|
グリーンピース報告書2006年4月23日
REACH：リスクの影響閾値と”適切な管理” 認可に対する理事会意見の致命的な欠陥 情報源：Greenpeace Report, 23 Apr 2006 Effect thresholds and 'adequate control' of risks: the fatal flaws in the Council position on Authorisation within REACH 訳：安間 武 （化学物質問題市民研究会） http://www.ne.jp/asahi/kagaku/pico/ 掲載日：2006年5月13日 このページへのリンク： http://www.ne.jp/asahi/kagaku/pico/eu/reach/greenpeace/gp_06_04_23_fatal_flaws.html 内容 エグゼクティブ・サマリー 1 はじめに 2 認可に対する議会と理事会の意見 3 影響閾値：安全の目的と信頼できる措置か？ 4 求めるものに依存する閾値、それはどのように？ 5 単一の化学物質暴露などは存在しない 6 他の方法：予防と代替 略語 表：REACHの認可に関する議会と理事会の意見の比較 フローチャート：REACHの認可に関する議会と理事会の意見の比較 参照 エグゼクティブ・サマリー ヨーロッパでは REACH（化学物質の登録、評価、認可）規制の制定が重要な段階に来ている。REACH 提案の主要素、特に、いわゆる ”非常に高い懸念のある物質（substances of very high concern）" の認可が最終的にどのようになるのかによって、REACH は、よりクリーンでより安全な代替に向けて革新を推進することによりそのような化学物質を廃止するための有効な措置を提供するのか、又は、EU を何十年もかかる非効率的で非効果的な分析とリスク評価に追い込み、本来避けることのできる化学物質への暴露を許し続けるのか−が決まる ヨーロッパの多くの場所で人と野生動物について、生殖系の健康に関するある主要な指標が現在、下降し続けており、一方、多くのがんの発生が増加し続け、人工化学物質への暴露が少なくともその原因の一部であることを示す証拠が増加しているので、REACH 規制の方向を正しくすることは極めて重要である。 PBT（残留性、生体蓄積性、有毒性）及び vPvB（非常に高い残留性及び生体蓄積性）の物質の使用は、より安全な代替が存在しない場合にのみ許可されるべきであるという合意があるにもかかわらず、欧州連合の欧州議会と理事会の間には、他の ”非常に高い懸念のある物質（Substances of very highconcern）” （発がん性、変異原性、又は生殖毒性（CMRs）物質及び内分泌かく乱物質を含む）への対処の仕方に関し、大きな相違がある。 この報告書では特定の化学物質を例にとり、これらの相違、”影響閾値（それ以下の暴露では人の健康と環境に有害影響が起きないと予測される暴露レベル）”、及び多くの CMRs 物質及び内分泌かく乱物質に対する理事会の提案を支えるリスクの ”適切な管理” を詳細に検証する。 結論として、理事会が提案する本質的に主観性及び不確実性を内包する閾値アプローチは、人の健康と環境の高いレベルの保護を確実にするという能力を危ういものにする。
そうではなくて、全ての場合において代替の入手可能性に目を向け、入手可能ならそれを使用し、入手可能でなければその開発を促進するという（議会提案に沿った）要求は、”非常に高い懸念のある物質” の管理に対するもっと強固で防御できる保護的アプローチである。限られた資源は、コストがかかり不必要である閾値の評価に対してではなく、代替に向けられるべきである。しかし、全ての回避可能な用途と暴露防止の措置が進歩的にとられ、持続可能な革新が支えられているなら、欠くことのできない用途に対する認可の可能性はある。長期的には、このアプローチは、来るべき次世代のために我々の環境と健康を増大させる利益とともに、ヨーロッパ化学物質産業のためにもっと持続可能な将来をもたらすであろう。 訳注（参考）：  グリーンピース報告書2006年4月 私たちの生殖系健康と化学物質暴露 人の生殖系健康の下降と化学物質暴露との関係を示す証拠の検証（当研究会訳）WWF 2006年4月19日 REACH 第54条(f) 認可 概説／”同等の懸念”ある化学物質をどのように認可に含めるかに関するWWFの見解（当研究会訳）表：REACHの認可に関する議会と理事会の意見の比較
フローチャート：REACHの認可に関する議会と理事会の意見の比較
参照 1. European Commission (2001) White Paper on the Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy, COM(2001)88: 32 pp. [http://www.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/wpr/2001/com2001_0088en01.pdf] 2. European Commission (2001) Press release IP/01/201, Commission sets out the path towards sustainable use of chemicals, Brussels, 13 February 2001 [http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/chemicals/whitepaper.htm] 3. European Commission (2003) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)…, COM 2003 0644 (03), 29 October 2003, [http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/chemicals/reach.htm] 4. In the first instance, the Restrictions component of REACH represented by Annex XVI, will largely be transcribed from the equivalent annex of the existing marketing and use Directive 76/769 5. The Paris Appeal (2005) - International declaration on diseases due to chemical pollution. [http://www.artac.info/static.php?op=AppelAnglais.txt&npds=1] 6. The Prague Declaration on Endocrine Disruption (2005) [http://www.edenresearch.info/public/Prague%20Declaration%2017%20June%202005.pdf] 7. European Parliament (2005) European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency and amending Directive 1999/45/EC and Regulation (EC) No …/… [on Persistent Organic Pollutants] (COM(2003)0644 - C5-0530/2003 - 2003/0256(COD)), P6_TAPROV(2005)0434,17th November 2005: 160 pp. 8. Council of the European Union (2005) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency and amending Directive 1999/45/EC and Regulation (EC) {on Persistent Organic Pollutants}, 15921/05, Brussels, 19th December 2005: 270 pp. 9. European Parliament amendment no. 216 10. WWF (2006):The Council Common Position & chemicals of 'equivalent concern'. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/article_54_f__briefing___april_2006.doc 11. The text in the square brackets is inserted for better understanding of the context 12. European Union (2001) EU Risk Assessment, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate: DEHP, Consolidated Final Report R042_0109_env_hh_0-3, September 2001: 582 pp. 13. Santillo, D., Stringer, R., Johnston, P. & Tickner, J. (1998) The Precautionary Principle: Protecting against failures of scientific method and risk assessment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 36(12): 939-950 14. The Prague Declaration on Endocrine Disruption (2005) 15. Poon, R., Lecavalier, P., Mueller, R.,Valli,V.E., Procter, B.B., and Chu, I. (1997). Subchronic oral toxicity of di-n-octyl phthalate and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in the rat. Food Chem. Toxicol. 35, 225-239 16. Arcadi, F.A., Costa, C., Imperatore, C., Marchese, A., Rapidisarda, A., Salemi, M.,Trimarchi, G.R., and Costa, G. (1998). Oral toxicity of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate during pregnancy and suckling in Long-Evans rat. Food Chem.Toxicol. 36, 963-970. 17. IPCS (International Program on Chemical Safety). Environmental Health Criteria no. 162. Brominated diphenyl ethers. WHO, Geneva; 1994 18. Darnerud, P.O. (2003) Toxic effects of brominated flame retardants on man and wildlife. Environment International 29: 841-853 19. Viberg, H., Fredriksson, A., Jakobsson, E., Orn, U. & Eriksson, P. (2003) Neurobehavioural derangements in adult mice receiving decabrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE 209) during a defined period of neonatal brain development. Toxicological Sciences 76: 112-120 20. Stapleton, H.M., Alaee, M., Letcher, R.J. & Baker, J.E. (2004) Debromination of the flame retardant decabromodiphenyl ether by juvenile carp (Cyprinus carpio) following dietary exposure. Environmental Science & Technology 38(1): 112-119 21. Soderstrom, G., Sellstrom, U., de Wit, C.A. & Tyskilnd, M. (2004) Photolytic debromination of decabromodiphenyl ether (BDE 209). Environmental Science & Technology 38 (1): 127-132 22. HERA (2004) HERA (Human and Environmental Risk Assessment on Ingredients of Household Cleaning Products) Risk Assessment of HHCB (1,3,4,6,7,8-hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethylcyclopenta- _-2-benzopyran and related isomers), Version 2, October 2004: 62 pp. 23. Bitsch, N., Dudas, C., Korner,W., Failing, K., Biselli, S., Rimkus, G. & Brunn, H. (2002) Estrogenic activity of musk fragrances detected by the E-screen assay using human MCF-7 cells. Archives of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology 43: 257-264 24. Seinen,W., Lemmen, J.G., Pieters, R.H.H.,Verbruggen, E.M.J. & van der Burg, B. (1999) AHTN and HHCB show weak estrogenic - but no uterotrophic activity.Toxicology Letters 111: 161-168 25. Schreurs, R.H.M.M., Quaedackers, M.E., Seinen,W. & van der Burg, B. (2002) Transcriptional activation of estrogen receptor ER_ and ER_ by polycyclic musks is cell type dependent.Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 183: 1-9 26. Schreurs, R.H.M.M., Legler, J., Artola-Garicano, E., Sinnige,T.L., Lanser, P.H., Seinen,W. & van der Burg, B. (2004) In vitro and in vivo antiestrogenic effects of polycyclic musks in zebrafish. Environmental Science & Technology 38: 997-1002. 27. ENDS Daily (2006) Researchers flag up endocrine disruptor risks, Environment Daily 2064, 22 March 2006 [see also http://www.comprendo-project.org/] 28. The Prague Declaration on Endocrine Disruption (2005) 29. Yang, R.S.H.,Thomas, R.S. & Gustafson, D.L., Campain, J., Benjamin, S.A.,Verhaar, H.J.M. & Mumtaz, M.M. (1998) Approaches to developing alternative and predictive toxicology based on PBPK/PD and QSAR modelling. Environmental Health Perspectives 106(Suppl.): 1385-1393 30. Santillo, D., Labunska, I., Davidson, H., Johnston, P., Strutt, M. & Knowles, O. (2003) Consuming Chemicals: Hazardous Chemicals in house dust as an indicator of chemical exposure in the home: Part I - UK. Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Note 01/2003, April 2003: 74 pp. [http://www.greenpeace.to/publications_pdf/housedust_uk_2003.pdf] 31. Gearhart, J. & Posselt, H. (2006) Toxic at any speed: chemicals in cars and the need for safe alternatives.The Ecology Centre, Ann Arbor (MI), January 2006: 32 pp. [http://www.ecocenter.org/dust/ToxicAtAnySpeed.pdf] 32. Altenburger, R., Nendza, M. & Schuurmann, G. (2003) Mixture toxicity and its modeling by quantitative structureactivity relationships. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22(8): 1900-1915 33. Zeliger, H.I. (2003) Toxic effects of chemical mixtures. Archives of Environmental Health 58(1): 23-29 34. Komulainen, H. (2004) Experimental cancer studies of chlorinated by-products.Toxicology 198(1-3): 239-248 35. Silva, E., Rajapakse, N. & Kortenkamp, A. (2002) Something from “nothing” - Eight weak estrogenic chemicals combined at concentrations below NOECs produce significant mixture effects. Environmental Science & Technology 36(8): 1751-1756 36. Jonker, M.J., Svendsen, C., Bedaux, J.J.M., Bongers, M. & Kammenga, J.E. (2005) Significance testing of synergistic/antagonistic, dose level-dependent, or dose ratiodependent effects in mixture dose-response analysis Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 24(10): 2701-2713 37. Mori, C., Morsey, B., Levin, M., Nambiar, P.R. & De Guise, S. (2006) Immunomodulatory effects of in vitro exposure to organochlorines on T-cell proliferation in marine mammals and mice. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health - Part A - Current Issues 69(4): 283-302 38. Mu, X.Y. & Le Blanc, G.A. (2004) Synergistic interaction of endocrine-disrupting chemicals: Model development using an ecdysone receptor antagonist and a hormone synthesis inhibitor. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 23(4): 1085-1091 39. Schmidt, K., Steinberg, C.E.W., Staaks, G.B.O. & Pflugmacher, S. (2005) Influence of a xenobiotic mixture (PCB and TBT) compared to single substances on swimming behavior or reproduction of Daphnia magna. Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica 33(4): 287-300 40. Altenburger, R., Nendza, M. & Schuurmann, G. (2003) Mixture toxicity and its modeling by quantitative structureactivity relationships. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22(8): 1900-1915 41. Zeliger, H.I. (2003) Toxic effects of chemical mixtures. Archives of Environmental Health 58(1): 23-29 42. Silva, E., Rajapakse, N. & Kortenkamp, A. (2002) Something from “nothing” - Eight weak estrogenic chemicals combined at concentrations below NOECs produce significant mixture effects. Environmental Science & Technology 36(8): 1751-1756 43. Rajapakse, N., Silva, E. & Kortenkamp, A. (2002) Combining zenoestrogens at levels below individual no-observed effect concentrations dramatically enhances steroid hormone action. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(9): 917-921 44. The Prague Declaration on Endocrine Disruption (2005) 45. Borgert, C.J. (2004) Chemical mixtures: An unsolvable riddle? Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 10(4): 619-629 46. Parliament amendment 235 to Article 57, paragraph 6 47. The 1992 OSPAR Convention (http://www.ospar.org), which aims to protect the marine environment of the North East Atlantic region and includes many European countries and the European Commission as Contracting Parties, established in 1998 a strategy to address hazardous substances which requires, inter alia, the cessation of discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances by 2020 (i.e. within one generation). Precaution and substitution are two guiding principles of the Hazardous Substances Strategy. In 2003, recognising the potential for the then newly developing EU chemicals policy to contribute to OSPAR's objectives, OSPAR Ministers concluded: “In the further development of the EC Chemicals policy we encourage the European Community: a. to take full account of the need to protect the marine environment; b. to take account of our commitments to move towards the cessation of emission, discharges and losses of hazardous substances; c. to promote the substitution of hazardous substances with safer alternatives, including promoting and facilitating the development of such alternatives where they do not currently exist d. to ensure that purchasers and consumers are provided with information on hazardous substances in goods, to help reduce the risks from them.” 48. The specific cases of these three chemicals are highlighted here as an illustration of a wider concern. Until it becomes clear precisely which ‘substances of very high concern’ will ultimately fall into the category for which the Council envisages that thresholds may be set (and, therefore, the ‘adequate control’ route applied), a more exhaustive analysis of the potential consequences is not possible. 49. Greenpeace (2005) Safer chemicals within REACH: Using the substitution principle to drive green chemistry, Greenpeace European Unit, February 2005, ISBN: 1-903907-07-1: 40 pp. [http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/saferchemicals-within-reach] 50. Kierkegaard, A., Bjorklund, J., Friden, U. (2004) Identification of the flame retardant decabromodiphenyl ethane in the environment. Environmental Science & Technology 38(12): 3247-3253 51. Lassen, C., Lokke, S. & Hansen, L.I. (1999) Brominated flame retardants: substance flow analysis and substitution feasibility study. Danish Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Project No. 494, Copenhagen, ISBN 87-7909-415-5: 240 pp. 52. Santillo, D. & Johnston, P. (2003) Playing with fire: the global threat presented by brominated flame retardants justifies urgent substitution. Environment International 29: 725-734 |
