What else needs to be done?
The solution in a nutshell
The only practical solution is committed regulatory action, by putting EU laws into practice, and improving and making new laws, to reduce all our exposures. Criteria which clearly identify all EDCs without a potency filter will enable the European Union (EU) to effectively address the threats of long-term health and environmental damage posed by EDCs.
EDCs are a threat to our society’s current and future public health and prosperity. Europe should take a leading role in regulating EDCs, as this will stimulate innovation so that all industries in the various sectors develop and use better and safer alternatives. In this way, European industry can ensure its share of the growing world market for safer products and move to more sustainable production and sustainable agriculture.
I believe that this public consultation is not really for the public
The consultation is aimed at the concerns of certain industry sectors, and ignores important questions for citizens, society and companies interested in replacing EDCs with safer alternatives. For example, what will be the benefits of stricter controls for EDCs? How much will we save in terms of reduced health care costs? What are the business opportunities for innovative solutions?
I believe the micro and macro-economic, social, political and environmental benefits of reducing our exposure to EDCs should be included in impact assessments
The following reports and studies made an attempt to cost the benefits of stricter controls for EDCs and reduced human exposure. These should be integrated in the Commission’s impact assessment:
I believe regulatory option A, no change in the law, is the best way forward
I am opposed to the European Commission’s proposed regulatory options B and C to make changes to established EU laws. These are unacceptable because they would undermine the democratically agreed rules in the EU pesticides law adopted by the elected European parliamentarians and national governments in 2009.
The EU pesticides and biocidal laws already contain provisions for exemptions so that no changes are necessary or useful.
I believe policy makers should act on the existing scientific evidence
Scientists have repeatedly voiced concerns about EDCs because it is likely that they are contributing to the dramatic increases of serious diseases and health disorders, such as reproductive and fertility problems, breast, prostate and testicular cancers, effects on brain development and nervous system problems, and obesity and diabetes.
Recent biomonitoring studies from across Europe have shown that people in the general population are typically contaminated with several chemicals. Special care should be taken to reduce exposures before and during pregnancy, in early childhood, and during puberty.
Many people come into contact with EDCs on a daily basis including from consumer products, indoor air, water, food or from the workplace. Wildlife is also suffering from exposure to hormone disrupters and impaired reproduction and development linked to EDCs has been reported in many species, including fish, birds, otters and even polar bears.
The following studies highlight the levels of certain chemicals in urine and hair, found several EDCs in children and their mothers.
This corresponds to Question 4.1 – Provide any other data or information that could help the Commission to conduct its impact assessment.in the EU public consultation