Find HEAL’s latest letters from all of our activity areas here, we update this page regularly.
The letters are listed chronologically, but you can also search by subject area in the box on the right.
| Date | Title |
|---|---|
| 14/05/2013 | Health risks from climate change highlighted in joint letter to the WHO |
| 08/05/2013 | Joint NGO letter to President Barroso and Commissioners: Call to reduce our exposure to EDCs In a letter to the President of the EU Commission, environmental, occupational/workers and health organisations express their concerns about the global threat of EDCs and the need to reduce our exposure to them. Brussels, 7 May 2013 Dear President Barroso, Dear Commissioners Tajani, Potočnik, and Borg, We, the undersigned environmental, occupation/workers, and health organisations are writing to express our concerns about a matter of urgency for the health of EU citizens and wildlife. You will soon be taking key decisions on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs), which the World Health Organisation (WHO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have called a global threat that needs to be resolved. Your decisions could set the path for significantly reducing exposure to these hazardous chemicals, reducing European national economies’ spending on endocrine related diseases, promoting green chemistry and safer products in the EU, and ensuring EU leadership in global chemicals management. With the Europe 2020 strategy, the EU has set itself the goal of becoming a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy. We believe that acting on EDCs will make a significant contribution to greater sustainability and lead to a more efficient use of resources through the development of better, safer, and greener chemicals, and ultimately strengthen the competitiveness of Europe’s chemical industry. In addition, economic recovery starts with a healthy population. Reducing exposure to EDCs will bring significant health benefits in the short and long term. The weight of scientific evidence, as outlined in the recent review by the WHO and UNEP, tells us that EDCs are linked to serious irreversible impacts on human health and wildlife. Recent EU co-funded human biomonitoring shows certain EDCs are found in both children and their mothers. It is therefore important that the EU ensures that European health and environmental protection is not undermined by policies which disproportionately address the interests of companies producing hazardous chemicals. Exposure reduction should form the key goal of EU EDC policy. In particular we call on the EU Commission to adopt in the coming weeks: 1) Comprehensive and workable criteria to identify EDCs Getting the criteria right for identifying EDCs is the first crucial step in achieving adequate regulation of chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties. 2) A robust and far-sighted EU EDCs Strategy Our organisations have already provided proposals for the revision of the EU EDC Strategy1. Today, we would like to highlight one point of particular importance: The EU must develop and implement a screening and testing strategy that addresses the complexity of the endocrine system, to correctly identify which chemicals are EDCs. The existing testing requirements in the legislation are not able to do this currently. 3) Review of EDCs in REACH authorisation, based on the latest science The upcoming review on how EDCs are regulated under the REACH authorization procedure provides an important opportunity to promote the replacement of EDCs with safer alternatives. The review should ensure that an authorization for an EDC - as for Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic chemicals - can only be granted if no safer alternatives are available and the use is essential to society. Further details on these three issues are set out in the Annex. We call on you to recognise the overwhelming evidence of the dangers of EDCs and acknowledge the conclusion from the EU Commission’s EDC conference in June 2012 and echoed in the WHO/UNEP report: a tipping point has been reached. Now you must take the necessary steps to reflect this knowledge in EU Chemicals Policy. We also call on you to ensure European leadership in the global context as EDCs have become a priority issue in international negotiations on chemical management. Recent reports from the European Environmental Agency (EEA) and UNEP have demonstrated the costs of inaction associated with health and environmental effects of chemicals exposure and how much more expensive it is to take action later after there have been early warnings. In view of the public interest in this matter, we intend to make the contents of this letter more widely available. Sincerely, Genon K. Jensen, Executive Director, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Supported by the following organisations: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) Greenpeace European Unit Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN - E) Client Earth Health Care without Harm (HCWH) Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) Alliance for Cancer Prevention (ACP) Breast Cancer UK BUND Friends of the Earth Germany Cancer Prevention and Education Society (CPES) Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) Chem Sec CHEMTrust Danish Ecological Council Ecologistas en Acción Fundación Vivosano Générations Futures Réseau Environnement Santé (RES) Swedish Society for Nature Conservation Annex 1) EDC Criteria Getting the criteria right for identifying EDCs is the first crucial step in achieving adequate regulation of chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties. Any criteria that the Commission proposes for identifying ‘chemicals with ED properties’ must not undermine the requirements of existing EU laws. Therefore EDCs must be controlled regardless of how strong they are – i.e. no “potency cut-offs”. The criteria should ensure transparency of existing data and provide incentives for more data generation. The currently deleted category 3 should be re-introduced into the final Commission’s proposal for the criteria. A category 3 is vital to provide transparency on what findings already exist, and to encourage manufacturers to provide further data. Not to include a category 3 in the criteria would be a step backward from the previous EU categorisation scheme for EDCs, which had a category based on in-vitro data. In addition, the criteria must not demand too high a burden of proof for showing how the chemicals exert their effects. Outstanding scientific questions should not lead to inaction. The criteria must be applied in individual pieces of EU legislation (e.g. pesticides, biocides) so that chemicals highly suspected to be EDCs are regulated. 2) EU EDC Strategy Our organisations have already provided proposals for the revision of the EU EDC Strategy2. Today, we would like to highlight one point of particular importance: The EU must develop and implement a screening and testing strategy that addresses the complexity of the endocrine system, to correctly identify which chemicals are EDCs. The existing testing requirements in the legislation are not able to do this currently. Furthermore, the structural barrier to identifying EDCs under the animal testing ban of the cosmetics law must be addressed. To date regulators use animal test data to categorise chemicals. Now, given the animal testing ban in the cosmetics law, the Commission must enable and support regulators to categorize chemicals based on information from non-animal test methods. Otherwise the important aim of minimising animal testing will leave the public unprotected, because no cosmetic ingredient will be identified as an EDC in the absence of animal data. 3) Review of EDCs in REACH authorisation The upcoming review on how EDCs are regulated under the REACH authorization procedure provides an important opportunity to promote the replacement of EDCs with safer alternatives. The REACH Candidate list is encouraging innovation and substitution of hazardous chemicals with safer chemicals, according to a recent EU Commission report. However, if authorizations are given for ‘adequate control’, it will undermine efforts in the transition to safer chemicals. The general population is exposed continuously to a cocktail of EDCs and there is no scientific evidence that “safe exposure levels” can be identified with sufficient certainty. Therefore, the review should ensure that an authorization for an EDC - as for Persistent, Bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals - can only be granted if no safer alternatives are available and the use is essential to society. |
| 24/04/2013 | HEAL response to EURACOAL statement |
| 18/04/2013 | Joint letter to EFSA on mercury in fish |
| 12/04/2013 |
To: EU Environment Ministers Re: Informal Environment Council: your exchange on air quality and urban environment, 22 April HEAL urges EU Environment Ministers to consider the three priorities from over 60 environmental, health and citizens NGOs on the future of EU air policies. This topic will be discussed at the upcoming Informal Environment Council meeting on 22 April. Brussels, 12 April 2013 To: EU Environment Ministers Re: Informal Environment Council: your exchange on air quality and urban environment, 22 April Dear Environment Minister, The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), a leading European not-for-profit organisation addressing how the environment affects health in the European Union, urges you to consider the significant benefits for human health and well-being, and for the climate, that can be gained through ambitious EU measures to reduce air pollution. Despite a long history of legislation, air pollution continues to be a massive public health and environmental problem in Europe. (1) As the recent WHO REVIHAAP review of the science on air pollution demonstrates, there is no reason for local authorities, national governments and EU institutions to step back from efforts to improve air quality – on the contrary. (2) WHO concludes that damaging health effects can occur at lower levels than previously thought, and that a broader range of health effects has to be considered. Air pollution is not only a contributing factor to the burden of respiratory and cardiovascular disease – two of the major chronic diseases in Europe - but is increasingly linked to neurodevelopment and cognitive function impacts, and even diabetes. Most worrying is that children, even before birth, are being harmed from air pollutants. Recent studies show early life exposure to air pollution contributes to higher risks of developing chronic diseases later in life, including lung disease, diabetes and cancer. (3) Air pollution is also a factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Current pollution levels in Europe result in significant human health and economic costs. A recent report “The unpaid health bill: How coal power plants make us sick” provides the first-ever calculation of the effects of coal-fired power generation on chronic lung disease and some heart conditions. It estimates that air pollution from coal plants costs the EU up to 42.8 billion EUR a year. These findings have been widely covered in European and international media, including Forbes, Le Monde, La Repubblica and the Lancet. As you will be discussing the future of EU air policies, we urge you to consider the three priorities of the attached position paper from over 60 environmental, health and citizens NGOs from across Europe: 1. Ambitious emission reduction commitments in the revised National Emissions Ceilings (NEC) Directive 2. Sectoral legislation to cut emissions from all major sources 3. Enforcement and strengthening of ambient air quality limit values HEAL further hopes that you will show support for initiatives that will be beneficial for both air quality and the climate, such as phasing out coal power, ambitious reduction commitments for methane and black carbon, or incentives for active transportation and less meat consumption. Last but not least: outdoor air pollution is also a major determinant of the quality of the air indoors, and Europeans spend most of their time indoors. We call on you to show your support for improving indoor air quality with a dedicated strategy. Our extensive and broad alliance of public health, health professional and health-affected groups, as well as women’s, environmental and consumer groups from across Europe is keen to support your efforts to reduce air pollution. We count on your political commitment for tackling what one of our members, the European Respiratory Society calls the “invisible killer” at the Informal Council meeting and in the months to follow, so that substantial and immediate gains for health and the economy can be reaped. We look forward to future exchanges on this issue. Yours sincerely, Genon K. Jensen Executive Director (1) http://www.who.int/topics/global_burden_of_disease/en/ (2) http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environment-and-health/air-quality/activities/evidence-on-health-aspects-of-air-pollution-to-review-eu-policies-the-revihaap-project (3) Developmental origins of non-communicable disease: Implications for research and public health: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/1476-069X-11-42.pdf Attached documents: [European Respiratory Society: 10 principles for clean air->http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/39/3/525.full.pdf+html" class='spip_out'>NGO priorities for the review of the Thematic Strategy on Air |
| 13/03/2013 | Open letter: Civil Society alarmed by the prospect of regressive Common Agricultural Policy reform |
| 21/02/2013 | Open letter on EU research funding for 2014-2020 21 February 2013 To: Members of the European Parliament, Member States of the European Union Dear Member of the European Parliament, dear Madam, dear Sir, You are now involved in the final negotiations around the EU's budget for 2014-2020. The position reached by the European Council's February 8th meeting concludes that a significant cut in research funding is being considered. According to European Commission estimates, this would translate into a €10 billion cut in Horizon 2020, out of an original €80 billion budget [1]. Civil society organisations have been denouncing Horizon 2020's excessive corporate bias since the very first Green paper published by the Commission in 2011 [2], but big business' lobbying prevailed. As it stands, the project is divided into three pillars, with the entire second pillar - more than €20 billion – allocated to a program called “Industrial leadership”, for activities with a “business-driven agenda” [3]. Past experience with similar business-driven EU Research programs shows that despite promises that the priority for these funds will be SMEs, for new research projects, they have mainly been captured by large multinational corporations, to finance research activities that were already planned [4]. This means that these much-needed research funds have been transformed into industry subsidies, with little added value in terms of research results and questionable legitimacy when these same companies slash their workforce while still paying out dividends and bonuses. One example is the Joint Technology Initiative “Clean Sky”, a public-private partnership between the European Commission and industry, in which €400 million of taxpayers' money is directly transferred to the largest companies participating (such as EADS, Thales, Dassault, Finmeccanica, Rolls-Royce...) [5]. Dedicating even more money to a failed policy is not an acceptable use of scarce public funds. We request that the “Industrial Leadership” program is the sole recipient of budget cuts, and that more money is made available for crucial research needs in areas such as food safety, preventative health policy, fundamental public research, ecology-focussed agriculture or renewable energies. Public research funding should go to public interest projects. Signatories ARC 2020 ASEED Europe BUKO Pharma-Kampagne Corporate Europe Observatory Committe for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) Earth Open Source European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC) European Public Services Union (EPSU) European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) Fondation Sciences Citoyennes Fondazione Italiana per la Ricerca in Agricoltura Biologica e Biodinamica (FIRAB) GMWatch Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) EU Group Living Knowledge Network Naturschutzbund Deutschland e.V. (NABU) Pesticides Action Europe (PAN) Testbiotech Wissenschaftsladen Wien - Science Shop Vienna Notes [1] In Downsized E.U. Budget, Mixed News for Research, Science Insider, 11 February 2013 [2] Public Research should benefit Society, not Big Business - An Open Letter on the Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding – Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, 29 June 2011 [3] Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and Council establishing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020), European Commission, 30 November 2011, Report on the proposal for a Council decision establishing the Specific Programme Implementing Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014 – 2020), (COM(2011)0811 – C7-0509/2011 – 2011/0402(CNS)), European Parliament, 8 January 2013 [4] EU research funding: for whose benefit? - S. Gardner and Corporate Europe Observatory, 5 December 2011 [5] Ibid. |
| 20/12/2012 | Joint letter: Last chance to develop strong treaty to reduce mercury exposure New scientific evidence on global mercury seafood contamination highlights adverse health effects occurring below the level which is considered “safe”. This and other scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that the mercury health threat has grown substantially over the last decade. HEAL, EEB and ZMWG urge EU environment ministers to support the adoption of a strong international agreement on mercury when governments meet in Geneva in January 2013. To: Environment Ministers of EU Member States Cc: Commissioner Potocnik Cc: Director General Falkenberg Dear Environment Minister, We, the undersigned, urge you to support the adoption of a strong international agreement on mercury when governments meet in Geneva in January for their fifth and final negotiation. Earlier this month, the Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG) presented the most extensive new findingsi to date on global mercury seafood contamination, with health effects occurring below the level considered “safe” just a few years ago – suggesting current health benchmarks should be revised. We highlighted new scientific evidence that for the first time correlates rising mercury levels in the oceans with the growth in pollution and also projects a 50% increase in mercury levels by 2050 in the Pacific Ocean if current pollution trends continue unabated. This and other new evidence clearly demonstrates that the mercury threat has grown substantially since the UN Environment Program (UNEP) global mercury assessment report was completed just after the turn of the century. Since 2001, countries around the world have been discussing options to control mercury pollution and in 2003 the UNEP Governing Council agreed that enough was known to “…warrant immediate action to reduce global mercury pollution.” Now over a decade has passed and the time for bold and corrective action has come. The solution is not for people to stop eating fish since the nutritional benefits are substantial and many small island countries, indigenous people and others depend on fish. While informing consumers about low mercury fish is essential to reduce exposure, this should not be a substitute for the ultimate goal: to reduce mercury contamination and all sources of exposure to the lowest possible levels in the shortest amount of time. Fortunately, the world community can come to grips with the global mercury crisis. Since 2009 governments have been negotiating an internationally binding agreement to control mercury pollution. The treaty is expected to include actions to reduce, amongst others, mercury supply, trade, its use in products and processes, and atmospheric mercury emissions, which will ultimately reduce human exposure to mercury globally. Yet so far the negotiations have been going slowly. This is not because alternatives or solutions are absent; the technology is available to manage mercury pollution — we know how to control mercury emissions, and there are mercury-free alternatives for nearly all mercury-containing products and industrial processes. What is missing is the political will to make the necessary commitments to phase out mercury use, and put the needed controls and alternatives in place. Therefore, as detailed in our comments on the final draft treaty text, we call on you, as representative of your country to work toward a successful outcome next month in Geneva; an ambitious treaty leading to serious emissions reductions and mercury use phase outs for the sake of our children and for future generations. The final treaty negotiation session in Geneva is the world’s last chance to create a strong program for international action and cooperation. Yours Sincerely, Jeremy Wates, Secretary General European Environmental Bureau (EEB) Genon Jensen, Executive Director Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Michael Bender and Elena Lymberidi-Settimo, International coordinators Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG) Links to the new reports http://www.zeromercury.org/phocadownload/Developments_at_UNEP_level/INC5/FINAL_BRI_Patterns_of_Global_Seafood_120312.pdf http://www.zeromercury.org/phocadow... http://www.zeromercury.org/phocadownload/Developments_at_UNEP_level/INC5/zmwg_summary_recommendations_final.pdf http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/p... Link to the ZMWG paper commenting on the final draft treaty text (“Chair’s text): http://www.zeromercury.org/phocadownload/Developments_at_UNEP_level/INC5/zmwg%20preliminary%20views%20on%20inc%205%20draft%20chairs%20treaty%20text-%20november%202012.pdf Link to the Chair’s text: http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances/Mercury/Negotiations/INC5/INC5MeetingDocuments/tabid/3495/language/en-US/Default.aspx |
| 14/11/2012 | Key issues to increase the chances of the next MFF delivering on Europe 2020 priorities The Green 10 has written an open letter to the President of the European Parliament, Mr Martin Schulz ahead of the 22-23rd November European Summit on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014 – 2020. In the letter the Green10 sets out some key issues that could substantially increase the chances of the next MFF delivering on Europe 2020 priorities on: Climate action: Ensure that 20% of the next MFF supports climate acti Common Agricultural Policy (CAP): Ensure the delivery of public benefits Cohesion policy: Put sustainability at the heart of regional development investments Ensure that LIFE (Environment and Climate fund) receives 1% of the next MFF External dimension: Maintain the Commission’s proposed allocation |
| 09/11/2012 | Open letter to Polish Prime Minister Tusk The Green 10 has written an open letter to Polish Prime Minister Tusk. The letter addresses recent statements made by the Polish Minister of Treasury, Mr Mikołaj Budzanowski regarding a civil society organisation. Dear Prime Minister Tusk, We are writing to you to express our concern about the statement made by your Minister of Treasury, Mr Mikołaj Budzanowski on 4th October to the Polish Press Agency and repeated later in an interview with the daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita on the 8th October. In reaction to the appeal made by a non-governmental organisation ClientEarth against the expansion by the Polish Energy Group (PGE) of a coal-fired power plant in Opole, Minister Budzanowski publicly challenged the activities of ClientEarth claiming that "[it] acts against the interest of the State (...)." The Minister also added that "This kind of organisation should accept that there are limits to its activities. In my opinion they have passed their limit. If I were ClientEarth (…) I would reconsider doing any further work against PGE.” These statements represent an unprecedented attack on a civil society organization from a high-level government representative. By equating the interests of private companies with those of the Polish State, Minister Budzanowski’s comments display a disturbing disrespect for the role of civil society in Poland. The Constitution states that the Republic of Poland shall protect the right to create and operate citizens' movements, voluntary associations and foundations, and that public authorities shall support citizens’ efforts in protecting and improving the quality of the environment. In addition, the Aarhus Convention, ratified by Poland, introduces the right of NGOs to challenge decisions affecting the environment before administrative bodies and courts. We therefore believe that you as Prime Minister, as a regular defender of the principles and the importance of democracy, should also defend a transparent dialogue with representatives of non-governmental organizations. We urge you to respond publicly and unambiguously to the Minister's statement. |
| 10/10/2012 | Joint NGO letter: Support phase-out of mercury use in dentistry in the EU and globally High quality and cost-effective alternatives to dental amalgam are readily available. HEAL and other organisations believe that dental amalgam use should be phased out and time-tables for such action should be supported at both the EU and global levels. To: EU Member States’ representatives and dental experts potentially attending the European Commission meeting on dental amalgam on October 11th, 2012 9 October 2012, Brussels Dear Member State environment/health expert, We are writing to you in view of the European Commission meeting with Member States’ experts on the 11th October, in Brussels, to address dental amalgam. As you are well aware, the recent European Commission commissioned BIOIS report, ‘Study on potential for reducing mercury pollution from dental amalgam and batteries’ concluded that the most effective way to reduce environmental impacts of dental amalgam use in the EU, would be a combination of banning the use of mercury in dentistry and improving enforcement of EU waste legislation regarding dental mercury [i]. Since indeed high quality and cost-effective alternatives to dental amalgam are readily available, we believe that such policy conclusions should now become legislative measures; dental amalgam use should be phased out and time-tables for such action should be supported at both the EU and global levels. [ii] Although the BIOIS report does not consider the health impacts from direct exposure from amalgams that are still being debated, it does recognize that dental mercury “remains a significant contributor to overall environmental mercury releases in the EU.” [iii] “In 2007, dental amalgam was the second largest mercury use in the EU after chlor-alkali production and it is expected to become the largest mercury use once mercury cell-based chlor-alkali production is phased out in the EU (target date 2020).” [iv] The report estimates that consumption of dental amalgam represented between 55 and 95 t Hg per year in 2010, and estimated to be an average of 75 tonnes/year. Furthermore, it is estimated that dental amalgam contributes 21-32% of overall EU mercury emissions to air and up to 9-13% of overall mercury emissions to surface water. [v] Once dental mercury has been used, there are a number of “end-of-pipe” techniques to prevent it from entering the environment, but each comes at a (sometimes very high) cost, and may not be as effective as intended. Further, the broad application of “end-of-pipe” techniques throughout the EU is severely limited, particularly in regard to mercury abatement from cremation (which is increasing).[vi] BIOIS concludes that waste management alone is not sufficient because “While […]it tackles environmental impacts from both historical and current dental amalgam use, it focuses on releases from dental practices and is not sufficient in itself to address the whole range of mercury releases from the dental amalgam life cycle (it does not address mercury releases from the natural deterioration of amalgam fillings in people’s mouths, from cremation and burial, and residual emissions to urban WWTPs).” [vii] While most dental professionals continue to charge somewhat lower prices for amalgams, it is increasingly clear that the full ‘external’ costs borne by the rest of society are high, when the full range of environmental and potential health ramifications are taken into account.[viii] Ultimately, society pays for the uncontrolled releases of mercury from dental amalgam through additional pollution control costs, the loss of common resources, and the health effects associated with mercury contamination.[ix] For those reasons, phasing out dental mercury use is necessary and cost-effective: “since the associated costs are considered to be reasonable for the various stakeholders, especially as they are considered to be outweighed by the associated environmental and health benefits.” [x] Furthermore and most importantly there are a range of safe and affordable mercury-free alternatives. The Swedish experience, among others, has proven that there are very few cases where a compelling argument can be made that amalgam fillings are ‘necessary.’ This is also backed up by the EU Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR 2008), which concluded in their study “that dental health can be adequately ensured by both types of materials” (i.e. mercury-free alternatives and amalgam), noting that alternatives have been in clinical use for over 30 years, and revealed little evidence of clinical significant adverse effects to date [xi]. In addition BIOIS finds, among other advantages, that, due to technological progress, composite can last just as long as amalgam, and in some cases even longer.[xii] Therefore in view of advancing discussions at EU level, a route to transitioning out of dental mercury could be, phasing it out as fast as possible, with some exceptions. Exemptions however, should be set in a restricted framework, otherwise they risk becoming a loophole and potentially undermining the policy proposals and the objectives of the regulators. Nevertheless, amalgam should not be allowed into children’s mouth, that is to say in milk teeth. Clearly, the environmental pollution from dental amalgam and health consequences from indirect exposures are significant [xiii], and the precautionary principle further obliges us to take a pro-active stand with regard to potential health risks from direct amalgam exposures. The BIOIS report shows that the transition to mercury-free dentistry can occur in all of Europe. To that end, we call on you to send a clear message to the EC that you support phase-outs of mercury from dentistry at the EU level and globally. Thank you in advance for your attention to this important environmental and health issue and for considering our concerns. Yours sincerely, Elena Lymberidi-Settimo Project Coordinator ‘Zero Mercury Campaign’ European Environmental Bureau This letter is also supported by: World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry, www.toxicteeth.org Zero Mercury Working Group, www.zeromercury.org Health and Environment Alliance, www.env-health.org The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology – Europe Health Care Without Harm www.noharm.org- Europe, www.noharm.org European Academy for Environmental Medicine e.V, www.europaem.org Deutscher Berufsverband der Umweltmediziner, www.dbu-online.de Deutsche Gesellschaft für Umweltzahnmedizin, www.deguz.de Non au mercure dentaire, www.non-au-mercure-dentaire.org Réseau Environnement & Santé, http://reseau-environnement-sante.fr/ Association Toxicologie Chimie, http://atctoxicologie.free.fr/ References: [i] EC- BIOIS Study on potential for reducing mercury pollution from dental amalgam and batteries, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/che... [ii] With possible limited exemptions for specific medical conditions [iii] BIO Intelligence Service (2012), Study on the potential for reducing mercury pollution from dental amalgam and batteries, Final report prepared for the European Commission-DG ENV, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/Final_report_11.07.12.pdf, p. 10 [iv] BIO Intelligence Service (2012), Study on the potential for reducing mercury pollution from dental amalgam and batteries, Final report prepared for the European Commission-DG ENV, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/Final_report_11.07.12.pdf, p.10 [v] BIO Intelligence Service (2012), Study on the potential for reducing mercury pollution from dental amalgam and batteries, Final report prepared for the European Commission-DG ENV, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/Final_report_11.07.12.pdf, p.176 [vi] Ibid. [vii] BIO Intelligence Service (2012), Study on the potential for reducing mercury pollution from dental amalgam and batteries, Final report prepared for the European Commission-DG ENV, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/Final_report_11.07.12.pdf, p.108 viii Hylander & Goodsite 2006, Maxson 2006 Environmental costs of mercury pollution, Science of the Total Environment 368 (2006) 352–370 [ix] http://mpp.cclearn.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/finalreportfrommpptestimony0707081.pdf [x] BIO Intelligence Service (2012), Study on the potential for reducing mercury pollution from dental amalgam and batteries, Final report prepared for the European Commission-DG ENV, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/Final_report_11.07.12.pdf, pp.108-09 [xi] http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_016.pdf [xii BIO Intelligence Service (2012), Study on the potential for reducing mercury pollution from dental amalgam and batteries, Final report prepared for the European Commission-DG ENV, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/Final_report_11.07.12.pdf, p.68 [xiii] Studies have demonstrated that a certain portion of this dental mercury becomes bioavailable, and may constitute a significant source of risk to human health and the environment, Stone et al. (2005) – ME Stone, ME Cohen, L Liang and P Pang, Determination of methylmercury in dental-unit wastewater, Dental Materials 19 (2003) 675–679, Elsevier Ltd. |
| 03/10/2012 | Joint NGO letter to Commissioners on EDCs |
| 19/09/2012 | Green 10 letter: EU deliberations on Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) With negotiations on the EU’s next MFF high on the political agenda, and in advance of next week’s discussion at the General Affairs Council, HEAL on behalf of the Green 10 urges EU ministers of Finance, European Affairs and Agriculture to ensure that no decision on the overall allocations to the CAP, under the MFF, is taken before a decision has been taken on what the CAP budget will deliver and to safeguard only those parts of the CAP budget that clearly demonstrate benefits to society and European taxpayers. TO: Ministers of Finance, Minsters of European Affairs CC: Ministers of Agriculture RE: EU deliberations on Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) Brussels, 19 September 2012 Dear Minister, With negotiations on the EU’s next MFF high on the political agenda, and in advance of next week’s discussion at the General Affairs Council, we are writing to you on behalf of the Green 10, ten of the largest European environmental organizations, with a membership of over 20 million citizens, to urge you to ensure that no decision on the overall allocations to the CAP, under the MFF, is taken before a decision has been taken on what the CAP budget will deliver and to safeguard only those parts of the CAP budget that clearly demonstrate benefits to society and European taxpayers. As environmental organizations we have long argued that the CAP has the potential to become an instrument that will reward farmers for the delivery of public goods, and for this reason we have supported a significant part of the EU budget to be spent on the CAP. Despite previous reforms resulting in, for example, the creation of ‘the second pillar’, a large amount of funding, especially in ‘the first pillar’, is still going to Europe’s environmentally most damaging farming practices. These farming practices not only harm our environments and the climate, they also profoundly compromise reaching Europe’s goals for better public health, equity and tackling poverty and social exclusion. For the CAP to fulfill its potential, and to regain its legitimacy, it would need profound change. Over the last year we have been closely following the proposals being discussed in the Agriculture Council and in the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee and we are observing that at the very best lip service is paid to such a profound change. Worse, both within the European Parliament and within the Council, agriculture negotiators are planning to wait for a decision to be taken on the MFF before providing any clarity on the fundamental question of how this new CAP budget will actually be used. Some MEPs have even gone on record arguing that any cut in the CAP budget would translate into cuts in the one part of the CAP budget that actually brings benefits to society. It is becoming ever clearer that the CAP is more likely to be green-washed, than “greened”. We believe this is an unacceptable way of taking decisions on the EU’s MFF, especially at a time of economic crisis and severe budget constraints across Europe. We also believe that this fatally undermines the possibly last chance for the CAP to regain its legitimacy and to develop into a policy that will be both politically and environmentally sustainable, by providing European citizens with public goods such as clean water and air, and thriving wildlife. We therefore call on you to help ensure the following key elements of sound decision making. First of all, that agricultural negotiators will actually provide clarity on the question of what the money will be spent on, and secondly, that only those parts of the CAP budget that are providing substantial and demonstrable benefits to society and European taxpayers are safeguarded within the final budget decisions. Yours sincerely, Genon K. Jensen, Executive Director, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) On behalf of the Green 10 EU Directors Green 10 EU Directors: Angelo Caserta, Regional Director of the European Division – BirdLife International Wendel Trio, Director – Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe Anelia Stefanova, Director – CEE Bankwatch Network Jeremy Wates, Secretary-General – European Environmental Bureau Magda Stoczkiewicz, Director - Friends of the Earth Europe Jorgo Riss, Director – Greenpeace European Unit Genon K. Jensen, Executive Director – Health & Environment Alliance Christian Baumgartner, Director, Naturefriends International Jos Dings, Director – The European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E) Tony Long, Director – WWF European Policy Office |
| 17/09/2012 | To: Attachés of the Competitivness Council working group Re: Benefits to public health and national budgets of stringent noise standards HEAL, T&E, EEB and Eurocities call on EU Member States to reject attempts to further weaken the proposal on new EU vehicle noise limits. Ahead of a Competitiveness Council working group meeting, the joint letter highlights the benefits to public health and national budgets of stringent noise standards. Dear Attaché, Transport & Environment (T&E), the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), and EUROCITIES, would like to draw your attention to the Competitiveness council working group meeting on Tuesday 18th 2012 to discuss the European Commission regulation proposal (2011/0409 COD) on the sound level of motor vehicles. Over the last forty years vehicle noise has increasingly impacted on the health and well-being of Europeans, while traffic noise standards have not been updated since the mid 1990s. Noise pollution is associated with around 50,000 fatal heart attacks every year and 250,000 cases of cardiovascular disease every year. It is the second biggest environmental health problem in Europe after air pollution, according to the World Health Organisation. Recent research proves that cutting traffic noise from vehicles would enable national governments, local authorities and society at large to enjoy benefits which would outweigh costs by a factor of more than thirty to one, saving around 89 billion Euros a year. This includes cutting health-related costs caused by noise, but also enabling local and national governments to avoid expensive measures such as installing noise barriers or insulating individual homes. We understands that the co-decision procedure is focused on how much and how quickly noise levels for different types of vehicles should be tightened. However, we are concerned that the process may lead to a significant weaken of the proposal – to the detriment of over 200 million Europeans who are currently at risk from high levels of road traffic noise. For these reasons, we ask you to reject proposals to further weaken the proposal: No delay to entry into force. The proposal from the European Commission would only apply to new types of vehicle from 20XX, and the vast majority of vehicles would not need any changes at all as they are already compliant with phase 1 limit values. Phase 2 would only enter into force after 7 years – the leadtime requested by the industry during the consultations on the regulation, which is more than sufficient. Proposals to delay this further, wait for agreement on UNECE Regulation 51, or add a further ‘transition period’ are not necessary and come at a high cost to public health and the budgets of local authorities. The proposed limits would only affect sales of new vehicles from 2019/20, so giving more than the 5-7 years lead time the industry claims is necessary for new models. Take care with ‘moving the goalposts’ on vehicle classification. In some cases, changing the classification is technically well-justified, but please be aware of proposals reclassifications intended to allow higher noise limits (and/or additional allowances) that were originally only intended for very specific vehicle types. Certain small-volume types of vehicles are responsible for a significant number of noise peaks; Reject rounding down of measured results. Proposing to round down measured results and allow vehicles in production to have more relaxed limits than tested vehicles; T&E, HEAL, EEB, suggest a five point plan that would improve the original text and bring about savings worth 51 billion Euros costing only 3 billion. Please click here to view the position paper. T&E, HEAL, EEB held an event in the European Parliament to launch A Sound Investment Joint Declaration in early June 2012, where cities, noise experts, politicians and civil society organisations came together in calling on the EU to increase the ambition level of European noise limits for new vehicles We would welcome an opportunity to discuss these issues with you in person at your convenience. Yours sincerely, Greg Archer, Transport & Environment (T&E) Anne Stauffer, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Louise Duprez, European Environmental Bureau (EEB) Henk Wolfert, EUROCITIES |
| 31/08/2012 | To: Commissioner Janez Potočnik and Commissioner John Dalli Re: NGO comments on the RAC and SEAC opinion on the Danish phthalate dossier HEAL and 8 other European NGOs criticise the opinion of two committees of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) that the restriction of 4 phthalates (DEHP, DBP, BBP, and DIBP) in consumer goods, proposed by Denmark, is unjustified. We urge the Commission to restrict the 4 phthalates in consumer goods based on toxicological, epidemiological, and human biomonitoring evidence, and the precautionary principle as mandated by the REACH chemicals law. Also, the Commission should amend existing EU legislation to deal with the combination effects of chemicals, particularly related to REACH, to protect the health of EU citizens and environment. OPEN LETTER 29 August, 2012 Dear Commissioners, Our nine organisations are writing to you jointly as a response to the conclusions drawn by the two scientific committees of the Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) and the Committee for Socio-economic Analysis (SEAC), that the Danish proposal of restriction of four classified phthalates (DEHP, DBP, BBP, and DIBP) in articles is not justified. We welcome that the RAC, based on the Danish proposal, now recognizes in principle the potential for "combination effects", and thus has enabled the future banning of substances based on their combined effects due to the same mechanism of action. This conclusion is extremely important as it acknowledges reality where chemicals don’t act in isolation but people and wildlife are exposed to multiple substances at the same time. This recognition also emphasizes that epidemiology needs to abandon its outdated focus on single endocrine disrupters and has to embrace the reality of endocrine disrupter mixture effects by developing biomarkers that capture cumulative exposure to endocrine disrupters. Moreover it shows that in the absence of epidemiological and toxicological data that deals with mixtures, it is questionable to assume that chemicals are not exerting combination effects, and do not pose a risk. Therefore we strongly disagree with the conclusion from RAC and SEAC that the available data in the Danish dossier does not indicate that currently (2012) there is a risk from combined exposure to the four phthalates. Given that the RAC accepts that the Danish dossier may have over-estimated or indeed under-estimated some current exposure routes we do not consider that the RAC’s conclusion is robust. The RAC should decide on whether there is a need for restriction based on the best available data at this time, and the available biomonitoring data shows that there could be a risk from the combined exposure to the four phthalates both for children and for adults. An ongoing EU research project on human biomonitoring, Democophes, in preliminary results is showing combined exposures. In Germany for example researchers taking samples over this last year found slightly higher exceedance of (German) reference values for the phthalate DEHP compared to a prior biomonitoring project (GerES, which in 2003-06 already found exceedance), and for some phthalates higher maximum levels. One of the committee’s arguments to not support the Danish proposal is that the risk characterization ratios (RCRs) are only slightly above 1, and that a reduction of phthalates used in the last couple of years might have further lowered this value. In light of this our organisations want to draw attention to the data available on low-dose effects and the scientifically proven effects due to concurrent exposure to several chemicals with combination effects [1,2,3,4]. Even though the amount of the four phthalates in use might be decreasing, there will still be an exposure – a low dose exposure that could result in adverse combination effects. Here, it should be also borne in mind that there will be other anti-androgenic substances to which the human population is exposed, in addition to these 4 phthalates. For example, a recent report (sampling performed between April and June 2011) done by the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (“Home sweet home? – dusty surprises under the bed” [5]) shows that we are exposed to a wide range of substances from the dust in our homes. Just considering dust from homes, the findings showed that the total level of phthalates (BBP*, DBP*, DEHP* and DINP), were in some countries found to be higher than what public authorities today consider to be safe, if the combination effects were considered. And since Europeans spend as much as 90 percent of their time indoors, it is very important to find a way to deal with the problem of combination effects – most effectively done through legislation by restrictions. This Swedish report is based on samples that were collected between April and June 2011 and thus originate after the restrictions on three of the four phthalates in toys and childcare articles. Another study [6], just published (2012) by the Danish Ministry of the Environment, shows that pregnant rats’ exposure to a combination of five different endocrine disrupting chemicals, at very low doses, can have adverse effects on the rat pups. The rats were given drugs at doses which individually do not cause an effect. The study showed that the combination of drugs prolonged gestation in dams, had serious effects on male offspring genitals, and led to a higher level of pesticides in the pups’ blood than when they were exposed to one chemical at a time. The study did not specifically include phthalates but other endocrine disrupters that are likely to have similar mechanism of action as phthalates. Besides the real concern about low-dose effects and combination effects, it is a fact that the products used as examples in the Danish Annex XV dossier are still on the market. In general it cannot be assumed that the authorisation process will reject the use of phthalates in all relevant consumer products in the EU. Moreover, the authorization process will evaluate the phthalates as separate substances and does not take into account that they act as a chemical cocktail. Furthermore, products that are imported from non-EU countries are not subject to the authorisation process. The fact that in 2010, 60 % of all products that were included in the EU RAPEX list for products posing a serious risk to the health and safety of consumers were made in China makes clear that there is a significant loophole in the authorization process. Very worryingly, the RAC argumentation that the RCRs calculated in the Danish dossier are not sufficiently above 1 is in direct conflict with the EU chemical legislation. Risk assessment officially is based on the precautionary principle [7]. The Committees should follow the REACH legal text, which says; “To ensure a sufficiently high level of protection for human health, including having regard to relevant human population groups and possibly to certain vulnerable sub-populations, and the environment, substances of very high concern should, in accordance with the precautionary principle, be subject to careful attention”. So even a RCR at or slightly above 1 should be taken very seriously and acted upon! In their rejection of the Danish proposal, RAC also uses the “very worst case” scenarios that are used in the dossier as an argument. These scenarios show that the total RCR for each age-group is above 1. It might be an overestimated exposure scenario, but taking into account that the articles used as examples in the dossier are just a limited selection of all the sources of exposure that we are exposed to, the scenario presented in the Danish dossier could as well be underestimated [8]. Given these uncertainties, the application of the precautionary principle is all the more warranted. NGOs are urging the European Commission to take a decision on the restriction of the four phthalates that is based on the precautionary principle. Furthermore, it should prepare concrete amendments to deal with the combination effects of chemicals in existing EU legislation, in particular REACH, in order to protect the health of Europe’s citizens and environment. We also call on companies and EU Member States to enhance the substitution of hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives and adopt reduction measures to reduce exposures to hormone disrupting chemicals. Yours sincerely, Lone Mikkelsen Policy officer –chemicals, Danish Ecological Council On behalf of the following organisations: CONTACTS: Lone Mikkelsen – Policy officer -chemicals, Danish Ecological Council: lone@ecocouncil.dk, +45 3318 1934 Clare Dimmer – Chair of Breast Cancer UK: clare.dimmer@breastcanceruk.org.uk, 0845 680 1322 Yannick Vicaire – Policy officer, Réseau Environnement Santé: res.yvicaire@gmail.com + 33 608 755 015 Anja Leetz – Executive Director, Health Care Without Harm Europe: anja.leetz@hcwh.org, +49 152 5397 8103 Sarah Häuser – Chemicals Policy and Nanotechnology, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. (BUND): sarah.haeuser@bund.net, +49/30/27586-463 Alexandra Caterbow – Coordinator Chemicals and Health, WECF: alexandra.caterbow@wecf.eu, +49 (89) 23 23 93 8-16 Markus Johansson – Policy officer –chemicals, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation: markus.johansson@naturskyddsforeningen.se Lisette van Vliet – Senior Policy Advisor, Health & Environment Alliance (HEAL): lisette@env-health.org, +32 2 234 3645 Gwynne Lyons – Director, CHEM Trust: gwynne.lyons@chemtrust.org.uk, +44 1603 507 363 References [1] Silva E, Rajapakse N, Kortenkamp A 2002 Something from “nothing”: eight weak estrogenic chemicals combined at concentrations below NOECs produce significant mixture effects. Environ Sci Technol 36:1751–1756 [2] Benachour N, Moslemi S, Sipahutar H, Seralini GE 2007 Cytotoxic effects and aromatase inhibition by xenobiotic endocrine disrupters alone and in combination. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 222:129–140 [3] Rajapakse N, Silva E, Kortenkamp A 2002 Combining xenoestrogens at levels below individual no-observed-effect concentrations dramatically enhances steroid hormone activity. Environ Health Perspect 110:917–921 [4] Laura N. Vandenberg, Theo Colborn, Tyrone B. Hayes et al., Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses. Endocrine Reviews, June 2012, 33(3): 0000-0000. Edrv.endojournals.org [5] The report was presented as supportive data during the public consultation process. Reference number: 07d62328-e727-437f-ae58-d23e72f76324 http://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se... * The same phthalates as in the Danish proposal [6] http://www.food.dtu.dk/upload/føde... [7] “The precautionary principle provides justification for public policy actions in situations of scientific complexity, uncertainty and ignorance, where there may be a need to act in order to avoid, or reduce, potentially serious or irreversible threats to health or the environment, using an appropriate level of scientific evidence, and taking into account the likely pros and cons of action and inaction”. Gee D 2006 Late Lessons from Early Warnings: Towards Realism and Precaution with Endocrine Disrupting Substances. Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol 114, Supplement 1 [8] see for example list of article notifications for Dibutyl phthalate (DBP), the phthalate driving the combined risk assessment in the restriction proposal, http://echa.europa.eu/documents/101... |
| 27/06/2012 | Green 10 letter: Green Stimulus Measures needed to Exit Crisis, warn leading environmental groups Ahead of this week’s EU Summit, the Green 10 network of leading environmental organizations encourages EU heads of government to break the link between the banking and the sovereign debt crises. Governments must regain the ability to implement policies that will transform the EU economy to make it more resource efficient and resilient to worsening environmental conditions. The green groups also welcome that the debate is moving beyond austerity and consider that an EU stimulus agenda, if devised correctly, would help solve the interlinked environmental and economic crises. Measures which the Green 10 proposes for an EU stimulus package include: A green tax shift to address the problem of high unemployment and pollution. Conditionality for any financial support to banks to ensure investment in green sectors of the real economy. Priority support to energy savings and renewable technology, sustainable transport and renewable energy infrastructure for electric vehicles. No public subsidies for fossil fuels and unsustainable activities. Green public procurement as a fundamental principle to boost the economy. A continental tax or levy on financial transactions to provide additional financing for green stimulus measures and to fight climate change. Supporting sustainable activity in rural and maritime regions. At a time of critical economic challenges, including rising unemployment and dwindling natural resources, the Green 10 considers that Europe needs to transform its economy to become more resilient, to operate more efficiently and within planetary limits. Degradation of nature will cost the EU €1 trillion every year by 2050 [1]. Any EU stimulus plan must halt this destruction of natural wealth and its harmful impacts on human health [2], while creating millions of new jobs in green sectors such as renewable energy and energy savings, nature conservation and restoration, as well as sustainable transport. It should also make the European economy less dependent on energy imports, saving hundreds of billions of euro annually [3]. However, environmental groups warn that EU governments have a poor track record in finding long term solutions that benefit the environment and the economy [4]. Badly devised financial and regulatory support in the energy sector could lead to a technological ‘lock-in’, keeping the EU saddled with high energy costs for decades, preventing the rapid expansion of renewable technologies and related jobs. This is a Green 10 statement where the organisations that make up the coalition are: Birdlife International, CEE Bankwatch Network, Climate Action Network Europe (CAN-E), European Environment Bureau (EEB), Transport and Environment (T&E), Health and Environment Alliance, Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE), Greenpeace, Naturefriends International (NFI) and WWF European Policy Office (WWF-EPO) Notes to editors: [1] Cost of policy inaction (COPI): The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/teeb_en.htm (chapter 6, p. 140) [2] Almost half a million European citizens die every year solely due to air pollution. See European Topic Centre on Air Pollution and Climate Change (2009): http://acm.eionet.europa.eu/docs/ETCACC_TP_2009_1_European_PM2.5_HIA.pdf (p. 20) [3] The International Energy Agency estimates oil imports into the EU to cost more than 500 billion dollars in 2012. http://www.iea.org/Speech%5C2012%5CBirol_2nd_set_oil_slides.pdf [4] For example, the costly car scrappage schemes introduced in 2008/9 were environmentally and economically ineffective. See OECD Interim Report of the Green Growth Strategy, p.30. |
| 29/05/2012 | To: Members of the EP’s Environment Committee Re: ENVI discussion on vehicle noise – comments from health, transport and environment groups HEAL, T&E and EEB call on the ENVI Committee to reach a position on the vehicle noise file currently being reviewed that will confirm the European Parliament’s commitment to tackling traffic noise and to use this unprecedented opportunity to prevent ill-health and disease. This afternoon during the ENVI committee session, you will be exchanging views on the draft report on the sound level of motor vehicles, by rapporteur Miroslav Ouzky (COM(2011)0856). The vehicle noise proposal is a key opportunity for health prevention that should not be missed, and would bring about huge benefits for national governments, local authorities and society at large. The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), Transport & Environment (T&E) and European Environmental Bureau (EEB) call on you as an ENVI Committee member to reach a position on the vehicle noise file that will confirm the European Parliament’s commitment to tackling traffic noise and to use this unprecedented opportunity to prevent ill-health and disease. In order to do so, we call on you to strengthen the Commission proposal by: Approving a long-term framework to reduce vehicle noise, with a further tightening of standards to come into force in 2020 Providing a maximum noise limit to reduce highly intrusive peak noise levels Adopting provisions for transparency as regards all vehicles’ noise emissions Closing loopholes in the existing legislation Accelerating progress by setting standards that come into force faster As MEPs, you have recently shown your commitment to tackling health effects from noise in the resolution on chronic diseases and also on the 7th EU Environment Action Programme. Consequently, we very much hope that you will support an ambitious proposal to reduce vehicle noise, echoing the concerns of many citizens in Europe. For further information on the health evidence and the vehicle noise proposal please see below. Yours sincerely, Anne Stauffer, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Greg Archer, Transport & Environment (T&E) Louise Duprez, European Environmental Bureau (EEB) T&E, HEAL and EEB publications New EU vehicle noise limits Reduction of vehicle noise emissions - Technological potential and impacts Quiet Please - Better Health through Strong EU Regulation of Road and Rail Traffic Noise Health evidence and EP resolutions As an assessment by the World Health Organisation on the burden of disease from environmental noise has shown, road traffic noise contributes substantially to the burden of disease in the EU. In terms of the burden on health, environmental noise is second only to air pollution. It is therefore a major public health challenge that urgently deserves greater political attention. There are many other results of scientific research, which include EU funded projects, that highlight the links between noise exposure and health impacts. Studies have revealed that 50, 000 deaths and nearly a quarter of a million cases of cardiovascular disease every year in Europe are linked to traffic noise. Also for the first time, noise has been linked to an increased stroke risk: in Denmark 5% of all stroke cases are caused by traffic noise. The health concerns were raised in a letter to the rapporteur and shadows on the vehicle noise file signed by leading experts on noise from the field of health and vehicle technologies. We are especially concerned about the body of science showing the impact of environmental noise on cardiovascular health. Cardiovascular disease is the largest cause of death in the EU, accounting for 40% of deaths and approximately 10% of healthcare expenditure. Reducing noise emissions at source by tightening vehicle noise standards is therefore a key component for chronic disease prevention, a priority on the EU’s public health agenda. MEPs expressed specific concerns about noise and health in the resolution on the 7th EU Environment Action Programme (EAP), stressing that the 7th EAP should include measures to address health impacts from noise. In the European Parliament resolution on chronic diseases from Sept. 2011 (“EU position and commitment in advance of UN high-level meeting on the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases”), MEPs stressed the environmental dimension of chronic diseases and highlighted that an effective environmental policy offers major prevention opportunities. The vehicle noise proposal with the approach to reduce noise at source is such an opportunity. |
| 24/05/2012 | Energy efficiency targets for a healthy climate, clean air and healthy housing At present rates of progress, the EU will miss its target to reduce energy consumption by 20% by 2020 by at least half. This would mean missing out on a great many direct and indirect health-related co-benefits, linked to improved air quality and reduced fuel poverty. The EED provides a vital opportunity to close the gap to the 20% target, but must be made considerably more ambitious than the Council currently foresees. To: EU Energy Ministers Brussels, 24/05/2012 Dear Minister of Energy, On 25 April the Danish EU Presidency hosted a scientific conference on health, environment and climate change in Copenhagen. The event reflected the synergies between climate action and disease prevention and gave an important signal to ongoing negotiations on the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED). At present rates of progress, the EU will miss its target to reduce energy consumption by 20% by 2020 by at least half. This would mean missing out on a great many direct and indirect health-related co-benefits, linked to improved air quality and reduced fuel poverty. The EED provides a vital opportunity to close the gap to the 20% target, but must be made considerably more ambitious than the Council currently foresees. In particular, it must include binding national targets and clear requirements for deep renovation of buildings, as well as appropriate mechanisms to help deliver and finance these. Cold homes are an important cause of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, affecting children and senior citizens the most. [1] The EU must greatly improve the energy efficiency of its houses – but existing EU legislation is insufficient to ensure this happens. A 3% annual renovation target for all public buildings, as proposed by the European Commission in the EED, would help to stimulate the market for building renovation. So too would clear national roadmaps for deep renovation of a country’s building stock by 2050, with interim targets and financing proposals. At the same time, health considerations must be paramount when improving the energy efficiency of buildings. From a healthy buildings perspective, the EED should therefore include requirements on the ventilation of buildings, as well as encourage the use of low-emission insulation, construction and other material. Indoor air quality can become worse if ventilation in insulated houses is insufficient, leading for example to an increase in mould. If made in the right way, energy efficiency improvements can be a win-win for both consumers’ bank accounts, and their health. Many households all over Europe still spend more than 10% of their income on heating, which makes them prone to insufficient heating and the health implications of cold homes. The World Health Organization report on Housing [2] published as part of the series Health in the green economy gives a detailed analysis of the health co-benefits that could be made and how to close the health equity gap in the building sector. The total savings foreseen by the Energy Efficiency Directive across different sectors will also lower fossil fuel consumption. Less combustion of fossil fuels through energy efficiency improvements will in the end improve air quality. According to a report by Health and Environment Alliance together with Health Care Without Harm Europe [3], the simultaneous air quality improvements from reducing greenhouse gas emissions through measures such as energy efficiency are worth billions in terms of avoided health costs. If the EU were to move from a 20% target in 2020 to a 30% target, up to Euro 7.9 billion could be saved annually. The 20% energy efficiency target is key for substantial reductions in European greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis of the European Commission in the draft communication on the 2050 Low Carbon Roadmap clearly states that 25% of greenhouse gas reductions could be achieved by 2020 if the 20% energy efficiency target was fulfilled. We urge you to take these health considerations into account in your negotiations with the European Parliament in order to reach an agreement which will benefit both people’s health and the planet. Best regards, Genon K. Jensen Executive Director References: [1] Marmot Review Team (2011): The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty. http://www.instituteofhealthequity.... [2] World Health Organization (2011): Health co-benefits of climate change mitigation – Housing sector. http://www.who.int/hia/green_econom... [3] Health and Environment Alliance & Health Care Without Harm Europe (2010): Acting NOW for better health. A 30% reduction target for Eu climate policy. http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/H... |
| 24/04/2012 | NGOs call for EU air quality limit values to be enforced by the European Commission HEAL and over 25 other NGO's urge commissioner Potočnik to take immediate action against those Member States who are breaching their obligations to comply with the EU’s ambient air quality legislation. Every day, in many places across the EU, the limits for particulate matter (PM10) continue to be breached although EU legislation entered into force more than seven years ago. To: Mr. Janez Potočnik, EU Commissioner for Environment; Catherine Day, Secretary-General of the European Commission; Karl Falkenberg, Director General for Environment Brussels, 23 April 2012 Dear Commissioner Potočnik, We are writing to you on behalf of over 200 European citizens’ organisations from across the EU to ask you to take immediate action against those Member States who are breaching their obligations to comply with the EU’s ambient air quality legislation. Why the enforcement of EU limit values matters Although emissions of air pollutants have fallen over the past twenty years, the quality of the air we breathe has not significantly improved. Concentrations of ozone and particulate matter (PM), both very dangerous to human health, remain very high, having a significant impact on health and well-being and leading to nearly half a million premature deaths each year in the EU 27 Member States(1). In comparison with the WHO recommendations for ambient air quality, current EU limits are insufficient to protect people’s health, in particular when it comes to the concentrations of the smallest particles. The implementation of the WHO recommended limits for PM2.5 in 25 large European cities alone could provide savings of €31.5 billion annually, including savings on health expenditures, absenteeism and intangible costs such as well-being, life expectancy and quality of life(2). Still, EU legislation on ambient air continues to be breached, every day, in many places across the EU. More than seven years after the entry into force of PM10 limits, such breaches are simply unacceptable. Member states’ notifications for a postponement of the NO2 limit value The Ambient Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC allows Member States to ask for a time extension to comply with the limits for some pollutants, under certain conditions. We are very pleased with the decisions adopted so far by the European Commission, which reflect a thorough technical assessment of Member States’ notifications and a strict application of the conditions required for obtaining an extension. We would like to encourage you to continue working in this direction, in particular with regards to NO2 notifications which are currently being assessed by your Directorate General. High concentrations of NO2 have been shown to have adverse impacts on human health, including damages to the lungs and increased risks of respiratory problems(3). We ask you to ensure that the derogations are limited to exceptional situations and only to those Member States who can demonstrate that they have taken all possible measures to comply with the limits. In particular, this should include evidence that a set of ambitious actions aimed at reducing traffic-related emissions in cities have been adopted(4). Infringement actions against non-compliant countries Every day that limit values are exceeded results in more costs for society. It diminishes the quality of the life and health of EU citizens. We therefore see no excuse for Member States to fail to comply with EU standards, especially as the health of EU citizens is at stake, and as those limits were negotiated and endorsed by Member States themselves more than ten years ago. One of the most effective ways to put an end to this is by enforcing the EU air quality laws as soon as possible. As Commissioner for Environment, you have a vital role to play in making sure that those Member States who are in breach of the Directive are sent to the European Court of Justice without delay. By doing this, you will stand firm for every European citizen’s right to clean air, regardless of where they live in Europe; be it Lisbon, London, or Ljubljana. We count on your support. Yours Sincerely, Jeremy Wates Secretary General, European Environmental Bureau On behalf of: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Transport and Environment (T&E) Client Earth European Respiratory Society (ERS) European Federation of Allergy and Airways Diseases Patients Associations (EFA) Air Pollution & Climate Secretariat (AirClim), Sweden Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen (BBL), Belgium Campaign for Clean Air in London, UK Center for Environment and Health, Czech Republic Clean Air Action Group, Hungary Danish Ecocouncil, Denmark Deutsche Umwelthilfe, Germany Ecologistas en Acción, Spain EU Umwelt Büro, Austria Fédération Inter-Environnement Wallonie, Belgium Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, Finland France Nature Environnement, France Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND), Germany Genitori Antismog, Italy Ile de France Environnment, France Institute for Sustainable Development, Slovenia Legambiente, Italy Milieu Defensie, the Netherlands Natuur en Milieu, the Netherlands Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU), Germany Society for Sustainable Living (SSL), Czech Republic Verkehrsclub Deutschland (VCD), Germany Zielone Mazowsze, Poland (1) According to a recent study by the European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change (ETC/ACC) on behalf of the European Environment Agency (EEA), pollution of fine particles is associated with more than 455,000 premature deaths every year in the EU’s 27 member states. (2) See results of EU research project the project APHEKOM: http://www.aphekom.org/web/aphekom.org/home;jsessionid=196F85AD90D285D4755D72CAE82EE61 (3) WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide - Global update 2005 - Summary of risk assessment, Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2006/WHO_SDE_PHE_OEH_06.02_eng.pdf (4) For examples of successful measures which can contribute to reducing emissions from traffic, see EEB, T&E and AirClim publication “What can be done in our cities to decrease air pollution”, 2011: http://www.eeb.org/index.cfm/library/index.cfm?firstpublications=2&month=0&year=0&Publications=1 |
| 14/04/2012 | Joint NGO letter: Turning promises into action: achieving the 20% by 2020 energy savings target |
| 10/04/2012 | Joint NGO letter on the 7th EAP to EU environment ministers EU Environment Ministers will soon hold a discussion on the content of the 7th EU Environment Action Programme. HEAL and eleven other organizations have written a letter to the EU Environment Ministers asking them raise the concerns of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), chemical mixtures and nanomaterials, as well as a better protection from substances of very high concern, in order to promote a healthy environment and healthy communities. To: EU Environment Ministers 5 April 2012, Brussels Dear Minister of Environment, Our thirteen organizations are writing to you ahead of the informal meeting of EU Environment Ministers on 17-19 April, to ask you to include measures to address endocrine disruptors (EDCs), chemical mixtures and nanomaterials, as well as a better protection from substances of very high concern (SVHC) in the 7th Environment Action Programme (7th EAP). Recent studies have brought to light alarming evidence showing that urgent action is needed to protect human health and the environment, and public concern continues to be high across the EU. As Environment Minister we ask you to raise these concerns at the April meeting, in order to promote a healthy environment and healthy communities. We are highly concerned about the lack of protection for wildlife and human health due to exposure to EDCs, chemical mixtures, SVHCs, and nanomaterials. Such exposures particularly threaten development in early life and exposure to mixtures of EDCs, in particular, are considered to contribute to the alarming trends in many diseases. It is critical that the future 7th EAP contains concrete and time specific targets, clear objectives, and solution oriented policy recommendations. The 7th EAP should close existing loopholes and provide for better enforcement of existing regulation. In the Annex you may find further information on these four crucial issues. In asking you to ensure that these issues are addressed within the 7th EAP, we do not wish to imply that all action on these topics should await the adoption of the 7th EAP. On the contrary, we consider that certain steps should be taken more urgently, such as the prevention of exposures to hazardous chemicals trough national and EU measures. However the 7th EAP should establish a longer term framework for ensuring that the new scientific findings are fully taken up through the development of specific measures relating to emerging health threats, such as combination effects of chemicals, EDC, SVHC, and nanomaterials. These issues are far from being sufficiently addressed under current EU legislation. We ask you to strongly support these issues and raise them at the informal ministers meeting to ensure that the 7th EAP will protect public health and the environment by swiftly preventing and reducing exposures to hazardous chemicals and making sure the EU will be the front-runner in delivering substitution with better alternatives for both human health and for the environment. In view of the public interest in this matter, we intend to make the contents of this letter more widely available. Thank you for your attention to the matters raised in this letter. Yours sincerely, WECF – Women in Europe for a Common Future, Sascha Gabizon, International Director HEAL – Health and Environment Alliance, Genon Jensen, Executive Director EEB – European Environmental Bureau, Jeremy Wates, Secretary General PAN-Europe (Pesticide Action Network), Hans Muilerman, Chemicals Officer, Pesticides & Alternatives ClientEarth, James Thornton, Chief Executive Officer Health Care Without Harm Europe, Anja Leetz, Executive Director ChemSec – International Chemical Secretariat, Anne-Sofie Andersson, Director CHEM Trust (Chemicals, Health and Environment Monitoring Trust), Gwynne Lyons, Director RES – Réseau Environnement Santé, André Cicolella, Président et porte-parole Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Mikael Karlsson, President The Danish Ecological Council, Eline Aggerholm Kristensen, Policy officer – chemicals CCOO, Comisiones Obreras, Carlos Martínez Camarero, Confederal Environment Secretariat Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND), Patricia Cameron, Head of Substances and Technologies Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) Endocrine disruptors are a major environmental health threat. There is a growing body of science which links many harmful human health effects with EDC exposure, such as hormone-related cancers (breast, testicular, prostate), obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, reproductive health problems and disrupted human brain development. The recent report on the State of the Science on EDCs [1], published by the EU Commission provides alarming evidence that the negative impacts of EDCs are currently being underestimated and that EU legislation is currently not properly addressing this problem. The report highlights the shortfalls in existing test methods but also outlines a way forward. Chemicals Mixtures Every day we are exposed to a mixture of synthetic chemicals, via the air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we drink. And even when the exposure to individual chemicals is below the level where they cause an effect by themselves, new science is now showing that together they can ‘add up’ and cause a potentially dangerous “cocktail effect”. The State of the Art report on mixtures toxicity (Kortenkamp et al, Dec. 2009), commissioned by the European Commission’s DG Environment, states that “there is a consensus in the field of mixture toxicology that the customary chemical-by-chemical approach to risk assessment might be too simplistic. It is in danger of underestimating the risk of chemicals to human health and to the environment”. Current Risk Assessment approaches need urgent revising. Nanomaterials Nanomaterials can be found in a wide range of everyday products such as cosmetics, clothes, sports equipment, paints, food packaging and additives. Because of their novel properties, nanoparticles may present unique risks for human health and the environment. Potential toxicity and ecotoxicity of certain nanoparticles includes damage to DNA, damage to foetal development due to transfer via the human placenta, asbestosis-like diseases and damage to aquatic and terrestrial organisms. The safety tests performed on ‘bulk’ materials are not appropriate for extrapolating to the ‘nano’ level, leaving safety levels unpredictable. The current EU legislative framework is failing to address the risks posed by nanomaterials. REACH does not contain any nano-specific provisions regarding threshold, data requirement, safety assessment or the traceability of nanomaterials [2]. Despite strong pressure from civil society groups, from the European Parliament and a few Member States, the European Commission still refrains from proposing new, adequate tools that would ensure the safe production, use, and end-of-life treatment of nanomaterials. Now that a definition of the term “nanomaterial“ has finally been proposed, the Council must ask the European Commission to take action without further delay. Substances of very high concern (SVHC) in REACH REACH is a great achievement in chemicals management in the EU. However it has some gaps that urgently need to be addressed, in particular the slow pace of implementing the provisions on Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC). We therefore call on you to include in the 7th EAP an affirmation of the policy goal to have by 2020 all “known and suspected” SVHC substituted. It should ensure that sustainable chemistry (and its use) be promoted, in line with the resource efficiency agenda, and that economic instruments be introduced, e.g., a SVHC self-financing mechanism at no cost to government to support achieving objectives in line with the polluter pays principle. Additionally it is necessary to address the gaps in product legislation regarding SVHC. These concerns follow the current 6 EAP goal that “by 2020 chemicals are only produced and used in ways that do not lead to a significant negative impact on health and the environment”. 1 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/endocrine/documents/4_SOTA%20EDC%20Final%20Report%20V3%206%20Feb%2012.pdf 2 See CIEL report “Just out of REACH – How REACH is failing to regulate nanomaterials and how it can be fixed”, available at: http://www.ciel.org/Publications/Nano_Reach_Study_Feb2012.pdf 3 Policy makers agreed at the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on sustainable development that the European Union shall achieve by 2020 that chemicals are produced and used in ways that lead to the minimisation of significant adverse effects on human health and the environment. This political commitment to implement substitution of SVHC by 2020 at the latest is re-affirmed in recitals 4 and 6 of the REACH Regulation. 4 Sustainable use of "sustainable" chemicals aims at providing necessary functions for society as a whole whilst preventing, or where not feasible, minimise negative environmental and health impacts throughout its lifecycle, such as linked to resource consumption and avoidance of hazardous substances. Constant improvements through research and innovation will not only bring advantages to the "knowledge based" EU industry to be leader in sustainable market models, but also protect our workers, consumers and the environment. For more information please consult the EEB/BEUC discussion paper "The path to sustainable use of chemicals in products: the European Ecolabel as a signpost" 5 The concept is a self-financing mechanism with no cost to the government, that operationalises the polluter pays principle by incorporating external costs, drives the solution of substitution while providing solution resources, and saves the government public tax revenue. The result would be a significant financial gain for the government due to no governmental costs, and massive savings through reduced human health costs, and environmental measures/costs. SVHC manufacturers would be subject to a minimal fee, increasing over time, to provide incentives and resources for research, development and implementation for substitute alternative substances that are non- or less-hazardous. The proceeds would go to a “SVHC solutions” fund administered by a government agency. |
| 27/02/2012 | EU leaders asked to ensure a high ambition level in the revised Gothenburg Protocol on air pollution HEAL and other organisations urge European leaders to take all necessary steps towards an ambitious revision of the Gothenburg Protocol on air pollution. Every year, air pollution causes nearly half a million premature deaths in the EU 27. Fighting air pollution does not only improve and extend people’s lives. It can also bring huge socioeconomic benefits. To: Mr. Janez Potocnik, European Commissioner for Environment and Mrs. Ida Auken, Minister for the Environment of Denmark Cc: Ministers for Environment of EU Member States and Mr. Karl Falkenberg, Director General, DG Environment G10 EU directors letter: Call for EU leaders to ensure a high ambition level in the revised Gothenburg Protocol on air pollution Brussels, 27th February 2012 Dear Commissioner Potocnik, Dear Minister Auken, From 30 April to 4 May 2012, the parties to the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP), including the EU, will meet and decide on the amendments to the Gothenburg Protocol on air pollution. We are writing as the Green 10 to urge you to take all necessary steps towards an ambitious agreement. Background: the cost of air pollution in Europe Every year, air pollution causes nearly half a million premature deaths in the EU 27. This corresponds to almost 4.5 million years of life lost. In addition to premature deaths, increased hospital admissions, extra medication and millions of lost working days, air pollution causes significant damage to ecosystems, agricultural crops, modern materials, and our cultural heritage. More than 70 % of the EU’s sensitive ecosystem areas are still subject to nitrogen deposition in excess of their critical loads. Fighting air pollution does not only improve and extend people’s lives. It can also bring huge socioeconomic benefits. In the year 2000 only, the health damage from air pollution was estimated to amount to between €277 and €790 billion. By aiming for a level of ambition in line with the so-called High* scenario, the implementation of a revised Gothenburg Protocol could bring monetary benefits that amount to up to €110-290 billion per year in Europe (of which €50-150 billion in the EU27). Those benefits would be up to 55 times higher than the costs involved. In all cases, it is financially worthwhile to fight air pollution. Impacts on the EU’s air pollution policy and 2013 “Year of Air” The revision of the Gothenburg Protocol presents a major opportunity for the EU to significantly improve the air quality in Europe, in line with the ambitions and objectives of the 6th Environment Action Programme (EAP). This could be done by the EU agreeing to strict emission reduction obligations by 2020 for the EU member states, and thereby also pushing non-EU countries in the same direction, which is of great importance since air pollutant emissions in non-EU countries markedly impact ambient air quality and depositions in EU member states. The Protocol’s revision is likely to have major consequences for the EU’s air policy strategy for the years to come, in particular for the long delayed revision of the National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD) and the ongoing review of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution (TSAP). It therefore needs to be as ambitious as possible to provide a strong basis for the proposals expected in EU’s “year of air” in 2013. A high level of ambition under the Gothenburg Protocol will also help fight climate change more efficiently and cheaply. Air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs, precursors to ground-level ozone) or black carbon contribute also to global climate change. Cutting their emissions will therefore help both climate mitigation and air quality policies. Recommendations Negotiations under the CLRTAP have so far been a great disappointment as most EU member states and non-EU countries appear to aim for a very low level of ambition, with some member states even hesitating to accept emission reduction obligations in line with the baseline scenario (i.e. assuming solely the implementation of already existing legislation). We therefore urge you to make sure that the EU and other parties to the CLRTAP aim towards: Agreeing a level of ambition for national emission reduction obligations for 2020 that is at least in line with the High* scenario; Adopting ambitious binding emission limit values (ELVs) for specific sources of pollution, preferably at least in line with Option 1 in the draft technical annexes. Currently, the ELVs considered for adoption are either in line with or more lenient than existing EU legislation. Overall, the EU should ensure that levels of air quality are achieved that do not give rise to significant negative impacts on or risks to human health and the environment, as stated in the 6th EAP. Thank you for your support. Yours sincerely, Jeremy Wates, Secretary General, European Environmental Bureau On behalf of the Green 10 Directors Green 10 EU Directors: Angelo Caserta, Regional Director of the European Division, BirdLife International Wendel Trio, Director, Climate Action Network Europe Tony Long, Director, WWF -European Policy Office Anelia Stefanova, Director, CEE Bankwatch Network Jeremy Wates, Secretary General, European Environmental Bureau Genon K. Jensen, Executive Director, Health & Environment Alliance Agnieszka Komoch, Acting Director, Friends of the Earth Europe Christian Baumgartner, Generalsekretär, Friends of Nature International Jorgo Riss, Director, Greenpeace European Unit Jos Dings, Director, European Federation for Transport & Environment |
| 27/02/2012 | Letter: ENVI vote on draft report Leinen on 7 EAP – strengthen health and environment concerns to members of the ENVI committee LETTER Brussels, 27 February 2012 Dear Member of the ENVI Committee, This Wednesday, you will be voting on the draft report “Review of the 6th Environment Action Programme and the setting of priorities for the 7th Environment Action Programme – a better environment for a better life” (2011/2194(INI)), rapporteur Jo Leinen. We at the Health and Environment Alliance have several amendments to this report to which we’d like to draw your attention and support. The Health and Environment Alliance HEAL is a leading public interest alliance addressing how the environment affects human health. We welcome that the draft report addresses the public health dimension of environmental protection and the ongoing policy challenges. We also welcome a number of amendments which significantly strengthen the focus, which we recommend to you in detail below. Given that health and environment was a priority for the first time under the current 6th EAP, and many important initiatives were thereby launched in the air quality, chemicals or pesticides areas, it is key to keep this focus in the 7EAP. As the European Environment Agency State of the Environment Report 2010 has highlighted, major differences remain in environmental quality and public health between EU Member States and future EU environmental policies must address this gap. HEAL is especially concerned about the role that environmental degradation plays in the rise of chronic diseases such as cancer, cardio-vascular and respiratory diseases or diabetes. We therefore commend the recent resolution from the European Parliament on chronic diseases in which you called for the environment be considered as a fifth factor in chronic disease prevention. Your vote this week is an opportunity to show how the 7EAP can tackle environmental factors in ill health and provide significant health benefits to Europe, and can help prevent ill health and reduce health care costs. Informed by the science on environmental health, we urge you to take the following concerns into account for your vote this Wednesday Give health & environment challenges more recognition The challenges and emerging health threats outlined above are not yet adequately reflected in the draft report. The following amendments provide greater focus on health consequences from environmental degradation such as air quality, low environmental quality in urban environments and the burden of disease associated with this pollution. Support the following amendments: 2, 3, 6, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 29, 63, 66, 122, 125, 175 It is also key that the 7 EAP including the health & environment concerns is sufficiently integrated into other EU strategies and programmes such as the Multiannual Financial Framework and CAP to ensure adequate financial resources for future health and environment activities and research. Support the following amendments: 15, 23 Support reduction of people’s exposure to endocrine disrupting and other harmful chemicals Endocrine disruptors are a major environmental health threat and there is a growing body of science showing the many harmful human health effects that are linked to EDC exposure, such as hormone-related cancers (breast, testicular, prostate), obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, reproductive health problems and disrupted human brain development. Just last week, the European Commission published a major report on the science on endocrine disrupting chemicals EDCs by a leading scientists on the issue, Professor Andreas Kortenkamp and his team. (see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/endocrine/documents/4_SOTA%20EDC%20Final%20Report%20V3%206%20Feb%2012.pdf) This report shows the increasing trends of many endocrine-related disorders in humans, and the current potential underestimation of EDC impacts. It also shows the inability of current EU legislation to properly cope with identifying and controlling EDCs, due to limits in the testing and information requirements. With your vote, you can underline the urgency of addressing population-wide exposures to EDCs and other harmful chemicals on a daily basis. Support the following amendments: 112, 113, 116, 117, 119, 128 Help ensure the tracking of pollutants in Europeans Human Biomonitoring is an indispensable tool to trace peoples’ exposure to pollutants, especially for vulnerable groups such as children. Two EU funded projects, COPHES and DEMOCOPHES, are currently developing a framework of EU level biomonitoring and harmonising a biomonitoring exercise among many EU Member States. But to ensure that the lessons learned and skills gained are kept and built upon, the 7 EAP should take over from the EU Action Plan on Environment and Health, which closed in 2010, and become the main policy framework for anchoring future European-level human biomonitoring. Support the following amendment: 121 Protect children as a vulnerable group In March 2010, all EU Environment and Health Ministers pledged their support for the WHO European Region Parma Declaration and Commitment to Act (See: http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-...) With this process, the 53 member countries of the WHO region have set time-bound targets to prevent effects on children’s health from environmental degradation. Scientific evidence is mounting on the effects of exposure to pollutants being most critical when they take place in the womb or in early life. This exposure not only negatively impacts children’s growth and development during the pregnancy or shortly after birth, but it can also have effects later in life, for example increasing the risk for cancer or diabetes. With a view to preventing chronic diseases and ensuring the health and well-being of future generations, and to save on healthcare budgets, the 7 EAP should include a specific strategy to protect children’s health. Support the following amendments: 120, 124, 127 Put health concerns at the heart of EU climate change policy Climate change is one of the biggest challenges for public health for the 21st century, and the health community is increasingly involved in climate change discussions and decisions. Public health concerns from a changing climate include health effects from temperature changes, extreme weather events, prolonged allergy seasons etc. But many studies also show the benefits to public health from the move to a low-carbon economy, for example as a result of cleaner air or increased walking+cycling. Within the EU’s climate and energy policy, health concerns do not yet play the role they deserve. The 7 EAP should strengthen and expand the cost benefit assessments to include health costs such as those related to ill health (morbidity) and the health co-benefits of various policy measures in EU climate discussions to reduce GHGs and improve energy choices. Support the following amendments: 46, 48 In conclusion, the 7 EAP will be the framework and strategic outline for EU environmental policy for the next years, and we hope that you will strengthen environment and health considerations within it. Best regards, Genon K. Jensen Executive Director Health and Environment Alliance Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) 28 Boulevard Charlemagne, B1000 Brussels, Belgium phone:+32 2 234 3640 | fax: +32 2 234 3649 | e-mail: info@env-health.org | www.env-health.org |
| 23/02/2012 | Joint letter: Support for phase-outs of mercury use in dentistry in the EU and globally to EU Environment Ministers 23 February 2012 - Since high quality and cost-effective alternatives to dental amalgam are readily available, we believe that dental amalgam use should be phased out and time-tables for such action should be supported at both the EU and global levels. The national governments of the world are now negotiating a legally binding treaty to address the global mercury crisis that is endangering our environment and health. To: EU Environment Ministers, Cc: Commissioner Potocnik and Director General Falkenberg Re: Joint Letter: Support for phase-outs of mercury use in dentistry in the EU and globally 23 February 2012 Support for phase-outs of mercury use in dentistry in the EU and globally Dear Environment Minister, As you know, the national governments of the world are now negotiating a legally binding treaty to address the global mercury crisis that is endangering our environment and health. According to United Nations Environment Program, the use of dental amalgam fillings constituted a global mercury consumption of about 313-411 tons annually, thus being among the largest consumer uses of mercury in the world.1 Since high quality and cost-effective alternatives to dental amalgam are readily available, we believe that dental amalgam use should be phased out and time-tables for such action should be supported at both the EU and global levels.2 As you may be aware, the European Commission (EC), under the Review of the Community Strategy Concerning Mercury3 has decided to undertake a full lifecycle assessment of the mercury use in dentistry. BIO Intelligence Service is now carrying out a Study on potential for reducing mercury pollution from dental amalgam and batteries for the EC, the results of which are expected in Spring 2012. Member states have been asked to answer a questionnaire and provide all relevant national data, and if your country has not yet done so, we respectfully request that your administration do its utmost to respond to this request in the most thorough and timely way. Although the relative health impacts from direct exposure from amalgams are still being debated, the significant contribution of dental mercury waste and its persistence in the environment are certain4. In the EU, mercury in dental tooth fillings is the second largest use of mercury, comprising 23.5% of the annual consumption, equal to 90-110 tonnes of mercury in 2007.3 In reviewing mercury releases to the environment from dental amalgam use, it has been estimated that: 35-50 tonnes end up in various environmental media, of which 45-60% to the soil (via wastewater sludge to land disposal, burial of deceased persons with fillings, atmospheric deposition following cremation or wastewater sludge incineration, etc.), 5-15% into the atmosphere (via cremation, etc)5, 10-20% to surface waters and eventually 5-15% to groundwater6. Once dental mercury has been used, there are a number of “end-of-pipe” techniques to prevent it from entering the environment, but each comes at a (sometimes very high) cost, and may not be as effective as intended. Further, the broad application of “end-of-pipe” techniques throughout the EU is severely limited, particularly in regard to mercury abatement from cremation (which is increasing).7 While most dental professionals continue to charge somewhat lower prices for amalgams, it’s increasingly clear that the full ‘external’ costs borne by the rest of society are high, when the full range of environmental and potential health ramifications are taken into account.8 Ultimately, society pays for the uncontrolled releases of mercury from dental amalgam through additional pollution control costs, the loss of common resources, and the health effects associated with mercury contamination.9 The most cost-effective and environmentally responsible solution to the dental mercury problem is its rapid phase out, since there are a range of affordable mercury-free alternatives. Regarding the availability of alternatives, the Swedish experience, among others, has proven that there are very few cases where a compelling argument can be made that amalgam fillings are ‘necessary.’ This is also backed up by the EU Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR 2008), which concluded in their study “that dental health can be adequately ensured by both types of materials” (i.e. mercury-free alternatives and amalgam), noting that alternatives have been in clinical use for over 30 years, and revealed little evidence of clinical significant adverse effects to date10 . Further, a 2011 World Health Organization (WHO) report, Future Use of Materials for Dental Restoration, acknowledges concerns about environmental releases of dental mercury. It also recognizes the need “to prepare for a treaty on mercury use,” stating that “the Geneva meeting encourages a global ‘phasing down’ of dental amalgam,” including support for use of dental material alternatives to amalgam.11 Leading up to and during the 3rd Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee meeting in November 2011, the Nordic Council12, Switzerland, and the African Region, expressed support for a dental amalgam phase out. In addition, the Council of Europe recently passed a resolution calling on nations to start “restricting or prohibiting the use of amalgams as dental fillings.”13 Clearly, the environmental pollution from dental amalgam and health consequences from indirect exposures14 are significant, and the precautionary principle further obliges us to take a pro-active stand with regard to potential health risks from direct amalgam exposures. To that end and considering all of the above, we call on you to swiftly submit any additional relevant information to the EC per the earlier BIOS request, and at the same time send a clear message that you support phase-outs of mercury from dentistry at the EU level and globally. Thank you in advance for your attention to this important environmental and health issue. Yours sincerely, European Environmental Bureau (EEB): Jeremy Wates, Secretary General Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL): Genon Jensen, Executive Director Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG): Michael Bender and Elena Lymberidi-Settimo, International coordinators Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWHE): Anja Leetz, Executive Director 1http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Atmospheric_Emissions/Technical_background_report.pdf. p.20 2 With possible limited exemptions for specific medical conditions 3 COM(2010) 723 final, COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the review of the Community Strategy Concerning Mercury 4 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/che... 5 The Cremation Society of Great Britain provides rather comprehensive statistics on cremations in the EU-27 (CSGB 2004), amounting to nearly one-third of all EU deaths, and based on previous assumptions, releasing about 4.5 tonnes of mercury annually. Since then, the rate of cremation has increased significantly. There are two simultaneous trends contributing to this: a rise in the average number of fillings per person cremated (due to increasing numbers of original teeth), and a rise in the number of cremations. It has estimated that the amount of mercury from cremations will increase in the UK by two-thirds between 2000 and 2020, accounting for between 11% and 35% of all mercury emissions to the air in 2020. The upper figure is consistent with UK emissions as reported to UN/ECE and EU. These conclusions reinforced those of Tauw Milieu (Coenen 1997, as cited by Defra 2003) that predicted for the Netherlands a doubling of mercury emissions from crematoria between 1995 and 2020, and a 68% increase for the period 2000 to 2020. For more information, see EEB/Concorde sprl ‘Mercury in Dental Use: Environmental Implications for the European Union’, May 2007 6 COWI/Concorde for DG Env ‘Options for reducing mercury use in products and applications, and the fate of mercury already circulating in society’, September 2008 and EEB/Concorde sprl ‘Mercury in Dental Use: Environmental Implications for the European Union’, May 2007 7 Ibid. 8 Hylander & Goodsite 2006, Maxson 2006 Environmental costs of mercury pollution, Science of the Total Environment 368 (2006) 352–370 9 http://mpp.cclearn.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/finalreportfrommpptestimony0707081.pdf 10 http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/... 11 http://www.who.int/oral_health/publ... 12 http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publikationer/2010-738 13 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1816 (2011), available at http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta11/ERES1816.htm 14 Studies have demonstrated that a certain portion of this dental mercury becomes bioavailable, and may constitute a significant source of risk to human health and the environment, Stone et al. (2005) – ME Stone, ME Cohen, L Liang and P Pang, Determination of methyl mercury in dental-unit wastewater, Dental Materials 19 (2003) 675–679, Elsevier Ltd. |
| 03/02/2012 | Joint NGO letter: Comments to DG ENV on the analysis underpinning the review of EU air quality policy |
| 29/11/2011 | Joint letter to MEPs on air pollution from ships HEAL joined many environment and trade organizations in a call to MEPs for stricter standards for the sulphur content of marine fuels. The health and environment impacts of air pollution from ships are a major worry in Europe. Berlin, 29 November 2011 To: Members of European Parliament; Committee for Environment, Health & Public Safety; Committee for Transport & Tourism Re: Amendment of Directive 1999/32/EC: The EU should fully transpose IMO Marpol Annex VI and support the implementation of stricter standards on the sulphur content of marine fuels. Dear members of the Committee for Environment, Health and Public Safety Dear members of the Committee for Transport and Tourism, The signatories of this letter, representing various European environmental, health and labor associations, would like to express their deep concern at recent calls from certain (shipping) industry groups to weaken stricter rules on the sulphur content of marine fuels due to enter into effect in 2015 in European Emission Control Areas (ECAs). These calls amount to an open attack on existing regulations that are essential for our health and environment. Conversion to low sulphur marine fuels is environmentally necessary and long overdue. Bunker fuel currently used in shipping is essentially toxic waste. The stricter IMO (International Maritime Organization) standards have been known since 2008. They were strongly and publicly supported by the EU when adopted unanimously at the IMO into international law. They are therefore binding on all 23 EU Member States that ratified the relevant (MARPOL) IMO Convention1. The European Union must clearly stand behind the new sulphur requirements, which set a 0.1% sulphur limit in designated ECAs in 2015 as well as a global 0.5% limit in 2020. More and more ship builders and owners have already reacted and invested in cleaner and more efficient ship technologies in anticipation of the new regulations. Why should the early movers be penalized by governments bowing to sections of industry by delaying implementation of the new limit values or reverting to old standards? The use of low sulphur distillate fuel also provides good incentives for reducing fuel consumption and is a prerequisite for the use of particle filters, which can reduce particulate matter (PM) by up to 99%. The new limits are therefore an important step to reduce overall ship emissions. Ideally we should have ECAs all around Europe; the Mediterranean alone accounts for half of all EU ship emissions. Designation needs to be done via the IMO. To achieve this, the European Commission needs to provide the leadership and technical advice to support those Member States proposing to designate additional ECAs. The successful joint proposal of the United States and Canada for the designation of a distance-to-shore ECA covering the sea area out to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers) from their coast (entering into force next year) and the consideration of Japan and Hong-Kong to implement ECAs shows that the EU should also take a comprehensive approach to create the same environmental and economic conditions in all European sea areas. Conversely if the EU as a whole or a single Member State were to step back from global regulations already adopted at the IMO this would send a disastrous signal to the IMO and every other nation heading for clean shipping. The proposed amendments to the directive2 will also underpin port state authority to police the new regulations. The health and environmental benefits of coastal ECAs in Europe would be outstanding. Tightened emission and fuel standards will help the shipping industry to develop more fuel and energy efficient ships and become a lead market for cleaner shipping. In view of the public interest in this matter we are making a copy available to certain media. Thank you for your attention to this important and urgent matter. On behalf of the supporters and the signatories of this letter, Yours sincerely, Olaf Tschimpke, President NABU e.V. on behalf of the Soot free for the Climate Campaign Meinhard Geiken, Regional head IG Metall Bezirk Küste (Industrial Metal Workers’ Union Coastal Region) Supporting organizations: Soot free for the Climate Campaign Friends of the Earth, Germany German Environmental Aid, Germany Verkehrsclub Germany Nature and Biodiversity Conversion Union, Germany World Wide Fund For Nature, European Policy Office, Brussels European Environmental Bureau, Europe, Brussels Health and Environmental Alliance, Europe, Brussels Transport and Environment,Europe, Brussels Air Pollution and Climate Secretariat, Sweden Fédération France Nature Environnement, France Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Netherlands Verkehrsclub Austria Det Økologiske Råd, Danmark IG Metall Bezirk Küste/ Industrial Metal Workers’ Union Coastal Region, Germany Fédération Générale des Mines et de la Métallurgie (FGMM-CFDT), France Federacion de industria, Spain Federatie Nederlandse Vakverenigingen (FNV) Bondgenoten, Netherlands 1 Annex VI to the MARPOL Convention, adopted in 1997, entry into force in 2005 2 set out in COM(2011)0439 View signed letter here. |
| 21/11/2011 | HEAL letter on ENVI discussion on Energy Efficiency – Indoor air quality and health concerns |
| 13/09/2011 |
To: EU Health Commissioner, John Dalli; and President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso; European Commissioner for the Environment, Janez Potocnik; Members of the European Parliament; WHO focal points for environment and health Re: United Nations High-level Summit on Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), 19-20 September 2011 Brussels, 13 September 2011 OPEN LETTER Dear Commissioner Dalli, Show EU leadership by putting environmental prevention on the agenda The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) is writing to you today to urge you to put "Environment and Health" onto your policy agenda for the United Nations Summit on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) later this month. HEAL is the leading European not-for-profit organisation addressing how the environment affects health in the European Union. We demonstrate how policy changes can help protect health and enhance people’s quality of life. HEAL’s more than 65 member organisations, representing health professionals, patients, citizens, women, youth and environmental experts, help to bring independent expertise and evidence from the health community to different decision-making processes. Members include international and Europe-wide organisations, as well as national and local groups. HEAL is both astounded and very disappointed to note that the draft documents for the UN High-Level Summit ignore the role of environmental factors in causing chronic illness, such as lung conditions, cancer, heart disease, obesity, diabetes and other non-communicable conditions. Given the body of scientific evidence linking air pollution, hazardous chemicals, and radiation to chronic disease, how can the policy measures to tackle these threats be left off this important agenda? Why add the "environment" as a fifth factor? HEAL agrees with fellow leading non-governmental organisations represented in the European Chronic Diseases Alliance (ECDA) that prevention must be the number one priority and that four key lifestyle factors must be addressed, namely tobacco, poor diets, alcohol and lack of physical activity. But environmental causes must be added as a fifth factor. A huge opportunity for primary prevention of chronic disease will be missed if equal focus is not given to reducing peoples' everyday exposure to threats from environmental degradation, including from exposure to harmful chemicals. Exposure to air pollutants alone is responsible for an estimated 450,000 premature deaths each year in Europe. The EU's has long played a visionary role in bringing environmental factors to disease prevention. This commitment was already evident in 2003 when the environment and health strategy was launched, followed by an action plan in 2004. In 2010, the European Parliament underlined this focus on environmental health prevention by calling for the European Partnership for Action against Cancer to "include a component on environmental factors, these being defined as not only environmental tobacco smoke, radiation, and excessive UV exposure, but also hazardous chemicals in the indoor and outdoor environment to which people are exposed, including endocrine disruptors". A wealth of EU research now links environmental factors to disease. Research also demonstrates how reducing environmental exposures through effective policy and legislation prevents ill-health. The effect of air pollution on chronic disease has been scientifically recognised and widely known for 20 years and the EU has adopted a wide range of policy measures. Today, attention is turning to the potential of environmental policy change in cancer prevention. Immediately prior to a World Health Organization meeting in Asturias, Spain on Environmental and Occupational Determinants of Cancer: Interventions for Primary Prevention earlier this year, the New England Journal of Medicine, March 2011, wrote: "The most valuable approaches to reducing cancer morbidity and mortality lie in avoiding the introduction of carcinogenic agents into the environment and eliminating exposure to carcinogenic agents that are already there." A second reason why environmental factors must be brought to the agenda is the risk of further chronic disease as a result of climate change. Like many other regions of the world, Europe is seeing a growing number of extreme weather events. Climate change in Europe will affect air quality producing increased incidence of heart and respiratory conditions, especially during heat waves. The European Respiratory Society has shown that deaths and hospital admissions rise substantially as temperatures in cities rise above certain levels. A third and equally important reason why the environmental factor must become a focus at the UN Summit is the threat of chronic non-communicable disease to children. At the WHO Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health in Parma in March 2010, you showed your commitment to tackling children's environment and health by supporting time-lined targets in action plan agreed there. At that meeting, you mentioned the growing incidence of asthma and allergy, with one in every five children in Europe suffering from a chronic respiratory condition or allergy. Other childhood conditions of growing concern, including cancer, obesity and diabetes, are also linked to environmental exposure. Childhood cancers are increasing at a rate of more than 1% per year in Europe, and rates of obesity and diabetes are reaching epidemic proportions. The growing burden from environment-related ill-health in children is reflected in health care costs. A recent review in the US estimated health costs of children's environmental illness at 3.5% of the nation's total budget, up from 2.8% in a similar study in 1997. Such a toll is a problem not only for health finances but more importantly, it represents a threat to Europe's future. Yet, despite the likely contribution to increasing rates of chronic disease, the important role that environmental policy change can play in primary environmental prevention may hardly be mentioned at the talks. Environmental prevention pays for itself As EU Health Commissioner, you are ideally suited to present the case for a greater emphasis to be given to environment and health at the UN Summit. The European Union has a strong track record and recognised leadership role in environmental health and can present examples of environmental policy changes that, by reducing chronic disease, more than pay for themselves. The number one example is the EU's strong backing for tobacco control. Smoke-free public places legislation is already saving lives and improving health across the European region, according to WHO. Studies from countries that enforce bans on smoking in public places are finding reductions in heart attacks, with scientific literature indicating that hospitalisation rates for myocardial infarctions are decreasing by 20–40%. Further improvements in air quality could reduce many of the estimated 450,000 deaths that occur each year due to exposure to air pollutants. Recent EU-funded (DG SANCO) research project Aphekom showed that improving air quality in European cities would be especially beneficial for children. Both EU and US studies show that the costs of changes to improve air quality more than pay for themselves. Most recently, the US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that the health benefits achieved from policies aimed at cleaner air "far exceed" the costs of implementing clean air protection. Another example of cost-effective legislation is the EU's pioneering chemical policy. Although it is too early to assess the impact of this legislation, a European Commission assessment of REACH prior to its introduction stated that if this legislation succeeds in reducing chemical-related diseases by only 10%, the health benefits are estimated at 50 billion Euros over 30 years. This corresponds with 2,200 to 4,300 fewer cancer cases in the workplace annually. Finally, the extremely good news: a proportion of chronic disease can be prevented as a "by product" or "co-benefit" of certain climate change policy. For example, HEAL has shown that if the EU were to move promptly from the current 20% target on greenhouse gas emissions reduction to a 30% target for climate change, the public health benefits in terms of reduced respiratory and heart disease could reach 30.5 billion Euro per year in 2020. The leading medical journal, the Lancet, has also looked at the co-benefits for health of climate change policy. One example shows that transport policy aimed at reducing carbon emissions (encourage more walking and cycling, restriction of car travel, lower-carbon-emission motor vehicles) could prevent a substantial proportion of the following chronic diseases: cardio-vascular, diabetes, breast and colon cancer, dementia and depression. The synergies of climate and health policy in relation to air quality, clean energy and "active transport" are highlighted in the EU's "Low-Carbon Roadmap 2050”. Meeting the democratic challenge The European Chronic Disease Alliance represents the views of several million health experts and citizens. HEAL and its large membership joins them in the call for putting prevention first and setting targets and well-resourced commitments. We also support their recommendation to address the four key factors. In addition, HEAL would like to ensure that conflicts of interests are avoided in expert consultations in order to protect environmental health. However, we are writing primarily to urge you to add the environmental factor as an important agenda area in the prevention of chronic disease. European citizens are clearly worried about exposure to chemicals and other environmental pollutants. A recent Eurobarometer shows that pesticide residues in food are a number one worry for 72% of EU consumers, a higher percentage than in 2005. European governments also want renewed investment and action in "Environment and Health". In December 2010, EU environment ministers gave clear backing for a second Environment and Health Action Plan (EHAP). In particular, they asked that one of the priorities would be to address children's environment and health as "identified in the Parma Declaration on Environment and Health". HEAL hopes very much that you will decide to bring the huge potential of environmental prevention of chronic disease to the agenda in the UN High-level Meeting on chronic, non-communicable diseases in New York later this month. We believe that this addition will create inspiration and visionary impact to the global discussions. We would welcome a meeting with you to discuss this further. Yours sincerely, Genon Jensen Executive Director Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Attachment: HEAL fact sheet - Chronic disease: How do environmental factors play a role? |
| 05/09/2011 |
To: Ban Ki-moon, United Nations Secretary General; Dr Margaret Chan, World Health Organization Director General Re: Call for diseases and risk factors to be considered September 5th, 2011 Dear United Nations Secretary General, Dear World Health Organization Director General, We welcome the joint initiative by the United Nations and the World Health Organization to host a high-level expert committee meeting on the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases, with a specific focus on the poorest countries of the world, during the UN General Assembly Session to be held in New York on the 19th and 20th September, 2011. We welcome the recognition by Heads of States of the seriousness of this global threat for all populations worldwide, assessed in the following terms: Non-communicable diseases account for over 63% of deaths in the world and further increases are expected, in particular in the African region; 29% of these deaths concern people under 60 years of age, living in low-and-middle income countries; We deem it legitimate to qualify, as you did, this global trend of “epidemics” and “imminent catastrophe, a catastrophe for health, society and all the more for national economies”. We share the analysis that non-communicable diseases can no more be considered only as a medical or public health issue but are closely connected to development policies and raise political concerns. We know that the prevention of these diseases can be done at two levels: individual and collective. Therefore, Governments of countries of the world have an ethical responsibility to act to prevent part of these diseases. We support the recommendations of limiting tobacco use and of a healthy diet, low in refined sugars, saturated fats and salt and we cannot accept that economic interests undermine the efforts of the international health community to help populations change behaviors in a responsible way. We consider it necessary for global health of the world population to also consider some other noncommunicable diseases as well as other exposures, beyond the ones which are amenable to behavioral interventions. Namely, we call for the inclusion in the UN resolution of neurologic and psychiatric disorders as well as reproductive problems, in addition to cancers, diabetes, cardiocerebro- vascular and respiratory diseases, as they do represent a significant share of the morbidity and are influenced by environmental risk factors. We also urge for a serious consideration when dealing with occupational factors of disease, of the issues of child labor as well as the specificity of women in the work force, in terms of sensitivity to potential toxics during reproductive years while also keeping in mind the issue of equal men treatment and pay at a comparable position and with similar education, training and experience. Among the risk factors to be considered, the physico-chemical pollution of air, water, food, soil and objects of daily living is of major concern. This corresponds to the presence in our general, occupational and domestic living environment of carcinogens, teratogens, endocrine disruptors and other toxic agents, ranging from indoor and outdoor air pollution, poor quality drinking water, food supply contaminated by pesticide and medicinal drug residues to exposures at the workplace, in particular in countries with no occupational medicine, industrial hygiene or any other form of worker protection, and with frequent legal or illegal child labor. We are concerned about the effects of these chemical and physical (ionizing and non-ionizing radiations, such as EMF emitted by cell phones) agents in the population as a whole, but even more so among susceptible groups, such as women of reproductive age, children and disadvantaged individuals. The only effective way to protect the world population is to act at a global level, in particular through legislation at the national level and a framework convention at the international one. The text of the UN Resolution needs to make clear statements and propositions such as the ones unanimously adopted during one of the preparatory meetings in Asturias which listed, among others the following key recommendations: “1. Prevention of the environmental and occupational exposures that cause cancer must be an integral component of cancer control worldwide. Such prevention will require strong collaboration across sectors … and among countries, and also with civil society and the media.” …. “4. All countries to adopt and enforce legislation for protection of populations, especially the most vulnerable populations, against environmental and occupational cancers.” ……. “6. Corporations to comply with all rules and regulations for prevention of environmental and occupational cancers and to use the same protective measures in all countries, developed and developing, in which they operate.” … These measures if they are implemented will have a much larger impact than the one on cancer. In fact, many carcinogens are also reproductive hazards or just simply toxic for several organs in humans (brain, kidney, liver, etc.). By removing them from our environment or at a minimum limiting exposure to them, we can significantly contribute to making the children of today and future generations healthier. We kindly request you to consequently complete the list of diseases and priority risk factors to reflect up to date scientific evidence and demonstrate the care Governments take of the health of their populations, being audacious enough to put the health of all ahead of the wealth of the few. Yours sincerely, This letter is signed by individual scientists and health professionals from many institutions around the globe. Their work affiliation is given for information of the readers and for identification purposes, but this should not be considered as any form of endorsement of the universities, research centers and other organizations which names appear on the following list. For members of non governmental organisations involved in the health and/or environment fields, name of an individual was most often a reflection of an official endorsement by the NGO, but this was not systematic. Europe France : Dr Annie J. Sasco, MD, MPH, MS, DrPH, HDR, Directrice de Recherche à l’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention, Team on HIV, Cancer and Global Health, Inserm U 897, Bordeaux Segalen University, Bordeaux André Cicolella, Président du Réseau Environnement Santé, Conseiller scientifique à l’Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité (INERIS), Paris Elisabeth Ruffinengo, Advocacy Officer, Women in Europe for a Common Future, Annemasse Sarah Anaïs Andrieu, Anthropologist, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en sciences sociales (EHESS), Paris Dr Xavier Anglaret, MD, PhD, Directeur de Recherche Inserm, Team on HIV, Cancer and Global Health, Inserm U 897, Bordeaux Segalen University, Bordeaux Dr Geneviève Barbier, International Society of Doctors for the Environment-France, Paris Anne Barre, Présidente du Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) France, Annemasse Geoffrey Begon, Lyon Pr Dominique Belpomme, MD, PhD, President International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE)-France, Paris Dorothée Benoit-Browaeys, Déléguée Générale de VivAgora, Paris Bernadette Bensaude Vincent, Directrice du CETCOPRA, Paris 1-Sorbonne University, Présidente of VivAgora, Paris Nadège Bourvis, MPH, Psychiatric Intern, Paris Dr Nita Chaudhuri, PhD, Health Promotion and Environment Expert, Paris Jacqueline Collard, Présidente Association Santé Environnement Rhône-Alpes (SERA), Grenoble Nadia Collot, Founder CaméraSanté, Paris Madeleine Decoin, RN, GECSA, Inserm U 897, Bordeaux Segalen University, Bordeaux Natalia Dejean, Directrice WECF France, Annemasse Pr Michel Delcroix, Président d’Apri-Maternités sans Tabac, Bailleu Duccia Farnetani, Environmental engineer, Paris Jean-François Gonnet, toxicologue, Lyon Catherine Gouhier, Centre de Recherche et d’Information Indépendantes sur les Rayonnements Electromagnétiques (CRIIREM), Le Mans Marie Grosman, Non au Mercure dentaire, Lyon Dr Philippe Irigaray, PhD, International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE)-France, Paris Laure Lachetallier, Vice-Présidente, Action Sociale, Handicap et Santé, Conseil Régional Île-de-France Nadine Lauverjat, Générations Futures, Paris Alain Lefranc, éco-electricien, Paris Madeleine Madoré, Docteur en pharmacie, Paris Pr Denis Malvy, MD, PhD, University Professor and Hospital Practitioner, Directeur Centre René Labusquière, Bordeaux Segalen University, and Services de Médecine Interne et Maladies Tropicales, Santé des voyageurs, Hôpital Saint-André, Bordeaux Dominique Martin-Ferrari, Journaliste, Gaïa Network, Paris Dr Marisa Mena, PhD, MS, Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention, Team on HIV, Cancer and Global Health, Inserm U 897, Bordeaux Segalen University, Bordeaux Dr Gérard Ostermann, Médecine interne, Bordeaux Dominique Ounadjela, Membre du Conseil d’Europe Ecologie Les Verts Ruth Peron, Vénissieux Catherine Ramm, Paris Dr Philippe Renaudier, MD, MS, Président du Conseil Scientifique de la Société Française d’Hémovigilance, Lyon Eva Fleur Riboli-Sasco, MS, Student in Anthropology and International Development, Paris Michèle Rivasi, Députée au Parlement Européen, Groupe Verts/ALE Dr Clément Rossignol, PhD, Junior Researcher Physicist, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Deputy Chairman Bordeaux Community, Bordeaux Pr Gilles-Eric Séralini, President of CRIIGEN Scientific Council, Co-Director of Risk Pole, Quality and Sustainable Environment - MRSH- CNRS, University of Caen - Institute of Biology IBFA Laboratory Estrogens and Reproduction, Caen Diana Smith, Health and Environment Communications and Media Consultant, Paris Olivier Toma, Président du Comité pour le Développement Durable en Santé (C2DS), Paris Bellancille Uwamaliya, GECSA, Inserm U 897, Bordeaux Segalen University, Bordeaux François Veillerette, Spokesman of NGO Générations Futures, Expert on pesticide/chemicals issues, Paris Belgium: Corinne Lepage, Députée au Parlement européen, Brussels Henriette Christensen, Senior policy adviser, Pesticide Action Network Europe, Brussels Marie-Christine Dewolf, Project manager, Hygiène Publique en Hainaut asbl, Mons Pr Luc Hens, PhD, Vlaamese Instelling voor Technologisch OnderZoek (VITO), Mol Genon Jensen, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), Brussels Dr Jean Pauluis, Président de la cellule environnement-santé, Société Scientifique de Médecine Générale (SSMG) Tony Tweedale, MS, Rebutting Industry Science with Knowledge (R.I.S.K.) Consultancy, Brussels Bulgaria: Valentina Lukova, Executive director, My Right to Know Foundation, Sofia Czech Republic: Daniela Pelclova¡, MD, PhD, Professor of Occupational Medicine, Charles University and Department of Occupational Medicine of 1st Faculty of Medicine and General Teaching Hospital, Prague Germany: Alexandra Caterbow, Coordinator Chemicals and Health Women in Europe for a Common Future, Munich Greece: Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, MSc, PhD Candidate, Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Athens University, Athens Pr Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Athens University, Athens Pr Polyxeni Nicolopoulou-Stamati, MD, PhD, Environmental Pathology, Medical School National and Kapodistrian University, Athens Tatiana Styloglou, entrepreneur, Athens Hungary: Zsolt Horváth, Director Clean Air Action Group, Attila Szuhi, On Crossroads Foundation Italy: Dr Fiorella Belpoggi, MD PhD, Director, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Centre, Ramazzini Institute, Bentivoglio Dr Franco Berrino, MD, Department of Epidemiology, National Cancer Institute, Milan Dr Ernesto Burgio, MD, Scientific Office President, International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE) Pr Massimo Crespi, MD PhD, Fellow Collegium Ramazzini, Roma Antonietta Gatti, Engineer, Visiting Professor of the Institute for Advanced Sciences Convergence (DoD, USA), Coordinator of the Italian Institute of Technology's Project of Nanoecotoxicology called INESE, Modena Dr Livio Giuliani, MD, Dirigente di Ricerca, Direttore di Dipartimento ISPEESL, Roma Pr Roberto Lucchini, MD, Professor of Occupational and Environmental Health, Department of Experimental and Applied Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia Republic of Ireland: The Hon. Desmond Guinness, Leixlip Castle, Leixlip, Co. Kildare John Weigel, Dublin Luxembourg: Maryse Arend, Director Initiativ Liewensufank asbl Republic of Macedonia: Dr Tomica Ancevski, Association of Doctors for the Environment (MADE), Kumanovo Natasha Dokovska, Journalist, Journalists for Human Rights Malta: Sarah Cardona, Action for Breast Cancer The Netherlands: Peter van Hazel, INCHES Sascha Gabizon, International Director, Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF), Utrecht Dr Livio Riboli-Sasco, PhD, Utrecht Spain: Francisca Gutiérrez Claverho, Presidenta Asquifyde (Asociacion estatal de afectados por los sindromes de sensibilidad quimica, fatiga cronica, fibromialgia y para la defensa de la salud ambiental) María López Matallana, Presidenta de SFCMadrid. Asociacion de Afectados por SFC y por SQM de la Comunidad de Madrid Clara Valverde, President, Liga SFC/EM (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME League) Marga Santamaria, ANDAFED Asociacion Nacional de Afectados por Dimetilfumarato Sweden: Pr Olle Johansson, Associate Professor, Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute and Professor, The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm United Kingdom: Pr Martin Bobak, Professor of epidemiology, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London Hope Daley, UNISON, Public Sector Trade Union Clare Dimmer, Chair Breast Cancer UK Diana Dowling, Breast Cancer Pr Vyvyan C. Howard, MB, ChB, PhD, FSB, FRCPath, Nano Systems Biology, Centre for Molecular Bioscience, University of Ulster Laurie Kazan-Allen, Coordinator, International Ban Asbestos Secretariat, London David Kidney, Head of Policy, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, London Helen Lynn, Alliance for Cancer Prevention, Gwynne Lyons, CHEM Trust John McClean, National Health and Safety Officer, GMB Trade Union Pr Rory O'Neil, Occupational and Environmental Health Policy Research Group, Stirling University, Scotland: Dr Erhabor Osaro, Royal Bolton Hospital, National Hhealth Service (NHS) Trust Bolton Jamie Page, Chief Executive, the Cancer Prevention and Education Society, England and Wales Hilda Palmer, Hazards Campaign, Manchester Morag Parnell, Women’s Environmental Network Pr Andrew Watterson, PhD, CFIOSH, Professor of Health, Director of the Centre for Public Health and Population Health, Head of the Occupational and Environmental Health Research, University of Stirling, Stirling Africa and Middle-East Benin: Wilfried Affodegon, Directeur Exécutif, Centre Africain de Recherche et d’Action pour le Développement (CARAD), Cotonou Ghana: Emmanuel Odjam-Akumatey, Executive Director Ecological Restorations Dr Beatrice Wiafe, MD, PhD, President Breast Care International, CEO Peace and Love Hospital, Kumasi Jordan: Pr Dr. M. S. Al Salameh, Author and Academic, Jordan University of Science & Technology Lebanon: Elias R. Chedid, Attorney at Law South Africa: Professor Mohamed Jeebhay, Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health Research, University of Capetown Pr Leslie London, Director School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Capetown, Capetown Americas Argentina: Carolyn Stephens, PhD, FFPH, IFRSM, Profesora Titular Visitante en Ecologa y Salud Indegena, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional de Tucuma¡n and Reader in Ecology and Global Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Brazil: Zuleica Nycz, Director of Toxisphera Environmental Health Association Pr Paolo Saldiva, MD, PhD, Coordinator of the National Institute of Risk Analysis National Research Center, Chairman of the Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo Canada: Marie-Hélène Bacon, MA, Groupe de recherche interdisciplinaire sur la gouvernance, les risques, l’environnement, les technosciences, la santé et la société (Gretess), Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal Dr Yv Bonnier Viger, MD, MSc, MM, FRCPC, CMSQ, Médecin spécialiste en santé publique et médecine préventive, Médecin conseil à la Direction de santé publique de Chaudière-Appalaches, Directeur du Département de médecine sociale et préventive de l'Université Laval Dr Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg, MES, PhD, Lecturer, University of Toronto Dr Magda Havas, BSc, PhD, Associate Professor, Trent University Dr Pascale Krzywkowski, PhD Neurosciences, MSc Sciences de l'environnement de l'Université du Québec à Montreal, Montreal Dr Louise Lajoie, MD, MSc, Médecin spécialiste en santé communautaire, professeur de clinique en médecine préventive, Université de Sherbrooke Françoise Maniet, Chargée de cours et agente de recherche, Département des sciences juridiques et GRETESS, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal Dr Donna Mergler, PhD, Professor Emerita, Centre de recherches interdisciplinaires en biologie, santé, environnement et société (CINBIOSE), Université du Québec à Montréal Pr Lise Parent, Professeure, Télé-Université, Montreal Pr François Reeves, MD, FRCPc, Cardiologue d'intervention, Professeur agrégé de médecine, Département de santé environnementale et du travail, Université de Montréal, Montreal Kathleen Ruff, Senior Human Rights Adviser, Rideau Institute, Ottawa Rev Dominic J. Sasco, Holy Spirit Parish, Archdiocese of Toronto Donald and Clare Sasco, Sidney Colin L. Soskolne, PhD, Professor, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton François Therrien, Collectif Sauvons nos Enfants des Ondes, Terrebonne Pr Fernand Turcotte, MD, MPH, FRCPC, Professeur émérite de santé publique et médecine préventive, Université Laval, Quebec Cathy Vaillancourt, PhD, Professeur agrégé/Associate Professor, INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier, Université du Québec, Laval Pr Louise Vandelac, PhD, Professeure titulaire, Départment de Sociologie, Directrice de l’Institut des Sciences et de l’Environnement, Université du Québec à Montréal Haiti: Joan Lysias Cassotti, MD, MS, Regional Advisor Reproductive Health, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Port-au-Prince Mexico: Fernando Bejarano, Center for Analyses on Toxics and Alternatives (CAATA), Mexico Peru: Dr Ernesto F Ráez-Luna, Director de Ciencia y Desarrollo Centro para la Sostenibilidad Ambiental, Environmental Sustainability Center, Universidad Peruana, Lima USA: Pr Nicholas A. Ashford, Professor of Technology and Policy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA Pr John Bailar, PhD, Member of the US National Academy of Sciences, Chicago, IL Pr Michael S Bloom, PhD, MS, Assistant Professor, Departments of Environmental Health Sciences and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University at Albany School of Public Health, State University of New York, NY Dr Barry Castleman, ScD, Environmental Consultant, Washington DC Pr David O Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, NY Pr Richard Clapp, DSc, MPH, Professor Emeritus, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA Pr Arthur L Frank, MD, PhD, Professor of Public health, Drexel University School of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA Pr Antonio Giordano, MD PhD , Director Sbarro Institute for Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine and Center of Biotechnology, College of Science and Technology, Temple University BioLife Science , Philadelphia, PA Nancy Hepp, Research and Communications Specialist, Collaborative on Health and the Environment, Dr James Huff, Phd, Staff scientist, Chemical Carcinogenesis, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Research Triangle Park, NC Pr Patricia Hunt, Meyer Distinguished Professor, School of Molecular Biosciences, Washington State University, WA Pr Joseph LaDou, MD, Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine University of California, San Francisco, CA Pr Lisa Lavine Nagy, MD President of The Preventive and Environmental Health Alliance Inc. Dr James Melius, MD, DrPH, New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Fund Dr Lloyd Morgan, PhD, Senior Scientist, Environmental Health Trust (EHT), CA Cindy Sage, MA, Sages Associates, Santa Barbara, CA Pr Ana Soto, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA Pr Leslie Thomas Stayner, PhD, Professor of Epidemiology, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Pr Shanna H. Swan, PhD, Professor and Vice-Chair, Department of Preventive Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY Dr Daniel Thau Teitelbaum MD, Colorado School of Public Health, Denver, CO Venezuela: Dr Janice Fernández de D´Pool, MD, MPH, Dr in Medical Sciences, Instituto de Salud, Ocupacional y Ambiental Facultad de Medicina, Universidad del Zulia Asia Cambodia: Dr Pascal Millet, Medical Officer, French Embassy, Advisor for the Rector, Université des Sciences de la Santé, Phnom Penh China: Dr Jung-Der Wang MD, ScD, Chair Professor, Department of Public Health, National Cheng Kung University College of Medicine, Taiwan Indonesia: Dr Sudjoko Kuswadji, MSc(OM), PKK SpOk, Yayasan Sudjoko Kuswadji Bersaudara (YSKB), Banten Dicky Jatnika, Musician, Bandung South Korea: Hae-Kwan Cheong, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Sungjyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon Oceania Australia: Peter Evans, RN (formerly) Grad Dip Health Counselling Convenor, South Australian Task Force on, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Port Adelaide Dr James Leigh MD PhD MSc MA C Eng BLegS FAFOEM FAFPHM, Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia Rwth Stuckey, PhD., Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine Monash University, Melbourne New-Ze aland: Mary Redmayne, PhD candidate, School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington Dr Meriel Watts, Coordinator, Pesticide Action Network, Aotearoa Contact : Dr Annie J. Sasco, MD, DrPH Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention Team of HIV, Cancer and Global health Inserm U 897 Bordeaux Segalen University 146 rue Leo Saignat 33176 Bordeaux cedex - France Cell : ++33 6 74 25 43 93 mail: annie.sasco@inserm.fr ajsasco@gmail.com |
| 29/06/2011 |
To: Jose Manuel D. Barroso, President of the European Commission, Commissioners and services of the European Commission, Members of the European Parliament, Representatives of Member States Re: Groups call for public research to benefit society, not big business 29 June 2011 Public Research should benefit Society, not Big Business An Open Letter on the Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding The research that is prioritized and funded today will have a decisive impact on the future of our societies and our planet. It is imperative that the EU research framework is geared towards the needs of society and the environment rather than those of big business. Our societies face immense ecological, social and economic challenges. It is certainly no time for "business as usual", and radical change is needed for society to address these challenges. Research and technology have a crucial role to play, but must - especially when publicly funded - benefit all sections of society. In these rapidly changing times, research and innovation play a double role: they enable the broadening of knowledge and informed decision-making, but they also contribute to the emergence of problems. Research into nuclear energy, pharmaceuticals, agricultural genetic engineering, synthetic biology, nanotechnologies, space and military research – for example – has seen big business secure generous public subsidies despite widespread concern about their environmental and social impacts. This has marginalized and limited the funding available for research in important domains such as environmental protection, preventative health policy, organic and low-input agriculture, energy-saving and renewable energies, toxicology, water supply issues, and environmentally sustainable fisheries as well as for research in social sciences which contributes to social change and problem solving that are not focused on technological fixes. Research agendas that prioritize profit and market share are incapable of meeting the social and environmental challenges Europe is facing precisely because these challenges require alternatives to the high-growth, high-profit models of economic development that have been pursued to such devastating excess. European research should promote and focus on innovation that provides solutions rather than investing in end of pipe technologies, which do not tackle the root causes of the problems that society faces. We are extremely concerned therefore that the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Innovation Union Flagship Initiative address Research and Innovation almost exclusively from the perspective of competitiveness. It envisages a society driven by technological ‘fixes’ instead of social-policy based solutions and threatens to impose an unacceptable corporate bias in the upcoming next EU framework research programme (2014-2020). Many of the undersigned organizations, who work on a broad range of social, environmental and economic justice issues, have expressed their concern about the corporate bias in the EU’s current ‘FP7’ research programme. We have highlighted problems such as industrydomination of European Technology Platforms (ETPs) and ‘informal’ agenda-setting bodies like the European Security Research and Innovation Forum. These channels create a structural conflict of interest by allowing industry lobbying to set the EU research agenda and then secure the public funds on offer. The more systematic use of public-private research partnerships envisaged by the European Commission will exacerbate these problems and undermine socially-driven innovation. While the EU has funded research that seeks to explore and promote alternatives at the margins of its current programme (particularly in its Science and Society programme), we are concerned that these already limited opportunities will be further restricted in the coming programme. Ethical concerns about many of the controversial technologies the EU is already funding have also been sidelined. The EU’s ethical guidance and compliance mechanisms must be urgently overhauled to ensure that much needed debates about the impact of new technologies can be considered and addressed as part of the overall research agenda. The role of social sciences, particularly, should not be narrowed to facilitating the “acceptability” of technologies. Research that will make Europe (and the world) an environmentally sustainable, healthy and peaceful place to live must now be prioritised over and above research that delivers marketable technologies. We, the undersigned civil society and scientific organisations, think that another research and innovation policy is not only possible but urgently necessary in order to respond to the challenges our societies are facing. We call on the EU Institutions to take steps to: Overcome the myth that only highly complex and cost intensive technologies can create sustainability, employment and well-being, and focus on tangible solutions to environmental, economic and societal challenges instead. Ensure that the concept of innovation includes locally adapted and social forms of innovation as well as technological development, and facilitate cooperation and knowledge exchange between civil society organisations and academia in order to realise the innovative potential of the non-profit sector; Establish a democratic, participatory and accountable decisionmaking process for research funding allocation, free from conflicts of interest and industry dominance, and enable civil society to play a full part in both setting the EU research agenda and participating in all EU research programmes; Ensure that all experts advising EU research policy-makers are appointed in a transparent manner to provide impartial and independent expertise, free from conflicts of interests; replace industry-dominated advisory groups and technology platforms with bodies that provide a balanced representation of views and stakeholders; Ensure that publicly funded research benefits wider society by systematically requiring equitable access licensing and encouraging open source access policies in the next Common Strategic Framework. Signatories (in alphabetical order): Action for Solidarity Environment Equality and Diversity (Netherlands) ANEC the European consumer voice in standardisation (Belgium) Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bäuerliche Landwirtschaft / Family Farmer Association (Germany) Arial (Germany) Associação Nacional de Conservação da Natureza (Portugal) Association of Doctors for the Environment (Macedonia) Associazione Culturale Pediatri (Italy) Baby Milk Action (United Kingdom) Belgische Shiatsu Federatie (Belgium) Bioforsk Organic Food and Farming Division (Norway) Biofuelwatch United Kingdom/US (United Kingdom) Bund Ökologische Lebensmittelwirtschaft e.V. (Germany) Bundeskoordination Internationalismus Pharma-Kampagne (Germany) Campagne tegen Wapenhandel / Dutch Campaign Against Arms Trade (Netherlands) Centre de Recherche et d’Informations pour le Développement (France) Chemicals Health and Environment Monitoring Trust (United Kingdom) Consumer Association for the Quality of Life (Greece) Corporate Europe Observatory (Belgium) Ecobaby Foundation (Netherlands) Estonian Organic Farming Foundation (Estonia) Estonian University of Life Sciences (Estonia) European Academy for Environmental Medicine e.V. (Germany) European Association of Consumer Cooperatives (Belgium) European Central Council of Homeopaths (United Kingdom) European Child Safety Alliance (United Kingdom) European Committee for Homeopathy (Belgium) European Environmental Citizens' Organisation for Standardisation (Belgium) European Federation of Homeopathic Patients' Associations (Belgium) European Federation of Patients' Associations for Anthroposophic Medicine (France) European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility European Shiatsu Federation (Belgium) Farmaceuticos Mundi (Spain) Fédération européenne du cheval de trait pour la promotion de son utilisation (Belgium) Fédération Inter-Environnement Wallonie (Belgium) Flanders Physicians for the environment (EPHE affiliate) (Belgium) Fondation Sciences Citoyennes (France) Food and Water Europe (Belgium) Food Ethics Council (United Kingdom) Formindep (France) Foundation on Future Farming (Germany) Friends of The Earth Europe (Belgium) GEKKO Foundation (Germany) Gen-ethisches Netzwerk (Germany) GeneWatch UK (United Kingdom) Gesellschaft für Ökologische Forschung (Germany) Gezinsbond VZW (Belgium) Global 2000/Friends of the Earth Austria (Austria) GMWatch (United Kingdom) Greenpeace Europe Health Action International Europe Health Care Without Harm Europe (Belgium) Health projects for Latvia (Latvia) Hungarian Haemophilia Society (Hungaria) Institute for Independent Impact Assessment in Biotechnology (Germany) Institute for Sustainable Development / Institut za trajnostni razvoj (Slovenia) Insulin Dependent Diabetes Trust (United Kingdom) Interessengemeinschaft für gentechnikfreie Saatgutarbeit (Germany) International Chemical Secretariat (Sweden) International Federation of Anthroposophic Medical Associations (Belgium) International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (Belgium) International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility International Society of Doctors for the Environment (Ireland) Italian Association for Organic Agriculture (Italy) Italian Foundation for Research in Organic and Biodynamic Agriculture (Italy) Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Dept of Internal Medicine n°2 (Russia) Mutual Aid Association (Latvia) My Right to Know Foundation (Bulgaria) National Women's Health Alliance (USA) Naturefriends International (Belgium) Naturschutzbund (Germany) No Patents on Life / Kein Patent auf Leben (Germany) Pesticide Action Network Europe (Belgium) Pestizid Aktions-Netzwerk e.V. (Germany) PharmAware-UK (United Kingdom) Physicians for Social Responsibility Finland (Finland) Quaker Council for European Affairs (Belgium) Redaktion UmweltRundschau (Germany) Réseau Environnement Santé (France) Ritimo (France) Save our seeds (Germany) Scientists for Global Responsibility (United Kingdom) Sociedad Española de Agricultura Ecológica (Spain) Spanish National Shiatsu Association (APSE, Spain) Statewatch (United Kingdom) Testbiotech (Germany) The Berne Declaration (Switzerland) The Corner House (United Kingdom) The European Consumers’ Organisation (Belgium) The Health and Environment Alliance (Belgium) The Independent Salzburg Platform Against Nuclear Dangers (Austria) The Irish Doctors' Environmental Association (Ireland) Transnational Institute (Netherlands) Verein Demokratischer Pharmazeutinnen und Pharmazeuten (Germany) Verein zur Hilfe Umweltbedingt Erkrankter (Germany) War on Want (United Kingdom) Wemos Foundation (Netherlands) Women in Europe for a Common Future (Germany) Women's Environmental Network Scotland (United Kingdom) View related press release here |
| 21/06/2011 |
To: EU Environment Ministers Re: Input to Environment Council meeting 24 June Brussels, 15 June 2011 To: EU Environment Ministers Concerning: Input to Environment Council meeting 24 June Call for Council conclusions on “A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050” to support a 30% reduction for better health Dear Minister, Europe’s leading environmental health organisations, the Health and Environment Alliance and Health Care Without Harm Europe, welcome the current discussions on a Roadmap for moving to a low carbon economy by 2050. Above all, we see that the move could bring substantial health benefits and healthcare savings, literally saving lives and improving the health of people across all of Europe. As two major European networks representing diverse health groups including patients, doctors, nurses, hospitals and public health institutes, we call on Europe’s environment ministers to support the 30% Greenhouse Gas reduction (GHG) target and to provide a platform for a legislative debate about the urgent need to decarbonise the European economy. Such a move would greatly benefit public health in Europe, e.g. reducing the risks of respiratory diseases such as asthma due to air pollution. This target will also lead to reduced car use and focus on healthier lifestyles such as walking and cycling whichwould reduce cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer and depression[i]. Research by both HEAL and HCWH Europe concludes that meeting the 30% GHG target would bring health benefits of up to €30.5bn every year by 2020[ii]. Failure to decarbonise will be much more costly. Reaching the 30% GHG target by 2020 will save up to 140,385 life-years that would otherwise be lost due to premature death each year caused by for example respiratory and cardiovascular disease[iii]. Ensuring a healthy society and reducing risks of unnecessary and serious illness will enable Europe to build a healthier workforce for sustainable economic growth. Action now is imperative. We therefore request that you: support an EU 30% emissions reduction target by 2020 bring forward proposals for the set-aside of allowances in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme provide guidance to the European Commission and the Polish EU Presidency to prepare a decision on a new EU climate target by the end of 2011. We look forward to working with you to ensure that health becomes a cornerstone of EU and international climate change policy. Sincerely, Genon Jensen Executive Director Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Anja Leetz Executive Director Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWH Europe) [i] Health Care Without Harm and Health & Environment Alliance, ‘Acting now for a better health. A 30% reduction target for EU climate policy.’ (2010); page 12 [ii] Health Care Without Harm and Health & Environment Alliance, ‘Acting now for a better health. A 30% reduction target for EU climate policy.’ (2010). [iii] Health Care Without Harm and Health & Environment Alliance, ‘Acting now for a better health. A 30% reduction target for EU climate policy.’ (2010); page 25. |
| 15/06/2011 |
To: Members of the European Parliament Re: Plenary Vote on the “Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage” June 15th 2011 To: Members of the European Parliament Concerning: Plenary Vote on the “Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage” Vote for better health: a 30% greenhouse gas reduction target for the EU Dear Member of the European Parliament, During the forthcoming plenary vote on 23 June you will vote on the report “Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage.” Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) Europe and Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) urge you to vote in favour of an overall EU target of 30% emission reductions by 2020, for the benefits of public health in the EU. We very much welcome the recent vote in the European Parliament’s ENVI Committee in favour of a 30% EU emissions reduction target by 2020, which is in line with Europe’s anticipated long term outlook towards a low-carbon economy by 2050. Such a move would bring substantial health benefits and healthcare savings for Europe, as well as other positive impacts related to sustainable development and green jobs creation. We therefore call on you to strengthen and continue your support of the overall 30% target, as has been Parliament’s position in the past. Research by both Health & Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) Europe concludes that meeting the 30% GHG target would bring health benefits of up to €30.5 billion every year by 2020 and also save up to 140,385 life-years that would otherwise be lost due to premature death each year . We look forward to working with you to ensure that health becomes a cornerstone of EU and international climate change policy. Sincerely, Genon Jensen _Executive Director _Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Anja Leetz _Executive Director _Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWH Europe) |
| 14/06/2011 |
To: Ministre de l’Ecologie du Développement durable, du Transport et du Logement Re: Contribution des médecins et ONGs en amont du Conseil européen des Ministres de l’environnement du 21 juin 2011 A l’attention de, Madame Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet Ministre de l’Ecologie du Développement durable, du Transport et du Logement Copie à, Madame Norra Berra, Secrétaire d’Etat a la Santé Bruxelles et Paris le 14 juin 2011 Objet : Contribution des médecins et ONGs en amont du Conseil européen des Ministres de l’environnement du 21 juin 2011 Santé et climat : vers une réduction des émissions d’au minimum 30% d’ici à 2020 pour améliorer la santé publique Madame la Ministre, Les ONG de santé et d’environnement européennes représentées par la Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWH-Europe) soutenues par le Réseau Action Climat – France (RAC-F) et 5 réseaux majeurs de médecins et experts de santé-environnementale, accueillent favorablement les discussions actuelles concernant la “Feuille de route 2050 pour une Europe compétitive et à faibles émissions carbone”. Un mouvement ambitieux de l’Union européenne vers une société décarbonée offrirait ainsi, au delà d’importants co-bénéfices environnementaux et socio-économiques, la possibilité d’améliorer substantiellement la santé des européens. Cela permettrait littéralement de sauver de nombreuses vies et d’améliorer les conditions de vie de nos concitoyens. C’est pourquoi, nous appelons la France à supporter un objectif de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre d’au minimum 30% d’ici à 2020. Le changement climatique est devenu aujourd’hui un enjeu majeur de santé et de dépenses publiques. Ses impacts sur la santé sont multiples, les polluants atmosphériques associés aux émissions de dioxyde de carbone (CO2) tels que les particules fines, le dioxyde de soufre, l’ozone et les oxydes d’azote étant à l’origine d’une part importante des cas de maladies respiratoires, bronchites chroniques, asthme, pneumonies et tuberculose. Pire, nos émissions de gaz à effet de serre et autres gaz toxiques pourraient entrainer chaque année quelques 207 millions de jours d’activité restreinte et la mort prématurée de plus de 230.000 personnes dans les prochaines années en Europe. Question de santé publique chaque jour plus préoccupante, le changement climatique s’avère aussi un défi économique sans précédent pour notre service public de santé. Les dépenses afférentes aux maladies respiratoires coûtent à l’heure actuelle 6% du budget de santé annuel de l’Europe, soit environ 47,3 milliards d’euros selon un récent rapport des associations HEAL et HCWH-E . Cette même étude livre des résultants probants quant aux impacts d’une politique climatique renforcée sur les maladies respiratoires et les dépenses de santé publique. Elle démontre que, pour ces 10% supplémentaires (passage de -20% à -30%), les économies de dépenses de santé publique pourraient atteindre 3,5 milliards d’euros par an uniquement pour la France. Plus de 15% du déficit de la Sécurité Sociale pourraient être ainsi comblés. Ainsi, nous vous demandons, lors du prochain Conseil européen des Ministres de l’environnement de : soutenir un objectif de réduction des émissions de 30% d’ici 2020 (par rapport à 1990) en Europe ; inciter la Commission européenne et la Présidence Polonaise de l’Union européenne à préparer la décision pour l’adoption d’un nouvel objectif européen d’ici la fin de l’année 2011 au plus tard. Nous vous remercions par avance pour la prise en compte de nos demandes et nous restons à votre disposition pour faire de la santé publique l’un des pilier de la lutte contre le changement climatique au niveau européen et international. Veuillez agréer, Madame la Ministre, l’expression de notre plus haute considération. Genon Jensen, Executive Director, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Anja Leetz, Executive Director, Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWH Europe) Sandrine Mathy, Présidente, Réseau Action Climat – France, (RAC-F) Pr. Dominique Belpomme : Président de l'Association pour la Recherche Thérapeutique Anti-Cancéreuse (ARTAC), Médecin spécialiste en Oncologie médicale, Professeur de Cancérologie à l'Université Paris-Descartes (Paris V) Mr. André Cicolella : Porte-parole du Réseau Environnement Santé (RES) , Conseiller Scientifique auprès de l’Institut National de l’Environnement Industriel et des Risques (INERIS) Dr. Paul Cordonnier: Président de l’Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche en Environnement et Santé publique (APRES). Dr. Dominique Le Houézec: Vice-Président de la Confédération Nationale Médicale Santé-Environnement (CNMSE), Pédiatre, Ancien Chef de Clinique infantile du CHU de Caen Dr. Pierre Souvet : Président de l’Association Santé Environnement de France (ASEF), Cardiologue, élu « médecin de l’année 2008 » pour son combat sur la santé et l’environnement Mr. Olivier Toma : Président fondateur du Comité pour le Développement Durable en Santé (C2DS), Directeur de l'agence Primum Non Nocere. |
| 27/04/2011 |
To: IMCO Committee Re: NGO vote recommendations in view of the vote in the IMCO-Committee on the amendments to the Commission’s proposal for a biocide regulation (COM 0267) To Members of the EP Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) NGO vote recommendations in view of the vote in the IMCO-Committee on the amendments to the Commission’s proposal for a biocide regulation (COM 0267), Brussels 28 April 2010 Brussels, 27 April 2010 Dear members of the EP- Committee for Internal Market and Consumer Protection, On the 28th April 2010 you will vote on the amendments to the Commission’s draft for a regulation concerning the placing on the market and use of biocidal products (COM (2009) 0267). These amendments are suggested by the IMCO rapporteur Amalia Sartori and further members of the Committee.1 PAN Germany and EEB, Federation Inter-Environnement Wallonie, Grüne Liga, Health and Environment Alliance, Levego Munkacsoport, PAN Europe and PAN UK welcome the review of the current biocide legislation (Directive 98/8/EC) as many shortcomings have occurred in the context of the registration, authorisation and marketing of biocidal products. Biocides like insecticides, rodenticides or household disinfectants can be widely sold, although they can contain highly hazardous substances with carcinogenic, immunotoxic or endocrine disruptive effects. Nano-biocides are commonly used in a wide range of consumer products, including textiles, despite scientific evidence of risks for human health2 and the environment3. Nanosilver particles used in anti-odor socks tend to end up in waste water, hampering the growth of bacteria in waste water treatment plants. Biocidal silver may also disrupt the functioning of key soil microbial communities and prevents use of sewage sludge for agricultural fields. In France only, it is estimated that 17 tonnes of nano silver are released every year in water due to the machine washing of anti-odorant socks containing nano silver.4 Currently, we have to face serious intransparencies on the market which hinder product safety and consumer protection. German authorities demonstrated for example infringements against provisions on safety instructions and accurate advertisement in up to 50% of the controls. So long, sufficient standards for the sustainable use of biocides have not been established, although they are necessary in order to ensure an efficient handling of biocides in Europe. As a consequence the authorities already recorded more than 15.000 cases of poisoning whereas the real extent of the impact of biocide use remains unclear due to data gaps in the majority of the member states. Particularly vulnerable groups like small children have been affected in up to 56% of biocides-related incidents which were documented.5 These figures underline that the internal market is not functioning in accordance with EU-standards for health and environmental protection. A consistent and incentive framework for the promotion of sound products and other sustainable alternatives for pest management is still outstanding. Furthermore, we believe that the Commission’s proposal is not balanced enough in order to cope with the identified shortcomings. Several suggested modifications would weaken current standards for the protection of human health and environment from the risks of biocides while the procedure for product authorisation is problematically simplified and accelerated. This approach not only overrides the positive suggestions in the Commission’s draft (e.g. labelling of treated articles and promotion of non-chemical alternatives) but it can also result in serious risks for European consumers as well as for responsible and innovative enterprises which invest in sustainable solutions. The Industry Committee already demonstrated with its vote on the biocide regulation that MEPs are concerned about insufficient standards for transparency (e.g. no labelling of nano biocides). Your decisions can also contribute to set a clear signal for a better system for the handling of biocides. We urge you to support the following amendments: guarantee a high level of protection of human health and the environment and embed the precautionary principle as main purposes of the regulation in order to ensure a consistent cut-off regime and the protection of vulnerable groups like children, pregnant women or elderly people (amendments 5, 16, 108) confirm a regular review of biocides (amendments 114, 121) support coordinated measures for the sustainable use of biocides (amendments 1, 28) encourage transparency and efforts for removing current gaps for decision making (amendments 91, 119, 143-146) promote and strengthen provisions for labelling treated articles (amendment 98) consider a clear framework for product authorisation that guarantees responsibility and healthy products (amendments 6, 113, 123) Furthermore, we believe that it is necessary to confirm those standards of the biocide legislation or suggestions of the Commission’s approach which can contribute to ensure consumer and environmental protection on the common market. For this reason we recommend to reject the following amendments as they will weaken current achievements: introduction and extension of vague exemptions that allow a regular and EU-wide approval of highly hazardous substances which can be applied in drinking water plants and against birds and fishes (amendment 15) weakening of existing criteria for the authorisation of biocidal products (amendments 12, 19-20, 27, 31, 37-38, 45-47, 50, 52, 55, 60, 68-72, 99, 116-117, 132- 134) confirmation of loopholes that prevent a clear and timely substitution regime (amendments 24, 39-44) entire centralisation of the product authorisation system that may result in antimicrobiological resistancies or other serious impacts for health and environment (amendment 124, 125) weakening of provisions for treated articles (amendments 73-75, 110, 136-142) destruction of transparency standards and the permission of harmless advertisement of harmful biocides (amendments 33 79-80, 85-89, 93, 120) exemptions for the authorisation of altered biocidal products without applying clear criteria and standards for the protection of human health and environment (amendments 9, 10, 63, 129) We should be most grateful if you consider our recommendations. Please do not hesitate to contact us for further information. Yours sincerely Pesticide Action Network Germany, Christian Schweer (Biocide Coordinator EU) European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Louise Duprez Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), Anne Stauffer Pesticide Action Network Europe/ Clean Air Action Group, Gergely Simon (Board member) Pesticide Action Network UK, Nick Mole (Policy Officer) Health Care Without Harm Europe, Anja Leetz (Executive Director) Fédération Inter-Environnement Wallonie, 150 associations au service de l'environnement, Valérie Xhonneux Grüne Liga e.V., Bundeskontaktstelle Wasser, Michael Bender 1 Cf. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetd...; http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetd... 2 There is evidence that nanosilver can be detrimental to human health when ingested or used in medical devices, see for instance: Carlson, C., et al., Unique Cellular Interaction of Silver Nanoparticles: Size- Dependent Generation of Reactive Oxygen Species. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 2008. 112(43): p. 13608-13619. 3 See for instance: Luoma, S., Silver nanotechonologies and the Environment: old problems or new challenges? Project on Emerging nanotechnologies, 2008. 4 See recent recommendations from the French « Agence française de sécurité sanitaire de l'environnement et du travail » (Afsset), 24 March 2010, http://www.afsset.fr/index.php?page... 5 Cf. European Commission, Directorate-General Environment (no year): Composite Report in Accordance with Article 24 of Directive 98/8/EC Concerning the Placing of Biocidal Products on the Market. Covering the Period from December 2003 to November 2006. Brussels. PDF-Download: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/bio... |
| 14/03/2011 |
To: ENVI Committee Re: Exchange of views on the draft report on the “Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage” 14th March 2011 To: Members of the European Parliament Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI Committee) Concerning: Exchange of views on the draft report on the “Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage (2011/2012(INI))” ENVI Exchange of views on 15 March: Including health economic benefits in the climate change debate and outcomes Dear Member of the European Parliament, During the forthcoming ENVI Committee meeting on 15 March you will discuss the draft report on the “Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage (2011/2012(INI))”. As the leading representatives of European-wide health and healthcare networks, Health and Environment Alliance and Health Care Without Harm Europe welcome the draft report from the European Parliament and would like to ask you to strengthen it to adequately recognise the health benefits and cost savings arguments it brings to the current climate change debate. We echo calls of both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Standing Committee of European Doctors who advocate for greater consideration of the health co-benefits in setting climate targets and strong emission reductions in Europe.i We welcome discussions that have been taking place in the ENVI Committee on the possibilities of a European move beyond 20% to 30% domestic emissions reduction target by 2020, in line with Europe’s anticipated long term outlook towards a low-carbon economy by 2050. Such a move would bring substantial health benefits and healthcare savings for Europe, as well as other positive impacts related to sustainable development and green jobs creation. Research by both Health & Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) Europe concludes that meeting the 30% GHG target would bring health benefits of up to €30.5 billion every year by 2020ii. The failure to decarbonise is much more costly. Reaching the 30% GHG target by 2020 will also save up to 140,385 life-years that would otherwise be lost due to premature death each yeariii. Respiratory disease alone costs Europe an estimated €102 billion or €118 per person per yeariv. Action now is imperative. We therefore call on you to support the draft report and come forth with a strong position in support of a European domestic move to 30% emissions reduction target by 2020. We look forward to working with you to ensure that health becomes a cornerstone of EU and international climate change policy. Sincerely, Genon Jensen - Executive Director, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Anja Leetz - Executive Director. Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWH Europe) i World Health Organization, Health in the Green Economy (2010) http://www.who.int/hia/green_economy/en/ ii Health Care Without Harm and Health & Environment Alliance, ‘Acting now for a better health. A 30% reduction target for EU climate policy.’ (2010). iii Health Care Without Harm and Health & Environment Alliance, ‘Acting now for a better health. A 30% reduction target for EU climate policy.’ (2010); page 25. iv European Lung Foundation. Lung diseases: Economic impact. http://www.european-lungfoundation.... (accessed 13.08.2010) |
| 28/02/2011 |
To: President Barroso Re: The Roadmap for a low carbon economy must include the 30% GHG target and stress health benefits and healthcare savings European Commission Rue de la Loi 200 1049 Brussels Monday 28 February 2011 To: President Barroso and the EU Commissioners The Roadmap for a low carbon economy must include the 30% GHG target and stress health benefits and healthcare savings Dear President Barroso, We welcome discussions on a Roadmap for moving to a low carbon economy by 2050, which could bring substantial health benefits and healthcare savings for Europe. However, we are concerned that the current draft document does not refer explicitly to the 30% greenhouse gas (GHG) target. And more importantly, it does not provide a platform for a legislative debate about the urgent need to decarbonise the European economy nor the very many qualitative benefits that would arise from such a move, such as improved public health. Research by both Health & Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) Europe concludes that meeting the 30% GHG target would bring health benefits of up to €30.5bn every year by 2020i. The failure to decarbonise is much more costly. Reaching the 30% GHG target by 2020 will also save up to 140,385 life-years that would otherwise be lost due to premature death each yearii. Respiratory disease alone costs Europe an estimated €102bn or €118 per person per yeariii. Action now is imperative. We therefore request that you bring forward proposals for the set-aside of allowances in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and measures to implement the upcoming Energy Efficiency Plan to enable an informed and comprehensive debate about the future direction, health and prosperity of European citizens. Yours sincerely, Genon Jensen - Executive Director, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Anja Leetz - Executive Director, Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWH Europe) List of signatories: Climate and Health Council (CHC) European Federation of Allergy and Airway Diseases Patients Association (EFA) European Public Health Alliance (EPHA) European Respiratory Society (ERS) Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWH) International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE) Standing Committee of European Doctors (CPME) In CC: Commissioner Ashton, Commissioner Reding, Commissioner Alumina, Commissioner Kallas, Commissioner Kroesm, Commissioner Tajani, Commissioner Sefcovic, Commissioner Potocnik, Commissioner Rehn, Commissioner Piebalgs, Commissioner Bariner, Commissioner Vassiliou, Commissioner Semeta, Commissioner De Gucht, Commissioner Dali, Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn, Commissioner Lewandowski, Commissioner Damanaki, Commissioner Georgieva, Commissioner Oettinger, Commissioner Hahn, Commissioner Hedegaard, Commissioner Fule, Commissioner Andor, Commissioner Malmstrom, Commissioner Ciolos i Health Care Without Harm and Health & Environment Alliance, ‘Acting now for a better health. A 30% reduction target for EU climate policy.’ (2010); page 11. ii Health Care Without Harm and Health & Environment Alliance, ‘Acting now for a better health. A 30% reduction target for EU climate policy.’ (2010); page 25. iii European Lung Foundation. Lung diseases: Economic impact. http://www.european-lungfoundation.... (accessed 13.08.2010) |
| 19/01/2011 |
To: MEPs Re: MEPs called upon to protect EU transparency January 2011 OPEN LETTER: MEPs called upon to protect EU transparency To all Members of the European Parliament In the coming months MEPs will be called upon to vote on amendments in the recast of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 regarding access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. The legislation sets out the conditions under which the public may have access to documents held by EU institutions. Access to information is fundamental to transparency, openness, and the democratic rights of European citizens. According to its founding treaties, the European Union (EU) aspires to create an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen. However, the EU Ombudsman and others have warned that a proposal put forward by the Commission would mean access to fewer, not more, documents. The proposal would restrict access most notably by creating a narrower definition of what constitutes a document for the purpose of the regulation; by adding new exceptions to the right of access to documents, in particular in relation to documents drawn up within dispute settlement proceedings initiated by the Commission against Member States; and by granting more discretion to Member States to refuse access to documents they transmit to the EU institutions. We call on MEPs to amend the Commission fs proposal so as to prevent the access to documents regulation from becoming more restrictive than before and to expand the right of the public to have access to EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies f documents. To this end we call on the Members of the European Parliament to: Support measures to align the regulation with the Lisbon Treaty to extend the scope of the regulation to all EU bodies, offices and agencies in addition to the institutions. Maintain the current definition of a document to cover all documents and not only ones that have been formally transmitted to some recipients or registered. The definition should also include all information recorded in all formats, including databases. Bring the regulation in line with the relevant pro.transparency decisions of the Court of Justice of the EU which has ruled that legal advice from legal services of EU institutions in legislative proceedings should be publicly accessible and that Member States do not have an unconditional right of veto regarding disclosure of documents they have transmitted to EU institutions. Maintain the deadline of 15 days for EU institutions to reply to confirmatory applications and reject the Commission fs proposal to extend this to 30 days. We call on MEPs to protect the rights of European citizens to access information and ensure transparency of EU institutions. Signed: European Region Abenhedstinget, Denmark . Editor, Nils Mulvad Access Info Europe, Spain . Executive Director, Helen Darbishire Access to Information Programme, Bulgaria . Executive Director, Gergana Jouleva, Ph.D ActiveWatch, Romania . President, Mircea Toma Agentia pentru Informarea si Dezvoltarea Organizatiilor Neguvernamentale, Romania . Mihai Lisetchi Aliancia Fair.play, Slovakia . Zuzana Wienk Amigos de la Tierra, Spain . Environmental Director, Liliane Spendeler Article 19, UK . Senior Legal Officer, Sejal Parmar Associacao para a Cooperacao Entre os Povos, Portugal . Director, Fatima Proenca Asociacion de la Prensa de Madrid, Spain . President, Fernando Gonzalez Urbaneja BilgiEdinmeHakki.Org, Turkey . Director, Yaman Akdeniz Birdlife International, European Division . Director, Angelo Caserta Bureau of Investigative Journalism, UK . Managing Editor, Iain Overton Campaign for Freedom of Information, UK . Director, Maurice Frankel Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland, UK . Carole Ewart Centre for Advanced Legal Studies, Serbia . Vladimir Vodineli. PhD Centre for Democracy and Law "Miko Tripalo", Croatia . Professor Josip Kregar Centre for Development and Democratization of Institutions, Albania . Executive Director, Ilir Aliaj Centre for Environmental Information and Education, Bulgaria . Daniel Popov Center for Independent Journalism in Bucharest, Romania . Ioana Avadani Centre for Legal Resources, Romania . Executive Director, Georgiana Iorgulescu Citizen Control . Animal Defence, Bulgaria . Board Chairman, Georgi Serbezov Civil Rights Project Sisak, Croatia . Milana Kreca ClientEarth, UK . CEO, James Thornton Climate Action Network Europe . Director, Matthias Duwe Community Media Forum Europe, Belgium . President, Pieter de Wit Confederacion de Consumidores y Usuarios, Spain . Vice President, Ana Etchenique Corporate Europe Observatory, Belgium . Research and Campaigns Coordinator, Olivier Hoedeman Cyprus EU Association, Cyprus . Dervi. Musann.f Danish Association for Investigative Journalism (FUJ) . Brigitte Alfter, Jacob Mollerup, Denmark Dutch.Flemish Association of Investigative Journalists VVOJ, Belgium/Netherlands . Director, Margo Smit eGovernance Academy, Estonia . Member of the Executive Board, Ivar Tallo Eotvos Karoly Public Policy Institute, Hungary . Laszlo Majtenyi and Mate Daniel Szabo Estonian Newspaper Association, Estonia . Managing Director, Mart Raudsaar European Environmental Bureau . Secretary General, John Hontelez European Federation of Journalists (EFJ/IFJ), Belgium . Co.Director, Renate Schroeder European Public Health Alliance, Belgium . Director of Policy and Strategy, Luiza Bara EU Transparency . Executive Director, Jack Thurston Farmsubsidy.org and Fishsubsidy.org . Co.founder, Jack Thurston Fonds Pascal Decroos voor Bijzondere Journalistiek, Belgium . Director, Ides Debruyne Forest Peoples Programme, UK . Responsible Finance Programme Coordinator Tom Griffiths Foundation Open Society Institute, Macedonia . Dance Danilovska . Bajdevska Friends of the Earth Europe . Director, Magda Stoczkiewicz Fund for an Open Society, Serbia . Transparency, Accountability and Public Integrity Program Coordinator, Miodrag Milosavljevic Fundacja Reporterow . Centrum Wspierania Dziennikarstwa w Europie Wschodniej, Poland . Director, Wojciech Ciesla German Civil Liberties Union (Humanistische Union e.V.), Germany . Sven Lueders Global Witness, UK . Co.Founder and Co.Director, Charmian Gooch GONG, Croatia . Executive Director, Sandra Pernar Greenpeace European Unit, Belgium . Deputy Director, Mahi Sideridou Greenpeace International, Netherlands . General Counsel, Jasper Teulings Health & Environment Alliance, Belgium . Director, Genon K. Jensen Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, Hungary . Tivadar Huttl IKME: Sociopolitical Studies Institute, Cyprus . Director, Alecos Tringides Iuridicum Remedium, o.s., Czech Republic . Helena Svato.ova K.Monitor Association, Hungary . Julia Keser. MANS: Mreza za afirmaciju NVO Sektora, Montenegro . Director for Citizens Initiatives, Zorica .erani. Naturefriends International, Brussels Office . EU Policy Officer, Sandra Roling Netzwerk Recherche, Germany . Dr. Manfred Redelfs N.ost: Network for Reporting on Eastern Europe, Germany . Christian Mihr Observatorio de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa, Spain . Lea Brumter Open Data Espana, Spain . Jacobo Elosua Open Data Network, Germany . Daniel Dietrich Open Society Archives at Central European University, Hungary . Counsellor, Ivan Szekely Partnership for Social Development, Croatia . President, Munir Podumljak Peace Institute in Ljubljana, Slovenia . Brankica Petkovic PRO MEDIA, Macedonia . Klime Babunski Providus, Latvia . Linda Austere PublicMedia Association, Romania . Cosmin Pacuraru Publish What You Fund, UK . Director, Karin Christiansen Rainbow Warriors Core Foundation, Aruba, Kingdom of the Netherlands . President, Milton Ponson Romanian Center for Investigative Journalism, Romania . Co.Founder, Stefan Candea SOMA Foundation for Investigative Journalism, Hungary . Chairma, Andras L.ke Statewatch, UK . Tony Bunyon Sustentia, Spain . Carlos Cordero Svenska Journalistforbundet, Sweden . Senior Adviser, Anita Vahlberg Tax Justice Network, UK . John Christensen The Access Initiative European Partner Organizations . Dr. Csaba Kiss Transparency International, Hungary . Executive Director, Adam Foldes Transparency International, Latvia (Delna) . Inese Voika Transparency International Liaison Office to the EU, Belgium . Ronny Patz Transparency International Secretariat, Germany . Andrea Figari Transparency International, Spain . President, Jesus Lizcano Transparency Zero Corruption, Macedonia . President, Slagjana Taseva Ph.D Transport & Environment, Belgium . Director, Jos Dings Tutkiva, Association for Investigative Journalism, Finland . Chairperson, Minna Knus.Galan WhatDoTheyKnow.com . Alex Skene Wobbing.eu . Editor, Brigitte Alfter World Press Freedom Committee . European Representative, Ronald Koven WWF European Policy Office . Advisor, Sandra Jen Global 5th Pillar, India . President, Vijay Anand Africa Freedom of Information Centre, Uganda . Gilbert Sendugwa African Network of Constitutional Lawyers . Access to Information Working Group, Fatima Diallo Alianza Regional por la Libertad de Expresion e Informacion, Latin America . Executive Secretariat, Karina Banfi Arab Freedom of Information Network . President, Said Essoulami Association Green Alternative, Georgia . Executive Director, Nino Gujaraidze Asociacion por los Derechos Civiles, Argentina . Executive Director, Alvaro Herrero Bahrain Transparency, Bahrain . President, Abdulnabi Alekry Bank Information Center, USA . Middle East and North Africa Program Manager, Amy Ekdawi Canadian Association of Professional Access and Privacy Administrators, Canada . National Chair, Sharon Polsky Centro de Archivos y Acceso a la Informacion, Uruguay . Edison Lanza Centre for Independent Journalism, Malaysia . Masjaliza Hamzah Centre for Law and Democracy, Canada . President, Toby Mendel Center for Promotion of Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Moldova . President, Vasile Spinei Citizens' Campaign for Right to Information, Nepal . General Secretary, Tanka Aryal Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, India . Maja Daruwala's Egyptians Against Corruption, Egypt . Engi M. El Haddad Electronic Privacy Information Center, USA . Marc Rotenberg Freedom Forum, Nepal . Chairperson, Taranath Dahal Freedom of Information Center, Armenia . Shushan Doydoyan Freedom of Information Programme at the South African History Archive, South Africa . Support Officer, Gabriella Razzano Freshwater Action Network, Mexico . M.Sc. Nathalie Seguin Fundacion Directorio Legislativo, Argentina . Executive Director, Maria Baron Fundacion Pro Acceso, Chile . Presidente, Federico Allendes S. Fundar, Centro de Analisis e Investigacion, Mexico . Miguel Pulido Georgian Young Lawyers f Association, Georgia . Tamar Kordzaia Institute for the Development of Freedom of Information, Georgia . Director, Giorgi Kldiashvili Institute for Information Freedom Development, Russia . Board Chair, Ivan Pavlov Instituto de Derecho y Economia Ambiental: IDEA, Paraguay . Executive Director, Ezequiel Santagada Jamaicans For Justice, Jamaica . Executive Director, Carolyn Gomes National Security Archive, George Washington University, USA . Director, Tom Blanton Open Society Georgia Foundation, Georgia . Deputy Executive Director, Tamuna Kaldani Open Society Institute . Assistance Foundation, Azerbaijan . Fidan Bagirova Poder Ciudadano (TI.Argentina), Argentina . Hernan Charosky Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia, Canada . President, Darce Fardy Socio.Economic Rights & Accountability Project, Nigeria . Executive Director, Adetokunbo Mumuni Suma Ciudadana, Peru . Coordinator, Javier Casas Transparency International, Israel . CEO, Galia Sagi Transparency Maroc, Morocco . Access to Information Project Coordinator, Saad Filali Meknassi Transparency International, Russia . Marina Savintseva Water Governance Institute (WGI), Uganda . Executive Director, Henry Bazira Zero Corruption Coalition, Nigeria . National Secretary, Babatunde Oluajo 89 European Organisations, 42 Global Organisations Total : 131 À titre personnel: Alexander Kashumov, Attorney at law, Bulgaria Andres Mejia, Colombia/USA Andrew Ecclestone, Honorary Senior Research Fellow, Constitution Unit, University College London, UK Angie Zelter, Wales, UK Annette Schiøler, Journalist, Denmark Anni Løndal de Lichtenberg, Denmark Bent Øberg, Denmark Blanka Hancilova, Austria Bryan Charles, Belgium Christian Bartels, Journalism Student, Denmark Ciarán Toland, Barrister–at–Law, The Law Library, Republic of Ireland Codru Vrabie, Civil society representative on the National Integrity Council, Romania David Goldberg, Law lecturer/FOI expert, Scotland, UK Ermal Nazifi, Lawyer, Albania E. Plebani, Reporter, Italy Eduardo Bertoni, Director, Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Palermo University School of Law, Argentina Eduardo Esclapés, Spain Felipe Vicente, Spain Francesca Fanucci, Lawyer and Freelance consultant on freedom of expression, transparency and freedom of information, UK Giner Rico, Spain Greg Michener, Brazil Heather Brooke, writer, journalist and activist, UK Heidi Birgitte Nielsen, Journalist, Denmark Heike Mayer, Germany Ian Davis (Dr.), Human Security and Arms Control Consultant, Scotland, UK Jaume Cot del Valle, Spain Jesus Cabrera, Photographer, Spain John McCarthy, USA José Cavani Ríos, Journalist, Peru Katrine Birkedal Christensen, Journalist, Denmark Kenneth Konrad Knudsen, Journalist, Denmark Laura Robinson, Journalist, Canada Leo Sisti, investigative reporter, contributing reporter for "L'Espresso" and "Il Fatto Quotidiano", Italy Manuel Sánchez de Diego Frdez. de la Riva, Law Professor, Spain Mariana Berbec Rostas, LL.M., human rights lawyer, Romania/Hungary Mario Gutiérrez Sanchez, Student, Spain Marion Brians, France Marjan Kroflič, Slovenia Markus Knigge, Belgium Michael Ewing, Coordinator of the Environmental Pillar of Social Partnership, Republic of Ireland Mónica Caballo, Librarian, Spain Nadejda Hriptievschi, Legal Consultant, Public Defender Office, Republic of Moldova Päivi Leino–Sandberg (Dr.), Finland Patrice McDermott, Director, OpenTheGovernment.org, USA Prashant Sharma, Doctoral Researcher, India Raül Romeva i Rueda, Member of the European Parliament, Greens/EFA, Spain Sarah Elizabeth Holsen, Research Assistant, Institut de hautes études en administration publique, Switzerland Silvana Fumega, Access to Information Independent Consultant, Argentina Sorin Schiopu, editor, Radio Targu Mures, Romania Stephen J Avalyan Newton (Prof.), International Governance and Change Management Specialist, Armenia Tarmo Vahter, member of the advisory board of Journalismfund.eu, Estonia Thorkild Knudsen (DJ), Journalist, Denmark Tom Devine, USA Ulf Öberg, Lawyer, Advokatfirman Öberg & Associés AB, Sweden W Mecklenburg (Dr.), Lawyer and Physicist, Germany Walter Keim, Norway 56 individuals + 131 organisations: Total: 187 signatures |
| 12/01/2011 |
To: President Barroso and the EU Commissioners Re: Your upcoming College discussion on further measures to reduce air pollution in the EU European Commission Rue de la Loi 200 1049 Brussels Brussels, 12 January 2011 To: President Barroso and the EU Commissioners Re: Your upcoming College discussion on further measures to reduce air pollution in the EU Dear President Barroso, Dear Commissioner, In view of the upcoming meeting of the College of Commissioners later this month we would like to call on you to support the immediate revision of the National Emission Ceilings (NEC) Directive. An immediate revision should not be seen as a burden on Europe’s economy – it is an opportunity to put the EU’s economy on a recovery path that will improve the health of its citizens and their environment as quickly and as cheaply as possible. 1. The effects of air pollution on health and environment Air pollution creates serious health problems for European citizens and exacts an enormous human and financial toll. Every year, air pollution by fine particles is estimated to cause 455,000 premature deaths in the 27 EU member states, corresponding to almost 4.5 million years of life lost. Ground-level ozone is responsible for some 20,000 premature deaths each year. Europe’s ecosystems are heavily impacted by air pollution through acidification and eutrophication. Overload of nutrients is still a major factor pushing ecosystems towards tipping points and a major obstacle to achieving the newly adopted EU biodiversity targets for 2020. 2. Huge economic losses for society The cost-benefit analyses prepared by the Directorate General for Environment show that strict air policies also make very good economic sense. They value the benefits for the economy of a revised NEC Directive at between €22 and €70 billion per year, which means that the benefits of action exceed the costs by up to 50 times1, as the costs for achieving the environmental objectives of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution are estimated at €1.4-1.5 billion in 2020. Additionally we would like to stress that short term concerns of specific sectors of the economy that are expected to bear a large share of the costs can not be a reason not to set new and stricter targets for 2020. The European economy can be expected to pick up well before 2020 and industry will need to take decisions on where and how they invest. By setting stricter ceilings for 2020 the Commission will give a crystal clear signal where these investments should be made and set the EU economy on a green recovery path, and contribute to the EU 2020 objectives of sustainable growth and creating over 1 million green jobs. 3. The achievability of new ceilings for 2020 The current ceilings for 2010 have proven to be an effective tool, and their overall implementation at national level can be seen as relatively encouraging. Indeed, according to the EEA’s latest findings and recent declarations by national governments, 91 out of the 108 ceilings were expected to be met in 20102. What’s more, this reduction in emissions occurred in a period of sustained economic growth. Several of the 17 expected breaches are minor (few percentage points). With the majority of current ceilings being achieved, there is no excuse to wait any longer before revising the Directive and postpone action against the unacceptable human suffering due to remaining air pollution. 4. Provide ceilings for finest particles without further delay Fine particles (PM2,5) have the highest estimated impact on human health yet no ceilings for these pollutants exist. Revising the NEC Directive now would ensure that overall emissions of finest particles are addressed without further delay. 5. Help member states comply with ambient air quality limit values Most member states are struggling to meet binding limit values for PM10 and NO2 provided in EU ambient air quality legislation, and the Commission is currently launching infringement actions against 20 of them. Reducing overall emissions of air pollution will help address the effects of transboundary air pollution and therefore help competent authorities to comply with the requirements of the Air Quality Directive. It would also strengthen the European Commission’s position when reviewing the Air Quality Directive, in particular when looking into stricter standards for PM2.5, in accordance with the WHO recommendations. 6. Help mitigate climate change Revised ceilings should also be seen as a way to mitigate climate change more efficiently and cheaply since climate change and air pollution share the same sources. Reductions in emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases can contribute to the achievement of climate objectives. This is the case for pollutants such as methane, nitrogen oxides and VOCs that are responsible for ground-level ozone and also black carbon, a constituent of PM10 which has significant warming impacts, particularly in the Arctic region. Reducing levels of these pollutants would benefit climate and air quality targets simultaneously with significant health and environment benefits. 7. Aim higher for 2013 We fully support Commissioner Potoènik’s initiative to create a “year of air” and raise the political profile of air related policy measures in 2013. However, we do not accept this as an argument to yet again postpone urgent action which was been on hold since 2007. We believe the EU should raise its level of ambition in 2013, as compared to the commitments made in the now five year old Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. Civil society from across Europe has called on the Commission repeatedly to cut air pollution as quickly as possible through an immediate revision of the NEC Directive. It is clear action must be taken sooner rather than later. Any further delay would be unacceptable given the costs to human health and the environment. Yours sincerely, John Hontelez - Secretary General EEB - European Environmental Bureau Jos Dings - Director T&E - Transport and Environment Genon Jensen - Executive Director HEAL - Health and Environment Alliance 1 See DG Environment’s website, e.g. 2008 AEA "NEC CBA report #3" available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air... 2 See latest EEA report of 24 September 2010 on the implementation of the NEC Directive : http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights... exceed&utm_medium=email&utm_source=EEASubscriptions |
| 29/12/2010 |
To: UNFCCC National focal points Re: Input to international climate talks in Cancun To: UNFCCC National focal points Concerning: Input to international climate talks in Cancun, 29 November - 10 December 2010 Dear Sir/Madam, What's good for climate change is good for health and the economy Strengthen the health dimension in current UNFCCC negotiating text A side event organised by the WHO and the Mexican government (Wednesday) stressed the devastating impacts which climate change will bring to human health and wellbeing. It also emphasised the massive benefits to health (and healthcare costs) which mitigating measures bring. This was reiterated yesterday at Recent evidence backs-up these views (e.g. IPPC, The Lancet report, HCWH/HEAL Report, WHO). Leading health organizations Health Care Without Harm (HCWH), Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Climate and Health Council (CHC), together with some of the world’s largest medical, nursing and health organizations are calling on world leaders to take bold action to address climate change. They stress that failure to do so will result in widespread suffering and death. However, leaders should be encouraged. Bold action to reduce GHG emissions saves lives, and also money as healthcare costs plummet. The Lancet reports demonstrated that such benefits applied worldwide- to India, China and the UK for example. Meanwhile, HEAL/ HCWH demonstrate the benefits of moving the EU greenhouse gas emissions reduction target from 20% to 30% domestically by 2020 (compared to 1990 levels). This would cost €46 billion per year in 2020 (1, 2) but save We therefore call on negotiators to: - Ensure that health is in the Shared Vision paper Justification: Article 1, paragraph 1 of the UNFCCC Convention (1992), says that health should be alongside environment and socioeconomic development - Health has effective interventions for adaptation, so it should be mentioned in the Adaptation section of the official text The positive and negative impacts of mitigation actions should be recalled as criteria for mitigation measures Justification: Article 4.1 (8) of the UNFCCC Convection (1992) says that mitigation measures should assess health implications. We look forward to working with you to ensure that health becomes a cornerstone of international and EU climate change policy. Sincerely, Genon Jensen - Executive Director, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Anja Leetz - Executive Director, Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWHE) Mike Gill - Co-chair, Climate and Health Council (CHC) |
| 14/12/2010 |
To: Commissioner Dalli. Re: EU Commission priority for pesticide reduction and better guidance for EU Member States implementation of National Action Plans 14th December 2010 Commissioner John Dalli European Commission DG Health and Consumers B-1049 Brussels Re: EU Commission priority for pesticide reduction and better guidance for EU Member States implementation of National Action Plans Dear Commissioner Dalli, Today, 14th December, marks the date for crucial deadlines in the implementation of the Directive 2009/128/EC establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides. By one year from now, on 14 December 2011, Member States have to bring the directive into accordance with their national law (article 23), and by 14 December 2012 have to communicate their National Action Plan to the Commission and to other EU Member States (article 4.2). With the new Barroso Commission, the responsibility for the Directive on the sustainable use now lies with yourself and your services. The Directive represents a major opportunity to achieve significant public health gains by encouraging pesticide dependency reduction in agriculture as well as urban spaces. Health and Environment Alliance HEAL and Pesticides Action Network PAN Europe would like to encourage you to make pesticides dependency reductions one of your priorities in 2011. Minimising our dependency on pesticides and working with non-chemical alternatives are major public health issues. There is a growing body of science which shows the link between pesticides exposure and ill-health, particularly for pregnant women and farmers. Health care costs continue to be dominated by chronic disease, which are at least partly linked to pesticides and chemicals exposure. Therefore, an effective implementation of the new pesticides law will bring major public health benefits. A discussion on health gains due to pesticide dependency reduction is not yet taking place in the public realm, and greater awareness could also be helpful in EU member states administrations. Yet, the issue of potential health impacts of pesticides is of continuous concern to European citizens. As a recent Eurobarometer showed, pesticide residues in food are the top concern of all food scares, and this has held true in both the 2006 and the 2010 surveys (72% of respondents are concerned). Europeans are also concerned about hazards from pesticide use in their home. A 2009 Eurobarometer on chemicals in consumer products revealed that pesticides and herbicides for home use (in gardens and greenhouses) are the top concern for Europeans (70% of respondents are concerned). Europe’s citizens expect their political leaders to act on these health threats, and they support ambitious measures. As we continue to consistently monitor EU Member States activities on the National Action Plans, we have become increasingly concerned with the slow and uneven implementation of the Directive in the EU, and the inadequate lack of any EU initiative which would facilitate and stimulate member states and regions to take action. Our feedback from many member states includes suggestions to receive guidance or even more important inspiration on “how” to go about reducing pesticides, and to develop national action plans with civil society, particularly with an increased participation of health and medical groups in this process. This involvement of all stakeholders can greatly enrich the public health debate (See for example the recent testimonies from cancer patients about their concerns of environmental causes of cancer: http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/L...) PAN Europe recently developed a best practice NAP with examples of what is already being done in many member states (http://www.pan-europe.info/Resource...) and we follow this up regularly with adding more details. We also arrange meetings allowing stakeholders to exchange experience at practical level, identify problems and solutions, and together discuss ways forward. As part of its Sick of Pesticides campaign in 5 countries, HEAL is currently collecting examples of which cities and regions in Europe have already gone pesticide-free (www.pesticidescancer.eu) and working to raise public awareness about countries implementation commitments in this directive and their link to health. Given the public concern about health impacts of pesticides and your mandate in this area, we would like to encourage you to show leadership and prioritise this dossier in 2011. As a first step, DG SANCO could increase public awareness through a specific section on its Health Portal dedicated to Pesticides, Health and NAPs. As the EU Commissioner for both public health and consumers, your role could be visionary in showing how a NAP targeted both at the environment and human health protection is an opportunity to showcase “health in all policies”, as highlighted in the DGSANCO video launched earlier this year during the EU Health Forum. A serious NAP, with quantitative targets and timetables, is essential for swift and effective implementation of the directive. Ambitious NAPs are needed in order to guarantee for all Europeans the same level of health protection, especially for vulnerable groups. Underscoring the importance of pesticide reduction for public health can also increase awareness for public health issues in other EU policy fields, for example with the discussion on the 2020 Strategy and resource efficiency, as well as the Common Agricultural Policy reform and putting public health at the centre of sustainable food production. We would appreciate the opportunity to have a meeting with you and your cabinet and services to discuss further how our organisations and European citizens concerns for better public information, and greater EU guidance could be translated to stimulate and encourage front running member states and regions with the sustainable use of pesticides in order to achieve better health protection for all. Best regards, Genon K. Jensen - Health and Environment Alliance Henriette Christensen - Pesticide Action Network Europe |
| 12/10/2010 |
To: Members of the Council Working Group for Environment. Re. Joint NGO recommendations for the forthcoming considerations of Council Working Group for Environment concerning the biocide regulation (COM (2009) 267) Joint NGO recommendations for the forthcoming considerations of Council Working Group for Environment concerning the biocide regulation (COM (2009) 267) Brussels, 12 October 2010 Dear Members of the Council Working Group for Environment, You are currently discussing the Commission's proposal for a biocide regulation (COM (2009) 0267), which was recently voted on by the European Parliament in first reading. This act proposal will revise the current Biocidal Products Directive 98/8/EC and establish new provisions for the authorisation and use of, for example, disinfectants, preservatives, products for pest control and other biocidal products. Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Germany, BUND/ Friends of the Earth Germany, Fédération Inter- Environnement Wallonie, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWH), National Movement Friends of the Earth Bulgaria, PAN Europe, PAN UK and Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) welcome the revision of the biocides legislation, but see an urgent need to improve the current European Commission draft, the European Parliament resolution as well as the relevant suggestions of the former Council Presidency in order to ensure the protection of the environment and human health against hazards and risks stemming from the use of biocidal products. While taking into account our key NGO demands and recommendations on the biocide regulation, we suggest highlighting the following issues in view of the coming Council Environment Working Group considerations on this dossier: Ensure a consistent and enforceable cut-off regime without unnecessary loopholes on EU and on national level. Guarantee a sufficient substitution regime and consider non-chemical measures and preventive measures within the comparative assessment. Ensure the protection of vulnerable groups from hazardous biocides and the substitution of developmental neurotoxic and immunotoxic biocides. Confirm appropriate labelling provisions for all treated articles. Support consistent measures for the sustainable use of biocides. Demand for consistent data requirements for evaluation and authorization. Confirm a sufficient low-risk approach to promote less hazardous alternatives. Facilitate consistent measures concerning nano-biocides. We provide more details in our comments and recommendations attached. Please do not hesitate to contact us in case of any question. We should be most grateful if you consider our recommendations. Kind regards Pesticide Action Network Germany Christian Schweer (Biocide Coordinator EU) Health and Environment Alliance Anne Stauffer Health Care Without Harm Europe Anja Leetz Fédération Inter-Environnement Wallonie Valérie Xhonneux Women in Europe for a Common Future Elisabeth Ruffinengo (Advocacy Officer) Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. (BUND) Friends of the Earth Germany National Movement Friends of the Earth Bulgaria Valentina Lukova Pesticide Action Network UK Nick Mole (Policy Officer) Tony Tweedale, M.S. Uppsala University hospital Clinical Microbiology, Eva Haxton PAN Europe Gergely Simon (board member) |
| 12/10/2010 |
To: Commissioner Potocnik Re: Upcoming Commission decision on the revision of the National Emissions Ceilings Directive (NEC) Commissioner Janez Poto.nik DG Environment European Commission, 1049 Brussels 12 October 2010 Re: Upcoming Commission decision on the revision of the National Emissions Ceilings Directive (NEC) Dear Commissioner Potocnik, We understand that the College of European Commissioners will meet in the coming weeks to decide upon the timing for a revision of the National Emissions Ceilings (NEC) Directive and that the long awaited proposition might be postponed until 2013. With this letter, the Health and Environment Allliance HEAL, the European Federation of Allergy and Airways Diseases Patients Associations EFA and the European Respiratory Society ERS would like to highlight our great concerns about such a delay and call upon you to ensure that the NEC Directive will be immediately revised, as provided for by the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and in order to ensure a high level of health protection and wellbeing of Europeans citizens. With Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution (2005), the European Union has set ambitious goals for reducing air pollution by 2020. The revision of the NEC Directive was set to be the key instrument to achieve these objectives. However, adoption and publication by the EU Commission of the revision proposal have repeatedly been postponed since 2007. As late as June 2008 the Commission had a draft proposal ready, but decided again to postpone. Every year, millions of European citizens fall ill because of bad air quality. There is also ample evidence that air pollution aggravates the symptoms and suffering of whose health is already affected . the asthma and allergy patients and people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Recent scientific evidence has also demonstrated the links between air quality and other diseases such as breast cancer and diabetes. Air pollution is estimated to cause half a million premature deaths in Europe per year. Air Pollution therefore plays a major role in the environmental burden of disease and the rise in chronic diseases in Europe. This has significant implications for public health, and puts yet another strain on EU Member States budgets, which are already under pressure because of the economic crisis. Respiratory diseases are estimated to cause a yearly financial burden of 102 billion EUR in Europe due to healthcare costs and lost working days. An immediate revision of the NEC directive is therefore a crucial contribution to preventing further rises in diseases and deaths. In order to better protect European citizens health and Europe's biodiversity, current ceilings need to be revised with increased ambition as soon as possible. The current ceilings are far from sufficient to meet the 2010 interim health and environmental targets laid down in article 5 of the NEC Directive. Also, a revised NEC will finally introduce ceilings for fine particles (PM2.5) the air pollutant estimated to cause the most harm to human health. We see no excuse for further delays, as these ceilings should have already been proposed in 2007. We would like to highlight that further delays imply huge economic losses for society. The cost benefit analyses available on the European Commission's website show that the monetised benefits of a revised NEC Directive will outweigh the costs involved by up to 47 times1. A revised NEC directive with ambitious targets can also help to reach the EU climate change policy goals. The NEC Directive is the key instrument which will allow Europe to reduce the effects of air pollution in Europe. We therefore call upon you to ensure the EU Commission will publish its proposal without any further delay, making clear, positive changes which would benefit every citizen of Europe for the years to come. In a recent Eurobarometer, EU citizens expressed great concern about the impacts of bad air on their health and expect the EU decisionmakers to act. We hope that you will listen to the voice of EU citizens and the ample public health evidence and tackle a NEC revision as soon as possible. Yours sincerely, Genon Jensen - Executive Director Health and Environment Alliance Susanna Palkonen - Executive Officer European Federation of Allergy and Airways Diseases Patients' Associations Jon Ayres - Chairman European Respiratory Society Environment and Health Committee 1 See cost-benefit analyses published on DG Environment's website such as the 2008 AEA "NEC CBA report #3" |
| 21/09/2010 |
To: MEPs Re: NGO recommendations for the EP vote on ENVI report (Biocide Regulation) To Members of the European Parliament NGO recommendations for the EP vote on ENVI report (Biocide Regulation (COM (2009) 0267)), Strasbourg 22 September 2010 Brussels, 21 September 2010 Dear Member of the European Parliament, On 22 September 2010 you will decide in the first reading about the position of the European Parliament concerning the Commission's proposal of a biocide regulation which shall replace the current Biocidal Products Directive (Directive 1998/8/EC). The regulation will fundamen-tally change the authorisation system of biocidal products. Among other things biocides, also in nano-form, are used in the area of hygiene, pest control and material protection, in order to control unwanted organisms. Although products like insecticides, disinfectants or textile pre-servatives can be linked to significant risks for humans and the environment they are often applied. Despite the fact that many biocides belong to the group of hazardous chemicals, the current drafts focuses on allowing easy approval of them all over the EU. The signed envi-ronmental and health NGOs believe that the report of the leading Environment Committee does not ensure the protection of consumers and the environment from biocide risks even though it includes some improvements. For this reason and in support of the recommenda-tions of the international scientific network Collegium Ramazzini1 and of the joint position of 20 European NGOs2 we urge you to consider the following amendments: Clarify the purpose of the regulation: Protect human and the environment from biocide risks. Article 1 shall be in line with the precautionary principle of the current EU chemical laws (like REACH, Regulation (EC) 1107/2009) and with the general aim of the EU to ensure a high level of protection of human health. Please support amendment 341. Encourage comparative assessment and substitution for the development of safer products for children: Problematic products such as developmental neurotoxic and immunotoxic biocides can severely harm the nervous system and brain development of children and cause irreversible, long term damages. Please support the substitution of these products where safer alternatives are available. Consider also non-chemical options and reject attempts to weaken the comparative assessment. Please support amendments 61, 62, 94, 106, 127, 353 and reject amendments 68, 122, 123, 126, 336, 337 D, 339, 340. Strengthen the cut-off regime and Member States flexibility: All efforts should be consistent enough in order to phase out highly hazardous biocides in the EU. It is necessary to restrict active substances like with PBT, endocrine disruptive or carcinogenic properties to real cases of emergency and to ensure their proper use. Member States should also have the flexibility to adjust authorizations to their national circumstances. Please support amendments 146, 342, 343, 351, 352 Establish sufficient data requirements and evaluation criteria for the authorisation scheme in order to ensure that potential hazards and risks of biocides and nano-biocides can be identified as well as combination effects of biocide mixtures. For instance, establish requirement of specific methods to assess the safety of nanomaterials. Please support amendments 88, 89, 97, 200, 203, 204, 272, 323, 324, 329, 346, 347, 348, 354 and reject amendments 245, 251, 260-265, 268, 270-271, 273, 275, 277, 289, 294, 301, 307, 313-315, 356 . Guarantee transparency for consumers: All biocidal products and biocide-treated articles should have a sufficient labeling which shall inform about all active ingredients and risks. This is particularly needed for parents to make informed choices about protecting their children. It is all the more necessary since biocide-treated products are numerous and consumers often use them on an everyday basis. We fear that some of the amendments tabled create unnecessary administrative burden and do not lead to clear and transparent labeling rules. Please support amendment 344 and reject amendments 183, 184, 185, 186. Initiate EU-provisions and strategies for the sustainable use of biocides: A Community framework for measures and objectives could contribute to minimise risks like of antimicrobial resistances due to overuse, improper use, environmental impacts or accidents. Please support amendments 84 and 221. Please do not hesitate to contact us in case of any questions. We should be most grateful if you consider our recommendations. Kind regards, Pesticide Action Network Germany, Christian Schweer (Biocide Coordinator EU) BBU - Federal Association of Environmental Ac-tion Groups, Harald Gülzow Det Økologiske Råd, Christian Ege BirdLife International, Tatiana Nemcova, Boris Barov Health and Environment Alliance, Anne Stauffer Health Care Without Harm Europe, Anja Leetz Fédération Inter-Environnement Wallonie, Valérie Xhonneux Women in Europe for a Common Future, Elisabeth Ruffinengo (Advocacy Officer) Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. (BUND), Jurek Vengels National Movement Friends of the Earth Bulgaria, Valentina Lukova Pesticide Action Network UK, Nick Mole (Policy Officer) PAN Europe, Gergely Simon (board member) MDRGF, François Veillerette & Angelo San Filippo Grüne Liga e.V., Bundeskontaktstelle Wasser, Michael Bender 1 Cf. Collegium Ramazzini (2010, 17 September): Control of Biocides in the European Union. The Co legium Ramazzini Calls for Action to Protect Human Health. Hyperlink: http://www.collegiumramazzini.org/d... 2 Cf. NGO recommendations for the ENVI vote on Klaß report (Biocide Regulation (COM (2009) 0267)), Brussels 22 June 2010. Hyperlink: http://www.pan-germany.org/download... |
| 01/09/2010 |
To: President Barroso Re: EU should support the stricter IMO regulation of the sulphur content in marine fuels in European ECAs Berlin, 1 September 2010 EU should support the stricter IMO regulation of the sulphur content in marine fuels in European ECAs Dear President Barroso, The signatories of this letter, representing various European environmental, health and labor associations, would like to express their deep concern at recent calls from certain (shipping) industry groups to weaken crucial marine sulphur limit regulations applying to European Emission Control Areas (ECAs). In their letter, the industry groups raise concerns about “negative consequences” with regard to the IMO emission standards for ECAs applying from 2015 which require the use of marine fuels with a maximum of 0.1 percent sulphur content. The environmental groups and labor associations are deeply concerned about this open attack on existing regulations that are essential for our health and environment. In particular, the argument raised by sections of the shipping industry of so-called “negative impacts on the competitiveness of industries in the affected EU countries” lacks any evidence and proof. Moreover, the argument should be reversed: If all sea areas around Europe (e.g. the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea and the North-East Atlantic in addition to existing SECAs in the Baltic and North Sea) would be designated as Emission Control Areas (ECAs) –covering emissions of sulphur, NOx and PM – a situation of balanced competitiveness would be created, protecting the health of thousands of people, preserving the environment and safeguarding jobs. In terms of preventing “negative consequences” for the shipping industry, it is from our viewpoint absolutely crucial to press for an eco-innovative ship industry in Europe. The IMO standards have been known for over two years now. They were strongly and publicly endorsed by the EU and were adopted unanimously by the IMO. More and more ship builders and owners have already reacted and invested in clean and efficient ship technologies they would be punished by reverting to lower standards again. In economic terms, remodeling, retrofitting and optimizing existing ships will create not just a market niche but a growing sector within the ship construction field considering the large size and long lifetime of the current ship fleet and the need for more efficient ships and engines. In economic terms, that means securing existing jobs and creating new ones around the technical modernization and reconstruction of older ships to increase energy efficiency and reduce emissions. The recent demand from some self-interested sections of the maritime industry to amend the IMO decision is unacceptable. The European Union has to clearly stand behind the new 2015 sulphur limits. Bunker fuels used in shipping are essentially toxic waste products of the refinery industry. Conversion to the use of low sulphur fuels is environmentally necessary and long overdue. Their use also provides good incentives for fuel reduction and therefore is also an important step to reduce overall ship emissions. We strongly urge the European Union to uphold and further support the IMO MARPOL decisions setting sulphur caps for designated ECAs as well as a global 0.5% limit in 2020. Even after the global regulation on sulphur comes into effect in 2020, shipping fuel will still contain around 500 times more sulphur than is allowed in road fuels in the EU today. For decades, the shipping industry has benefited from weak pollution regulations allowing them to pollute without paying. The European Commission needs to provide the leadership and technical advice for EU member states to support the additional designation of all European sea areas as ECAs within the framework of the IMO. The successful joint proposal of the U.S. and Canada for the designation of a distance-to-shore ECA covering their West and East coasts (which was approved by the IMO in March this year) shows that the EU should follow such a comprehensive approach to create the same economic condition all around European sea areas. As it is however, the European Commission has not even started the necessary technical work to investigate the feasibility of distance to shore ECAs in Europe. Nor has a firm decision been announced on the delayed revision of the Sulphur in Marine Fuels Directive (2005/33/EC). The EU’s support for the new IMO standards needs to be backed by action to incorporate them into EU legislation. This will also underpin port state authority to police the new regulations. The health and environmental benefits of coastal ECAs in Europe would be outstanding. Adjusted emission and fuel standards will help the shipping industry to develop more fuel and energy efficient ships and become a lead market for clean shipping. Because of the cross cutting character of this issue we are also sending these letters to Commissioners Sim Kallas (Transport), Janez Potočnik (Environment), Connie Hedegaard (Climate), Antonio Tajani (Industry & Entrepreneurship), and Maria Damanaki (Maritime Affairs and Fisheries). In view of the public interest in this matter we are making a copy available to certain media. Thank you for your attention to this important and urgent matter. On behalf of the signatories of this letter, Yours sincerely, Olaf Tschimpke, President NABU e.V. on behalf of the Soot free for the Climate Campaign Jutta Blankau, Regional head IG Metall Bezirk Küste (Industrial Metal Workers’ Union Coastal Region) Supporting organizations Environmental and health organizations: Soot free for the Climate Campaign Friends of the Earth, Germany German Environmental Aid, Germany Verkehrsclub Germany Nature and Biodiversity Conversion Union, Germany World Wide Fund For Nature Europe European Environmental Bureau, Europe/Brussels Health and Environmental Alliance, Europe/Brussels Transport and Environment, Europe/Brussels Verkehrsclub Austria The Clean Air Action Group (CAAG), Hungary Air Pollution and Climate Secretariat, Sweden Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Netherlands Clean Shipping Coalition, Europe Labor union organizations: IG Metall Bezirk Küste/ Industrial Metal Workers’ Union Coastal Region, Germany European Metalworkers‘ Federation, Europe/ Brussels International Transport Workers’ Federation Ver.di, Germany Fédération Générale des Mines et de la Métallurgie (FGMM-CFDT), France Confédération générale du travail (CGT), France Confédération française de l'encadrement - Confédération générale des cadres (CFE-CGC), France Central Organisation of Industrial Employees in Denmark (CO-industri), Denmark Metalliliitto / The Finnish Metalworkers' Union, Finland Metal, Construction and Allied Workers’ Federation/ Union General de Trabajadore (MCA-UGT), Spain General Workers Union, Malta |
| 23/06/2010 |
To: EFSA Re: Potential adverse health effects associated with BPA exposures Prof. Klaus-Dieter Jany Chair of the CEF Panel European Food Safety Authority Largo N. Palli 5/A 43121 Parma, Italy 23rd June 2010 Dear Prof. Jany, We are writing to welcome the announcement on the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) website that the CEF panel will be considering ‘hundreds of studies in its review and analysis of the most recent scientific literature’ in its review of the TDI of bisphenol-A in food contact products. Over the last decade and a half, a substantive body amounting to several hundred peer reviewed scientific papers, have been published that have highlighted potential adverse health effects associated with BPA exposures, at internal doses relevant to levels of biologically active BPA found in humans. As a March 2010 Review (Vandenberg et al) of 80 bio-monitoring studies of BPA in Environmental Health Perspectives makes clear; ‘The two toxicokinetic studies performed to date, which suggest that human exposure is negligible, have significant flaws and are therefore not reliable for risk assessment purposes.’ However, in its prior risk assessments of BPA, EFSA only relied on a small number of studies rather than the much larger number that the United States Food and Drug Administration recently recognised as valid and of high utility in its risk assessment of BPA, and which led the FDA to express concern about the health hazards posed by BPA. Only a tiny minority of studies have articulated that BPA exposure is completely safe, and many of these research papers have been criticised in academic commentaries and responses as having serious flaws, but it is these few flawed studies that EFSA previously relied on to declare BPA safe. For example, a letter co-authored by 24 scientists published in the February 2010 edition of Toxicological Sciences states; ‘Publishing studies that conclude no harm in response to low doses of endocrine disrupting chemicals, when the studies did not include a positive control (Tyl et al., 2002), included inappropriate doses of positive controls (Ryan et al., 2009; Tyl et al., 2008), or included positive controls that showed no effect (Cagen et al., 1999), is inappropriate in peer-reviewed journals (Myers et al., 2009a,b; vom Saal and Welshons, 2006). Such studies violate basic principles of study design.’ Many scientific studies are now calling into question the safety of BPA. For example, a recent study has highlighted that BPA may contribute to metabolic disorders relevant to glucose homeostasis, and suggests that BPA may be a risk factor for diabetes (Alonso-Magdalena et al., 2010). Moreover, experiments at Yale university report that BPA may induce altered developmental programming (Bromer et al.,2010), and Doherty et al (2010) of Yale university have published a study which raises the concern about epigenetic effects of BPA on the regulation of the mammary gland, with potential implications for breast cancer risk. Endometriosis is also a concern as work by Signorile et al (2010) highlights that pre-natal exposure of mice to bisphenol-A causes an endometriosis-like response in female offspring. It is therefore our opinion that any objective and comprehensive review of the scientific literature will lead to the conclusion that action is necessary to reduce the levels of BPA exposure, particularly in groups at highest risk, namely young infants and pregnant mothers. There are an increasing number of countries that are either already committed to this course of action, or have signalled that they will soon be undertaking similar measures. We share the concerns of these Governments and regulators and believe that reducing BPA exposure to these groups is both scientifically sound and in the best interest of public health. As such, we call on you as the Chair of the CEF panel and the CEF Committee Members in their ongoing review to include all relevant studies, including bio-monitoring studies, and based on that evidence we conclude that there is a strong scientific mandate for action. Yours sincerely, _Benson Akingbemi, Associate Professor, Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology, Auburn University, Auburn, USA. _Prof. Dr. Ibrahim Chahoud, Institute of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Dept. of Toxicology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin _André Cicolella, Dipl Eng chemist-toxicologist. _Prof. Patricia Hunt, Meyer Distinguished Professor, School of Molecular Biosciences, Washington State University _Prof. Maricel V. Maffini. Ph.D. Research Assistant Professor. Department of Anatomy and Cellular Biology, Tufts University School of Medicine _Jane Muncke, Ph.D, Environmental Toxicologist, Emhart Glass SA, Switzerland. _John Peterson Myers, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, Environmental Health Sciences, Charlottesville VA. _Angel Nadal, PhD, Professor of Physiology, Instituto de Bioingeniería and CIBERDEM, Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche, Spain. _Dr John Newby, Medical Information Scientist for the Cancer Prevention Society and Former Member of the Developmental Toxico-Pathology Research Group, Department of Human Anatomy & Cell Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Liverpool. _Prof. Jörg Oehlmann, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Institute for Ecology, Evolution and Diversity. _Prof. Nicolas Olea, MD, University of Granada, University hospital. _Prof. Gail S. Prins, PhD, Professor of Physiology, Department of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago. _Prof. Fredrick vom Saal, Curators Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia. _Prof. Pietro Giulio Signorile, President of the Italian Endometriosis Foundation. _Prof. Carlos Sonnenschein, MD, Department of Anatomy and Cellular Biology, Tufts University, School of Medicine. _Prof. Ana M Soto, MD, Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Tufts University, School of Medicine. _Prof. Hugh S. Taylor, M.D., Professor of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale University. _Laura N. Vandenberg, PhD, Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology, Tufts University. _Prof. Cheryl S. Watson, PhD, Professor, Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Dept. University of Texas, Medical Branch, Galveston. _Prof. Andrew Watterson, Occupational and Environmental Health Research Group, University of Stirling. _Prof. R. Thomas Zoeller, Biology Department, Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts. _Action for Breast Cancer, Malta _Alliance for Cancer Prevention, UK _Arnika, Czech Republic _Association for Environmental and Chronic Toxic Injury, Italy _Austrian section of ISDE (International Society of Doctors for the Environment), Austria _Breast Cancer Fund, USA _Breast Cancer UK, UK _BUND / Friends of the Earth Germany, Germany _Cancer Prevention and Education Society, UK _ChemSec –International Chemical Secretariat, International _CHEM Trust, UK _Chemical Sensitivity Network, Germany _Clean Air Action Group, Hungary _Comité pour le Développement Durable en Santé, France _Danish Consumer Council, Denmark _The Danish Ecological Council, Denmark _Eco-Accord Program on Chemical Safety, Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia _EcoAid, Germany _Ecologistas en Acción, Spain _Environmental Health Fund, USA _Environment Illinois, USA _European Environmental Bureau, EU _Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, Finland _Friends of the Earth Spain, Spain _Global 2000 / Friends of the Earth Austria, Austria _Health and Environmental Network, Europe _Health Care Without Harm, International _Indiana Toxics Action, USA _Instituto Sindical de Trabajo Ambiente y Salud, Spain _The Irish Doctors' Environmental Association, Ireland _Italian Endometriosis Foundation, Italy _Plastic Planet, Austria _Rachel's Friends Breast Cancer Coalition, USA _Réseau Environnement Santé, France _Society for Sustainable Living, Czech Republic _Unison, UK _VHUE e.V., Germany _Women in Europe for a Common Future, Europe _Women’s Environmental Network, Scotland _Women's Voices for the Earth, USA _WWF European Policy Office, Europe References _Vandenberg LN, Chauhoud I, Heindel JJ, Padmanabhan V, Paumgartten FJ, Schoenfelder G 2010. Urinary, Circulating and Tissue Biomonitoring Studies Indicate Widespread Exposure to Bisphenol A. Environ Health Perspect :-. doi:10.1289/ehp.0901716 http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/... _vom Saal FS, Akingbemi BT, Belcher SM, Crain DA, Crews D, Guidice LC, Hunt PA, Leranth C, Myers JP, Nadal A, Olea N, Padmanabhana V, Rosenfeld CS, Schneyer A, Schoenfelder G, Sonnenschein C, Soto AM, Stahlhut RW, Swan SH, Vandenberg LN, Wang H, Watson CS, Welshons WV and Zoeller RT. 2010. Flawed Experimental Design Reveals the Need for Guidelines Requiring Appropriate Positive Controls in Endocrine Disruption Research. Toxicological Sciences 2010 115(2):612-613; doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfq048 http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cg... _Alonso-Magdalena P, Vieira E, Soriano S, Menes L, Burks D, Quesada I, et al. 2010. Bisphenol-A Exposure during Pregnancy Disrupts Glucose Homeostasis in Mothers and Adult Male Offspring. Environ Health Perspect :-. doi:10.1289/ehp.1001993 http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/... _Bromer JG, Zhou Y, Taylor MB, Doherty L, Taylor HS. Bisphenol-A exposure in utero leads to epigenetic alterations in the developmental programming of uterine estrogen response. FASEB J. 2010 Feb 24. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 20181937. _Doherty L, Bromer JG, Zhou Y, Aldad TS and Taylor HS. In Utero Exposure to Diethylstilbestrol (DES) or Bisphenol-A (BPA) Increases EZH2 Expression in the Mammary Gland: An Epigenetic Mechanism Linking Endocrine Disruptors to Breast Cancer. Hormones and Cancer. DOI: 10.1007/s12672-010-0015-9. http://www.springerlink.com/content... _Signorile PG, Spugnini EP, Mita L, Mellone P, D’Avino A, Bianco M, Diano N, Caputo L, Rea F, Viceconte R, Portaccio M, Viggiano E, Citro G, Pierantoni R, Sica V, Vincenzi B, Damiano G. Mita DG, Baldi F and Baldi A. Pre-natal exposure of mice to bisphenol A elicits an endometriosis-like phenotype in female offspring. General and Comparative Endocrinology. doi:10.1016/j.ygcen.2010.03.030. |
| 15/06/2010 |
To: President van Rompuy Re: Stepping up the EU’s climate ambition could be a green way out of Europe’s economic blues 15 June 2010 Dear President van Rompuy, Europe’s financial woes are likely to get top billing at this week’s EU summit. Over the past few weeks, governments have announced cuts of billions of euros that will affect millions of Europeans. Hard times indeed. But stepping up the EU’s climate ambition could be a green way out of Europe’s economic blues. With stronger climate targets, European governments could create hundreds of thousands of new green jobs, according to a recent European Commission report. Instead of wasting cash on foreign oil and gas, EU countries could save up to €40 billion by boosting renewables. Savings in pollution control and health costs would be worth between €6.5 billion and €11.5 billion. A solid commitment for the climate could also help generate billions that could help governments consolidate their budgets. Upgrading the EU’s 2020 climate target from 20% to 30% would raise additional income of nearly €70 billion from emissions trading alone – a more than tidy sum to help EU countries reduce mounting budget deficits. (Based on new research, the table attached shows how much each country could gain.) A 40% cut in emissions, which scientists say could help head off the most catastrophic effects of climate change, would help raise even more income. But so far, you and other European politicians seem unwilling to harness these benefits. Since the Copenhagen climate conference, many European leaders have taken a back seat, claiming there was no way forward until the rest of the world caught up with the EU’s climate commitments. But while the EU waits for a diplomatic breakthrough, China and the United States speed ahead in the race for green technologies and energy independence. China has in fact already overtaken Europe in the production of solar panels and the installation of wind turbines. Representing Europe’s leading environmental organisations with over 20 million supporters, we ask you and other European leaders to act in the interest of competitiveness, of the people of Europe and of the environment we live in. We urge you to seriously consider the benefits of increasing Europe’s climate ambition at the EU summit this week and to follow up on your promise to hold a special summit on climate change in September. Slashing spending may help get European economies out of this recession, but investing in the transformation of the real economy will deliver technological innovation, greater resilience to fuel price fluctuations, increased revenues and greater energy security. We hope you recognise these facts and will lead your colleagues forward on Europe’s climate ambition. Yours sincerely, Angelo Caserta, Regional Director of the European Division – BirdLife International Matthias Duwe, Director – Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe asbl Anelia Stefanova, EU affairs coordinator – CEE Bankwatch Network John Hontelez, Secretary-General – European Environmental Bureau Magda Stoczkiewicz, Director – Friends of the Earth Europe Jorgo Riss, Director – Greenpeace European Unit Genon K. Jensen, Executive Director – Health & Environment Alliance Christian Baumgartner, Generalsekretär, Naturfreunde Internationale Jos Dings, Director – The European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E) Tony Long, Director – WWF European Policy Office |
| 09/06/2010 |
To: Commissioner Potocnik Re: NGO call for a prioritisation of air quality action (revision of the National Emission Ceilings and the Sulphur Content of Marine Fuels Directives) Brussels, 9 June 2010 To: Mr. Janez Potocnik, European Commissioner for the Environment Cc.: Mr. Karl Falkenberg, Director-General, DG Environment, European Commission Re: NGO call for a prioritisation of air quality action (revision of the National Emission Ceilings and the Sulphur Content of Marine Fuels Directives) Dear Commissioner Potocnik, As environment and health NGOs working on the improvement of air quality, we are writing to express our serious concerns about the Commission’s continued postponement of essential legislation in the field of air pollution. We previously wrote to you about air pollution from ships shortly after you took office but regrettably we feel the need to express our concerns more strongly and more specifically with this letter. Air pollutants are estimated to cause close to half a million premature deaths each year as well as severe damage to the environment through eutrophication, acidification and ground-level ozone throughout Europe. The revision of key legislation on emissions is therefore needed and would help Member States comply with limit values on ambient air quality which are currently exceeded in most parts of Europe. Given the importance of improving Europe’s air quality, and the synergistic effects of Commission work in other areas such as sustainable transport, climate change, health, biodiversity, and industrial policy (notably the Industrial Emissions Directive recast) we see no excuse for such delays and call upon you to raise the political profile of such an important issue affecting human and environmental health. In particular, we call upon you to activate without further delay the revision of the following legislation: Directive 2001/81/EC on national emission ceilings (NEC) The NEC Directive is the cornerstone of EU legislation to control overall levels of air pollution in Europe. The proposal for a revision of the NEC Directive was to be published in 2005, together with the Thematic Strategy on air pollution. However, the proposed revision has been repeatedly postponed by the European Commission. We would like to highlight that: Current national emission ceilings are not sufficient to meet even the interim health and environmental targets for 2010 laid down in the Directive, so new stricter ceilings are urgently needed. Moreover, without a revised NEC Directive, the overall emission of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which is the pollutant with the highest estimated impact on human health, will remain unregulated. Sector legislation (such as IED, vehicle emission standards, etc.) is necessary, but does not guarantee the attainment of environmental and health quality targets. Current EU efforts addressing climate change will benefit from new national emission ceilings as greenhouse gases and air pollutants generally come from the same sources. Recently agreed biodiversity targets for 2020 will not be met without a reduction of air pollution which is responsible for widespread acidification of soil and water and eutrophication of terrestrial and coastal ecosystems in Europe. Further postponement of the NEC revision may result in increased costs for Member States and industry which need enough lead-in time to implement new ceilings. The cost-benefit analysis done in preparation of the NEC revision shows that the benefits for health, the environment and the economy will significantly outweigh the costs involved. Further postponement of the NEC will have wider international implications, such as slowing down progress under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) in revising the Gothenburg Protocol and risking undermining the EU’s credibility in these negotiations. One important consequence of the Gothenburg Protocol is that measures to reduce emissions are also implemented in non-EU countries influencing health and ecosystems within the EU. With a revised NEC Directive to refer to, the EU would strengthen its position in these negotiations and likely also improve the overall outcome of these negotiations. Directive 2005/33: Sulphur Content of Marine Fuels Directive Emissions of air pollution from sea-going ships are continuously increasing and are becoming one of the most pressing air pollution problems in Europe. This is happening despite existing cost-effective means to reduce shipping air pollution by as much as 80-90 per cent. A simple and efficient way of reducing emissions of SO2 and PM is to reduce the sulphur content of marine fuels. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) took a major step forward in 2008 through amendments to Marpol Annex VI which set stricter marine sulphur limits worldwide in 2020 and enabled the establishing of emission control areas where more stringent limits would apply earlier. The US and Canada have already established such an emission control area around their coasts and the US recently enshrined the IMO provisions in its legislation. EU legislation needs similarly to reflect the IMO decisions and the 2008 review of Directive 2005/33 was specifically delayed until 2010 to do just that. We see no justification for a further delay or a piecemeal approach to revising this Directive. The Commission should adopt IMO standards as soon as possible in 2010 to signal its commitment to these breakthrough standards and to provide industry with a clear basis for developing sulphur abatement measures and the long term investments to meet the 2015 and 2020 limits. The Commission also needs to take an active role in assessments and consultations to expand emission control areas around Europe as they will play a critical part in Europe being able to meet environment objectives and air quality standards. As this new Commission continues to settle in, we call upon you to fight for the importance of improved air quality in Europe, to build upon work being done in other policy areas but which need the support of air quality legislation. The immediate revision of these two Directives is key in achieving clean air for Europe. Yours sincerely, John Hontelez, Secretary General, European Environmental Bureau Jos Dings, Director, Transport and Environment Christer Ågren, Director, Air Pollution and Climate Secretariat Genon Jensen, Executive Director, Health and Environment Alliance |
| 20/05/2010 |
To: MEPs Re: Call for restriction of BFRs and PVC in electrical and electronic equipment in the RoHS revision The RoHS Directive must, in accordance with its stated objectives, consider the impact of chemical substances and their transformation products in the production, use and waste phase. It should therefore promote the substitution of hazardous substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE) to protect the environment and human health and enhance the possibilities for recycling, based on swift uptake of new scientific evidence, and the precautionary principle. We, the undersigned public interest organisations, accordingly urge the European Parliament to strengthen the European Commission proposal for a revised RoHS Directive, and in particular: Restrict by 2015 at the latest halogenated organic substances in EEE, to a maximum of 0,1% (w/w) such as Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs) and Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) that cause serious concern throughout their lifecycle (production, use, disposal) and hamper recyclability Background The objective of the RoHS Directive is to protect human health and the environment and, more specifically, to contribute to environmentally sound recovery and disposal of electrical and electronic equipment1. Many substances with undesirable properties such as being Persistent, Bio-accumulative and Toxic (PBTs) or Carcinogenic, Mutagenic or Toxic for Reproduction (CMRs), endocrine disrupting or otherwise hazardous because of their nanoscale, are used in many Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE). In order to eliminate the adverse effects of hazardous substances and highly toxic transformation products in the life cycle of EEE, a number of prominent actors, equipment manufacturers and component suppliers have invested in substitution of hazardous substances in EEE including a general phase-out of halogenated organic substances. Their efforts have led to the transformation of the electronics supply-chain globally. This is not only due to the global nature of the supply chains in the EEE industry but also due to the fact that the EU RoHS legislation has been taken over by many other political entities outside the EU. In the case of RoHS, and contrary to what is commonly assumed, globalization has not led to a race to the bottom in environment and health protection policy. RoHS has triggered the introduction of similar regulations in California, China, Japan and South Korea. Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand are currently considering the introduction of a similar policy. Setting a new high environment and health protection standard through the current RoHS revision in the EU will improve the environment and health both inside and beyond the EU. EU regulators now have a unique possibility support and uphold the momentum gained in parts of the industry by strengthening the RoHS Directive. We, the undersigned public interest organisations, consequently urge you to strengthen the European Commission proposal for a revised RoHS Directive. Some supporting arguments: Some phthalates which are used as plasticizers in PVC are classified in the EU as toxic to reproduction, recognised as Substances of Very High Concern under REACH2, and are also Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs)3. The endocrine disrupting effects of halogenated flame retardants like TBBP-A are also demonstrated in the scientific literature4,5. TBBP-A is widely used in EEE - about 40.000 tonnes per year in the EU alone - and has been found in human blood-samples and human breast milk as well as in remote regions including the Arctic and in all kinds of animals (in wide variety of marine organisms, predatory birds, etc). Although there remain scientific gaps in order to determine the official classification of TBBP-A, existing evidence indicates that TBBP-A is very toxic to aquatic organisms; is persistent and potentially very persistent, and there are potential endocrine disruption effects. Another reason for banning halogenated organic substances and materials in EEE is because they have the potential to form dioxins and furans when incinerated under suboptimal conditions or otherwise subjected to thermal stress like extrusion, moulding, shredding or sunlight exposure. Dioxins are classified as very toxic and very persistent substances, and are recognized as priority contaminants in the Stockholm Convention for the elimination of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Thus their formation is both a local and global problem and damages health and environment at a global scale, irrespective of where they are formed. The restriction of halogenated organic substances will: increase the reusability and recyclability of EEE and, at the same time, protect humans and especially vulnerable groups like babies and children and highly exposed populations such as workers in the electronics recycling industry from cumulative exposure to chemicals that are demonstrated to pose severe health hazards confirm progress and support the momentum gained in parts of the industry by strengthening their voluntary substitution commitments improve the environment and public health both inside and beyond the EU For more information on alternatives to BFRs please consult “Alternatives to Brominated Flame retardants “ presented on 23rd March 2010 by the Phosphorus, Inorganic, Nitrogen Flame Retardants Association http://www.chemsec.org/images/stori... European_Parliament_RoHS_20100323_Final.pdf Please also see Industry Position Papers supporting the proposals for PVC and BFR substance bans in the RoHS revision by: ACER http://www.chemsec.org/images/stori... Cl_Br-free_of_RoHS_Revision.pdf), Hewlett Packard http://www.chemsec.org/images/stori... and Dell http://i.dell.com/sites/content/cor.... pdf 1 Article 1, 2002/95/EC, RoHS Directive. 2 REACH Regulation No 1907/2006, OJEU 29.05.2007. Substances of Very High Concern list: http://echa.europa.eu/chem_data/aut... 3 See the ‘Priority List’ and studies commissioned for European Commission’s DG Environment, where ‘Category 1’ EDCs are listed: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/end... 4 Lilienthal, H., Verwer, C.M., Van der Ven, L.T.M., Piersma, A.H., Vos, J.G., 2008. Neurobehavioral effects of tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) in rats after pre- and postnatal exposure. Toxicology 5 Van der Ven LT, Van de Kuil T, Verhoef A, Verwer CM, Lilienthal H, Leonards PE, Schauer UM, Cantón RF, Litens S, De Jong FH, Visser TJ, Dekant W, Stern N, Håkansson H, Slob W, Van den Berg M, Vos JG, Piersma AH., 2008. Endocrine effects of tetrabromobisphenol-A (TBBPA) in Wistar rats as tested in a one-generation reproduction study and a subacute toxicity study. Toxicology |
| 14/04/2010 |
To: MEPs Re: Strengthen health protection and include health co-benefits in adaptation policy Brussels, 14 April 2010 To: Members of the European Parliament Concerning: Plenary vote on the European Parliament Report on the European Commission White Paper: “Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action’ (COM (2009)0147 - 2009/2152 (INI)).” Plenary vote on 21 April 2010 Strengthen health protection and include health co-benefits in adaptation policy Dear Member of the European Parliament, We, the undersigned leading European health and medical organisations are writing about the forthcoming Plenary Vote on the European Parliament Report (A7- 0057/2010) on the Commission White Paper: “Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action (COM (2009)0147 - 2009/2152 (INI)”. We welcome that the Parliament’s Report contains its own chapter on ‘Health and social policies’, and contains recitals and articles that seek to take into consideration the range of climaterelated health impacts, promote protection of public health, take into account health cobenefits, and recognise the important role of the health sector in adaptation. We urge you to vote in favour of those recitals and articles (Annex I) in the Report (A7- 0057/2010) that would strengthen health protection and include health co-benefits in adaptation policy. Please vote in favour of recitals D and H; and articles 47, 48, 50, 110. As you are aware, climate change will affect people, their economies and ecosystem in disproportionate ways. For example, those already ill, the poor and disadvantaged populations, children and the elderly would be most at risk. The health sector will need to be at the forefront responding to the effects of climate change, and developing adaptation measures which do not add further to the climate problem. Increased awareness and resources are needed to ensure this happens and provide support for the sector’s efforts in reducing its climate footprint as recently highlighted in the WHO/HCWH discussion paper: ‘Healthy Hospitals, Healthy Planet, Healthy People: Addressing climate change in healthcare settings1’. We are pleased to see that Parliament’s Report (A7-0057/2010) acknowledges the need to halt global warming at 2°C, and that current pledges do not go far enough in order to prevent even more drastic health impacts from climate change, such as increased deaths from respiratory and vector borne disease, for example. Science suggests that a reduction in greenhouse gases by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 is the minimum required to keep global warming well below the dangerous 2°C level. Action at this level would significantly improve people’s health, reduce Member States' rising healthcare costs, and protect our fragile ecosystems. Finally, we would ask you to support article 48 on ensuring that adaptation measures that are promoted are also those that provide “health co-benefits”. The benefits to health of tackling climate change can offset much of the costs of global action, as is outlined in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment report, chapter 8 on human health2. European studies have also clearly shown that stronger greenhouse gas emission reduction targets can protect health. For example, research commissioned by HEAL, CAN and WWF in 2008 has shown that a 30% target would result in estimated health benefits measured in monetary terms of up to 76 billion Euros per year from 2020 onwards.3 We look forward to working with you to ensure that health becomes a cornerstone of international and EU climate change mitigation and adaptation policy. Sincerely, Genon K. Jensen, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) On behalf of: Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWH Europe) European Respiratory Society (ERS) Climate and Health Council (CHC) International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE) AerztInnen fuer eine gesunde Umwelt, AeGU (ISDE) Austria The Standing Committee of European Doctors (CPME) Association for Environmental Health(EGYESÜLET A KÖRNYEZET-SZSÉGÜGYÉRT – E.K.E.) Partners voor Gezond Leefmilieu (PGL) Platform Gezondheid en Milieu (PGM) Bewonersgroep Waterland Fédération Inter-Environnement Wallonie Communities Against Toxics Action for Breast Cancer Foundation 1. World Health Organization and Health Care Without Harm, April 2009. Healthy Hospitals, Healthy Planet, Healthy People: Addressing climate change in health care settings. Available at: http://www.who.int/globalchange/pub.... 2. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report – Chapter 8 – Human Health; http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r... chapter8.pdf 3. The co-benefits to health of a strong EU climate change policy, 2008, CAN Europe, Health and Environment Alliance, WWF http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/C... See also: recent study on health co-benefits: Lancet Series report on Health and Climate Change, 25 November 2009 http://www.thelancet.com/series/hea... Annex I Please support the following in the Plenary Vote on 21 April 2010 Recitals D and H: D. whereas the target of halting global warming at +2°C would still mean a warming scenario for Europe, marked by extreme regional climate changes, and whereas the current pledges notified to the UNFCCC would add up to warming of +3.5-4°C if implemented, H. whereas, according to the European Respiratory Society, for every Celsius degree increase in temperature over a given city-specific threshold, mortality amongst those with respiratory problems increases by 6%, Articles 47, 48, 50 and 110: 47. Welcomes the proposals of the Commission to develop guidelines and surveillance mechanisms on the health impact of climate change by 2011; underlines the increasing risk of propagation of vectorborne diseases, the serious impacts on respiratory health and the need to educate European citizens about effective preventive measures recommended by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control; 48. Notes that the health impacts of climate change are likely to impact the hardest on the most deprived communities, the poorest populations and the most vulnerable groups, such as children, the elderly and those who are already ill; regards it as essential for adaptation measures to be considered in the context of health inequalities, and for such measures to encourage action that promotes health cobenefits; 50. Recognises the role the health sector plays in adaptation; calls on the EU to support action to reduce the sector’s carbon footprint, and to ensure adequate financing for adaptation measures in the health sector; 110. Supports the proposal of the Commission to set up an impact and adaptation steering group; stresses that it is important for this group to involve regional and local actors in addition to state representatives; asks the Commission to ensure that this group includes representatives of Parliament as observers , as well as private stakeholders in an expert capacity; calls on the Commission to ensure that the steering group pays particular attention to the most severe health impacts of climate change, such as increases in weather-related deaths and vector-borne disease; |
| 07/04/2010 |
To: ITRE Committee Re: NGO vote recommendations in view of the vote in the ITRE-Committee on the amendments to the Commission’s proposal for a biocidal regulation (COM 0267) To Members of the EP Committee for Industry, Transport and Research (ITRE) NGO vote recommendations in view of the vote in the ITRE-Committee on the amendments to the Commission’s proposal for a biocidal regulation (COM 0267), Brussels 7 April 2010 Dear Member of the Committee, On the 7th April 2010 you will vote on the amendments to the Commission’s draft for a biocide regulation. These amendments are tabled by the ITRE rapporteur Sajjad Karim and further members of the Committee. Your decision can contribute to better regulate the authorisation of products like insecticides, disinfectants, nano-biocides and rodenticides. We urge you to ensure the highest level of protection for human health and the environment, since biocide products are typically used by consumers with limited awareness of the product and their impact. This can lead to misuse of the product and uncontrolled disposal of intrinsically hazardous substances which can have adverse effects, in particular to vulnerable groups and the environment. We believe that a revised and strengthened biocide regulation can also ensure a clear incentive framework for research and innovation in sustainable alternatives of pest management. With regard to these aspects, Fédération Inter-Environnement Wallonie, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), Health Care Without Harm Europe, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe, PAN Germany, PAN UK and Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) welcome and support the following amendments as they address significant challenges of the Commission’s draft. Please vote for the following amendments: ensure a clear framework to ban highly hazardous biocides (amendments 31, 72, 75) establish coordinated actions for the use phase of biocides (amendments 91 and 92) support products with substances of no concern (amendment 99) promote transparency (amendments 43, 174, 192-194) introduce efforts to identify and tackle impacts of nano-biocides (amendments 185, 186) Furthermore, we believe that it is necessary to continue with the current standards for the functioning of a sustainable common market. Therefore, please vote against the following amendments: introduction of vague exemptions that risk an EU-wide approval of highly toxic substances applied in drinking water plants (amendments 6 and 74) loopholes that prevent a clear and timely substitution regime (amendments 83-84, 109-116, 199) problematic simplification of the EU-wide distribution of products that may result in anti-microbiological resistancies or other serious impacts for human health and the environment (amendments 12, 30, 138-140) weakening of provisions for treated articles (amendments 36, 162-164, 167-169, 172- 173) We should be most grateful if you consider our recommendations. Please do not hesitate to contact us for further information. Yours sincerely, Pesticide Action Network Germany Christian Schweer (Biocide Coordinator EU) Pesticide Action Network UK Nick Mole (Policy Officer) Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Anne Stauffer Pesticide Action Network Europe/ Clean Air Action Group Gergely Simon (Board member) Women in Europe for a Common Future Demi Theodori Health Care Without Harm Europe Anja Leetz (Executive Director) Fédération Inter-Environnement Wallonie 150 associations au service de l'environnement Valérie Xhonneux |
| 29/03/2010 |
To: ENVI Committee Re: Please ensure the recognition of the role of environmental and occupational factors in cancer and the primary prevention of cancer ENVI Vote on Commission communication on Action against Cancer: European Partnership (7 April, 2010) Please ensure the recognition of the role of environmental and occupational factors in cancer and the primary prevention of cancer Dear Member of the ENVI Committee, One in ten women in Europe are getting breast cancer. Male reproductive health problems which heighten men’s risk for testicular and prostate cancer later in life also seem to be rising across Europe. Cancers in children are increasing by a shocking 1% every year. Altogether it is estimated that one in three people in the EU will develop some form of cancer during their lifetime. The European Parliament has a unique opportunity to guide future EU action to reduce cancer and respond to increasing environmental health science which shows that chemical pollution in our environment and occupational settings plays a role, as recognised in previous European Parliament resolutions. The environmental contamination factors for cancer include exposure to the following in water, air, soil, food and physical items: Cancer causing chemicals (carcinogens) DNA altering chemicals (mutagens) Hormone disrupting chemicals (endocrine disruptors) as well as the more well known factors such as tobacco smoke, radiation, and UV rays. In order to prevent further rising of cancer rates, it is therefore crucial to not only consider individual lifestyle changes and screening, but to clearly include environmental and occupational, and specifically chemical pollution and non-voluntary exposures, especially those of fetuses and young children, in cancer prevention programmes and actions. At the next ENVI meeting on 7 April, you can help to ensure that action on environmental contamination factors in cancer is given the importance it deserves. The undersigned organisations call on you to support the amendments listed below to the Draft Report by Alojz Peterle on Action Against Cancer. We urge you to vote for wording that clearly expresses the need to address the environmental and occupational dimension in preventing cancer. This concerns particularly involuntary exposures to harmful chemicals linked to cancer so that primary prevention is distinct from early detection (screening), and individual lifestyle measures. Please vote for amendments (see attached Voting Recommendation sheet): 3, 6-9, 12, 13, 20, 21, 24, 36, 44, 45, 54, 55, 57, 59, 62-64, 66, 73, 80, 81. These amendments listed above Define ‘environmental factors’; and distinguishes primary and secondary prevention Ensure prevention includes work on environmental contamination factors Call for research on environmental factors, and resources on environmental prevention Call for swifter action on the Community Strategy on Endocrine Disruptors We hope you will agree that every effort is needed to reduce the breast cancer epidemic, combat testicular cancer and reduce childhood cancer rates, and this includes addressing environmental and chemical contamination as part of the wider effort. Sincerely, Genon Jensen, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) On behalf of: The European Respiratory Society (ERS) Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWH) International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE) USA Cancer Prevention Coalition Pesticide Action Network Europe UK Alliance for Cancer Prevention Action for Breast Cancer Foundation, Malta Stichting Ecobaby, the Netherlands Initiativ Liewensunfank, Luxembourg AKUT Environmental Health and Indoor Air Quality, Luxembourg Association for Research and Treatments Against Cancer (ARTAC), France CHEMTrust, UK Cancer Prevention and Education Society, UK Pesticide Action Network, UK Breast Cancer UK Doctors for a Healthy Environment, Austria (ISDE Austria) Foundation Against Cancer, Belgium Federation Inter-Environment Wallonie (IEW), Belgium Flanders Physicians for the Environment (VLAMM), Belgium National Center of Public Health Protection (NCPHP), Sofia, Bulgaria Clean Air Action Group, Hungary |
| 08/03/2010 |
To: ENVI Committee Re: Proposals to amend the European Parliament draft report on the “Commission White Paper: ‘Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action’ (2009/2152 (INI)) Brussels, 8 March 2010 To: Members of the European Parliament Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI Committee) Concerning: Proposals to amend the European Parliament draft report on the “Commission White Paper: ‘Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action’ (2009/2152 (INI)).” Upcoming ENVI Vote on 16 March on Adapting to Climate Change: Strengthen health protection and include health co-benefits in adaptation policy Dear Member of the ENVI Committee, We, the undersigned leading European health and medical organisations are writing about the upcoming ENVI Vote on the “Commission White Paper: ‘Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action’ (2009/2152 (INI). We welcome that the ENVI draft report has its own chapter on ‘Health and social policies’, but would urge you to strengthen your draft report by voting for the amendments (Annex I below) that would take into consideration the range of climate-related health impacts, promote protection of public health, take into account health co-benefits, and recognise the important role of the health sector in adaptation. Please support amendments: 9, 14, 76, 78, 81 and 171. As you are aware, climate change will affect people, their economies and ecosystem in disproportionate ways. For example, those already ill, the poor and disadvantaged populations, children and the elderly would be most at risk. The health sector will need to be at the forefront responding to the effects of climate change, and developing adaptation measures which do not add further to the climate problem. Increased awareness and resources are needed to ensure this happens and provide support for the sector’s efforts in reducing its climate footprint as recently highlighted in the WHO/HCWH discussion paper: ‘Healthy Hospitals, Healthy Planet, Healthy People: Addressing climate change in healthcare settings1’. We are pleased to see amendments about the need to halt global warming at 2°C, and that current pledges do not go far enough in order to prevent even more drastic health impacts from climate change, such as increased deaths from respiratory and vector borne disease, for example. Science suggests that a reduction in greenhouse gases by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 is the minimum required to keep global warming well below the dangerous 2°C level. Action at this level would significantly improve people’s health, reduce Member States' rising healthcare costs, and protect our fragile ecosystems. Finally, we would ask you to support amendment 78 on ensuring that adaptation measures that are promoted are also those that provide “health co-benefits”. The benefits to health of tackling climate change can offset much of the costs of global action, as is outlined in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment report, chapter 8 on human health2. European studies have also clearly shown that stronger greenhouse gas emission reduction targets can protect health. For example, research commissioned by HEAL, CAN and WWF in 2008 has shown that a 30% target would result in estimated health benefits measured in monetary terms of up to 76 billion Euros per year from 2020 onwards.3 We look forward to working with you to ensure that health becomes a cornerstone of international and EU climate change mitigation and adaptation policy. Sincerely, Genon K. Jensen, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) On behalf of: Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWH Europe) European Respiratory Society (ERS) Climate and Health Council (CHC) International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE) AerztInnen fuer eine gesunde Umwelt, AeGU (ISDE) Austria The Standing Committee of European Doctors (CPME) Vlaamse Artsen voor Milieu & Maatschappij (VLAMM). 1 World Health Organization and Health Care Without Harm, April 2009. Healthy Hospitals, Healthy Planet, Healthy People: Addressing climate change in health care settings. Available at: http://www.who.int/globalchange/pub.... 2 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report – Chapter 8 – Human Health; http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r... chapter8.pdf 3. The co-benefits to health of a strong EU climate change policy, 2008, CAN Europe, Health and Environment Alliance, WWF http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/C... See also: recent study on health co-benefits: Lancet Series report on Health and Climate Change, 25 November 2009 http://www.thelancet.com/series/hea... |
| 23/02/2010 |
To: ENVI Committee Re: NGO position on the draft Klaß report concerning the biocide regulation To Members of the EP Committee for Environment NGO position on the draft Klaß report concerning the biocide regulation (EP Envi Committee Meeting, 23 February 2010) Dear Member of the ENVI Committee, on 23 February 2010 you will consider the draft report of MEP Christa Klass (EPP) on the Commission’s proposed biocide regulation (COM (2009) 267 final). CEPTA, Grüne Liga, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), Fédération Inter- Environnement Wallonie, Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF), Mouvement pour le Droit et le Respect des Générations Futures (MDRGF), Clean Air Action Group Hungary, NABU, National Movement Friends of the Earth Bulgaria, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Germany, PAN UK and PAN Europe welcome several amendments of the draft report as they will improve the Commission’s proposal at crucial passages: requirements for water protection, new provisions regarding hazardous substances and information. Despite these positive amendments, we believe that the report is not balanced enough. It devotes too much focus on individual technical or industry-related issues rather than to significantly tackling the big challenges and open questions of the Commission’s proposal associated with the marketing and use of problematic biocides in Europe. The report’s suggestions neither effectively protect the environment and human health, nor initiate a consistent change towards the phasing-out of hazardous substances and an innovative framework for the development and application of low-risk products and other sound pest management alternatives (please see our key demands on the biocide regulation). In particular, we urge you to promote changes in the report which will ensure: A better protection of human health and the environment from adverse effects of biocides, particularly for vulnerable groups and biodiversity a strict cut-off system a real low-risk approach a clear framework for the promotion of sound alternatives sufficient data-requirements a systematic approach for the use phase a guarantee of public access to information In detail, we urge you to improve the report to: 1. Better protect human health and the environment from adverse effects of biocides, particularly the health of vulnerable groups and biodiversity – amend Articles 1 and 3 On the one hand, we understand the rapporteur’s amendment 10 as an initiative to protect human and animal health and the environment in principle and at a high level. We welcome this modification as a step forward. However, the regulation should also include the goal of ensuring that human health and the environment are protected from adverse effects of biocides. This would bring the Biocides regulation in line with the chemicals legislation REACH and the recently adopted Regulation on Plant Protection Products (Regulation no. 1107/2009). Increasing scientific evidence is emerging that shows certain groups of the population such as pregnant women or children are especially vulnerable to harmful effects of chemical substances, including biocides. The Regulation on Plant Protection Products recognizes their vulnerability and ensures that their specific sensitivity is taken into account in risk assessment and authorisation. The rapporteur’s draft report on Biocides should be brought in line with these provisions. It is also important to ensure that biocides and their use do not adversely affect biodiversity and Europe’s endangered species. 2. A strict cut-off system – amend Articles 5 and 45 Although the rapporteur’s draft will include in the cut-off criteria environment-related obligations and will introduce criteria for endocrine-disrupting substances (see amendment 27), the whole approach remains insufficient. Her approach, just like the Commission proposal, would still allow cancerogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) substances and other highly hazardous substances on the market. We think there should not be derogations from the exclusion criteria in art. 5. Article 45 offers a sufficient framework in cases of emergency but should be also strengthened for the protection of human health and the environment. 3. A real low-risk approach – amend Articles 3, 16 and 17 Nothing has been done to close the loopholes in the concept for low-risk products in the Commission proposal. Although such products will be eligible for an EU-wide authorisation (= one-zone approach of authorisation), the new approach will significantly weaken the current provisions of the Biocidal Products Directive for low-risk products (e.g. no sufficient assessment of the relevant active ingredients as they don’t have to be approved for inclusion into Annex I, no ban on substances of concern). All substances for low-risk products should be included in Annex I (undergo risk assessment) and should be of low hazard. The absence of exposure is not enough grounds for classifying a biocide as low-risk. 4. A clear framework for the promotion of sound alternatives – amend Articles 3, 9, 21, 33, 44, 70 Instead of strengthening the substitution principle (e.g. by means of introducing mandatory substitution/phasing-out plans) and supporting efforts for the development and marketing of real low-risk products, the rapporteur’s approach is to guarantee a centralised authorisation for every kind of biocidal product even though such products can include ingredients of concern (cf. amendment 57ff). We are particularly concerned that the EU standards for risk assessment and authorisation of insecticides will be replaced with the WHO Pesticides Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES, amendment 12). WHOPES functions through the participation of representatives of governments, manufacturers of pesticides and pesticide application equipment etc. It does not meet European standards of transparency and participation. As well, insecticides can be very harmful and WHOPES does not necessarily consider environment- related issues, sound alternatives or how to protect vulnerable citizens and endangered ecosystems at regional or local level from the adverse effects of insecticides. 5. Sufficient data requirements – amend Articles 16, 19, Annex II & IV Necessary amendments in order to strengthen the data requirements are still absent. This is problematic as the Commission’s proposed authorisation system does not sufficiently assess new active substances or products, especially on impact of their metabolites and combination effects on vulnerable groups or sustainable uses of natural resources, effects on natural drinking water sources or impacts on the biodiversity of the marine environment and groundwater dependent ecosystems. The rapporteur’s proposal can even contribute to more complicated situations as it introduces possibilities for the non-assessment of substances (amendment 46) and for further derogatory simplifications of the evaluation and authorisation procedure (e.g. amendment 67: reducing the time line for evaluating assessments). 6. A systematic approach for the use phase – amend Article 15 The already documented high number on poisoning incidents in Europe should instigate ambitious and binding efforts for the use phase (e.g. training measures, certification schemes, definition of good practice and sensitive areas). We welcome the rapporteur’s initiative to introduce measures for elucidation in order to minimise the use of biocides (amendment 94). But this should only be a part of a more systematic approach within a strategy for an integrated pest management and within national action plans. For this reason, it is necessary to initiate a framework directive for the use phase which should be established in a clear time line. Such a framework is already introduced in order to regulate the use phase of pesticides. 7. Guarantee public access to information – amend Articles 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 All information on substances, their health and environmental impacts as well as statistics should be publicly available and regularly updated. The Commission’s proposal weakens current standards of the biocide legislation by repealing obligations for publishing implementation reports. We are also concerned that the rapporteur’s draft will establish new possibilities for data protection (amendments 83 & 85) instead of opposing the weaker implementation standards. Consequently, there is still a severe gap on transparency and a lack of requirements for sufficient reporting on the biocide market, citizen’s exposure to biocides and relevant effects on humans, animals and the environment. As well, obligations for a specific labelling of products which contain nano-biocides or which have been manufactured by means of nano-technology are still missing. Hence, consumers will be faced with an intransparent situation. We should be most grateful if you considered our comments and recommendations. Please do not hesitate to ask for further information. Yours sincerely, Pesticide Action Network Germany, Christian Schweer Pesticide Action Network UK, Nick Mole (Policy Officer) CEPTA - Centre for Sustainable Alternatives, Daniel Lesinsky Women in Europe for a Common Future, Demi Theodori Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), Anne Stauffer Pesticide Action Network Europe/ Clean Air Action Group, Gergely Simon (Board member) |
| 26/01/2010 |
To: ENVI Committee Re: Report on the proposed regulation on food information to consumers Brussels, 26 January 2010 Environment and Health NGOs’ comments on labelling of foodstuffs: Environment Committee’s report on the proposed regulation on food information to consumers [Discussion of amendments in ENVI, 27 January 2010 – Sommer report] The Health and Environment NGOs welcome the Commission’s proposal on an EU regulation on the provision of food information to consumers. Our interest in this report concerns the information consumers will receive about the presence of the toxic mercury. We therefore especially welcome the submission of amendment 541 concerning labelling of the mercury content of meat from large predatory fish or foodstuffs containing meat from these fish species. The amendment would add: 'contains methylmercury- not recommended for pregnant or breastfeeding women, women who might become pregnant, and children' to be added immediately after the list of ingredients. In absence of a list of ingredients, the statement should accompany the name of the food. Mercury is highly toxic, causing damage to the human nervous system at even relatively low levels of exposure.ii Mercury travels globally throughout the atmosphere and becomes deposited in soils and water. Microbial metabolism then creates the most toxic form of mercury, methylmercury, whose damage to the human brain and nervous system is well documented. In particular, it can damage the brain of babies before birth, and children while their brains are still developing. It readily passes both the placental and the blood-brain barrier, therefore, exposures during pregnancy are of highest concern. Exposure to mercury is also linked to kidney and liver damage, and the impairment of cardiovascular, immune and reproductive systems. Methylmercury has the capacity to collect in human and animal bodies (bioaccumulate) and to concentrate up food chains (biomagnify), especially in the largest, oldest predatory fish which are at the top of the fish food chain. This is why the Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection has recommended that women who are breastfeeding or who are or might become pregnant should limit their consumption of large predatory fish, such as swordfish, shark, marlin, pike and tunaiii. We therefore urge you to support amendment 541: Multiple studies demonstrate the need for better information to consumers: The Zero Mercury Working Group released in February 2009 a study “Mercury in fish, a global health hazard”, where fish were tested for their mercury content in six countries in Europe, among others,. For the EU, two clear concerns emerge – adults and children who eat greater-thanaverage amounts of fish may get excessive methymercury exposure even if the average mercury level in their fish is relatively modest, and people who prefer to eat predatory, mercuryaccumulating species can easily be exposed to excessive methylmercury doses if they eat those fish often.iv (the executive summary of the report is also available in ES, FR, PT) The EU Commission Extended Impact Assessment on Mercury noted that there is evidence of continuing exposures at or above the recommended ‘safe’ levels among some of the European population, and especially in coastal areas of Mediterranean countries and the Arctic1. Initial indications from various studies are that European exposure could be equivalent to that in the USA, where it is estimated that one in six women could bear a mercury-damaged child. A US studyv estimates that between 300,000-600,000 babies born each year suffer from intelligence loss due to methylmercury exposure, which costs an estimated 8.7 billion dollars a year in lost earnings to the economy..vi Several Member States and other countries, such as U.S., Australia and New Zealand, have already issued specific advice to vulnerable groups to limit their intake or abstain from the intake of certain species of fish with regard to methylmercury intake. This proposed amendment is in line to the EU Strategy on mercury (January 2005), which the European Parliament supported in March 2006vii. The Mercury Strategy’s key aim is to reduce mercury levels in the environment and human exposure, especially from methylmercury in fish.viii To conclude – providing health/safety information to fish consumers regarding methylmercury intake should be a priority for to help vulnerable groups make informed decisions. Targeted consumer safety labelling is an appropriate approach in this case. We would also like to note that, we support the adoption of an EU harmonised front-of-pack colour coding scheme to help people in choosing a healthy diet. This scheme would use red, amber and green coding to show high, medium or low levels of nutrients important for public health (i.e. fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt). Therefore, we welcome amendment 431 and urge you to support it. Colour coding should at a minimum be applied to processed foods whose nutritional content is the most difficult for consumers to understand (e.g. ready to eat meals, pre-packaged snacks, prepared products from animal origin). We would therefore support amendments 470 and 575. Thank you in advance for considering our recommendations (Amendments 541, 431, 470, 575) during your discussion on the amendments at the Environment Committee meeting on the 27th January 2010. For more information please contact: Elena Lymberidi-Settimo, Project coordinator ‘Zero Mercury Campaign’, European Environmental Bureau , Elena.lymberidi@eeb.org, T: +32 2 289 13 01 Lisette van Vliet, Toxics Policy Advisor, Health and Environment Alliance, Lisette@env-health.org, T: +32 2 234 3645 1 Extended Impact Assessment – Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Community Strategy Concerning Mercury, SEC(2005) 101, p.5 i Environmental and Health NGOS include The European Environmental Bureau, (EEB), www.eeb.org, is a federation of more than 145 environmental citizens’ organisations based in all EU Member States and most Accession Countries, as well as in a few neighbouring countries. These organisations range from local and national, to European and international. The aim of the EEB is to protect and improve the environment of Europe and to enable the citizens of Europe to play their part in achieving that goal. The Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG), (www.zeromercury.org) is an international coalition of more than 80 public interest environmental and health non-governmental organizations from 42 countries from around the world formed in 2005 by the European Environmental Bureau and the Mercury Policy Project. ZMWG strives for zero supply, demand, and emissions of mercury from all anthropogenic sources, with the goal of reducing mercury in the global environment to a minimum. Our mission is to advocate and support the adoption and implementation of a legally binding instrument which contains mandatory obligations to eliminate where feasible, and otherwise minimize, the global supply and trade of mercury, the global demand for mercury, anthropogenic releases of mercury to the environment, and human and wildlife exposure to mercury. The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) (www.env-health.org) raises awareness of how environmental protection improves people’s health, and works to strengthen European policies. We do this by creating better representation of expertise and evidence from the health community in decision making processes. HEAL a diverse network of over 60 citizens’, patients’, health professionals’, women’s and environmental groups. Our members include international and Europe-wide organisations, as well as national and local groups. ii World Health Organization (WHO), 1991, Environmental Health Criteria 118, Inorganic Mercury, WHO, Geneva. iii EFSA communication on methylmercury in fish, 2004, http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobSe... iv http://www.zeromercury.org/Internat... v Mount Sinai study: Public health and economic consequences of Methyl Mercury Toxicity to the Developing Brain, February 28, 2005 http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/20... vi US EPA http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fis... vii http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides... viii EU Strategy on mercury, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ... |
| 22/01/2010 |
To: Spanish Presidency of the EU Re: Europe’s emissions reduction target to the UNFCCC Secretariat Brussels, 22 January 2010 To: Spanish Presidency of the EU Concerning: Europe’s emissions reduction target to the UNFCCC Secretariat, 31 January 2010 Protect health through ambitious EU climate change commitments Dear Mr. Zapatero As you are aware, the Copenhagen Accord requires industrialised countries to register their formal emissions reduction pledges for 2020 with the UNFCCC Secretariat by 31 January 2010. The two-leading European health organisations, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWHE) are calling on you to ensure that the EU: pledges a 40% unconditional emissions reduction target by 2020 compared to 1990 levels, through domestic action commits to least 35 billion euro per year in new and additional public financing by 2020 as Europe’s fair share of total international climate financing. This funding should be used to reduce emissions and to support mitigation, adaptation, capacity building and technology co-operation in developing countries and also to strengthen and prepare the healthcare sector to cope with the effects of climate change. We are concerned that climate change is already causing hundreds of additional deaths each day around the world, and higher temperatures and more frequent extreme weather events are exacerbating some of the major causes of child mortality particularly in developing countries. Above all, the latest science suggests that a reduction in greenhouse gases by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 is the minimum required to keep global warming well below the dangerous 2°C level. Studies have clearly shown how stronger targets on climate change could protect health. One European review has estimated that a 30% target on greenhouse gas emission reductions from 1990 levels by 2020 would result in health benefits of up to 76 billion Euros per year from 2020 onwards.1 Moving to a 40% domestic emissions reduction target would significantly improve people’s health in Europe, reduce rising healthcare costs and protect our fragile ecosystems. Additionally, by putting at least 40% reduction target on the table, the EU could significantly increase the chances of a breakthrough at the COP 16 in Mexico and hold true to its track record as a global leader on environmental protection and sustainable development. The health sector is committed to a fair, ambitious and binding international climate change treaty that provides for public health, drastically reduces greenhouse gas emissions, promotes alternative, renewable energy and provides significant funding for developing countries to adapt and mitigate.2 We look forward to working with you to ensure that health becomes a cornerstone of EU and international climate change policies and actions. Sincerely, Genon Jensen - Executive Director, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Anja Leetz - Executive Director, Healthcare Without Harm Europe (HCWHE) 1. The co-benefits to health of a strong EU climate change policy, 2008, CAN Europe, Health and Environment Alliance, WWF http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/C... september_2008.pdf See also: recent study on health co-benefits: Lancet Series report on Health and Climate Change, 25 November 2009 http://www.thelancet.com/series/hea... 2. HCHW and HEAL post-Copenhagen Position Statement: http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/2... 05_Position_statement_after_Copenhagen_final.pdf |
| 22/01/2010 |
To: President Barroso Re: Europe’s emissions reduction target to the UNFCCC Secretariat, 31 January 2010 Brussels, 22 January 2010 To: The President of the European Commission Concerning: Europe’s emissions reduction target to the UNFCCC Secretariat, 31 January 2010 Protect health through ambitious EU climate change commitments Dear Mr. Jose Manuel Barroso As you are aware, the Copenhagen Accord requires industrialised countries to register their formal emissions reduction pledges for 2020 with the UNFCCC Secretariat by 31 January 2010. The two-leading European health organisations, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWHE) are calling on you to ensure that the EU: pledges a 40% unconditional emissions reduction target by 2020 compared to 1990 levels, through domestic action commits to least 35 billion euro per year in new and additional public financing by 2020 as Europe’s fair share of total international climate financing. This funding should be used to reduce emissions and to support mitigation, adaptation, capacity building and technology co-operation in developing countries and also to strengthen and prepare the healthcare sector to cope with the effects of climate change. We are concerned that climate change is already causing hundreds of additional deaths each day around the world, and higher temperatures and more frequent extreme weather events are exacerbating some of the major causes of child mortality particularly in developing countries. Above all, the latest science suggests that a reduction in greenhouse gases by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 is the minimum required to keep global warming well below the dangerous 2°C level. Studies have clearly shown how stronger targets on climate change could protect health. One European review has estimated that a 30% target on greenhouse gas emission reductions from 1990 levels by 2020 would result in health benefits of up to 76 billion Euros per year from 2020 onwards.1 Moving to a 40% domestic emissions reduction target would significantly improve people’s health in Europe, reduce rising healthcare costs and protect our fragile ecosystems. Additionally, by putting at least 40% reduction target on the table, the EU could significantly increase the chances of a breakthrough at the COP 16 in Mexico and hold true to its track record as a global leader on environmental protection and sustainable development. The health sector is committed to a fair, ambitious and binding international climate change treaty that provides for public health, drastically reduces greenhouse gas emissions, promotes alternative, renewable energy and provides significant funding for developing countries to adapt and mitigate.2 We look forward to working with you to ensure that health becomes a cornerstone of EU and international climate change policies and actions. Sincerely, Genon Jensen - Executive Director, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Anja Leetz - Executive Director, Healthcare Without Harm Europe (HCWHE) 1. The co-benefits to health of a strong EU climate change policy, 2008, CAN Europe, Health and Environment Alliance, WWF http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/C... september_2008.pdf See also: recent study on health co-benefits: Lancet Series report on Health and Climate Change, 25 November 2009 http://www.thelancet.com/series/hea... 2. HCHW and HEAL post-Copenhagen Position Statement: http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/2... 05_Position_statement_after_Copenhagen_final.pdf |
| 20/01/2010 |
To: The European Commission Re: The Commission consultation on the Green Paper on a European Citizens’ Initiative |
| 22/12/2009 |
To: ENVI Committee Re: Issue for Commission Designate Hearings - Weakening of DG Environment To: ENVI Committee Re: Issue for Commission Designate Hearings - Weakening of DG Environment Brussels, 22nd December 2009 |
| 23/11/2009 |
To: MEPs Re: Plenary vote on the “Motion for a Resolution on the EU strategy for the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change (COP 15)”, 25 November Brussels, 23 November 2009 To: Members of the European Parliament Concerning: Plenary vote on the “Motion for a Resolution on the EU strategy for the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change (COP 15)”, 25 November Bring health to the centre of climate change towards Copenhagen and beyond: What’s good for climate is good for health Dear Member of the European Parliament, While we welcome the European Parliament‟s resolution on climate change and its call for binding reduction emission targets, we would like to highlight one striking omission; a reference to tremendous impact climate change has on people‟s health, and how actions to reduce emissions will have large, immediate benefits to people‟s health in Europe. The urgent call to include health more centrally in climate negotiations is being voiced not only by the World Health Organisation, but also also by our new campaign, The Prescription for a Healthy Planet, signed by over 70 organisations globally, represents millions of health professionals in more than 120 countries following endorsements from groups such as World Federation of Public Health Associations, International Council of Nurses, and Standing Committee of European Doctors. During the international climate talks in Barcelona earlier this month, the UNFCCC negotiating draft also now explicitly recognises the need to include health protection, and amendments were considered to highlight the health benefits of strict emission targets.1 As Parliamentarians, you also can ensure that your Resolution does not lag behind what is currently being discussed at UN level on health. On Wednesday, November 25, you will have an opportunity to support the “health” amendments tabled by Greens/EFA and ALDE that will help bring health back into the climate discussions in your plenary vote on the Resolution on the EU Strategy for the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change. We, the undersigned leading health organizations, together with some of the world‟s largest medical, nursing and health organizations are calling on world leaders and you as EU decision-makers to take bold action to address climate change. This is crucial to avoid what could become a global public health crisis. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that climate change is already contributing to 150,000 deaths per year.2 . Recent science3 from European respiratory doctors has shown that for every one degree Celsius increase in temperature over a city-specific heat threshold, the death rate among respiratory patients increases six-fold4. As climate change advances, a "multiplier effect" will be seen on these and other conditions. Those already the most vulnerable will suffer earliest and most. Please support amendments tabled by Greens/EFA and ALDE (see below) which bring health into climate change discussions and policy outcomes. The latest science suggests that a reduction in greenhouse gases by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 is the minimum required to keep global warming well below the dangerous 2°C level. This would significantly improve people‟s health, reduce Member States' rising healthcare costs and protect our fragile ecosystems. Moreover, the co-benefits of tackling climate change will offset much of the costs according to the IPCC 4th Assessment report5. Our four, clear recommendations for the Copenhagen treaty are set out in the "Prescription for a Healthy Planet6“(see attachment). They are: the protection of public health, strong targets on emission reductions, the promotion of clean energy, and a mandate for major funding for developing countries to address the climate crisis. The “Prescription” is signed and supported by major health organizations and networks, including the International Council of Nurses (a global federation of national nursing organizations representing nurses in 128 countries), the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, the Standing Committee of European Doctors (CPME), which represents 27 medical associations in Europe, the European Respiratory Society (ERS), Climate and Health Council (CHC), Health Care Without Harm (HCWH), Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and many more. In the United States a parallel initiative from healthcare leaders representing hundreds of hospitals and nearly three million health professionals is calling on President Obama to support the points made in the “Prescription”. We strongly encourage you to vote in favour of the proposed amendments tabled by Greens/EFA and ALDE which would help strengthen the health aspect in your “Resolution” by ensuring better protection of public health from climate change. Sincerely, Genon K. Jensen, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) On behalf of: Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWH Europe) European Respiratory Society (ERS) Climate and Health Council (CHC) International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE) ÄrztInnen für eine gesunde Umwelt, AeGU (ISDE Austria) The Standing Committee of European Doctors (CPME) European Public Health Alliance (EPHA). 1. See HEAL/HCWH/Climateand Health Council Letter on Barcelona negotiations: http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/H... 2. http://www.who.int/heli/risks/clima... 3. ERS Position Statement, Climate change and respiratory disease: European Respiratory Society position statement, J G Ayres et al, European Respiratory Journal 2009; 34: 295-302. http://erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/cont... (HTML), http://erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/repr... (PDF) 4. The European Respiratory Journal (ERJ), „Climate Change and Respiratory Disease: European Respiratory Society position statement‟; available at: http://erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/cont.... 5. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report – Chapter 8 – Human Health; http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r... 6. www.climateandhealthcare.org |
| 04/11/2009 |
To: ENVI Re: ENVI Exchange of Views on Biocides Regulation To: ENVI Committee Re: ENVI Exchange of Views on Biocides Regulation Brussels, 4 November 2009 Dear Members of the ENVI Committee, In preparation of your exchange of views this afternoon on the Commission’s Proposal for the “Placing on the market and use of biocidal products”, the Health and Environment Alliance would like to present some remarks for your consideration. As an environment and health network bringing together over sixty different organisations across Europe, the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) welcomes the legislative initiative to improve the existing framework for the approval and use of biocides. However, we are very concerned that the current Commission proposal compromises the goal of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. We therefore urge you to strengthen the Commission’s proposal towards better protection of human health and the environment by considering our recommendations below. There is increasing scientific evidence pointing to the detrimental health effects of chemicals, including biocides. Because biocides are intended to kill living organisms, many biocidal products pose significant risk to human health. The use of biocides can also have significant adverse effects on the natural environment. The European Union has just passed the so-called pesticide package, with crucial new rules to phase out the most problematic pesticides, including those which play a role in the cancer pandemic and growing fertility problems. The proposal for the Biocides regulation must ensure coherence with the Pesticide legislation, and must not fall behind the important provisions for the protection of human health which have been agreed on. Better policy coherence is also needed with other EU environmental legislation (for example Water Policy) and the EU Action Plan on Environment and Health to ensure that the new biocides legislation also contributes to the overarching goal of reducing the environmental burden of disease. HEAL calls on you to ensure the following: -* Better health protection, precautionary principle Many biocides are substances which can have harmful effects on human health and the environment. All decisions on the approval of such hazardous substances should therefore be based on the precautionary principle, in order to ensure there are no adverse effects on health and environment. Furthermore, the regulation should state as leading principle better health and environment protection. Both precautionary principle and better protection should explicitly be included in the subject matter of the regulation (article 1). -* Protect vulnerable groups Pregnant women or children are especially vulnerable to harmful effects of biocides. Their needs and specific situation have to be considered when assessing and authorizing biocides. Therefore, the regulation should make explicit reference to vulnerable groups (for example in risk assessment). -* Comprehensive cut-off criteria, no derogations We welcome the cut-off approach for certain hazardous substances, which mirrors the approach of the pesticide regulation and is in line with the precautionary principle. These proposed exclusion criteria should be further strengthened to reflect the advances made in the pesticides regulation. We fear that the suggested derogations compromise the goal of better health protection, creating loopholes for leaving hazardous substances on the market. We therefore urge you to support strict and stringent cut-off criteria. -* Clear provisions for nanomaterials in biocides In a growing number of biocidal products and applications, nano silver is being used because of its disinfectant qualities. Nano silver can now be found in washing machines, wound dressings and many other consumer and hospital products. These products are on the European market, despite scientific uncertainties about their risks for human health and the environment. The biocides regulation should specifically address nanomaterials, as being called for in a recent European Parliament resolution (P6_TA(2009)0328). Thus, specific provisions for nanomaterials should be included to ensure adequate safety evaluation, but also clear labeling rules. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions, Yours faithfully, Anne, Anne Stauffer, Policy Manager Health & Environment Alliance (HEAL), 28 Boulevard Charlemagne, B-1000 Brussels |
| 20/10/2009 |
To: EU Environment Ministers Re: Input to Environment Council meeting 21 October Council conclusions on the Preparation of the EU Position for COP 15 Brussels, 20 October 2009 To: EU Environment Ministers Concerning: Input to Environment Council meeting 21 October Council conclusions on the Preparation of the EU Position for COP 15 Dear Minister, The two leading health organisations, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) Europe, would like to stress the critical nature of your Environment Council meeting on 21 October as an occasion in which we would like you to strengthen the EU’s position in the negotiations towards a global climate agreement in Copenhagen. Climate change will affect our individual health, public health and health care systems in the EU and globally. The latest science suggests that a reduction in greenhouse gases by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 is the minimum required to keep global warming well below the dangerous 2°C level. In light of recent evidence showing that the earth is warming at an even faster pace than previously predicted, we find the current EU emissions reduction targets to be inadequate. Therefore, HEAL and HCWH Europe joins European NGOs1 in asking the EU to: Commit to an emissions reduction target of more than 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, in line with the most recent science. Major public health benefits and health care savings, such as reduced respiratory illnesses, can be achieved if the EU maintains its commitment to at least 30% or more greenhouse gas reductions domestically by 2020 from 1990 emission levels. Moreover, with a 30% target the EU could reap health savings of up to 25 billion euros every year from the domestic emissions reductions. Commit to at least 35 billion euro per year in new and additional public financing by 2020 as Europe’s fair share of total international financing. This funding should be used to reduce emissions and to support mitigation, adaptation, capacity building and technology co- operation in developing countries and also to strengthen and prepare the healthcare sector to cope with the effects of climate change. This financing should be predictable, timely and ensured through appropriate legally binding mechanisms agreed under the UNFCCC. We call on you to make sure that the EU maintains its leadership role in international climate discussions and establish emissions reduction targets that are in line with its climate objective of keeping global warming well below the dangerous 2°C level. We look forward to working with you to ensure that health becomes a cornerstone of international and EU climate change policy. Sincerely, Genon Jensen - Executive Director, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Anja Leetz - Executive Director, Healthcare Without Harm Europe (HCWHE) 1. This letter was prepared with contribution from Climate Action Network Europe. |
| 14/10/2009 |
To: ENVI Committee Re: Proposals for amendment of the “European Parliament Resolution on the EU strategy for the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change (COP 15) Brussels, 14 October 2009 To: Members of the European Parliament Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI Committee) Concerning: Proposals for amendment of the “European Parliament Resolution on the EU strategy for the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change (COP 15)” ENVI Vote on 19 October on Copenhagen Climate Conference: Bring health to the centre of climate change towards Copenhagen and beyond Dear Member of the European Parliament, During the forthcoming ENVI Committee meeting on 19 October you will vote on the Draft Resolution and amendments to the “European Resolution on the EU strategy for the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change (COP 15)”. As the leading representatives of European-wide health, medical and healthcare networks, we welcome the Draft Resolution from the European Parliament and would like to ask you to strengthen it to adequately recognize the health dimensions of climate change1. Please support amendments 19, 40, 67 and 100, which bring health into climate change discussions and policy development. Climate change will affect our individual health, public health and health care systems in the EU and globally. Health represents the point of convergence of all the disruptions and damages caused by climate change, both the direct ones, for example respiratory disease, and indirect ones, for example from water shortage and population movement. For instance, for every one degree Celsius rise in temperature, the risk of premature death among respiratory patients is up to six times higher than in the rest of the population2. Yet in the current policy developments on climate change, there is not enough awareness of the negative impacts on health or of the potential benefits to health of strong measures of tackling climate change. Estimated savings on health costs in the EU from an increase to 30% domestic greenhouse gas reductions compared to 1990 emission levels by 2020, could be as high as 25 billion Euros per year from 2020 onwards3. Moreover, the health sector will need to be at the forefront in responding to the effects of climate change, and developing adaptation measures which do not add further to the climate problem. Increased awareness and resources are needed to ensure this happens as recently highlighted in the WHO/HCWH discussion paper: ‘Healthy Hospitals, Healthy Planet, Healthy People: Addressing climate change in healthcare settings4’. Therefore, the health and medical community urge you to vote in favour of the proposed amendments 19, 40, 67 and 100 (see Annex I, below) which would help strengthen the health aspect in your Draft Resolution by ensuring better protection of public health from climate change and support the healthcare sector fin adaption and mitigation actions. We look forward to working with you to ensure that health becomes a cornerstone of international and EU climate change policy. Sincerely, Genon K. Jensen, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) On behalf of: Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWH Europe) European Respiratory Society (ERS) Climate and Health Council (CHC) AerztInnen fuer eine gesunde Umwelt, AeGU (ISDE) Austria The Standing Committee of European Doctors (CPME). |
| 06/07/2009 |
To: President Barroso Re: Unacceptable move on Euro VI air pollution standards heavy goods vehicles July 2009 To: President Barroso Re: Unacceptable move on Euro VI air pollution standards heavy goods vehicles Dear President Barroso, At a meeting of the Commission’s Motor Vehicle Working Group on 6 July, an official document* was circulated stating that Vice President Verheugen has asked the services of DG Enterprise to prepare a proposal to delay introduction of the above standards that were legally adopted by the EU as recently as the Council meeting of 8-9 June. That would be an unprecedented and deeply damaging move. To our knowledge, no European Commission has ever proposed to postpone an environmental law that has been already agreed under the co-decision process. Such a move would severely damage the standing and credibility of the European Commission. Specifically, such a proposal would be damaging for the following reasons: Air pollution from lorries causes some 40,000 deaths a year. A further delay to this legislation would result in significant numbers of unnecessary deaths and illnesses; Euro standards are one of the few ways the EU can directly regulate air pollution, a delay would make it harder for national and local authorities to reach urban air pollution targets set at EU level. Recently the Commission rejected the majority of requests from Member States for derogations from air quality limits. A delay to Euro VI standards would obviously provoke an outcry from the Member States affected; The health impacts would be felt worldwide, as most other regions follow Euro standards within a few years; It would punish the forerunners, those manufacturers and suppliers who have already invested in the technology needed to meet these standards by the current deadline; if the proposal moves forward it would also create a huge amount of uncertainty in the industry; Europe is already several years behind the United States on introduction of tighter air pollution standards for lorries, this step would lead to Europe further lagging the US in a key area of environmental policy. For these reasons we urge you to prevent this unprecedented and damaging move from DG Enterprise from ever becoming an official Commission proposal. Yours sincerely, Jos Dings, Director, European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E) Also on behalf of: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) * Work Programme on car legislation 2009 (2nd semester), Proposals under the responsibility of DG Enterprise & Industry |
| 02/07/2009 |
To: UNFCCC National focal points Re: Input to Intersessional informal consultations on climate change, 10 – 14 August Brussels, 2 July 2009 To: European Region National Focal Points for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Concerning: Input to Intersessional informal consultations on climate change, 10 – 14 August Put health in the centre of climate change work towards Copenhagen and beyond Dear Madam/Sir, Climate change is affecting our individual and public health and healthcare systems in EU and globally. Already stretched healthcare resources are going to become even further extended as more people are made ill by climate change. If society is already struggling to finance current healthcare needs, we will certainly have serious difficulties when we start needing more healthcare - especially as the vulnerable, aging proportion of the population increases in size. Healthcare systems will have to deal with the consequences. Yet in the current discussions on climate change, there is not enough representation from those with expertise or a vital stake in the health impacts of strong measures tackling climate change. You have the opportunity to change this and bring health to the centre of international and national climate change discussions and outcomes for and beyond Copenhagen. We therefore urge you to: 1. Advocate for strong reductions in greenhouse gas emissions Strive for an ambitious, fair and effective international agreement at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009. Major public health benefits and healthcare savings, such as reduced respiratory illnesses, can be achieved if the EU maintains its leadership the negotiations and its commitment to at least 30% or more greenhouse gas reductions by 2020 from 1990 emission levels. Please see Annex I for more information. 2. Promote equitable funding mechanisms and support for climate change mitigation and adaptation Ensure that the Europe is committed to fighting climate change in the EU and externally by securing accessible, predictable, binding funding mechanisms, in addition to Overseas Development Assistance. These funding mechanisms should include i) reducing the health sector’s greenhouse gas emissions ii) supporting programmes that protect public health from climate change-related threats iii) assisting the most affected and vulnerable communities around the world fight and cope with climate change. The health sector is already working to reduce its carbon footprint. Our recently released joint-WHO discussion report provides case studies of what some hospitals are already doing. Please see Annex II for more information. We look forward to working with you to ensure that health becomes a cornerstone of international and EU climate change policy. Sincerely, Genon Jensen - Executive Director, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Anja Leetz - Executive Director, Healthcare Without Harm Europe (HCWH E) Contact: Pendo Maro PhD, Joint Senior Climate Change and Energy Advisor, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWHE), 28 Boulevard Charlemagne, 1000-Brussels, Belgium. Tel: +32 2 234 4647. E-mail: pendo@env-health.org Health Care Without Harm is a global network of more than 480 organisations in more than 50 countries, working to transform the health care sector so it is no longer a source of harm to people and the environment. Website: www.noharm.org The Health and Environment Alliance aims to raise awareness of how environmental protection improves health. It brings together more than 60 organisations working at the European level. Website: www.envhealth. org Annexes -* Annex I If the European Union increased its target greenhouse gas emission reductions from the present 20% to 30%, the total savings from death and ill-health due to respiratory conditions alone could reach an additional 25 billion Euros per year by 2020. Fewer emissions result in cleaner air, fewer premature deaths among people with existing respiratory problems, 5,300 fewer cases of bronchitis, and 2,800 fewer hospital admissions each year. See report from HEAL, CAN Europe and WWF entitled “The co-benefits to health of a strong EU climate change policy". Please find enclosed a short summary of this report. The full report is available here: http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/Co- benefits_to_health_report_- september_2008.pdf. -* Annex II Funding for health projects is very low. In April 2009, Dr Roberto Bertollini, Senior Advisor and Coordinator, Public Health and Environment Department, World Health Organization told a meeting of health and environment ministers from 53 European countries that although 32 of the world's 38 poorest countries identified health in their national action plans on climate change, funding for health has received only less than 1% of allocations under the climate change framework. "Climate Change and Health: The Global Perspective" presentation by Dr Roberto Bertollini, Senior Advisor and Coordinator, Public Health and Environment Department, World Health Organization, Geneva (copy available on request from Diana Smith, Diana@gsmith.com.fr or +33 6 33 04 2943). The health sector is already working to reduce its carbon footprint. A recently released WHO-HCWH-HEAL report provides case studies of what hospitals are doing. The report: "Healthy Hospitals, Healthy Planet, Healthy People: Addressing climate change in health care settings", Discussion Draft is available at www.noharm.org or http://env-health.org/a/3351. Please find copy attached. -* Annex III Please find attached: European Lung Foundation’s Climate and Lung health fact sheet |
| 06/06/2009 |
To: President Barroso Re: Improving health representation in climate change discussions and outcomes To: Commission President, Mr. Jose Manuel Barroso Commissioner for Environment, Mr. Stavros Dimas Commissioner for Health, Ms. Androulla Vassiliou cc: Ministers of Health of Member States of the European Union RE: Improving health representation in climate change discussions and outcomes Call for EU Health delegation at climate change talks Dear Commissioners, The coming days are crucial to the preparations for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009. We call on you to ensure a high-level delegation of EU Health Ministers and officials take part in the preparatory meetings and in Copenhagen. Human health is already being seriously affected by climate change. Global warming causes 300,000 deaths per year and increasingly severe heatwaves, floods, storms and forest fires could increase the annual death toll to 500,000 by 2030, according to a report published by the Global Humanitarian Forum, the think tank of former UN secretary general Kofi Annan in May 2009.1 Yet, the health benefits of tackling climate change are numerous. For example, our recently co-published report2 shows that if the European Union increased its target on greenhouse gas emission reductions from the present 20% to 30% then the total savings from health ‘co-benefits’ could reach an additional 25 billion Euros per year by 2020. These savings are due to cleaner air that would mean fewer premature deaths among people with existing respiratory problems, 5,300 fewer cases of bronchitis, and 2,800 fewer hospital admissions each year. It is essential that the health sector has a fair chance to bring attention to serious human health concerns and to focus policy solutions on measures that would bring the most benefits to human health and society at large. The health sector is already taking measures to address its climate footprint while simultaneously promoting health. In a recent document3 co-produced by the World Health Organisation (WHO), we also call on the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009 to specifically promote and facilitate climate change mitigation by the health sector. Prioritising primary health care and pursuing disease prevention strategies, in order to lower dependence on resource-intensive therapies, can simultaneously reduce the burden of disease and the health sector's fossil fuel consumption. We look forward to working with you to ensure that health becomes a cornerstone of international and EU climate change policy. Sincerely, Genon Jensen - Executive Director, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) Anja Leetz - Executive Director, Healthcare Without Harm Europe (HCWH E) Contact: Pendo Maro PhD, Joint Senior Climate Change and Energy Advisor, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Health Care Without Harm (HCWH), 28 Boulevard Charlemayne, 1000-Brussels, Belgium. Tel: +32 2 234 4647. E-mail: pendo@env-health.org Health Care Without Harm is a global network of more than 440 organizations in 52 countries working to transform the health care sector so it is no longer a source of harm to people and the environment. The Health and Environment Alliance aims to raise awareness of how environmental protection improves health. It brings together more than 60 organizations working at the European level. Website: www.env-health.org |
| 02/04/2009 |
To: Minister of Health for France Re: Response to statement about BPA Bruxelles, Annemasse, le 2 Avril 2009 Lettre ouverte à Madame Roselyne Bachelot Madame la Ministre de la Santé, C’est au nom d’organisations de protection des consommateurs, de l’environnement et de la santé que nous souhaitons réagir à votre déclaration du 31 mars 2009 devant les députés français au sujet du Bisphénol A (BPA). Vous avez affirmé que « les autorités canadiennes ont décidé l’interdiction du BPA sous la pression de l’opinion publique et sur la base d’aucune étude scientifique sérieuse ». Permettez-nous d’attirer votre attention sur le fait que la procédure d’évaluation de cette substance par les autorités canadiennes a été conduite selon les règles de la Loi canadienne sur la protection de l’environnement (Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999) qui prévoit que les substances classées sur la liste des « substances prioritaires » fassent l’objet d’une évaluation des risques basée sur des analyses scientifiques. Le Bisphénol A faisait partie de cette liste car il a été classé comme « toxique pour la reproduction » par toutes les agences internationales, Union Européenne comprise (catégorie 3), et d’autre part parce que l’ensemble de la population y est exposé. Cette évaluation conduite sous l’égide de votre homologue canadien, Santé Canada, et du Ministère de l’Environnement a duré plusieurs années et a passé en revue l’ensemble des données scientifiques internationales disponibles sur le Bisphénol A. Les conclusions qui ont conduit à classer le BPA le 18 octobre 2008, parmi la liste des « substances toxiques » et à en interdire la présence dans les biberons, dans un premier temps, sont les suivantes : « Le bisphénol A pénètre ou peut pénétrer dans l’environnement dans des quantités ou des concentrations telles qu’il peut avoir des effets dommageables immédiats ou à long terme sur l’environnement et la biodiversité » et enfin que « le Bisphénol A constitue et peut constituer un danger pour la vie ou la santé humaine ». Selon tous les scénarios des autorités sanitaires internationales - dont l’Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments (AESA) que vous évoquez, mais aussi le National Program of Toxicology, Etats-Unis, les populations les plus exposées au BPA sont les jeunes enfants, de la conception au 18ème mois. Chacun s’accorde sur ce point. Le rapport de Santé Canada, comme celui du National Program of Toxicology (Etats-Unis) ont tous deux classé au rang des préoccupations majeures les altérations du développement, en particulier ceux du développement neurologique et du comportement chez les plus jeunes, à des niveaux d’exposition courants. C’est en effet à cette période clé que les effets dommageables sont les plus graves. C’est pourquoi Santé Canada a jugé dans une approche de précaution fondée sur des études sérieuses, que les doses journalières autorisées (DJA) -pourtant de moitié inférieures à celles de l’Union européenne- « ne permettent pas d’assurer la protection des populations les plus à risque : femmes enceintes, foetus, nourrissons et jeunes enfants ». En Norvège, le Bisphénol A a été interdit dans les produits cosmétiques le 10 juillet 2008, et une recommandation d’interdiction dans les produits de consommations courante a été publiée par le « Norwegian State Pollution Control Authority (SFT). Nous rappelons enfin que les députés européens Hanne Dahl, Christel Schaldemose, Hélène Goudin et Carl Schlyter ont déposé le 15 décembre 2008 devant le Parlement Européen une déclaration écrite visant à faire interdire le BPA dans la fabrication des biberons en Europe. Le principe de précaution est un principe scientifique et rationnel, basé sur la science des systèmes complexes, selon lequel « en cas de risque de dommages graves ou irréversibles, l’absence de certitude scientifique absolue ne doit pas servir de prétexte pour remettre à plus tard l’adoption de mesures effectives visant à prévenir la dégradation de l’environnement » (définition de l’Agence Européenne de l’Environnement). La jurisprudence a étendu ce principe au domaine de la santé. Considérant les enjeux de la contamination des populations par le BPA, et son effet potentiel sur la santé publique, attesté par de nombreuses études concordantes, nous pensons être dans un cas où le principe de précaution doit s’appliquer. A la lumière de ces éléments nous vous demandons instamment que la France reconsidère sa position vis-à-vis du Bisphénol A afin de protéger la santé des générations présentes et à venir. Signataires : WECF- Women in Europe for a Common Future HEAL - Health and Environment Alliance EEB - European Environment Bureau Lettre soutenue par l’Association française SERA: Santé Environnement Rhône Alpes Contacts: Anne Barre Présidente WECF France anne.barre@wecf.eu téléphone: 04 50 49 97 38 portable: 06 12 90 37 21 Lisette van Vliet, Ph.D. Toxics Policy Advisor Health & Environment Alliance lisette@ env-health.org téléphone: +32 (0)2 234 3645 portable: +32 (0)484 614 528 |
| 23/09/2008 |
To: European Commission Re: Commission review of the availability of safer alternatives to Measuring Devices containing mercury |
| 03/07/2008 |
To: Energy & Environment Ministers Re: Turning EU Effort Sharing Proposal into EU Benefit Sharing Agreement “Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package” Turning EU Effort Sharing Proposal into EU Benefit Sharing Agreement “Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package” 3rd July 2008, Council Meeting, Paris Dear EU Energy and Environment Minister, As you meet tomorrow, we would like you to consider reframing the current debate on Effort Sharing into one on Benefit Sharing. This will help create political acceptance for greater ambition levels and ensure that the EU abides by the principles of better regulation in considering both costs and benefits to it decisions. The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), a broad coalition of health professionals, environmental health and patient groups throughout Europe, urges you to ensure the highest possible level of health protection for EU citizen’s by supporting an ambitious Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package that exploits the important co-benefits to health of domestic climate change mitigation policies. The proposed Effort Sharing emission reduction target of the EU’s Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package is in violation of the COP13 Bali agreement for developed countries to reduce emissions by 25 - 40 per cent by 2020, a yardstick for staying below 2 degree global warming. To keep mean temperature rise below 2 degree and avoid a public health crisis, HEAL and its members call for: 1. A minimum domestic EU 30% cut in collective emissions from developed countries by 2020 to stop global warming before it reaches dangerous levels. The current proposal from the Commission equates to about a 10% domestic reduction target below 2005 (20% overall reduction target below 1990). 2. External credits from schemes such as the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) need to meet strict additional environment and health criteria, and should be in addition to an EU-wide 30% emission reduction. The EU must recognize the important co-benefits to health of domestic cuts and must therefore not "outsource" its emission reductions and associated co-benefits. 3. Co-benefits to health of reducing CO2, NOx, Particulate Matter and SOx need to be considered more prominently throughout the climate and energy package. Such co-benefits include improved local air quality, reduced noise, traffic pollution and accidents. The current 20, 20, 2020 EU’s Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package assessment estimates that the health benefits just for Particulate Matter (10ug/m3) alone would amount to a substantial €550Billion to €1350Billion per year. However, the modeling of energy scenarios or associated health benefits has NOT been considered in relation to different levels of ambition. This one-dimensional “coherent scenario” does not allow a flexible analysis of degrees of ambition as highlighted by an amendment voted in the European Parliament Committee on Environment and Public Health and Food Safety: “13a. Regrets that the current cost benefit impact assessment of the '20 20 by 2020 Europe’s Climate Change Opportunity'1 only considers the health benefits of reduced air pollution at a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020; calls on the Commission to ensure that the (ancillary) co-benefits to health of various levels of ambition, in line with the International Panel on Climate Change recommendations of domestic 25% to 40% as well as possibly 50% or more of greenhouse gas emission reduction by 2020, are urgently investigated and modelled into an impact assessment by the Commission;” 1 COM(2008)0030. [Frédérique Ries (PE404.442v01-00) Mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 (2007/2252(INI)] In this regard we recommend to Ministers and other decision makers, in addition to a 30% level of ambition, a flexible solution to allow no-regrets actions and policies up and above agreed targets, which is being promoted by Member of European Parliament Mr John Bowis (EPP-ED, UK). Proposed Amendment: Recital (8a)new “Member States may justify unrestricted levels of domestic greenhouse gas emissions reduction up and above their greenhouse gas emission limits, based on no-regrets actions and policies that have co-benefits. In this regard primacy should be given to the co-benefits to public health (partcicularly related to air quality) and improved safety, ecosystem preservation and biodiversity, poverty reduction and employment, and energy security.” Amendment justification: “The IPCC working group III on mitigation clearly indicates that the co-benefits of action in the form of reduced air pollution, more energy security or more rural employment offset mitigation costs. There is a general consensus for all world regions analyzed that near-term health and other benefits from GHG reductions can be substantial, both in industrialised and developing countries. Such near-term co-benefits of GHG control provide the opportunity for a true no-regrets GHG reduction policy in which substantial advantages accrue even if the impact of human-induced climate change itself turns out to be less than that indicated by current projections.” We attach a summary of the current macroeconomic understanding by Dr. Terry Barker, University of Cambridge and Cambridge Econometrics and IPCC author which shows that climate change mitigation efforts don’t necessarily reduce GDP. Indeed Dr. Barker indicates that: “There seems to be an impression that mitigation automatically incurs macroeconomic costs. This is not the case from the literature. e.g. see attached quote from IPCC AR4 SPM agreed by ALL governments in Bangkok, 2007.” Of course, as public health advocates we must highlight that many of these studies do not include health and other societal co-benefits. To fight climate change the international community will require not flexibility but global leadership from the EU. As it currently stands, the current EU’s Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package and underlying economic modeling and scenarios display pessimism on the outcome of international climate negotiations. It demonstrates to the world a lack of ambition in the EU’s level of commitment to the global effort to combat change and the unfounded assumption that EU citizens do not value healthy environments, a healthy society and indeed the health of their children, particularly in light of the significance of climate change endangering human health and well-being. Yours sincerely, Genon Jensen, Executive Director, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) |
| 05/06/2008 |
To: EU Environment Ministers Re: Effort Sharing Proposal of the “Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package” 5th June 2008 Council Meeting Dear EU |
| 31/03/2008 |
To: EU Environment Ministers Re: Supporting a broad export ban and safe storage of mercury |
| 18/12/2007 |
To: EU Environment & Health Ministers Re: Council Conclusions on the Mid Term Review of the EU Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 |
| 25/05/2007 |
To: Commissioners Dimas & Verheugen Re: Ensure REACH is not vulnerable to weakening in future |
| 22/05/2007 |
To: European Commission Re: Consultation regarding the Review of RoHS Directive 2002/95/EC |
| 24/04/2007 |
To: EU Members States’ experts Re: Calling for a wide mercury export ban and safe temporary storage of surplus mercury |
| 05/04/2007 |
To: ITRE Committee Re: Better protection of vulnerable groups, in particular children, is needed against the hazardous health effects of pesticides |
| 05/04/2007 |
To: IMCO Committee Re: Better protection of vulnerable groups, in particular children, is needed against the hazardous health effects of pesticides |
| 05/04/2007 |
To: AGRI Committee Re: Better protection of vulnerable groups, in particular children, is needed against the hazardous health effects of pesticides |
| 26/03/2007 |
To: MEPs RE: Ulmer Report on the Medical Devices Directive (93/42/EEC) |
| 16/02/2007 |
To: EU Environment Ministers Re: Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides (COM(2006)372) |
| 31/01/2007 |
To: MEPs Re: Calling for a robust mercury export ban and safe surplus storage regulation |
| 12/12/2006 |
To: MEPs Re: Ensure the strength of REACH in the EP plenary vote |
| 13/11/2006 |
To: MEPs Re: Support the compromise amendments, eliminate mercury from consumer mersuring devices |
| 31/10/2006 |
To: Lidl Supermarket Re: Pesticides reduction standards in all Lidl countries |
| 11/10/2006 |
To: EU Environment & Health Ministers Re: EU air quality standards |
| 09/10/2006 |
To: ENVI Committee Re: Protect children’s health with REACH |
| 19/09/2006 |
To: Ministers of Agriculture, Environment & Health Re: Call to reject EU authorisation of 6 unacceptable pesticides |
| 21/06/2006 |
To: ENVI Committee Re: Call for defending existing health standards on airpollution (Krahmer report) |
| 19/06/2006 |
To: Commissioner Dimas Re: Concerns about the current status and future challenges in implementing the EU Action Plan on Environment and Health |
| 23/05/2006 |
To: Jose Barroso, President of the European Commission Re: Midterm review of the 2001 Common Transport Policy white paper |
| 24/04/2006 |
To: ECOFIN Re: Council debate on the EU’s Sustainable Development Strategy, 5 May |
| 16/03/2006 |
To: MEPs Corbey and Krahmer EU thematic stategy on air quality and ambient air quality legislation |
| 13/03/2006 |
To: ENVI Committee Re: Better protection of vulnerable groups, in particular children, is needed against the health effects of pesticides |
| 16/02/2006 |
To: Ministers of Environment, Agriculture & Consumers Re: Rejection of authorisation of 8 unacceptable pesticides under Council Directive 91/414/EEC |
| 07/02/2006 |
To: ENVI Committee Re: Matsakis Mercury Report |
| 02/01/2006 |
To: MEPs Re: Plenary Vote, Second Reading on Report-KORHOLA on Aarhus Convention and EU Institutions, EP January session |
| 16/11/2005 |
To: ENVI Committee Re: Vote on Report-KORHOLA on Aarhus Convention and EU Institutions, next week. |
| 22/09/2005 |
To: EU Commissioners Re: Commission communication ‘Reducing the climate change impact of aviation’ |
| 14/07/2005 |
To: EU Health Ministers Re: Brominated Flame Retardants: Rising Levels of Concern |
| 12/07/2005 |
To: EU Commissioners Re: Thematic Environmental Strategies |
| 30/06/2005 |
To: Jose Barroso, President of the European Commission Re: Thematic strategy on air quality |
| 24/06/2005 |
To: EU Environment Ministers Re: Council discussion on DECA-BDE exemption |
| 06/06/2005 |
To: Environment & Health Ministers Re: WHO Budapest conference - Our future and our children’s future needs you |
| 26/05/2005 |
To: EU Environment Ministers Re: Council conclusions for action towards phasing out releases and uses of mercury |
