Proposition 52K1335

Proposition de résolution visant à améliorer la disponibilité d'informations à l'attention des consommateurs lors de leurs achats de GSM et à protéger la santé des citoyens contre les risques liés à la pollution électromagnétique.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Thérèse Snoy et d'Oppuers
PS | SP Valérie Déom, André Frédéric, Marie-Claire Lambert, Yvan Mayeur, Éric Thiébaut
Vooruit Maya Detiège

Submission date

July 7, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer protection consumer information mobile phone resolution of parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Luc Sevenhans (VB) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 26, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the two draft resolutions were discussed during the meetings from January to March 2009. The first proposal for a resolution concerns the protection of the health of citizens against the risks of electromagnetic pollution.

Mrs Thérèse Snoy gave an introductory presentation. As the chief service officer she said, among other things, that the population is increasingly exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Consumers are aware of the problems related to GSM. However, Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) and Wi-Fi devices are also important sources of radiation.

European and American scientists recently published a report that provides an overview of approximately 2,000 studies on the impact of electromagnetic fields on human health. The experts point out the risk of cancer, neurological problems, sleep disorders, and so on. In mid-September 2007, the European Environment Agency recommended Member States to take measures to prevent high risks.

In 2002, German doctors made a call. They pointed out the link between patients’ exposure to mobile and wireless phones in children’s learning and concentration impairments, cardiovascular disorders, brain degeneration and cancer cases. The German government has officially discouraged the use of Wi-Fi devices. Switzerland and Austria followed that example.

The Interphoner Report, an epidemiological study conducted in various countries, highlights the increased risk of acoustic neurinoma and glioma in people who use their cell phones intensively. The part study conducted in France clarifies that brain tumors could develop much earlier than expected.

In 2005, the European Commission published the first results of the European study Reflex. That study has clearly confirmed that exposure to radiation fields of very low frequency or wavelength leads to genotoxic phenomena.

A number of professors spread other alarming messages about mobile telephony. Although scientific evidence is not yet fully established, a growing number of research findings suggest that intense exposure to electromagnetic radiation poses health risks, especially when using hyperfrequencies.

In the event of such doubts, action must be taken and the precautionary principle applies. At European level, the recommendations of the Council are based on the guidelines of the International Commission for Protection against Non-Ionizing Radiation. Member States may adopt stricter measures. This has resulted in some Member States, including Belgium, Italy and Austria, setting stricter radiation emission standards. In Belgium, the legal basis remains the law of 1985. This law was amended by the Act of 1998.

In implementation of the law, a royal decree was adopted in connection with the normalization of the transmission masters. The norm is susceptible to criticism. On the one hand, the criticism of the High Health Council has not been taken into account, on the other hand, the standard only saves on the masts for mobile phone and not on the other equipment surrounding us.

Therefore, we need to work on a more detailed and stricter law.

According to Ms. Snoy, there are three important evolutions noticeable.

First, the social evolution. After all, there are more and more devices that use wireless electromagnetic technology.

Second, the evolution in the field of scientific data, of which I have already given a few examples.

Third, the political evolution. The Brussels Capital Region has proceeded to the adoption of the Ordinance on the protection of the environment against the harmful effects and the impediment of non-ionizing radiation. However, an appeal for destruction has been filed with the Constitutional Court.

The Walloon Minister for Housing and Spatial Development has consulted several stakeholders, suspended the licensing procedures for wireless networks and is currently evaluating whether it is desirable to update the standards.

The competent committee held hearings in the Flemish Parliament and adopted a resolution.

The European Parliament has also adopted a resolution calling on the Council and the Commission to establish stricter standards.

For the responses myself, I refer to the report. A large number of members took the floor.

The second resolution concerns improving the availability of consumer information when purchasing a mobile phone. Marie-Claire Lambert speaks in particular. She emphasized that the purpose of the resolution is to protect consumers. According to her, it is necessary to deal with all aspects of the radiation issue together and thus reach a common position.

Following an exchange of views, the committee decided to merge the proposals of resolutions and to incorporate the proposal DOC52 1335/001 as the basic text.

The discussion followed a number of amendments. The entire amended draft resolution was unanimously adopted. The draft resolution DOC52 0405/001 was therefore, of course, invalid.

I would like to explain this briefly because this was sometimes confusing in the committee as well. Therefore, I give the clarification in this report.

In recent years, we have read in the media reports about the effects of radiation. More than ever, we are exposed to electromagnetic radiation at work, but also and especially at home. Everyone nowadays has a GSM, a baby phone, Wifi or a microwave. They all have a certain amount of radiation. Science is divided. Colleagues, I think it is time to wake up and act in accordance with the precautionary principle. At first glance, the most logical intervention seems to be the reduction of the standard for electronic emissions. However, the adoption of this standard belongs, as you know, to the competence of the Regions. Initiatives have already been taken by Brussels and Flanders has already adopted a resolution to lower the standard.

The resolution, which is presented for voting here, aims primarily to inform the consumer and formulate a number of recommendations for the consumer to allow him to reduce his exposure to radiation. We request that the SAR value be clearly readable, not only on the packaging, but also for each model that is exhibited and presented in the advertising leaflets for telecommunications terminal equipment. In this way, it is clear to everyone to what level of radiation one is exposed. In addition, the federal government website www.infogsm.be will display a ranking of GSM devices based on their SAR value. That ranking will also be made available free of charge to the consumer who requests it. To provide greater clarity, the FOD Public Health will spread the brochure already drawn up on this subject more broadly and better.

We want to pay special attention to children. In March 2007, Flemish pediatricians advocated for a ban on the use of GSM for children under the age of 16. In this resolution, we therefore call on the government to ban the advertising campaigns targeted at young children for the use of GSM. In addition, we also want information campaigns aimed at parents, regarding the benefits and potential risks of GSM use for young children. In this context, it is important to promote the rational and short-term use of GSM. Since caution is also desirable for adults, we ask the manufacturers that earrings that can be plugged into the device would be supplied as standard when purchasing a GSM. In this way, we want to encourage adults to use those ears.

There is also the problem of hypersensitivity to electromagnetic radiation. Here too, honesty commands you today to say that science has not yet reached consensus on this. This is why we ask the High Health Council to set up a study on the hypersensitivity to electromagnetic radiation.

Finally, the resolution also calls on the regions to encourage them to coordinate their initiatives. Given the spread of powers, it is extremely important to reach, in the best case – this is my dream – one radiation standard in the long run.

The problem of electromagnetic waves rarely leaves people indifferent. However, it is also worth noting that few of us are willing to give up the optimal and constant use, among other things, of our GSM.

The wave exposure in this matter is of two orders: on the one hand, the so-called "passive" exposure, the one resulting from antennas, a competence which today no longer belongs to the federal and, on the other hand, the so-called "active" exposure, the one due to the pulsed waves of gsm, for example, and which represent a major challenge for my group. This is a big challenge because today, few are those who do not have such a device. Users are also becoming younger and more and more often stick it to the ear.

Certainly, the corollary is not established between pulsed waves and adverse health effects. However, biological effects are certified by the World Health Organization. Indeed, these waves can, from a certain emission threshold, have a thermal impact on the human body. This impact has prompted the European Union to impose a maximum emission standard for GSMs that are placed on the market. This standard, also known as DAS index or SAR index, should not exceed 2 W/kg.

If this precautionary principle is a good thing in itself, it is worth mentioning that from one GSM to another, while complying with the European prescription, the DAS or SAR index of devices varies greatly. So it is now technically possible to choose a device that emits little at the expense of a device that emits more. However, this technical information remains confidential. That is why my group submitted this resolution proposal that aims to provide consumers with the necessary and useful tools to enable them to make an informed choice when purchasing GSM.

To make a comparison that I find relevant, today a consumer can easily choose a car based on a criterion of fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. We therefore want the consumer to be able to do the same for their GSM based on the level of electromagnetic wave emission of the device. Only in this way will the right to information be guaranteed.

To do this, our resolution provides for various provisions that aim, in essence, the clear and simplified display of the DAS/SAR index on the points of sale, but also in the promotional documentation.

To further facilitate consumer choice, we ask the government to conduct an annual classification of GSMs according to their emission level. This is already the case in France, for example. We therefore wish that this information be brought to the knowledge of the greatest number through the website infogsm.be, made online by the federal government.

Our discussions in the committee have enabled to supplement these provisions. For example, advertising campaigns boasting the use of GSM with small children as a target group will soon be banned. Information campaigns for parents will also need to be conducted on the advantages, but also the disadvantages associated with the use of these devices. Let us mention only the prolonged use that some young children can make it or the risk of habituation. Finally, the devices will also need to be delivered in series with an earpiece.

In short, the aim is that consumers and users of GSM, like their preferences in terms of automotive vehicles, can make an informed choice in their purchase and use of GSM. To better inform the consumer is to guarantee him a free and thoughtful choice.

Finally, always thanks to our committee discussions, regarding hypersensitivity to these waves, the resolution calls for a study in the Higher Health Council so that appropriate measures are taken with scientific knowledge.

I thank you very much for your attention.

I have been investing a lot in the issue of electromagnetic waves for more than a year and a half. And I was, among other things, ⁇ struck by my contacts with people who are already suffering from it. I will return to this subject later in my presentation.

What also struck me is the number of people who ask me, when I speak in the media, if I consider myself facing an asbestos or tobacco case, where for decades the society has refused to see it as a health hazard in order to preserve economic and commercial interests. At one point, it was hard to recognize an effect on health, the great number of sick and deaths, without counting the people who suffer from it all their lives and what it can represent. The problem with asbestos is this. It is refusing to recognize a danger for decades for, today, to have to deal first with human suffering and then with extremely expensive compensation and health care.

When asked, I express my hope that in ten years, I will not have to admit that our exposure to hyperfrequencies, wireless systems and electromagnetic waves can actually cause brain cancers, reproductive problems, Alzheimer’s-like brain diseases, as well as discomfort and difficulties to live for many people.

If we are not yet there, the scientific reports are nevertheless alarming. I would like to thank Maya Detiège for her report. She cited the various scientific studies that converge more and more towards the finding that the risks exist for the brain and brain diseases and, in particular, for young people and children, whose brains are not yet fully formed and whose head walls are not as hard as ours.

The study “Bio-initiative”, the study “REFLEX” and the study “Interphone”, an epidemiological study that confirmed in October 2008 the higher risk of brain tumors for intensive users of gsm. The problem is that we have just ten years back. We do not know how to conduct epidemiological studies according to the standards of science, because it takes more time and much wider samples. Now, how do you find samples from hundreds of people who have been using gsm intensively for more than ten years? No to No! There is no one!

Therefore, we must satisfy ourselves with studies that are incomplete. It is therefore obvious that the first thing to do is to continue studies and research independently of economic interests.

What do the European authorities say about this? An Opinion Committee on Emerging Risks has been established at European level. The Committee of Opinion also recently found that there is no certainty about potential health effects, but it acknowledges that since the duration of exposure of humans to these fields is shorter than the duration of gestation of certain cancers, additional studies are needed to determine whether much longer exposure to the waves emitted by these phones could pose cancer risks.

Can we do nothing? No to No!

Obviously, we must apply the precautionary principle. This does not mean that all GSMs should be discarded or that new useful technologies should be deprived, but that they should be used moderately under conditions that protect health.

It is the responsibility of public authorities to issue rules. The responsibility of public authorities goes beyond informing and raising consumer awareness. Therefore, we believe that it is necessary to prevent excessive exposure due to the intense use of radiation emitting devices and to protect people from passive exposure. Ms. Lambert talked about antennas. This is the competence of the regions. But there’s another exposure that people don’t decide on their own, the one we’re experiencing because of Wi-Fi or WiMAX networks. People may be exposed to radiation emitted from neighboring apartments.

We, Tinne Van der Straeten and myself, had submitted a resolution in November 2007. I would like to remind you that it was considered with some disregard and sent back to the Federal Centre of Expertise, which was obviously not the place where this kind of opinion could be requested; this Centre has also informed us.

Apparently, in November 2007, there was still no consideration from Parliament on this issue. I see that things have evolved in the right direction and I thank my colleagues for staying open to this question and for taking the topic back. We would have wanted our resolution to be fully approved today. We had to resolve, however, to start from a text of the Socialist Party that we were fortunately able to improve considerably.

What do we appreciate in this text? The resolution is very firm in its requests to the government regarding the mention of the SAR, the degree of exposure and the power of the purchased devices. We also requested a comparative scale; in the same way that home appliances are labelled to show their degree of energy performance, we demand that there is also a comparative scale for SARs and DASs so that the consumer can easily find them. We want this information to cease to be confidential and on the 45th page of the device’s instructions and also that vendors are informed and trained. Currently, when a seller is asked what the SAR of a device is, it is rare that he can answer the question. The time of purchase is crucial.

We also appreciate the organization of information campaigns for parents on the risks associated with the use of GSM by children. I suppose they will be organized by the Ministers of Health and Environment. We also appreciate that advertising campaigns aimed at children will now be banned, that the delivery of wire earphones is integrated with the sale of a phone. This is a very good measure. It will be necessary to check the application as well as the use of this earpiece. There is no point in having an earpiece if you don’t use it.

On the other hand, our group regrets that we have not gone further in terms of product standards. We have a "Product Standards" Act of 1998 that authorizes us to protect the consumer, their health and the environment through technical standards on the devices sold and marketed in Belgium. We would have wanted – and this seems perfectly logical to us, since people are asked not to be exposed to more than 3 V/m for antenna emissions – that the same thing be imposed on devices.

We therefore require that devices be designed so that they do not expose users to more than 3 V/m; the standard is based on the power of gsm and may differ for other devices.

However, we do not see why this degree of exposure would be different for antennas and devices. The problem is that these are European standards, but Member States could take action based on the principle of consumer health protection. Our partners did not want to follow this proposal.

There is an article in the resolution stipulating that the government will be asked to defend standards at European level with the European Centre for Standardization (CEN), but this institution does not aim to protect health. In fact, the standards it sets are established for the compatibility of devices with each other. Our text is therefore weak on this subject and we will have to return to it, submit legislative proposals. We hope that the minds will continue to evolve.

The second thing we regret, which has been the subject of amendments introduced by Ms. Detiège and myself, concerns the protection of electro-sensitive persons and the recognition of such persons. Having met a number of them, I can assure you that these people suffer a lot. Their lives sometimes become practically impossible: as soon as they are exposed to waves, they must protect themselves by quite complicated physical means, such as cages or aluminum walls, and even resolve to move to better isolated areas. Their practical and social life becomes very difficult, or even impossible.

Additionally, there are physical suffering such as headaches, snoring, allergies and other phenomena that are difficult to treat. When these people turn to doctors, they answer that it does not exist and they do not give them the desired credibility. This is unfortunate and I would even say scandalous and revolting. Of course, this affects a small number of people, but this number will increase to the extent that electrosensitivity often begins at a time when people are weakened for other physical reasons and are already undergoing medical treatment. Electrosensitivity can affect anyone, you as well as me.

We would have wanted a recognition of the suffering of these people as well as the need to create wave-protected zones in public spaces. This is already being done in some countries. In Japan, for example, it is asked that there be no use of GSM or Wi-Fi in trains. It would not be so serious to provide for this prohibition at home; we did it with cigarettes and this has become widespread. I think many people would appreciate this type of measures. However, my partners in the majority considered this excessive. I do not understand why.

In addition, we would like to call for the adoption of wireless systems rather than wireless systems in public places such as hospitals, nurseries and homes for the elderly, places frequented by vulnerable people. This was refused. I am quite shocked by this lack of consideration for people’s health and suffering.

Based on this resolution, what will happen? I confess my concern.

Ms. Burgeon has just submitted a bill to ban the "mosquito". We unanimously adopted a resolution on this issue. When Parliament votes a resolution unanimously, what do we do about it? I am worried. Minister Magnette had promised to ban mobile phones and GSM for children under the age of twelve. I learned that this was not confirmed at all!

In this case, I intend to exercise strong and critical vigilance for the government to take these required measures. You can count on our team! We will continue to seek to increase health protection against hazards that are still uncertain but could be extremely serious for our health and public health.

In the meantime, we have heard many arguments from the rapporteurs during the various presentations in the debate.

My red thread during the — I admit — pleasant debate in the committee was that of rationality. Some starting points are the answers to questions such as what is GSM radiation and is GSM radiation harmful? They seem to be simple questions, but the answers to them are extremely complex.

In essence, it is an electromagnetic radiation, which we cannot hear or see. Does this make a rational debate impossible? In my opinion not. The debate must be a war against the blind fear of the alleged invisible danger. The debate should also not simply be based on a passive attitude or an excessive trust in the revealing bodies or market players.

I just heard from Mrs. Snoy an interesting thesis about the fact that the problems associated with smoking years ago had not yet been recognized. Mrs. Snoy, and with the expansion of the green faction, a few years ago I also saw brochures about cannabis. It is scientifically proven that it is harmful, but then it had to be approached in a different way. The Greens were in favour. It was even described as something less harmful than alcohol, making it almost a promotional brochure. But, be careful, colleagues, this is a debate about GSM radiation; an increased risk; we open all registers; great panic.

In this regard, we must find a balance.

They advocate the frequency bans and the establishment of radiation-free zones. These are theoretically zones without receiving FM radio, a frequency modulation with an electromagnetic radiation, though at a different frequency. It is almost impossible to disable such sources.

By the way, solar radiation, thermal radiation, even the beautiful orange color, which is very affectionate to us, is also radiation. The demand for a radiation-free zone is unrealistic and utopian, especially when one wants to mark it in public areas.

I would like to ask Mr. Try not to caricate the question. There has always been a question of a very precise frequency band, which are the hyperfrequencies used in wireless technologies. We are not talking here about radio waves, or ultraviolet rays, or any other radiation.

I would like, however, not to widen the debate to discredit it by means of false comparisons.

If you want to stay in the technological sphere, then by pondering this statement, you say that you do not participate in a WiMAX story or that you do not want gsm reception in specific zones, not 3G technology, because that must be absolutely radiation-free zones.

Then we come to the product standards. Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, there are at least three billion GSMs in circulation in the world. I don’t think it’s about, as the Greens do, advocating Belgian product standards. At the same time, it was also pointed out what was possible and what was not.

CD&V, and that will ⁇ please you if I say what we appreciate and can take the positive-constructive turn, is ⁇ aware of the potential health risks, the social role and the economic impact of mobile phones. Of course, we are in favor of good consumer information, the use of the precautionary principle that I will talk about later, and measures at the appropriate and competent policy level, which is also not insignificant. CD&V has also demonstrated in this discussion that it was not indifferent, not even in the Flemish Parliament, by the way, where a resolution was already adopted on the problem.

If we now talk about gsm radiation, then we must make a clear distinction between the two sources of gsm radiation: the antennas on the transmission masters, if applicable, on facades and the gsm devices themselves. It’s true that this is a bit of an emotional feeling: no one likes to have a GSM antenna nearby, but everyone likes to call mobile. One must be well aware – there are quite a few Indian stories around – that the level of radiation is not necessarily higher in the immediate vicinity of or ⁇ not under an antenna.

I would rather have my children school in a school with an antenna on the roof, rather than in a school where the antenna is fifty meters away. The radiation from a cone of an antenna is horizontally downward oriented and I can assure you that when you are under an antenna, you are less vulnerable. To put it simply, there is sometimes a sort of collective hysteria about placing antennas. Standards must be respected. In a subsequent draft we come to the role of the BIPT and there is another nice word to say about it, about the enforcement of the standards. I would like to reserve it for later.

What is it about here? If one wants to use a lower radiation standard, this means either a worse reception or more antennas. These are choices that must be made. A worse reception means that a GSM device must broadcast at a much higher power. I just listened to you well. You say that the devices must be adjusted so that they will not be able to radiate with a higher intensity precisely on those higher watts. That all may be desirable, but I assure you that if you make adjustments on this side of the system, you will sit with a giant multiplier effect to maintain quality. That is, you will need a lot more antennas, which then again creates a problem of visual impact, and the radiation will then barely decrease to guarantee the quality.

With more antennas, we get a homogeneous electromagnetic field spread across the territory. This does not necessarily cause radiation. In the coming years, apart from the reduction of the radiation standard, only by the evolution of technology, many hundred more antennas will be adjusted to provide capacity for the many new mobile applications, such as wireless internet, video and so on.

It is a little comparable to the choice of kitchen tiles. One can choose for very large tiles or for very small mosaic tiles. If you would assume the proportions of a ants and you walk over the floor, then you are always on one tile, above one cell, with a more or less homogeneous radiation. This will also be the evolution in the future. One can decide to lower some things, but one must also learn to live with what technology implies. In the future, we will have to make a choice of comfort rather than a technological choice. Then one must consider whether one wants to give up certain comfort requirements. I think the empirical studies and the scientific material do not immediately call us to this today.

Mr. Speaker, the radiation standard for the antennas is also a residual matter. It is an important element of this resolution that we explicitly call for consultation with the Regions. We are also pleased that the Brussels Region has finally seen the light and established a transitional period, precisely to allow everyone to conform to the standards they thought they should impose.

Mr. Deseyn, Mrs. Snoy would like to interrupt you again.

I would like to return to the question of choice. I think first of all that you should not compare the drawing of your kitchen with the use of these devices. Because, as far as I know, dallage does not have much impact on your health or that of your neighbor.

I recalled that we were not talking here about antennas, but about all devices. Passive exposure is also a problem. Your neighbor may be exposed to the Wi-Fi system you are going to install in your apartment, for example. I know that these are few things, but these are small degrees of exposure that add to a more overall exposure.

The public authority has a responsibility to protect users in this area. And this is not comparable to any type of consumption. For other products, public authorities have taken responsibility for regulating, or even forbidding. Our current goal is not to prohibit, but to set standards and to obtain from operators some technological advances. We may also ask ourselves whether basic comfort requires a call from the third basement of a parking lot or that one can reach anyone any way and any time.

It was interesting, because it distances Ms. Snoy’s faction from the market-driven approach, but she says that a government must choose and that we cannot have a layered model. One kind of technology, one fits all, that is not the approach we expect from a regulated market.

Mrs. Snoy, you have undoubtedly misunderstood my image of the kitchen stamps. It was about whether you choose large or small cells, that sooner or later you will have to completely tile the territory – at the micron level: the floor of your kitchen. Whether it happens with large or small tiles, the coverage must be complete.

By the way, scientifically speaking, you are mistaken when you say that this has nothing to do with it. Even if you did not understand the image language and say that the choice of materials in the kitchen is not relevant to the debate, then I can recommend you a very interesting research center in Limburg that has made very interesting findings about the choice of materials in the living space, whether it is metal, ceramic materials, wooden materials, about the impact and the spread effect of electromagnetic radiation.

I had come to the GSM devices myself. Are the users aware that when poor reception and when phone calls in the car their GSM radiates at full power? This is a form of use that can also be sensitized. And indeed, with simple tips and tools, this can definitely be fixed.

It is a very good thing that the resolution addresses specifically the issue of the earpieces, earpieces that can be plugged directly into the device, and not the wireless earpieces via bluetoothe technology, because there is another radiation that we now want to reduce exactly. Everyone has the choice. When an earpiece with a wire is supplied, this can already lead to a strong reduction, especially when one can remove the device a little further from itself.

However, the GSM market is a global market. Very specific Belgian product standards are not realistic and not desirable. We call on the European institutions to keep the current standards in light of recent studies and, if necessary, to adjust the product standards, but always at European level. We, together with our group, ⁇ advocate for clear information on all telecommunication terminal equipment.

During the committee meeting, we also held a long discussion about what is now a GSM. I have always defended the assertion that it is about a technology, so that we can best speak in generics, about handheld devices or about PDA smartphones. It was a discussion in itself.

It’s about GSM devices, but also wireless home phones, the detector phones that constantly broadcast, are actually much more harmful when it comes to that point of radiation. It’s also about wireless internet, and in it we definitely have a point when we say that the modem or at least the wireless router should be able to be turned off without making difficult manipulations at the software level, or by logging into the IP address of the modem. These are things that we can ⁇ advocate.

At the scientific level, however, there is still a degree of uncertainty.

If there are risks associated with the use, then one thing is clear. If the radiation waves prove to be harmful, they will affect children more than the elderly. We must also talk about this. Therefore, we ⁇ do not support advertising campaigns that praise the use of GSM or specific GSMs for children. I think that is not a good thing.

We must, of course, also discontinue the economic dimension in the discussion. The telecommunications sector employs tens of thousands of people in Belgium. It is also a social given. Telecom technology also enables numerous social interactions. Of course, the safety and public health aspects should not be forgotten. Every day lives can be saved. It is also about safety and comfort. One has to go to a very thin-populated area, to find a region where there is no developed GSM network, to fully realize how much comfort, security and peace of mind – although this is not always the case in politics – come with it.

The resolution aims to ensure that consumers have more information when buying a mobile phone and that they are more informed about the risks related to radiation and the health impacts. It is also important that the precautionary principle is applied, especially for vulnerable groups and young people.

A responsible government informs and sensitizes, but the ultimate responsibility – I also want to emphasize this – lies with the individual, who must take his responsibility, based on the knowledge and the information offered to him, even when it comes to keeping the GSM. Colleagues, it is indeed good that one puts the GSM on the closet, when one comes home, and that one looks at whether it is necessary that the wireless network starts. This is everyone’s individual responsibility. We do not want to impose collectivist measures on people who are wise enough to make certain decisions themselves.

Following the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 15 January 2009 that authorized the Regions to legislate on GSM antennas, the federal authority remained an important competence, that of consumer protection in the field of electromagnetic waves. Thus, passive exposure associated with GSM antennas was excluded from this federal jurisdiction.

We have long discussed electromagnetic waves in the committee. Many studies are underway, although the scientific world is not yet unanimous. We do not want to minimize the conclusions that these studies could come to. For this reason, we have proposed, with a total majority, various amendments regarding active exposure and consumer protection.

It seemed important to us to popularize a brochure that is already broadcast by the SPF Public Health but which is probably still unknown. Similarly, we found it important to ban all advertising campaigns and to conduct information campaigns for the most vulnerable users, namely children.

The visibility of the SAR/DAS index – we have talked about it several times – also helps to raise consumer awareness about the use they will make of their GSM. With regard to the issue, everyone agreed in the committee. It is also our role to be an example. However, I am not sure that we all have it with us today!

Our group agreed with the opinion of the majority of committee members on the importance of precaution. This resolution is a first step towards the precautionary principle. Some will say that this is not going far enough. However, I think that this first step will probably allow us to return to this hemisphere, at a time when scientific studies have agreed and a consensus will emerge on electromagnetic waves. We will then be able to think about clearer product standards.

The CDH group supported this proposal and will vote on it today!