News

Legislation

Cancún delivers ‘balanced package’

Efforts to develop a comprehensive global policy for climate action have taken a major step forward following what was widely viewed as a successful outcome at the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancún, Mexico, in December. Delegates agreed “a balanced and substantive package” of measures, dubbed the Cancún Agreement, that builds on the decisions taken a year ago in Copenhagen and also sets out processes for making further progress in the future.¹ The results exceeded many people's expectations ahead of the meeting and represent a compromise between different interests within the United Nations system.²

“Cancún has done its job. The beacon of hope has been reignited and faith in the multilateral climate change process to deliver results has been restored”, said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, who chaired the two-week negotiations, officially designated ‘COP-16’. A series of decisions aim to set all governments more firmly on the path towards a low-emissions future and support enhanced action on climate change in the developing world.

The Cancún Agreement acknowledges for the first time in a United Nations document that global warming must be kept below 2 °C compared to the pre-industrial temperature and establishes a process to define a date for global emissions to peak and a global emissions reduction goal for 2050. The text also recognises that overall mitigation efforts need to be scaled up in order to stay within the 2 °C ceiling.

The agreement also confirms the goal that developed countries will mobilise US$ 100 billion in climate funding for developing countries annually by 2020, and the establishment of a Green Climate Fund through which much of the funding will be channelled. Furthermore, the ‘Cancún Adaptation Framework’ will enhance action on adaptation to climate change and the launch of a “REDD+” mechanism will enable action to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries.

The European Union welcomed the positive outcome and stressed that it is willing to do its fair share of the global effort. It has set itself ambitious climate and energy targets for 2020 but is also looking at the long term. This spring the European Commission will present a strategy for completing the transition to a low-carbon economy by 2050. The strategy will aim at stimulating economic growth, job creation and innovation while strengthening the EU's energy security.

Adding to her comments after the meeting, Ms Figueres said nations must follow up “with higher global emission cuts and the rapid launch of new institutions and funds to show the world that a new era of international cooperation on climate change is an established fact”.

The next Conference of the Parties is scheduled to take place in South Africa, from 28 November to 9 December 2011.

UNFCCC: http://www.unfccc.int; UNEP: http://www.unep.org/

EU split over new EAP

EU governments are set for a showdown with the European Commission over a flagship environmental programme. Meeting in Brussels in late December, environment ministers asked the Commission to develop a new Environmental Action Plan (EAP) by early 2012. Among other things, the Seventh EAP should “develop an ambitious vision for environment policy for 2050,” the ministers said. The Commission is in no rush to begin work on a new programme, however, claiming there are more important policy priorities.

Addressing a conference in late November, Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik said the Commission had more pressing issues to deal with, such as reform of the Common Agriculture Policy. While acknowledging there were “many strong arguments” for a new programme, the Commissioner said that the budget and CAP reforms provided the “perfect opportunity” to give environmental policy the priority it needs. His comments followed earlier statements by officials indicating that a new programme would not necessarily be adopted automatically.³

Ministers called for the 7EAP to address climate change, biodiversity and resource efficiency, among other topics, and help stimulate innovation and the development of a green economy. It should also be geared to improving policy coherence and provide “realistic and achievable targets and timetables”. An assessment of the current 2002–12 plan is due to be completed later this year.

Meanwhile, the Commission has launched two consultations on environmental funding programmes: the LIFE+ programme for biodiversity protection; and the Natura 2000 network of protected sites. Responses will feed in to a review of how the financial needs of various environmental projects will be met under the EU's next budget period, between 2014–20. On LIFE+, the EU executive asks for views on what topics should be prioritised, such as climate change adaptation or better governance. Moving the programme's management to the European Environment Agency or national authorities is also on the table. Options are also proposed for Nature 2000, which has been criticised for failing to deliver the EU's biodiversity targets. The Commission will issue a policy paper on Natura 2000 financing later in the year.

Addressing a conference on green funding, officials indicated that the EU may increase its financial contribution to eco-innovation projects in future to attract more private investors. The Commission usually contributes 50% of a project's financial needs. But Georgios Floros of DG Budget told delegates it may revisit the parity principle, meaning that private investors would have to provide less funding. The idea was backed by Timo Makela of DG Environment.

Council of Ministers: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/; Belgian Presidency Conference: http://www.eapdebate.org/en/; consultations: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations_en.htm; ETAP Forum on Eco-innovation http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoinnovation2010/2nd_forum/

States fight WEEE target; mull biowaste recycling

EU governments are clubbing together to resist a European Commission proposal to impose a collection rate of 65% for waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) by 2016.⁴ The European Parliament's Environment Committee also backs the measure.

According to a progress report from the Council of Ministers, governments now favour a phased approach whereby a target of 45% would be set four years after the rules' entry into force, followed by a 65% target two years later. A majority of delegations favour this approach though some still want a longer transition period. Twelve countries support giving the WEEE directive an open scope as demanded by MEPs, but a similar number want to limit the law's scope to specific products. As a compromise ministers are proposing a narrow definition of what constitutes EEE equipment, limiting the number of products falling into an open scope.

Other issues of disagreement remain, for example whether a producer of electrical and electronic equipment should be defined at national or EU level and whether the cost of managing WEEE should be displayed on product labels.

The Parliament is scheduled to have a first reading vote on the WEEE revision in February, after which the Council will issue its formal position. Officials are optimistic in obtaining agreement on the proposals by the end of the year.

In a separate measure covering a different type of waste, the Commission is seeking views on a 36.5% target for the biological treatment of biowaste. Member States and others are asked to provide information on the feasibility of such a target (to be achieved by 2020), which the Commission says corresponds to the average biological treatment rate in the EU. This “relatively modest” target would allow countries to choose the areas where the separate collection of biowaste is the most effective. Denmark currently has the highest separate collection rate, at 54%. Other issues being considered include whether an EU target would help deliver more than is being achieved under existing waste legislation. Any such targets would be voluntary, as the Commission has stated previously it is not looking to introduce new legislation,⁵ although the European Parliament is urging it to do so.⁶

Council of Ministers: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/st17/st17217-re01.en10.pdf; Biowaste consultation: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/bio_waste_en.htm

EPA sets modest pace on GHG program

EPA has issued its plan for establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution standards under the Clean Air Act. The Agency looked at a number of sectors and is moving forward on GHG standards for fossil fuel power plants and oil refineries, two of the largest industrial sources, representing nearly 40% of US GHG emissions. EPA says the schedule provides “a clear path forward for these sectors” as part of its “common-sense approach” to addressing GHGs from the major sources.

Announcing the measure, Administrator Lisa Jackson said: “We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and contributes to climate change”. Previously, several states, local governments and environmental organisations sued EPA over its failure to update air pollution standards to cover GHG emissions.

Under the agreement, EPA will propose standards for power plants in July 2011 and for refineries in December 2011 and will issue final standards in May 2012 and November 2012, respectively. It will consult with the business community and other stakeholders so as to identify “smart, cost-effective and protective standards that reflect the latest and best information”.

In a related move, EPA has also put in place the final actions necessary to introduce GHG permitting programmes under the Clean Air Act. Beginning in January 2011, industries that are large emitters of GHGs, and are planning to build new facilities or make major modifications to existing ones, must obtain air permits and implement energy efficiency measures or, where available, cost-effective technology to reduce their GHG emissions. This includes the largest GHG emitters, such as power plants, refineries and cement production facilities. Emissions from small sources, such as farms and restaurants are not covered by the GHG permitting requirements.

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ghgsettlement.html and http://www.epa.gov/nsr/

Environmental quality

Climate change increases vulnerability to POPs

Climate change increases the planet's vulnerability to persistent organic pollutants (POPs), a UN research team conclude in a major study previewed at the global climate summit in Cancún.

The study, announced a year ago,⁷ is the first systematic and authoritative review of the impact of climate change on the release of POPs into the environment, their long range transport and environmental fate, and human and environmental exposure. It identifies climate-related impacts in three areas.

Firstly, global warming increases emissions of POPs and exposure via the food chain. Increased availability of POPs to enter the food chain leads to certain chemicals becoming concentrated in organisms, threatening the health of humans and animals.

Secondly, global warming contributes to a higher frequency of extreme weather events, which can cause severe flooding, triggering the secondary emissions of POPs. Floodwaters triggered by extreme storm events can also inundate agricultural land where stockpiles of obsolete POPs pesticides banned under the Stockholm Convention are awaiting removal.

Thirdly, higher temperatures can make wildlife more sensitive to exposure to certain pollutants. In the Arctic region, climate change can alter the exposure levels of marine mammals, such as seals or the polar bears, through a variety of means including changes in long-range atmospheric and oceanographic transport along with the melting of the ice caps. DDT is a persistent organic pollutant which the global community hopes eventually to eliminate. However, the expected increase in the incidence of vector-borne diseases, such as malaria, associated with climate change may lead to enhanced demand for and release of DDT in some regions.

The investigators identify key knowledge gaps, including the lack of long-term monitoring data to evaluate the impact of climate change on changing POP emissions and concentrations. There is also a need for climate change mitigation options to fully take into account influences associated with the production and distribution of unintentionally produced POPs. They call for improved coordination between policy-makers who address climate change and those involved in POPs management both domestically and internationally.

UNEP: “Climate Change and POPs Inter-Linkages”, http://www.pops.int/

Biodiversity body is born

A new international body aimed at catalyzing a global response to the loss of biodiversity and the world's economically-important forests, coral reefs and other ecosystems has been formed following approval by the United Nations General Assembly. Governments gave a green light to its establishment last June at an international meeting in South Korea.⁸

The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) aims to mirror the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has assisted in catalyzing worldwide understanding and governmental action on global warming. According to UNEP, it aims to “bridge the gulf between the wealth of scientific knowledge on the accelerating declines and degradation of the natural world, with knowledge on effective solutions and decisive government action required to reverse these damaging trends”.

Its various roles will include carrying out high-quality peer reviews on the science of biodiversity and ecosystem services in order to provide governments with greater clarity and confidence on the conclusions. These reports will cover not only status and trends, but also outline “transformational policy options and responses to bring about real change in their fortunes”. Other areas include bringing to the attention of governments “new topics identified by science”, outlining what is known and also aspects where more research is needed.

UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner welcomed this “major breakthrough in terms of organising a global response” to the loss of biodiversity and vulnerable ecosystems. 2010, the International Year of Biodiversity, began “on a mute note”, he observed, after it emerged that no single country had achieved the target of substantially reversing the rate of loss of biodiversity.⁹ “But it has ended on a far more positive one that underlines a new determination to act on the challenges and deliver the opportunities possible from a far more intelligent management of the planet's nature-based assets”.

2011 marks the UN's International Year of Forests, as well as the beginning of the “International Decade of Biodiversity”.

UNEP: http://www.unep.org

Latin America's changing environment

From deforestation in Guatemala to the effects of mining in Colombia, a new atlas produced by UNEP uses over 200 striking satellite images to highlight the most pressing environmental issues in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Latin America and the Caribbean - Atlas of our changing environment represents the first effort to analyze changes taking place in the region's environment, combining precise and striking satellite images with analysis based on rigorous data. It promises to be an important tool in formulating the future actions and public policies needed to achieve more sustainable development in the region.

The presentations provide a clear sense of the rapid urbanisation that has taken place, often without adequate planning, in places such as San José (Costa Rica) and San Salvador (El Salvador). The effects of climate change are evident in satellite images of glaciers in Chilean and Argentine Patagonia. Deforestation can be seen in countries such as Brazil, Bolivia, Mexico, Guatemala and Haiti. The impact of mining is illustrated through pictures of La Guajira (Colombia) and Cerro de Pasco (Peru), while high-resolution images show the impact of the natural disasters that struck Haiti in January 2010. Other environmental problems highlighted by the Atlas include changes in land use, loss of biodiversity and degradation of coastal areas.

UNEP Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean: http://www.cathalac.org/lac_atlas/

Europe gets new air quality targets

The World Health Organisation's office for Europe has released guidance setting targets on indoor air quality. These targets on specific indoor chemicals could provide the scientific basis for legally binding limits across the world.

The UN body has recommended targets for nine substances: benzene, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, naphthalene, nitrogen dioxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, radon, trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene.

Regarding tetrachloroethylene, the recommended guideline for year-long exposure is 0.25 mg m⁻³. For formaldehyde, a guideline of 0.1 mg m⁻³ is advised for any 30-minute period to prevent sensory irritation. A guideline of 7 mg m⁻³ is defined for 24 h. A value of 0.01 mg m⁻³ is set for naphthalene as an annual average.

WHO estimates that at least 14% of lung cancers in Europe and west Asia are attributable to residential radon exposure. Exposure to benzene is associated with contracting leukaemia. But awareness of these problems is limited, said Dr Michal Kryzanowski, who led work on the health guidelines.

WHO: http://www.euro.who.int/en/home

Chemical hazards

Ministers back wider biocide approvals

Ministers have given their backing to a Europe-wide authorisation system being extended to all biocidal products by 2020.

Under proposals issued by the European Commission, authorisation at EU level would be introduced for low-risk biocides and new active ingredients, with all other approvals still given by Member States.¹⁰ Industry wants more EU authorisations, saying national approvals are costly and time-consuming. MEPs are demanding EU approvals for all biocides from 2017, with exceptions for substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) or persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and biocidal products with available substitutes.¹¹

Several member states were initially resistant to the idea of more EU-wide market approvals. But meeting in Brussels before the Christmas recess, environment ministers called on the Commission to extend the procedure to all biocidal products from 2020, except for certain high-risk biocides that would be subject to national approval. They want low-risk biocides and those with new active substances to be authorised by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) from 2013. All other biocides would be subject to EU approval from 2020 with some exceptions. NGOs fear that an EU approval system would not provide sufficient environmental protection in some cases, letting hazardous substances enter the European market.

Ministers also agreed to extend exclusion criteria for certain active substances to chemicals with harmful impacts on the environment rather than just those threatening health.

In a related area, the Swedish government has written to Health Commissioner John Dalli, warning inconsistent pesticide approvals in the EU are causing confusion and may result in unfair competition between countries. The letter was prompted by a challenge to a decision to reject re-approval of the pesticides Stomp SC and Totril. The decision was based on Swedish authorities' interpretation of EU law, but the pesticides are approved for use in other EU countries such as neighbouring Denmark. Revised pesticide rules are intended to resolve such problems by introducing a trizonal geographical system for market approvals.¹² Sweden wants implementation of the new system to be speeded up.

Council of Ministers: http://www.consilium.europa.eu; and Commission statement: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/st17/st17474-ad02.en10.pdf

Agency looks for safer alternatives

As part of its commitment to strengthen and reform chemical management, EPA has announced new criteria to help companies and others identify safer chemicals. The Design for the Environment (DfE) Alternatives Assessments programme aims to identify safer alternatives to chemicals that pose a concern to human health and the environment. Information on chemical hazards is combined with industry data on performance and cost to guide the choice of safer alternatives.

Initially, DfE Alternatives Assessments will be conducted for bisphenol-A (BPA), phthalates, decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), and nonylphenol and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NP and NPEs). Both the BPA and decaBDE efforts are already under way and those for phthalates, the flame retardant HBCD, and NPEs will begin shortly.

In a separate move, EPA has issued a final rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requiring manufacturers of 19 high production volume (HPV) chemicals to test their health and environmental effects and submit the data to the Agency. The chemicals covered under this latest TSCA designation have many consumer and industrial applications. For example, diphenylmethanone is used in consumer products and may be found in personal-care products; 9,10-anthracenedione is used to manufacture dyes; C12–C24 chloroalkenes are used as metalworking fluids; pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) is a blasting and demolition agent; and leuco sulfur black is a fingerprinting agent.

The annual national analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is now available, providing data on toxic chemical disposals and releases into the air, land and water, as well as information on waste management and pollution prevention activities. In 2009, 3.37 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were released into the environment, a 12% decrease from 2008. The analysis, which includes data on approximately 650 chemicals from more than 20 000 facilities, found that total releases to air decreased 20%, while releases to surface water decreased 18%. Releases to land decreased 4% since 2008. Additional information being made available in the TRI analysis this year include data on toxic disposals and releases to large aquatic ecosystems, selected urban communities, and tribal lands. In addition, portions of the analysis are available in Spanish for the first time. The raw data were published last August.¹³

Also, a new web-based tool enables the public to search for and have easy access to health and safety studies on industrial chemicals. The tool on the Data.gov website allows users to conduct a chemical-specific search for health and safety studies that have been submitted to the Agency under TSCA.

Finally, EPA has signed a partnership agreement with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) covering technical cooperation on chemical management activities. Under the agreement the two organisations will work together on a range of issues of mutual interest including toxicity testing, the hazard and risk assessment of chemicals, risk management tools, scientific collaboration, and information exchange.

EPA: DfE, http://www.epa.gov/dfe/alternative_assessments.html; HPV: http://www.epa.gov/hpv/; search tool: http://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/; TRI: http://www.epa.gov/tri/

Europe to mark time on mercury

There will be no new European restrictions on mercury until after the adoption of a global legally binding treaty, the European Commission has announced. Ongoing talks to negotiate a treaty are expected to conclude in early 2013.¹⁴

A recent consultancy study recommended that the EU impose an import ban on mercury in both its pure form and its compounds, with exemptions for research and development and medical purposes.¹⁵ The study also proposed that a ban on mercury exports entering into force in March be extended to all mercury compounds and medical uses. A review of the export ban regulation is due in 2013.

The announcement was part of a report reviewing progress under the EU's mercury strategy. It shows that emissions are not decreasing as fast as anticipated because European states are only partially applying best available techniques (BAT) under the IPPC directive. The situation should improve since the new Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) will make it harder to deviate from BAT. The Commission said it would be following implementation closely to make sure further mercury emission reductions are achieved.

Regarding the use of mercury in dental amalgams, the second biggest use in the EU, the review says studies conducted by independent advisors have proved inconclusive. It will undertake a full lifecycle assessment of mercury amalgam fillings by the end of 2011. Sweden has called for a revised mercury strategy to include restrictions on use in dental fillings; similar measures are already being introduced in the United States.¹⁶ ECHA is due to report by September 2011 on whether to end exemptions for mercury-containing measuring devices in medical and industrial applications.

In the US, meanwhile, EPA's most recent action is a new standard that will reduce annual mercury emissions from gold ore processing and production facilities by more than 75 percent from 2007 levels. More than 20 facilities will be affected. The measure is one of several steps EPA is taking to reduce mercury levels to the environment.

European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/com_2010_en.pdf; EPA: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html

Cadmium ban to remain

An EU ban on cadmium in batteries used in cordless power tools will remain, despite a consultancy recommendation to phase it out. Responding to an earlier study and consultation, the Commission said that while ending the cadmium exemption could yield substantial environmental and health benefits, it could not yet be demonstrated that those benefits would outweigh the costs. Available studies lack substantive comparative data on the impact of the three main battery types (nickel-cadmium, lithium ion and nickel-metal hydride), the Commission added. It will conduct a comparative lifecycle analysis of the main alternatives.

Elsewhere, lifecycle emissions from lead, cadmium and hexavalent chromium in cars have fallen by nearly 100% since most uses of the heavy metals were banned under the 2000 end-of-life vehicles (ELV) directive, a study by Germany's Nko Intitute has found. The study, commissioned by industry association ACEA, also shows that these substances have been almost eliminated despite exemptions for various applications. ACEA said the findings proved that existing exemptions should be continued rather than strengthened. The cost of replacing them would far outweigh environmental benefits, it pointed out, adding that targeting the small remaining use of heavy metals in cars would be illogical when other industrial sectors use much more.

European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/batteries_en.htm; ACEA http://www.acea.be/

Toy safety; bans on consumer additives

The issue of toy safety has again come to the fore after MEPs raised concerns over reports that limits in the recently revised toy safety directive are far higher than those recommended by the latest scientific evidence.

The move followed a decision by the Belgian authorities to ban sales of foam puzzle mats after checks revealed high levels of formamide, a substance classified as toxic for reproduction. The Commission told MEPs it would take action after analysing the data.

The revised directive, which will not be fully implemented until July 2013, allows certain concentrations of carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) substances in toys. But a risk assessment conducted by German institute BfR has shown PAH limits under the law are much higher than acceptable levels. A recent opinion by EU scientific experts has led some to conclude that the directive's migration limit for toys containing lead is also too high.

Industry Commissioner Antonio Tajani said toy safety issues would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, with a view to possibly tightening existing limits. But consumer groups ANEC and BEUC said this was not enough, calling for a ban on all CMRs.

Also concerning child safety, Denmark has become the first EU country to ban parabens in lotions and other cosmetic products for children under the age of three. The ban covers propyl and butylparaben. A spokesperson for the environment ministry said the government had been waiting for five years for documentation from the cosmetics industry and accused manufacturers of dragging their feet on the issue. The ban follows a long-standing Danish campaign against suspected endocrine disruptors.¹⁷

Meanwhile, the Norwegian authorities have formally proposed to ban lead in consumer products and the chemical substances pentachlorophenol, medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCP) and the perfluorinated compound PFOA. The move comes more than three years after similar restrictions on a range of such substances were first mooted.¹⁸

European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/; BEUC: http://docshare.beuc.org; ANEC: http://www.anec.org/; Danish Environment Ministry: http://www.mim.dk/; Norwegian Climate & Pollution Agency: http://www.klif.no/

ECHA counts REACH dossiers

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) received a total 24 675 chemical registration dossiers by 30 November, the first deadline to be met under the EU's REACH regulation. The dossiers cover nearly 4300 substances.

The registration process covered substances produced or imported in large volumes as well as certain volumes of CMR substances and chemicals that are toxic to the aquatic environment. Any such substance not registered can no longer be made, imported or used in the EU.

The Helsinki-based Agency received registrations for nearly 400 substances listed as CMRs. About 12% of submissions were from SIEF lead registrants on behalf of a consortia of companies, while 82% were from SIEF members.¹⁹ Only 6% were from individual registrants.

Registrations were received from all EU countries, with 23% coming from Germany and 12% from the UK. Dutch and French registrations each represented 9% of the total. Large firms accounted for 86% of submissions, while small businesses made up 14%.

The pace of registrations stepped up considerably in September and again as the November deadline approached.

ECHA: http://www.echa.europa.eu/

Public & occupational health

Ministers call for clearer GM criteria

EU environment ministers have asked the European Commission to clarify the basis on which Member States may introduce national bans on genetically-modified (GM) crops. Health Commissioner John Dalli agreed to provide a list of criteria that may be used to justify GM bans. He had previously said these could be based on socio-economic conditions such as a preference for organic farming.

The list is one of two conditions imposed by ministers for them to continue negotiations on the Commission's draft law on GM crop cultivation, which would allow individual countries to impose their own bans.²⁰ The second condition governments are demanding is full implementation of a 2008 ministerial resolution on GM crops adopted under the French presidency. Among other issues, this called for the EU's risk assessment procedure for GMOs to be strengthened and a report on their benefits and risks.

In a previous opinion, ministers questioned the legality of the Commission's draft law on GM crops, saying it had an “invalid legal basis” and raised “strong doubts” over whether national bans would be compatible with EU internal market and World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. Long-awaited updated guidelines from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on GM risk assessments have yet to materialise.²¹

The debate came as the Commission released a compilation of 50 research projects funded by the EU since 2001. These have demonstrated that there is as yet no scientific evidence associating GM crops with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than with conventional plants. GM offers potential opportunities to reduce malnutrition in developing countries and assist in the adaptation of agriculture to the effects of climate change, the Commission says, but adds that strong safeguards are needed to control potential risks.

However, the popularity of GM maize is waning among cereal growers in the Iberian peninsula, according to data published by local NGO Transgenicos Fora. GM maize cultivation (MON 810) in Portugal fell last year for the first time since its commercial authorisation in 2005, Transgenicos says. Around 4900 hectares were planted with GM maize compared with a peak of 5200 hectares in 2009, and “a significant percentage of producers who experiment with this product of genetic engineering end up abandoning it”. In Spain, there was an 11% year-on-year drop to 67 726 hectares, the smallest area of GM maize cultivation since 2006.

Spain and Portugal accounted for almost 86% of the 94 700 hectares under GM cultivation in the EU in 2009. The remainder was grown in the Czech Republic, Romania, Poland and Slovakia.

Council of Ministers: http://www.consilium.europa.eu; GM research: http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf; Transgenicos Fora: http://stopogm.net

Local variation in exposure

A report published by the US-based Health Effects Institute looks at how well geographic locations predict personal exposure. Specifically, it explores how land-use regression (LUR) and source-apportionment techniques can be used to characterise individual-level exposure to both indoor and outdoor air pollution sources.

Dr Jonathan Levy and colleagues of the Harvard School of Public Health utilised health and air monitoring data from an ongoing prospective cohort study on childhood asthma in Boston, Massachusetts to model variability in outdoor and indoor residential air pollution, identify potential sources, and evaluate the effectiveness of various indoor exposure surrogates for predicting childhood asthma development. The study also evaluated how these approaches might reduce error in individual exposure assessment and thereby improve epidemiologic estimates of the effects of traffic-related air pollution on health.

HEI's reviewers conclude that the LUR analyses of outdoor pollutant levels performed reasonably well, explaining most of the variation in concentrations of PM_2.5 and to a lesser extent in NO₂ and elemental carbon (EC). Their results were consistent with previously published findings showing that broader-scale temporal variation, represented by measurements at the central site monitor, is an important determinant of local PM_2.5 levels. Spatially distributed factors, such as traffic, population density, and other land-use covariates, were more influential in predicting EC and NO₂ variation in the models.

Development of LUR models to predict indoor concentrations, as a closer proxy for personal exposure, proved to be a much greater challenge. The predictive value of the indoor LUR models was generally poor. However, the authors' findings that the indoor LUR models' performance was poorer when important indoor sources were present is noteworthy, as is the finding that the performance of an indoor LUR model can be improved by the relatively straightforward addition of a proxy term for ventilation taken from questionnaire data (i.e., “open windows”).

A separate report sponsored by HEI describes research into the chemical analysis of particulate matter composition from personal samplers.

Health Effects Institute: “Evaluating Heterogeneity in Indoor and Outdoor Air Pollution Using Land-Use Regression and Constrained Factor Analysis”, HEI Research Report 152; and “Improved Source Apportionment and Speciation of Low-Volume Particulate Matter Samples”, HEI Research Report 153, http://www.healtheffects.org/

Research activities

EPA seeks the path to sustainability

EPA has asked the National Research Council (NRC) to assist in a study of how to incorporate sustainability concepts into its programmes. Administrator Lisa Jackson made the announcement alongside National Academy of Sciences (NAS) President Ralph Cicerone during a week-long commemoration of the Agency's 40th anniversary.

In what it describes as “a groundbreaking effort”, NRC will help EPA to develop the Green Book as a way for the Agency to adopt more sustainable approaches to environmental protection. This tool will assist EPA in its work to find links and coordinate among its various functions, including air, water and land protection. Administrator Jackson said the move was “… an important step toward building a society that can meet its needs while preserving the ability of future generations to meet their needs”.

Historically, environmental programmes have largely focused on reducing air pollution and water pollution, and how to identify and monitor chemical and environmental risks to human health and the environment. Today's challenges depend on the sustainable use of energy, water, materials and land, and require solutions that stress the linkages between energy use, water use, environmental protection, human health, quality of life, and the global economy. The Green Book will provide recommendations to support the Agency's shift toward viewing this complex set of modern-day environmental challenges through a sustainability lens.

The effort parallels the 1983 Red Book, published by the NRC in an effort to systematize risk assessment and risk management into EPA's work. At that time, EPA Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus delivered a landmark speech to the National Academies, calling for the development of the risk framework and emphasizing its critical role in improving the Agency's effectiveness.

EPA: http://www.epa.gov

“Urgent ban” on asbestos needed

Italian scientists have called for a total worldwide ban on all asbestos. In a recent scientific paper, they point out that more than forty years after concerns were first raised, just 52 countries have banned asbestos and a large number still use, import and export asbestos and asbestos-containing products.

Asbestos refers to any of six naturally occurring fibrous minerals; serpentine asbestos, also known as chrysotile or white asbestos accounts for 95% of all asbestos use. The amphibole minerals: amosite (brown asbestos), crocidolite (blue asbestos), and tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite, are no longer used. Asbestos can withstand fire, heat and acid, is strong and insulates against heat and sound. But, it is a potent cancer-causing material accounting for 5–7% of lung cancers in men internationally and affecting the health of millions. At least 125 million people around the world are today exposed to asbestos through their work, putting them at risk of mesothelioma, asbestosis, and lung cancer.

Despite the availability of synthetic alternatives, white asbestos is still mined and exported to the developing world, most notably by Canada. Exempting white asbestos from any ban has no basis in medical science, the researchers from Modena's Collegium Ramazzini point out. A “total ban, rigorously enforced, is urgently needed”, they say in order to protect the health of current and future generations.

Last year, 53 European countries pledged to work to eradicate asbestos-related diseases.²²

“Asbestos is still with us: repeat call for a universal ban”, International Journal of Environment and Health, 2010, 4, 380–388

References

1. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 391.
2. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1785.
3. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 2197.
4. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 804; M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1009.
5. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1385.
6. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1006; M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1503.
7. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1010.
8. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1504.
9. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1386.
10. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 1451.
11. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1946.
12. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 254.
13. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1788.
14. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1504.
15. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 15.
16. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 2201.
17. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 23.
18. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2008, 10, 1014.
19. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 1567.
20. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1647.
21. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1947.
22. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1011.

---