|
Column Number: 3
European Standing
Committee A
Tuesday 14 January 2003
[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]
Dioxins, Furans and
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
[Relevant document: European Community Document No. 13438/01.]
8.55 am
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): A number of initiatives have been, and are being, taken to tackle our concerns about dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs. One of them, the European Community strategy on dioxins, furans and PCBs, is the focus of the debate. Dioxins, furans and PCBs are structurally-related chemicals that are toxic and persistent, and have the potential to bio-accumulate.
Dioxins are produced as unintentional by-products of most combustion processes, while PCBs were manufactured for use in a wide range of applications from the 1930s to the 1970s. The dioxin-like PCBs act by a similar mechanism of toxicity to dioxins and furans. Because of that, they are considered together for risk purposes, even though most of them originate from different sources. For the purposes of the debate, I shall use the generic term dioxins for all three groups.
Some dioxins are extremely toxic, producing a range of harmful effects in laboratory animals, including disruption of the immune system and of reproduction and development, and cancer. Although clear effects in humans have been seen only in people exposed to high levels in the past due to their work or following industrial accidents, scientific bodies have taken a precautionary approach by setting upper recommended intakes based largely on animal data. Most recently, the UK's committee on toxicity has recommended an upper intake level—TDI, or tolerable daily intake, is a phrase I shall use a great deal in the debate—of 2 picograms per kilogram body weight per day. I should tell the Committee that a picogram is one millionth of a millionth of a gram.
Dr. Rudi Vis (Finchley and Golders Green): Not a great deal.
Mr. Meacher: It is very small. That is a fivefold reduction on the previously recommended tolerable level, and is important in that it has changed the basis against which regulatory targets and risk assessments are set.
The major route of human exposure to the compounds is food, and the levels depend on levels in the environment. Much has been done to reduce the environmental level of the compounds, including controls on industrial processes such as municipal waste incineration, metal processing and the work of power stations; controls on open agricultural burning, marketing and use; controls on chemicals; and controls on vehicular emissions.
Column Number: 4
Those and other measures have produced, approximately, a 70 per cent. reduction in emissions to air and the levels in food over the past 10 years. That has resulted in significant reductions in the dietary exposure of the UK population, with the most recent estimate for the mean adult exposure being 1.8 picograms per kilogram body weight. However, estimates of dietary exposure for breast-fed infants, toddlers, schoolchildren and some adults indicate that some groups still exceed the TDI. Breast-fed babies might exceed it by a considerable amount, but, as the TDI concept is based on a lifetime intake, it cannot be used to characterise the risk for infants during that short period of their total life span. More, however, needs to be done, and that action is taking place at UK, regional and global level.
In the UK, there have been significant reductions in emissions of dioxins and their levels in food in the past few years, but now it is time to take stock and consider what more can be done to achieve further reductions in the most cost-effective manner. The most significant industrial sources have been, or are being, tackled through legislation and through controls enforced by the environment agencies. It will be more difficult to control the smaller industrial and non-industrial diffuse sources, which, although they may not be significant individually, make a sizeable contribution to overall environmental emissions when taken together.
That is why the UK Government and the devolved Administrations published ''Dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in the UK environment'', a consultation paper that sets out the measures that have already been taken against dioxins and which, along with an initial regulatory impact assessment, outlines some that might be used in future. However, achieving significant further reductions will not be straightforward or cheap, and will require a range of stakeholders, including the public, to buy into the process. With that in mind, we have consulted widely so that the full range of views can be taken into account in putting together a UK action plan for dioxins. This will set out a strategic approach to reducing emissions and exposure, and will allow us to meet our obligations under multilateral environment agreements.
Action is also being taken at the regional level. As well as being persistent, toxic and having the potential to bio-accumulate, dioxins can also be transported over long distances from emission sources. It is therefore likely that significant levels enter the UK from overseas, which means that taking action at a national level alone is unlikely to achieve the best results. At the regional level, the European Commission's Community strategy for dioxins, as well as highlighting the usual concerns about these substances, identifies EU enlargement as a particular area for concern, as accession countries are likely to be producing higher emissions than the current member states.
The objectives of the Community strategy are to assess the state of the environment and the ecosystem; to reduce human exposure to these compounds in the short term and to maintain it at safe levels in the
Column Number: 5
medium to long term; and to reduce environmental effects. It also has a quantitative objective to reduce human intakes to below the level recommended by the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Food. Co-operation at European level is particularly appropriate, given the trans-boundary nature of this pollution and the need to avoid duplication of effort by member states in important matters such as research.
At the regional level, we also have the UN Economic Commission for Europe's protocol on persistent organic pollutants. That was adopted in 1998 and it focuses on 19 substances that have been singled out according to agreed risk criteria. The protocol requires that dioxin emissions be reduced to below 1990 levels. That we have already achieved.
Finally, long-range transport requires that action be taken at global level to protect pristine environments such as the Arctic. Dioxins, along with other compounds of international concern, have therefore been included in the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants. That global agreement was developed under the UN environment programme, and 151 nations signed up to it in 2001.
Parties to the agreement will be required to develop an action plan of measures to reduce the total release of dioxins, with the goal of continuing to minimise and, where feasible, ultimately eliminate them. In striving for that goal, it is important that sufficient technical and financial assistance is given to developing countries. With that in mind, the UK strongly supported the replenishment of the Global Environment Facility. That has meant that, because persistent organic pollutants are a new focal area, new projects to reduce them will benefit from funding of about £425 million. We therefore consider that those initiatives, taken at UK, regional and global levels, will play an important role in ensuring that environmental and human exposure to these compounds are reduced to levels of no concern.
The Chairman: We now have until 9.55 for questions to the Minister. They should be brief and asked one at a time. Hon. Members will have ample opportunity to ask several.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): First, I thank the Minister for his clear, if understandably complicated, preamble. He supports the Commission's overall approach, but is it correct that he expressed reservations in January 2002 about its proposals to limit dioxins in food and feed? Was that because of doubts about effectiveness and proportionality to the risk? What risk assessments have been carried out in the United Kingdom? Do the Minister's doubts relate to a comprehensive, data-based analysis of the existing risk? Alternatively, is he more concerned about the UK's capacity to conduct such analysis and about the potential economic impact on food and feed producers?
Mr. Meacher: The measures on limiting and controlling the presence of dioxins and PCBs in feed and food are already in hand. EU-wide maximum permitted levels for dioxins in food and animal feedstuffs came into effect last year. They will
Column Number: 6
increase consumer protection because they apply to the foods that contribute most to dietary exposure to dioxins, and they protect against the possibility of grossly contaminated food entering the food chain.
The Commission signalled its intention to introduce harmonised limits for dioxins and PCBs in food, although no specific proposals have been developed. The Food Standards Agency continues to keep the industry informed of developments.
Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): As a permanent member of the Committee, I welcome you to the new year and to the Chair, Mr. Benton. We always have a nice time when you are looking after us. I also welcome the Minister.
I want to take the Minister back to his opening remarks about the countries taking part in the enlargement of Europe. There is obviously great concern about the legacy of their chemical and heavy metal industries, and that is particularly true of the Baltic states, so where are we in terms of assessing and auditing that legacy? We must ensure that the Commission takes its full impact on board. That is particularly significant for the part of the world that I come from. North-east Yorkshire is by the North sea, and the impact on North sea states could be tremendous. Does he have any information on that?
|
