Proposition 53K1996

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 24 janvier 1977 relative à la protection de la santé des consommateurs en ce qui concerne les denrées alimentaires et les autres produits, visant à interdire le bisphénol A dans les contenants de denrées alimentaires.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Oct. 18, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer protection human nutrition product safety preparation for market food policy public health

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld LDD MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo N-VA VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

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 1, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to my written report. I will speak very briefly for the PS group.

I urge you to intervene immediately.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, in October 2010, Senator Philippe Mahoux submitted a bill aiming to ban bisphenol A in food containers.

The hearings held in the Senate and the opinions of the scientists consulted thus allowed to reach a consensus: Bisphenol A, in just ten months, will no longer be used in the manufacture of food containers intended for children from zero to three years old. The targeted childcare material is wide. As you specified in the committee, Mrs. Minister of Public Health, the small baby pots are ⁇ targeted, but also the plates, the bowl, the cups being intended for them, the baby cooks, the sterilizers, the milk boxes and I pass.

Obviously, some will say that the measure does not go enough and that bisphenol A should be banned purely and simply from all food containers. I think the problem is even wider than this: Bisphenol A is present in many objects: toys, for example.

Unfortunately, endocrine disruptors are not limited to bisphenol A. Also, a comprehensive reflection must absolutely be initiated, scientific studies must be carried out urgently to allow the legislator to adapt the rules according to the state of scientific knowledge.

The Minister said she had requested an opinion from the Higher Health Council on the different pathways of exposure to bisphenol A. This will be announced in June next year, in three months. The Minister also ⁇ that our country was participating in a European study on endocrine disruptors. A new regulation - an extension of the ban - could therefore soon intervene, and this, if scientific advice recommends it.

So, to be sure to move forward, to be sure to protect as soon as possible the most vulnerable group to the exposure to bisphenol A, namely infants and young children, the PS group will support this text which constitutes a first step forward and obviously does not exclude that further adjustments to the legislation will be made in a more or less near future.

Mr. Speaker, an important finding is that there remains uncertainty about the exact impact of bisphenol A on health, ⁇ among adults. For children, it is a very different story. Although bisphenol A can be removed from sugary bottles by warming them several times and bisphenol A thus does not necessarily enter baby food, this is not the case with packaging for ready-to-feed foods. Therefore, and for the sake of the precautionary principle, we may find ourselves in a ban on the use of bisphenol A in packaging intended for children under three years of age.

However, it is too early to introduce a ban on 1 January 2013. We must give industry the opportunity to provide safe and reliable alternatives to bisphenol A. In addition, both the High Health Council and the European Food Safety Agency are working on a new report. It seems appropriate for us to wait for it.

Therefore, our group submits an amendment to make this proposal only effective from 1 January 2014. If our amendment is not accepted, we will abstain.

So far, in terms of banning bisphenol A, only one decision has been made for bottles. Since March 1, 2011, it has been prohibited in the European Union to manufacture bottles containing bisphenol A. This prohibition was provided for by the European Union Directive 2011/8/EU. Adopted at the end of January 2011, it also prohibits, from 1 June 2011, the placing on the market and the importation into the Union of bottles containing bisphenol A. The directive was transposed in our country through the Royal Decree of 10 February 2011.

The text presented today goes beyond EU provisions as it aims to ban bisphenol A in all food containers intended for children under three years of age. This text does not therefore provide for a total ban but rather a limited ban on containers for children under three years of age from 1 January 2013. During the discussion in the committee, the Minister has also clearly defined the scope of this text. It takes into account both the fact that neither the scientific literature nor the numerous international studies on the toxicity of bisphenol A have been able to conclude that it is harmful to health in general. Without proven toxicity, on the one hand, and without alternative for the companies manufacturing these products, on the other hand, it seems premature and inappropriate to disrupt the Belgian food sector, especially in times of crisis. A general ban on bisphenol A in Belgium would be ⁇ damaging for those companies, 95 percent of which are SMEs, with the significant consequences it could have on employment.

In addition, the text is based on the opinion of the Higher Health Council (No. 8697 of 3 November 2010) which stipulated in particular that: "In view of the existing uncertainties regarding the toxicity of bisphenol A, the Higher Health Council recommends, as part of the precautionary principle, to limit exposure of young children to bisphenol A to the lowest level possible."

Some will find that the project is insufficient, that the text does not go far enough, or that the entry into force is not fast enough or too fast. Others will find that industries only have to use alternatives for their containers without worrying about any potential harm they could generate.

For our part, we prefer a pragmatic approach, a step-by-step and nuanced approach taking into account the scientific literature, international studies and recommendations of the Higher Health Council on the subject.

This is why, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, our group will support this bill.

Dear colleagues, I invite you to warmly applaud Ms. Warzée-Caverenne who has just made her maiden speech. (The applause)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

For those who don’t know, I’ll give you a little history. It should be known that initially, a bill proposal that I will qualify as "good" had been deposited by the PS senator, Dr. Philippe Mahoux. This proposal aimed at banning bisphenol A in all food packaging.

Subsequently, strangely, an amendment, which I will call an “small pots” amendment, was deposited by Senator Brotchi. This amendment was intended to significantly reduce the impact of the proposal. Mahoux because he limited the banning of bisphenol A to food packaging containing food for children aged 0 to 3 years, i.e., in large, to small pots. All the foods given to these children were therefore no longer concerned since, as you know appropriately, family mothers give their children only small pots; they also occasionally give vegetable pures stored in a Tupperware, heated in a pot or in the microwave oven. This amendment therefore significantly devalued the initially submitted bill.

However, Mr. Brotchi, who welcomed the vote on the amended bill, said that he pledged, at the level of prevention, for the strengthening of information given to pregnant women as well as health professionals, citing the fact that, unfortunately, bisphenol A also passes through the placenta and through milk. It is not me who says it, but the Senator Mr. M. Brotchi who is – I recall – at the origin of the amendment that devalued the law.

This happened in the House and, unfortunately, the majority did not want to adapt it and expand its scope.

I introduced with my group an amendment calling for bisphenol A to be banned not only in small pots, bottles, children’s containers but also in all food packaging. We took the precaution to say that it was banned first on January 1, 2013 in baby containers, to result in a complete ban on January 1, 2014. This was done by the French National Assembly in October 2011.

Why is this insufficient? Bisphenol A is an endocrine disruptor that has serious health effects. It is in fact the hormonal system that can be disrupted by our exposure to bisphenol A.

It was discovered that this substance migrated from food packaging (conserve boxes, plastics) to food. We are contaminated with bisphenol A through food. This accounts for 90% of our exposure to bisphenol A.

This substance that passes into the bloodstream is transmitted and contaminates the child in utero. Many scientists today confirm that the problem is not the dose. It is not the dose that makes the poison, as the traditional concept of epidemiology says, but it is the time of exposure. It is recognized that it is during the 16th week of pregnancy that the child is exposed to this contamination, which can have effects on the child, possibly long-term.

Prenatal or postnatal exposure of the child through the placenta during pregnancy and subsequent feeding, including breast milk, is detrimental to the child. You will understand that banning bisphenol A only in food packaging containing baby food is completely insufficient. This does not protect the child in utero, it does not protect the child fed with breast milk, it does not protect the mothers. It is the whole population that needs to be protected, including fathers because there is also a possible transmission through blood and sperm.

I will not repeat the list of proven effects.

Madame Warzée, when you say that scientists have not found certainty, it is totally false!

How can you claim this? There are currently 193 published studies on bisphenol A and 96% of them show proven effects on animals. This was ⁇ by the French National Agency for Health Safety (Anses). There are few epidemiological studies on humans, but there are many on laboratory animals.

After exposure to bisphenol A, we actually see an effect on reproduction, on hormonal development (early puberty in females and genital malformations in males), on cardiovascular diseases, on obesity, on cancer. It is dishonest to say that nothing is proven and that at present exposure to low doses is not dangerous.

Ms. Warzée wants to intervene, but let’s try not to repeat the debate. We are not in a committee, but in a plenary session. The discussions have already taken place in the committee. But I know that, for posterity, it is important that everyone can find traces of their interventions in parliamentary documents.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall the words of Mrs. Burgeon. We are awaiting the report of the Higher Health Council for the month of June. Our group wants to move forward step by step based on scientific texts, as does Ms. Minister.

I would like to complete my presentation. I would like to add that we are filing – and we are supported by the FDF – an amendment demanding that all food containers be targeted on 1 January 2014. Thus, we give companies the opportunity to prepare alternatives. It already exists. I will not take them all here.

Have you heard the RTBF this morning? What has been said about Eternit and about asbestos? The company Eternit had a substitute for asbestos. She did not choose to use a substitute as long as the law did not require it. Businesses need predictability and clarity. The constant postponement of decisions is not good. This is how we acted for tobacco and we were sanctioned by the Constitutional Court! That is enough! I am addressing mothers and future mothers. I do not understand how you do not demand protection against this kind of toxic substance that will affect future generations.

Following Mr. Thiéry, it will be Mrs. Schyns' turn and finally Mrs. Vervotte's.

Mr. President, I thank you.

I am not going to repeat all the discussions, because we can stick to Mrs. Snoy’s words.

I would like to emphasize the constructive nature of the discussions we have had in the committee. I am especially grateful to Mrs. Minister for explaining the supports and outcomes of the project and for submitting several proposals that I think are going in the right direction.

I went through the studies and dossiers related to bisphenol A in their entirety. It was a very difficult task, because there were a lot of them. It is necessary to distinguish between work that was done before and after 2009. It is true that, until that year, it was difficult to demonstrate a particular action of bisphenol likely to result in very significant side effects. On the other hand, after 2009, with probably more advanced techniques, we have found – and I am registering here falsely with regard to Ms. Warzée’s statements – that these side effects could be significant, and even dramatic in some cases. I am speaking here more specifically in terms of the gastrointestinal tract and the immune system in order to complement Ms. Snoy’s intervention.

This is why it is worth having a responsible and long-term vision of the problem. We need to take much deeper measures. As I said in the committee, but I want to repeat it because it seems fundamental to me: it is the precautionary principle that must be applied. The total prohibition is required every day more. We even received support from pediatricians who communicated several recommendations – which are far from anodine. Of course, as I also explained in the committee, to the text proposed by the Senate I would prefer a bill similar to the French.

I can of course satisfy the commitments made by the Minister to work step by step and I thank him for this. This is probably the best way to function.

You said to wait for the report of the Higher Health Council for June. Unfortunately, we were already waiting for it for March. What is it? Therefore, I wonder to what extent it would not be appropriate to impose deadlines.

That’s why we totally fit into the Ecolo Group’s amendment proposal: leave time to time and work step by step while keeping this 2014 deadline. At that time, as in France and other European countries, it will be about eliminating all manufacturing, importing, exporting and placing on the market of any food packaging containing bisphenol A.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, I will simply point out that the scope of the Senate text has been partially reduced by justifying the need for manufacturers to find an alternative, without risk to health.

First, the CDH had supported the original text: the precautionary principle seemed obvious to us. Scientific studies have demonstrated that the potential toxic risks are ⁇ not banal. This precautionary principle was therefore necessary for us.

Then, we also accepted the compromise proposal composed with the majority. A first step is better than no progress. We see this first step only as a step, a signal to manufacturers by pointing out the time needed to find credible, non-harmful alternatives.

On behalf of our group, I also emphasized in the Health Committee that we were ready to go further, ⁇ after receiving the results of the study of the Higher Health Council in June, and that the total ban in 2014 remained the option to recall and defend. It is indispensable for health; there is no need to return to the long discussion that led to an almost general agreement. This option must remain realistic for manufacturers.

That is why we support the bill as presented today. We also support the Minister in the various studies she initiates and in future decisions to be made.

I want to be brief, because the most important thing has already been said. Some blame us for going too far, others blame us for not going far enough. Probably both groups are right in some way. The most important thing is that we have already taken a first step towards the right measures. The Minister has strongly insisted on this.

We can agree with the procedure because the Minister has personally committed to continuing the process. Based on the elements we now have, we can already take action, and then we can see what data we will need further. The Minister has committed to incorporating the discussions on this subject at the European level into our debates.

In summary, it would be a mistake if we said that we are all very satisfied with this. Everyone felt that something had to be done, and we did. This is a first clear step. Now we can take action. Waiting longer would not be responsible. At the same time, we must ensure that we act in the right way, taking into account the process set forth in the committee by the Minister.

We will follow this further. The Parliament must today send a clear message, namely that our companies should invest in alternatives. They should not wait with it. Our message is clear: we are already taking action, and we will take further action later when necessary. In the meantime, we are already putting things in a certain perspective.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to remind Ms. Snoy, in particular, that we would all like there to be a community action on this matter. Indeed, what you consider obvious is not for everyone and does not currently justify action at European level. With this text, we stand far beyond the measures proposed or taken by the European Union.

In addition, some are proposing to go further from January 1, 2014. We informed them that a first initiative would already be taken, based on the opinion of the Higher Health Council, on 1 January 2013. We are awaiting the next opinion of this council, which will be delivered in June next year. Based on this opinion, we will make new proposals that could come into effect – why not? 1 January 2014.

I also point out that since there is no Community action, the bill has been signed at European level. We still do not know if by going beyond the European Union ban, we will not be reckoned as a barrier to free competition. You know it.

Finally, I would like to add that we take the issue seriously. As I just said, a new opinion from the Higher Health Council – the latest opinion dates back to 2010 – is expected in the coming months and we will take further initiatives based on its findings.

We are also working on two major research projects. There is, first of all, a study of polycarbonate substitutes in the manufacture of bottles. Several types of BPA-free bottles have appeared on the market. And it is not yet known whether the BPA substitutes are not more dangerous than BPA itself. We take all these aspects into consideration, in contractual research with DG4. We are also working on a research project of biomonitoring of the European population – Belgium is one of the leaders in the field – on the presence, in the body, of different chemical substances. This is the DEMOCOPHES project. It is about evaluating the exposure of the population to these substances through urine and blood tests. Regardless of the source of exposure, several substances considered to be endocrine disruptors have been identified, such as phthalates, bisphenol A, triclosan, etc.

As you can see, we are at the forefront. Rather than criticizing what we are doing when it is a step and we are, at the limit, better than most other European countries, we should rejoice at the first step made, even if we should not be content with it. We must go forward.

We are waiting for the opinion of the Higher Health Council to prepare for the future. We must work together without engaging in sterile polemics.

We are asking for better, which I do not think is sterile.

It would be good if all this happens at the European level. However, you know that the decision at this level is based on a report from EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, which has taken into account only a small proportion of the studies, especially those funded by the industry itself. This has been confirmed by the ANSES.

As for the committee that gave an opinion on bisphenol A, there was a conflict of interest for 11 out of 20 people. The European Commission is frozen by this conservatism and these conflicts of interest within EFSA.

Continuing research on people’s exposure to bisphenol A is very good! The University of Antwerp has done research: 96% of people in Belgium are contaminated with bisphenol A. We know it! Research must continue, but this should not prevent us from moving forward and applying the precautionary principle.