FORM FOR TABLING A QUESTION FOR EN ORAL ANSWER WITH DEBATE (Rule 128)

Select only one addressee:

COUNCIL

COMMISSION

AUTHOR(S): Nicola Caputo, Pavel Poc, Jo Leinen, Renata Briano, Elena Gentile, Giuseppina Picierno,

Renato Soru, Biljana Borzan, Rosa D'Amato, Dario Tamburrano, Patricija Šulin, Eleonara Evi, Massimo Castaldo, Alessia Mosca, , Barbara Kappel, Fredrick Federley, Christel Schaldemose, , Marc Tarabella, Iratxe Garcia-Perez, Nessa Childers, , Laura Agea, Tibor Szanyi, Giulia Moi, Marco Valli, Daciana Octavia Sarbu, Enrico Gasbarra, Marco Zullo, Ricardo Serrão Santos, , Jana Zitnanska, Jean-Luc Schaffhauser, Matt Carthy,

SUBJECT: Criteria for identifying endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) (please specify)

TEXT:

On 2 February 2015 the Guardian published an article which reported that as many as 31 endocrine- disrupting pesticides with a value running into billions could have been banned because of potential health risks if a science paper on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) had not been buried by the Commission under pressure from major chemical industry players which use EDCs in toiletries, plastics and cosmetics.

The EU unpublished science paper recommends ways of identifying and categorising the EDCs that scientists link to a rise in foetal abnormalities, genital mutations, infertility, and adverse health effects ranging from cancer to IQ loss. The paper says that the risks associated with exposure to even low-potency EDCs is so great that potency alone should not serve as a basis for chemicals being approved for use. Its proposed criteria for categorisations of EDCs – along with a strategy for implementing them – was supposed to have enabled EU bans of hazardous substances to take place last year.

Can the Commission explain why its science-based EDCs criteria have been blocked and why its EDCs roadmap only puts forward options that have very little or no commercial impact and fails to have the benefits as foreseen in the pesticide Regulation?

Signature(s): Date: 10/02/2015