this
substance in terms of the of the
consequences that our harmonized
classification will have it will improve
the information on the hazardous Ness of
the substance and help inform choices in
terms of safer handling
it will also allow other legislation to
take risk management measures to ensure
the safety of the of the substance it’s
important to note that harmonized
classification only has to rely on this
on the intrusive properties of the
substance on the hassles of the
substance and not make considerations of
the risk that is of exposure some of you
have have made one of the Honorable and
this has made a reference to to the fact
that powder is a salamu Sturm and
therefore will have problems of
enforcement I would like to remind that
rock recommended that the substance
should be classified as casino chain
category two violation in the Commission
decision the substance is classified in
powder form for particles with an
aerodynamic diameter of equal or less of
10 micro millimeters so we are given a
specific diameter for this for these
particles which we consider response to
those particles that can be inhaled so
it’s a very specific diameter and hence
for this allows enforcement of the
decision there was a question whether we
only have Studies on animals indeed we
had a Studies on animals that I was
mentioned before have been provided by
by industry and it’s the fact of the
relationship between the results on the
study of animals and the potential to
extrapolate this to to humans that it
was decided that the rock decided not to
classify the substance as carcinogen to
Castleton 1b but rather carcinogen 2 so
the relationship between the studies and
animals and the and and the concerns for
humans was already taken into account in
the decision of the of the risk
assessment committee what has been
labeled was also asked so the substance
will have to be labeled as well as the
as the mixtures that are classified
those are the misters in the powder form
there are some issues that will not have
to be classified according to our to our
decision and those
the liquid mixtures but they will have
to be labeled so although they are not
classified they will need to be labeled
and explained that they contain there
may contain respirable particles and
that would be a warning attached to this
to this label and the warning will read
hazardous respectable – maybe for when
use or droplets may be formed when used
do not breathe it so that is what will
have to be labeled and I think that’s
replying all the questions that you have
just to conclude that for the new
commission that just took office today
the fight against cancer is an important
priority and there is only one way to
fight cancer is to identify the
substances that cause cancer and without
the