EHJ April 2005, pages 30-31

MEPs Slam Environment And Health Action Plan

'A feeble initiative' is how MEPs have described the environment and health action plan in a new report. Tina Garrity looks at what all the fuss is about

The European environment and health action plan is a feeble initiative, lacking in political will and devoid of any real measures to tackle the health risks presented by environmental pollution, according to the European parliament's environment, public health and food safety committee. In a scathing "own initiative" report, the committee picks to pieces the commission's action plan calling it at best a research action plan which is unlikely in itself to reduce disease burden by environmental factors.

Published in June 2004, the action plan is designed to cover the first cycle of the environment and health strategy, adopted in June 2003 - the so-called Scale initiative (EHJ August 2003, pages 250-251).

The plan runs from 2004-2010 and has three main themes:

• improving the information chain to understand the links between sources of pollution and health effects
• filling the knowledge gap by strengthening research and addressing the emerging issues on environment and health
• reviewing policies and improving communication.

This approach is intrinsically inadequate, say the MEPs, since it ignores the many authoritative scientific studies already published that show the correlation between environmental factors and disease. The report bemoans the absence of any legal instruments in the plan and its failure to mention two-out-of-three ultimate objectives of Scale, namely the reduction of the disease burden by environmental factors and the identification and prevention of new health threats caused by environmental factors. Nor is there any discussion of the need to reduce exposure levels - one of the pillars of the first cycle of Scale. In addition, nowhere does the plan suggest recourse to the precautionary principle, even when the impact on health of a source of pollution can easily be established. Of the 13 actions set out in the plan only four are concerned with specific measures and none of these set any targets. MEPs are also unhappy that the plan ignores the mental and neurological health impacts of pollution and that it lacks any specific proposals regarding the financial resources required to implement its measures.

European Environment Network

MEPs are not the only ones unhappy with the plan. The European Environment Network (EEN) which is part of the European Public Health Alliance, and which has the CIEH as one of its founding members, has also expressed disappointment that the plan fails to adopt many of the concrete proposals suggested by the Scale working groups. In December 2004, the EEN wrote to all EU environment, health, economic, industry and trade ministers outlining 10 key demands in relation to the plan. These include a demand for legislative action or review to be included in it (a "must for an action plan," says the EEN) along with a recognition of the principle of precautionary decision making as the basis for Scale. It also wants protection of vulnerable groups to be at the heart of the plan, including improved risk-assessment methods that protect vulnerable groups and take account of cocktail effects, low doses and exposure during critical periods of development. The EEN wants concrete measures and resources to create an EU coordinating body for environment and health issues and the development of an integrated EU environmental and health mapping system, along with an EU-wide bio-monitoring programme.

European parliament demands

EPs also want an immediate bio-monitoring programme, based on the tracking of biological markers, in order to measure exposure to environmental contaminants, linked to the observation of effects by specialists in environmental medicine. In the first instance, the programme should focus on infectious diseases such as legionnaires' disease and cancers caused by certain contaminants and for which "cause and effect" can be more easily established, they say, eg the link between some pesticides and leukaemia.

Another key demand of MEPs is that urgent consideration be given to restricting the marketing and/or use of certain dangerous substances as safer alternatives become available. These include some phthalates and some organophosphate pesticides, along with chlorinated solvents in paints, coatings and polymers, mercury in dental amalgams and non-electrical or non-electronic measuring and monitoring devices, and cadmium.

Research attention should focus on consumer products containing chemicals, which can lead to allergies and cancer in humans, says the report. It also calls for an epidemiological study on children, along the lines of the National Children's Study in the United States, to monitor from the womb to adulthood the link between environment-related diseases and exposure to the main contaminants. The plan should also define acceptable environmental conditions for areas where children frequently spend long periods of time, such as nurseries, playgrounds and schools. Research into the impact of new construction materials on health should be conducted and there should be a system for labelling the environmental and health effects of construction materials. Additionally, MEPs want a green paper on domestic pollution to address problems of indoor air quality. The report calls for commission support for a new initiative introduced in some member states, whereby mobile units (named "environmental ambulances") are used to perform a global environmental analysis to support existing legal requirements for risk assessment and to identify indoor pollutants likely to have adverse effects on human health.

Proper education and information, in particular on the benefits of a rich and diverse natural and built environment for people's physical and mental health and wellbeing is crucial, say the MEPs. It calls for local information projects to be supported, taking advantage of the knowledge that professionals in health care centres and hospitals and social workers have of local problems, in order to avoid a top-bottom approach in raising awareness of these issues. Teachers and all other people who come into contact with children and infants should be informed and trained in matters associated with environmental factors harmful to health.

Other actions requested in the report include:

• the designation of environmental tobacco smoke as a class 1 carcinogen
• the provision of information concerning exposure to solar radiation (burns) and the related risk of developing skin cancer
• the development of systematic scientific research into the impact of urban areas on health and wellbeing
• the launch of infringement proceedings against those member states which fail to ensure a high level of air quality for their citizens
• the launch of an initiative to reduce industrial atmospheric emissions of toxic substances by 2010, the priority targets being dioxin, cadmium, lead, vinyl chloride monomer and benzene

Report A6-0008/2005 on the European environment and health action plan 2004-2010. Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety:

www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?L=EN&OBJID=93508&LEVEL=3&MODE=SIP&NAV=X&LSTDOC=N

European Environment Network. Response to the European environment and health action plan: www.env-health.org/a/1524

Sudan 1 - the EU response

When the UK authorities notified the European Commission's rapid alert system for food and feed on 18 February that they were undertaking a major recall of food products due to contamination with the illegal dye Sudan 1, it came as something of a surprise. The illegal dye had been banned from imports of EU chilli products since June 2003 and although it was continuing to surface periodically, the problem was comparatively small scale. The announcement that an import from before June 2003 was still turning up in a vast range of food products, completely unnoticed until now, caused consternation across the EU.

In a press statement on 24 February, EU food commissioner Markos Kyprianou expressed concern that old stocks of chilli appeared to be still in use by food processors. He regretted that more than 18 months after the first commission decision establishing the control regime, certain industrial operators had not faced up to their responsibilities and cleaned up their stocks of raw material, although the commission had reminded them of their obligations.

Following the notification, UK representatives were summonsed to meetings with the commission and the other member states to discuss the problem. The commission stressed the importance of updating the other member states via the RASFF system and not just via the FSA website. A meeting of the EU contaminants working group on 24-25 February concluded that lessons would have to be drawn with respect to industry's implementation of the fundamental principles of the food law such as the primary responsibility of food business operators and the application of Haccp. The commission has now written to the relevant industry associations reminding them of their obligations under EU law