News

Legislation

Integration key to water protection plan

A forthcoming blueprint on European water policy will focus primarily on how to better integrate water in other policy areas such as the common agricultural policy (CAP) and cohesion funding, according to Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik.

Speaking at a recent meeting of environment ministers in Gödöllő, Hungary, Mr Potočnik unveiled that the plan would include a review of water scarcity and drought policies and consider a revision of the water framework directive (WFD). No major overhaul of legislation is foreseen. The plan will give the first official assessment of the extent to which EU countries are using water efficiency standards, Mr Potočnik added.

Environment ministers were receptive to the idea of integrating water into other policies. Among other issues, they discussed the possibility of integrating water use into the ecodesign directive and introducing labelling for ‘water footprints’. The idea of tying green payments in the CAP to agricultural practices that encourage natural water retention was also discussed. Dedicating EU regional funds for activities such as desalination, sustainable urban drainage systems and new irrigation systems was also discussed.

The blueprint will be based on an EU assessment of the river basin management plans that governments were due to submit last year. These were long delayed and seven countries have yet to submit final plans, prompting green groups to complain that the WFD is ‘toothless’.¹

A European Commission report released ahead of the meeting found that most EU states have failed to adopt water efficiency standards in buildings or water meters, despite standards recommended in 2007. Member States have largely ignored the recommendations, the Commission says, which consist of seven non-mandatory policy options. Attempts to introduce measures to address illegal water abstraction and losses from water distribution networks have been “poor” in several countries, the Commission finds. “Recent studies show that by 2050 most European regions are expected to be under medium or severe water stress”, the report says, “mainly due to unsustainable water use, exacerbated by the effects of climate change”. However, it points to many cases where policy options have been adopted successfully, such as water pricing, improved water management tools, and water efficiency and saving measures.

At Gödöllő, ministers from Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia and Slovenia signed up to the Danube strategy, a multi-year programme to protect the Danube basin. They also discussed how the strategy's targets will be monitored.

Meanwhile, two protocols under the Barcelona Convention to protect the Mediterranean marine and coastal environment have entered force after achieving a sufficient number of ratifications. The protocols deal with pollution from offshore oil and gas platforms and integrated coastal zone management (ICZM). Both needed to be ratified by six countries before entering into force. The EU ratified the ICZM protocol last year.

European Council: http://www.eu2011.hu/event/informal-meeting-environment-ministers; European Commission: water efficiency report, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/eu_action.htm; Barcelona Convention: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/barcelona.htm

US moves forward with mercury standard

In response to a court deadline, EPA has proposed the first-ever national standards for mercury, arsenic and other toxic air pollution from US power plants. The new standards would require many power plants to install proven pollution control technologies to cut harmful emissions of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases.

The Agency estimates that the measure will prevent as many as 17 000 premature deaths and 11 000 heart attacks a year, with particular health benefits for children. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson hailed it as “a significant milestone in the Clean Air Act's already unprecedented record of ensuring our children are protected from the damaging effects of toxic air pollution”. Charles Connor, President and CEO of the American Lung Association applauded what he called “a sensible public health measure”, noting it was “20 years overdue”.

Power plants are the largest remaining source of several toxic air pollutants – responsible for half of mercury and more than half of acid gas emissions in the United States. In the power sector alone, coal-fired power plants are responsible for 99% of mercury emissions. Currently, more than half of all coal-fired power plants already deploy the widely available pollution control technologies that allow them to meet national standards. Once final, these standards will ensure the remaining coal-fired plants, roughly 44 percent, take similar steps to decrease dangerous pollutants. Facilities will have 4 years to comply and, once fully implemented, the standards will cut mercury emissions from coal by 91%.

The announcement was long awaited, coming 11 years after EPA first announced it would set such limits for power plants. Efforts to implement such a measure by the Bush Administration were thwarted by a court decision in February 2008. In October 2009, EPA entered into a consent decree that required a proposal to be signed by March 16, 2011, and a final rule to be completed by November 2011.

Under a separate measure affecting the power sector, EPA is proposing standards to protect billions of fish and other aquatic organisms drawn each year into cooling water systems at large power plants and factories. The proposal, based on Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, would establish “a common sense framework”, putting a premium on public input and flexibility. Safeguards against impingement will be required for all facilities above a minimum size; closed-cycle cooling systems may also be required on a case-by-case basis.

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/; http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/

Environmental quality

Fukushima crisis casts shadow over nuclear future

As JEM went to press, authorities in Japan were still struggling to contain the safety crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant following March's massive earthquake. The spectre of a major radioactive release sent political shockwaves across the developed world at a time when policy-makers were urging a return to nuclear energy as part of a low-carbon future.

At a summit in Brussels, EU leaders agreed that all existing and planned nuclear power plants in and around the EU should be subject to comprehensive and transparent risk and safety assessments following the Fukushima disaster. National authorities have until the end of the year to conduct safety tests, also known as “stress tests”. The leaders also agreed that the test results should be made public and that the European Commission should develop an impact assessment, detailing any actions required, by the end of the year. Governments are currently considering a draft directive on high-level nuclear waste issued last year.²

The episode also led to a renewed focus on a Commission proposal to revise EU rules on radioactive levels in food after it emerged that milk and vegetables around the Fukushima plant had been contaminated. MEPs pointed out that existing EU limits on radiation in food are less stringent than in Japan. The Commission is not proposing to change existing limits but MEPs want them to be lowered. At present the European Parliament has no say on these regulations which fall under the Euratom treaty.

In the United States, EPA stepped up monitoring of precipitation, milk, and drinking water. Very low levels of radioactive material were detected consistent with estimated releases from the damaged nuclear reactors. The detections in air, precipitation, and milk were expected, the Agency said, and the levels detected were far below levels of public-health concern.

The incident came just as the Commission published its low-carbon roadmap for 2050, outlining the EU's long-term response to climate change. The roadmap takes into account existing and planned nuclear plants, such as in Poland, but does not anticipate any new capacity that has not yet been politically agreed. A greater use of fossil fuels and renewables is foreseen as a result, depending on what is seen as the most cost-effective way of meeting EU climate goals. In Germany, it is estimated that a national nuclear shutdown would increase CO2.

Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told a Brussels press conference that decisions on new energy sources would likely be influenced by the events in Japan. The EU executive may have to amend its proposals if European governments downsize their nuclear power ambitions.

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/

International action on marine debris

Actions to counter the widespread problem of debris in the world's seas and oceans are to be stepped up. Meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii, under the auspices of the UN Environment Programme, experts from some 35 governments, research bodies and corporations agreed to address the issue at global, national and local levels.

Despite decades of efforts to prevent and reduce marine debris, such as discarded plastic, abandoned fishing nets and industrial waste, there is evidence that the problem continues to grow. A lack of co-ordination between global and regional programmes, deficiencies in the enforcement of existing regulations, and unsustainable consumption and production patterns have aggravated the problem.

The impacts of marine debris are far-reaching, with serious consequences for marine habitats, biodiversity, human health and the global economy. Around 300 marine species worldwide are affected by entanglement in or ingestion of marine debris, including 86% of all sea turtles, 44% of all seabirds and 43% of all marine mammals. There is growing concern over the potential impact on human health of toxic substances released by plastic waste in the ocean. Accumulated debris on beaches and shorelines can have a serious economic impact on communities that are dependent on tourism. Debris may house communities of invasive species which can disrupt marine habitats and ecosystems, while heavy items can damage habitats such as coral reefs and affect the foraging and feeding habits of marine animals.

In a message to conference delegates, UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said: “Marine debris – trash in our oceans – is a symptom of our throw-away society and our approach to how we use our natural resources. It affects every country and every ocean, and shows us in highly visible terms the urgency of shifting towards a low-carbon, resource-efficient Green Economy as nations prepare for Rio+20 in 2012”.

The so-called Honolulu Commitment marks a new, cross-sectoral approach to help reduce the occurrence of marine debris and the associated risks. It encourages the sharing of technical, legal and market-based solutions, improving local and regional understanding of the scale and impact of the problem, and advocates the improvement of waste management worldwide.

UNEP: http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/; NOAA: http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/

European cities squeezed on air pollution

Municipal authorities across Europe are under pressure to improve their performance in combating air pollution in the face of increasing scrutiny from both campaigners and legislators. Green group Soot Free for the Climate has launched a league table ranking cities' performance. Berlin, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Vienna and Zurich have made the greatest efforts in the past five years, while Dusseldorf, Milan and Rome languish at the bottom. Progress was measured using ten categories including abatement measures, sustainable transport planning, and reduction trends from 2005 to 2010. So far 15 cities have been evaluated.

In Berlin a low-emission zone was introduced in 2008 banning some of the most polluting cars. This led to a 40% decrease in soot emissions and a 19% drop in NO_x emissions. Other best practices highlighted include Zurich's goal of a 2% reduction of fuel consumption every year until 2015; Vienna's requirement that all non-road machinery have particulate filters; and Copenhagen's increase in parking charges. Several Spanish cities are currently under investigation for allegedly cheating in reporting their air pollution data.³

At a meeting in Brussels to launch the results, representatives of regions with poor geographic or weather conditions, such as Graz in Austria and Stuttgart in Germany, complained that it will be difficult to meet the PM10 limits set by the national emission ceilings (NEC) directive. Such regions want their special circumstances to be recognised. But a European Commission official insisted that such regions could not expect different air quality standards because all citizens should enjoy the same level of protection.

To date, twenty countries have requested extensions of PM10 limits and most applications have been rejected. In the past six months the Commission has announced court actions against six countries for failing to respect PM10 limits since 2005. Another 11 have been sent final warnings. Britain recently won a temporary reprieve for breaching PM10 standards in London. In an unusual decision, the EU executive allowed an extension until June this year, subject to further short-term measures to cut pollution. A few other countries have won similar extensions.

Meanwhile, a study by the World Health Organisation (WHO) predicts significant health and economic benefits from further strengthening controls on fine particle pollution in European cities. The three-year Aphekom study estimates the potential benefits of achieving the guideline for PM2.5 of 10 micrograms per cubic metre in 25 cities in 12 European countries. Only Stockholm currently meets this target. For the cities studied, exceeding the WHO guideline causes 19,000 deaths per annum, whereas meeting it could increase life expectancy by several months and save about €31.5bn in health costs.

An EU directive on ambient air pollution passed in 2008 acknowledges that there is no proven safe level of PM2.5 pollution and requires governments to take all measures not entailing disproportionate cost. The directive sets a limit value of 25 μg m⁻³ to be met by January 2015, and an indicative limit value of 20 μg m⁻³ from January 2020, subject to a review in 2013. The study's findings will strengthen the case for the 2020 limit to be further tightened. WHO guidelines on indoor air quality have also been released recently.⁴

Soot Free for the Climate: www.sootfreeclimate.org; European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/legislation/exceedances.htm; Aphekom: http://www.aphekom.org/

Africa's urbanization risks water crisis

Rapid urbanization is changing Africa's landscape and generating formidable challenges for supplies of water and sanitation services, the UN warns in a new report launched to mark World Water Day.

The Rapid Response Assessment compiled by UNEP and UN-Habitat notes that urban centres in Africa are growing at a faster rate than anywhere else in the world. Today, 40% of Africa's one billion people live in urban areas – 60% in slums – where water supplies and sanitation are severely inadequate. Africa's urban population without access to safe drinking water jumped from close to 30 million in 1990 to well over 55 million in 2008. Over the same period, the number of people without reasonable sanitation services doubled to around 175 million, says the report.

“These are the stark realities and the sobering facts which need to be addressed as nations prepare for the landmark UN Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012,” said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner. The conference, also known as Rio+20, takes a Green Economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication as one of its two major themes.⁵“There is growing evidence from work on the Green Economy that a different path in terms of water and sanitation can begin to be realized. Indeed, public policies that re-direct over a tenth of a per cent of global GDP per year can assist in not only addressing the sanitation challenge but conserve freshwater by reducing water demand by a fifth over the coming decades compared to projected trends,” Mr Steiner added.

While there are solutions, much more needs to be done, notes the report, to improve access to safe drinking water and sanitation for urban areas. Moreover, it is essential that the long-term solutions make a connection between urbanization, water and ecosystems and recognize that urban areas in Africa will continue to grow, as will the demand for water and sanitation services.

This year UNEP also launched its Africa Water Atlas, a visual account of Africa's endowment and use of water resources, revealed through 224 maps and 104 satellite images as well as some 500 graphics and hundreds of compelling photos.

UNEP: http://www.unep.org/dewa

Steady progress on US–Mexico border

Authorities in the US and Mexico are continuing to make progress in enhancing environmental standards along their shared border, a recent report concludes.

The Border 2012 Accomplishment Report for 2010 highlights projects taking place within border communities through the Border 2012 programme that ensures the protection of people's health. The ten-year bi-national programme focuses on combating air pollution, providing safe drinking water, reducing the risk of exposure to hazardous waste, and ensuring emergency preparedness along the US-Mexico border.

Among the highlights, more than 56 460 pounds of unused liquid and solid agricultural pesticides were collected through cooperation between state and federal agricultural agencies. Industry on both sides of the border has been engaged to recycle obsolete electronics. And American and Mexican academics have collaborated in finding new solutions towards improving air quality.

Border 2012: http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/

Web tools open window on data

A series of announcements by EPA underline the increasing importance of web-based tools in facilitating access to data on environment and health for both the public and researchers.

Firstly, an update of EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) allows users to better understand the potential health risks from exposure to air toxics. The latest update contains emissions data from 2005 covering 178 pollutants. Models were used to make broad estimates of health risks for areas of the country. Between 1990 and 2005, air toxic emissions were reduced by about 42% from industrial and mobile sources, the assessment shows.

A second solution, part of the Enforcement and Compliance Online (ECHO) database, comprises updated data and a mapping tool designed to help the public compare water quality trends over the last two years. The web-based, interactive map presents ‘state dashboards’ that provide detailed information for each state, including violations of the Clean Water Act and related enforcement actions. The dashboards incorporate data for both large and small sources of water pollution, along with the latest data from EPA's 2009 Annual Noncompliance Report. The dashboards support the Clean Water Act Action Plan of 2009.

A third database relates to health and environmental impacts of electricity generation. eGRID is a comprehensive database of emissions from almost all electric power generated in the United States, containing information for nitrogen oxides (NO_x) and sulfur dioxide (SO₂), carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O). Power Profiler is a user-friendly online application that uses eGRID data to show air emissions information and the type of electricity generation, such as coal or nuclear, in various regions of the country. Both tools have now been updated to include data sets from 2007.

EPA: NATA, http://www.epa.gov/nata2005/; ECHO, http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/; eGRID, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/index.html

Air pollution in India

Trends in short-term exposure to air pollution and daily mortality in two Indian cities are explored in a recent report published by the US-based Health Effects Institute.

The time-series studies in Chennai and Delhi were led by Dr Kalpana Balakrishnan and Dr Uma Rajarathnam, respectively. They were funded under HEI's PAPA Program to provide information to inform regulatory and other decisions that would be relevant to local populations, with the added goal of supporting scientific capacity building in the region. A review of achievements under PAPA was recently published.⁶

The report followed a first wave of four studies in China and Thailand (recently published as HEI Research Report 154) and explores key aspects of the epidemiology of exposure to air pollution – issues of local as well as global relevance – including the effects of exposure at high concentrations and at high temperatures. The investigators based their approaches on the common protocol of the first-wave PAPA studies but developed city-specific approaches due to differences in the availability and completeness of data in the Indian cities.

HEI: “Public Health and Air Pollution in Asia (PAPA): Coordinated Studies of Short-Term Exposure to Air Pollution and Daily Mortality in Two Indian Cities”, Research Report 157, http://www.healtheffects.org/

Chemical hazards

EU tightens screw on toxics

New criteria for classifying a substance as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) have come into force following publication in the EU's Official Journal. The change amends the existing criteria under the REACH regulations.

ECHA, the EU's chemicals regulator, uses the criteria to classify substances as vPvB or PBT, which means they can be placed on REACH's authorisation list of substances of very high concern.⁷ The rules introduce a wider, ‘weight of evidence' approach, which means that more information has to be considered prior to classification. Companies will have to apply the revised criteria in their future chemical safety assessments and update existing assessments within two years.

Also, the European Commission has lowered the maximum residue levels (MRLs) for 13 pesticide active ingredients banned in the EU, based on new scientific evidence. MRLs for many pesticides were raised in 2008 to facilitate imports of products such as fruits and vegetables, after foreign countries complained that Europe's low MRLs were creating an unfair trade barrier.⁸ Since then the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has tended towards lowering limits. The new MRLs will apply from 21 October. Pesticides targeted include endosulfan, EPTC, simazine, tetradifon, triforine, aldicarb and bromopropylate. A consultation on lowering MRLs for a number of other pesticides is due to close shortly. Green groups have accused the EU of allowing “too many pesticides”.⁹

Elsewhere, UN experts have recommended the pesticides endosulfan and azinphos methyl and one severely hazardous pesticide formulation – Gramoxone Super – be included in the Rotterdam Convention's Prior Informed Consent procedure. Three industrial chemicals – perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), its salts and precursors (the subject of a recent OECD review¹⁰); pentaBDE commercial mixtures; and octaBDE commercial mixtures – were also recommended for inclusion. This is the first time since the Convention entered into force in 2004 that the Committee has recommended adding a severely hazardous pesticide formulation to the Watch List.

Official Journal: REACH criteria, http://eur-lex.europa.eu (reference: L:2011:069:0007:0012), MRLs (reference: L:2011:086:0001:0050); Rotterdam Convention: http://www.pic.int/

REACH dossiers fail to impress

Around two-thirds of REACH registration dossiers checked last year by chemicals agency ECHA were not fully compliant with data requirements. ECHA identified serious omissions, such as failure to disclose chemicals' flammability, in 25 of 70 dossiers. A further 33 had minor shortcomings.

The Agency looked at whether the dossiers contained sufficient data on, for example, testing methods for assessing the health and environmental impact of a chemical. The most common shortcomings include a failure to clearly describe the identity of the substance, to share the results of animal tests and to wait for ECHA's approval before conducting such tests. Companies involved in serious breaches must resubmit them in order to continue to use chemicals registered under REACH.

ECHA is required to check 5% of dossiers submitted by companies. It has already highlighted shortcomings during previous checks on full registration dossiers and also on pre-registration dossiers.¹¹ The Agency will conduct more random checks this year.

Also, two advisory committees set up under REACH have supported proposals to ban the use of dimethylfumarate (DMF) in consumer articles and the use of lead and its compounds in jewellery. These were the first opinions on proposals for market restrictions on chemicals to be delivered by the Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) and the related Socio-Economic Analysis Committee (SEAC).

ECHA: http://echa.europa.eu

Robots to test 10 000 chemicals

A high-speed robot screening system being unveiled by several federal agencies in the United States will test 10 000 different chemicals for potential toxicity. The system marks the beginning of a new phase under the Tox21 programme, that aims to improve how chemicals are tested.

The robot system, which is located at the National Institutes of Health Chemical Genomics Center (NCGC), was purchased as part of the Tox21 collaboration established in 2008 between EPA, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP), and NCGC,¹² with the addition of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2010.¹³ Tox21 merges existing resources – research, funding and testing tools – to develop ways to predict more effectively how chemicals will affect human health and the environment.

The 10 000 chemicals to be screened include substances found in industrial and consumer products, food additives and drugs. Testing results will provide information useful for evaluating if these chemicals have the potential to disrupt human body processes enough to lead to adverse health effects. NIEHS and NTP Director Dr Linda Birnbaum said the move would “more quickly provide information about potentially dangerous substances to health and regulatory decision makers, and others, so they can make informed decisions to protect public health.”

More than 2500 chemicals have already been screened under Tox21 using robots and other innovative chemical screening technologies. These were used successfully to screen the different types of oil spill dispersants for potential endocrine activity during the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year.¹⁴

NCGC: http://www.ncgc.nih.gov/; NIEHS: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/

Public & occupational health

Call to strengthen noise control measures

Traffic-related noise poses the second biggest health threat to Europeans after air pollution, according to a recent report by the World Health Organisation's regional office. It is calling on European governments and local authorities to introduce further noise control measures.

Constant exposure to traffic noise increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases and high blood pressure, the report says. One in five Europeans have their sleep disturbed by cars, trains and airplanes, leading to problems such as tinnitus. Overall, WHO estimates that at least one million healthy years of life are lost due to disability or disease caused by traffic noise.

The European Commission is due to propose a revision of road traffic noise legislation in June that will update limits on noise from cars, buses, trucks and vans. These limits have not been changed for more than a decade. An EU consultancy study has recommended setting moderately tighter limits to begin with, followed by much stricter standards a few years later. The economic benefits of this approach would outweigh the costs, it says. In the coming year the Commission is also expected to review the environmental noise directive. Here it is expected to favour ‘trigger vales’ rather than binding limits.¹⁵

Green transport group T&E called for stringent new standards in response to WHO's latest findings. In a 2008 report, the group estimated that road and rail noise is linked to 50 000 fatal heart attacks and 200 000 cases of cardiovascular disease in Europe annually, at an estimated cost of €40 billion.

WHO: http://www.euro.who.int/en/home; T&E: http://www.transportenvironment.org/; European Commission: TNO consultancy study, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/directives/venoliva-tno-report_en.pdf

Agency consults on contaminants list

As part of its responsibilities under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA is inviting comments on proposals to monitor 30 currently-unregulated contaminants in water systems.

Under the SDWA, EPA currently regulates more than 90 contaminants in drinking water and is required to review the list every five years to keep drinking water standards up-to-date with emerging science. This current proposal is the third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation and follows a previous review in 2008.¹⁶ The candidates include two viruses and 28 chemical contaminants that could be present in drinking water and do not currently have health-based standards.

The Agency will consider the input received before finalising the list in 2012, with sampling to be conducted from 2013 to 2015. Sampling will be required at all systems serving more than 10 000 people and at a representative sampling of systems serving less than 10 000 people.

As part of the Drinking Water Strategy laid out in 2010, EPA committed to addressing contaminants as a group rather than one at a time so as to improve the cost-effectiveness of drinking water protection.¹⁷ Standards for fluoride in US drinking water are also being revised.¹⁸ In addition, Europe is reviewing its water pollutants list.¹⁹

EPA: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/index.cfm

GM reasoning fails to satisfy

EU environment ministers have expressed concerns over a European Commission proposal that Member States could use ‘public order' as a justification for imposing national bans on genetically modified (GM) crops. It was one of a number of reasons given as a possible basis for a ban in a recent Commission paper following a request from ministers.²⁰

Some governments said such a move could legitimise activists causing violent damage to GM crops, while others were worried that it was too vague. EU Health Commissioner John Dalli said including public order in the list would not create a legal precedent because such a justification had already been established in the EU treaties and in EU case law.

Ministers were also concerned that the EU's legal departments do not agree on whether national bans are legal. The legal services in the European Council (representing governments), the Commission and the European Parliament have all looked at the issue and reached differing conclusions.

The situation will not be helped by a recent ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In a preliminary judgement, Advocate-General Paolo Mengozzi said France was wrong to suspend cultivation of the GM maize MON 810 in 2008 without first asking the Commission to impose emergency measures. An EU “safeguard clause” allowing states to ban GM crops could not be applied in this particular instance, the advocate said, because it does not apply to GM products. France's move was a key factor in reigniting the current debate over national bans on GM crops.

European Council: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/; European Court of Justice: http://curia.europa.eu (reference: c-68/10)

Europe to retain lead limit

There is no scientific basis for any relaxation of European rules limiting lead in drinking water, according to EU experts. In fact, the standard should be tightened to reduce risks to children, the EU's Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) recommends.

The 1998 drinking water directive will reduce the maximum admissible concentration of lead in drinking water from its current 25 micrograms per litre to 10 μg l⁻¹ in 2013. Last year, there were calls to raise the limit because exposure from other sources has dropped dramatically since the directive was agreed. Much of the fall is due to the phase-out of leaded petrol. However, children's development can still be affected by concentrations below 10 μg l⁻¹, the Committee says.

SCHER: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_128.pdf

Research activities

Policy-makers bet on eco-innovation

Eco-innovation is attracting the attention of policy-makers on both sides of the Atlantic as one of the ‘golden eggs’ for economic recovery.

In the United States, the Obama Administration is to invest $12 million under its i6 Green Challenge to promote clean energy innovation and economic growth. A host of federal agencies, led by the Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration (EDA), will award up to $1 million to each of six teams with the most innovative ideas to drive technology commercialisation and entrepreneurship in support of a green innovation economy. Its partner agencies will award more than $6 million in additional funding to i6 Green winners.

“Initiatives like the i6 Green Challenge support the President's vision for out-innovating the rest of the world by moving great ideas from the lab to the marketplace to spur the development of 21st century jobs and industries,” noted US Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke.

This year's competition focuses on promoting Proof of Concept Centers, which support all aspects of the entrepreneurship process, from assisting with technology feasibility and business plan development, to providing access to early-stage capital and mentors to offer critical guidance to innovators. Centers allow emerging technologies to mature and demonstrate their market potential, making them more attractive to investors and helping entrepreneurs turn their idea or technology into a business.

In Europe, meanwhile, pressure is increasing for the EU to introduce clear and binding resource efficiency targets in order to stimulate eco-innovation. Delegates at the tenth European Forum on Eco-innovation, held in Birmingham, UK, heard that three-quarters of SMEs have been affected by rising material costs in the last five years. Half had responded by developing solutions that improve their resource efficiency, according to a recent survey. But the current rate of eco-innovation is not rapid enough to address the challenges ahead, the survey suggests. Three-quarters of the firms that had introduced an eco-innovation in the last two years said it had reduced material use by less than 20%.

Resource efficiency targets would be politically sensitive with some EU states. The European Commission is still deciding whether to include them in its resource efficiency roadmap due to be published in the summer.²¹ An eco-innovation action plan is also due by July.^22,23

EDA: http://www.eda.gov/i6; Eco-innovation Forum: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoinnovation2011/1st_forum/index_en.html; and survey, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_315_en.pdf plus forum programme

Boost for air pollution research

Air pollution research in the United States is to receive a boost with the launch of four new Clean Air Research Centres at universities. The cutting edge research, mostly funded by EPA, will focus on the impacts of air pollution mixtures on human health. The move reflects increasing concern over the effects of complex mixtures, rather than individual air pollutants.

Each of the university-based centres will receive approximately $8 million over five years. They are located at: Emory University and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta; Harvard University, Boston; Michigan State University, East Lansing; and University of Washington, Seattle.

The new centres will explore the health impacts on children and older citizens to determine which health effects occur at different life stages. They will also study those most susceptible to air pollution, including people with pre-existing conditions or living in communities where there are greater health risks. A myriad of health effects ranging from cardiovascular and pulmonary problems to neurological and inflammation outcomes will also be examined.

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/ncer/clarcs/

Research planning goes social

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) is seeking input from researchers as well as the public for its new strategic plan. As well as more conventional means, contributors are able to comment through social media such as Facebook and Twitter.

“We are looking for visionary ideas to help define the institute's future directions, research goals, and resource priorities,” said NIEHS Deputy Director Dr Richard Woychik, who is leading the strategic planning effort. Researchers and the public will have many opportunities to provide input and review throughout the 15-month strategic planning process, which will cover the period from 2012 to 2018.

Additionally, the Institute is seeking nominations for a stakeholder community workshop in mid-July in Research Triangle Park, N.C. Nominees should be “passionate about research on our environment, and improving public health and preventing disease”.

NIEHS: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/od/strategicplan/index.cfm

References

1. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1643.
2. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 11.
3. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 782.
4. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 236.
5. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 438.
6. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 16.
7. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 782.
8. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 22.
9. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 490.
10. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 491.
11. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1507.
12. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2008, 10, 404.
13. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1646.
14. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1645.
15. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1941.
16. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2008, 10, 400; M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 1903.
17. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1005.
18. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 492.
19. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 490.
20. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 239; M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 783.
21. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 487.
22. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 2197.
23. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 17.

---