No more fossil fuels

“Shale gas is not the energy source of the future. Risks for the environment and public health are unjustifiably high. The recent Commission proposal, which merely suggests guidelines, fails to create an enforceable legislative framework, and is totally inadequate to even start exploration drillings. In Europe, which has lower reserves, higher population density and a problematic geology, the situation is even worse and the costs of extraction significantly higher. A choice for more fossil fuels is unthinkable in a time when abandoning fossil fuels is crucial to reach the climate goals that we so desperately need to pursue.

Kathleen van Brempt (Belgium), Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament

A ‘social license to operate’ is needed

“The EU must strike a right balance between energy and climate and we must recognise the important role of natural gas in a transition to a more renewable economy. Yet, in Europe’s energy mix there are contradictions in our policies: we are approving new coal-fired power plants and shutting down gasfired ones. Industry in Europe must display strong commitment to safe and sustainable extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons in Europe, but also needs a ‘social license to operate’ vis-à-vis local communities. This concept is the paramount issue central to any potential success story pertaining to shale resources in Europe.”

Niki Tzavela (Greece), Europe of freedom and democracy Group

Explore the geology further

“The EU has the highest standards of environmental protection, which everyone who decides to explore and produce unconventional sources has to comply with. The issues of water and air quality, flora and fauna, biodiversity, are well protected by over 40 directives and regulations. According to the EC this framework of legislation is well implemented by those Member States who are exploring possibilities. It is too early to estimate the impact of the new gas on the European energy market and industry. We need to know more about the geology, and therefore we urgently need a higher number of exploration sites. If we do not want to lose these sectors in Europe, we must solve the problem of high prices. That’s why we need unconventional gas as well.”

Konrad Szymanski (Poland), European Conservatives and Reformists Group

Waste of effort and capital

“Shale gas and the destructive method of fracking pose very real environmental and public health concerns. Pushing ahead with shale gas extraction is a waste of effort and capital at a time when we need to be looking for ways to use less, not more, fossil fuels. We have already found more fossil fuels than we can burn without totally destroying the climate and our environment. We the Greens are advocating a moratorium on fracking in Europe.”

Carl Schlyter (Sweden), Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance

Read More?

EU Recommendation (January 2014) Environmental Aspects on Unconventional Fossil Fuels

Text: Arnoud van Waes
Photo: iStockphoto

We need three binding objectives

“If we want to reduce our energy imports we have to produce more in Europe. If we have a broad energy mix with greater energy efficiency, this is the best option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to encourage new technologies and innovation, create jobs, and change our economies into greener economies. This is why we need three binding objectives. The European Commission proposal is an acceptable work base but needs to be strengthened. It is disappointing that we cannot yet confirm the benefits of energy efficiency. Energy efficiency alone would enable us to reduce our energy bills, our dependence on countries producing oil and gas and our energy trade balance and to create thousands of jobs in Europe, not to mention improving our protection of our environment and our climate.”

Anne Delvaux (Belgium) European People’s Party, co-rapporteur for the environment committee

Targets still fall short

“Apart from the 40% greenhouse gas reduction goal, these targets still fall short of what is needed, if only to be credible to our global partners. I regret that the Commission didn’t propose a binding target on energy efficiency. We believe the opposite: in the interest of our industry and our jobs, we must have a firm political commitment to emission reduction, renewables and energy efficiency.”

Matthias Groote (Germany), Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, chairman of the environment committee

Binding objectives are not flexible

“This result is not satisfactory. We are promising ourselves, Europeans and European industry, that this new climate policy would be realistic, flexible and cost- efficient[…]Binding objectives on renewables and energy efficiency is not a flexible arrangement. We know well that member states and individual sectors have different capacities. The European Commission hasn’t understood the current impact and influence of the climate policy on the European economy. Increasing the binding target for energy from renewables to 27% does not take into account the electricity price impact of this policy. Raising the CO2 reduction target to 40% is at best premature.”

Konrad Szymański (Poland), European Conservatives and Reformists group, co-rapporteur from the industry committee but withdrew his name from the report

Unrealistic

“These numbers are madness. How many times will they change by 2030? Our industry needs a stable and foreseeable framework to boost long-term investments. Instead, the parliament proposes unrealistic numbers! […] We should have focused on one objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Member states should have the necessary freedom and flexibility to decide their energy mix.”

Françoise Grossetête, (France) European People’s Party

Read More?
www.euractiv.com/energy
http://ec.europa.eu/energy
www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil

Text: Katalin Fodor

Photo: iStockphoto

Data privacy sacrosanct
“Data protection is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The whole EU law is inspired by this principle. We do not have the right to judge the laws of other states, be they in agreement with ours or not. What we care about is protecting our citizens and their privacy. If there is a clash between these two principles, a reasonable solution must be found. This does not mean that we can accept any foreign meddling into our affairs, unless it is justified by higher-level interests.”

Lara Comi (Italy) Group of the European People’s Party
(Christian Democrats)

EU must react
“The United States have a different view point on data protection from the EU. Due to the recent events we are now witnessing a change in the discussion in the US. Every citizen needs to be able to decide how his or her personal data can be used. Data protection standards within the EU are very high. The use of European personal data by US companies is a difficult issue when the data is being stored on US servers. EU Member States will have to react towards the US.”

Manfred Weber (Germany) Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats)

Raise the level of protection
“The latest revelations about the US are a ‘wake-up call’ for the European citizen and all those dealing with data protection in the EU. We are working on a reform of data protection rules in the EU. We must insist on maintaining the high level of data protection achieved in Europe and strive to raise this level, both in the private and in the public sector.
It is about the daily life of the European citizen, it is about effectively protecting the citizen’s fundamental rights.”

Dimitrios Droutsas (Greece) Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats

Big Data. Big business.
[Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission and EU Justice Commissioner, addressed the issue at the DLD conference held in Munich 15th July 2012]
“I call on all Member States to follow Chancellor Merkel’s leadership so that the EU data protection reform can be finalised before the elections of the European Parliament in May 2014. Essentially this is about trust. Trust has been lost in all these spying scandals. Our central task now is to restore it. Without trust the digital economy cannot grow. Big data is potentially big business. Potentially. If we can make it safe…“

Viviane Reding Vice-President of the European Commission, EU Justice Commissioner

Read More?
The US surveillance programmes and their impact on EU citizens’ fundamental rights
www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/libe/home.html

Text: Katalin Fodor and Pál Hegedüs
Photo: iStockphoto

Full disclosure

“Too many results from clinical trials are misleading, biased or missing. It is time that all pharmaceutical companies and researchers made the full results of studies on new and existing drugs publicly available. I want to see comprehensive results from clinical trials published on a public database – a summary of the results is not enough. For too long unflattering studies have gone undisclosed. It is vital that we know about negative outcomes, otherwise trials can be conducted repeatedly before it becomes public knowledge that they are ineffective or even dangerous.”

Glenis Willmott (UK), Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D). Rapporteur [lead legislator] for the revision of the European rules on clinical trials.

Preventing brain drain

“The number of clinical trials over the last few years have surprisingly shown a rather slight increase in the case of Hungary. I welcome the overall objectives of the draft regulation to foster clinical trials and academic research in Europe, especially because it would not only facilitate patients’ access to new and more effective therapeutic treatments, but it can also increase my country’s potential to keep healthcare professionals at home. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that the proposal and any changes do not jeopardize the safety of the subjects and the strict application of the Member States’ ethical principles during the assessment of clinical trials.”

Erik Bánki (Hungary), Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats).

Amendments are necessary

“The EU directive from 2001 was a first important step towards more ethical and harmonized clinical trial. I think that amendments are necessary, but it is of fundamental importance not to weaken the role of the ethics committees. Moreover, it is reasonable to determine reporting member states in the process, but the opinions of experts from other concerned countries must equally be included. We must not fall behind the present level of protection for persons who cannot give informed consent. If these amendments are adopted, I support the proposal and definitely consider it a good idea.”

Peter Liese (Germany), Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats).

Ethics is the core issue

“In my opinion the Commission uses these figures in order to lower the ethical standards of clinical trials: Clinical trials are of utmost importance both in assessing the effect of new drugs and in monitoring post-marketing authorization. Less bureaucratic procedures are welcome as long as they not lower ethicical standards. The future legislation has to ensure that no clinical trial can start without the prior approval by an independent ethics committee in any Member State concerned. This is for me the core issue.”

Alda Sousa (Portugal), Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left.

Harmonising diverging national measures

“I am very much in favor of the recast of this European legislation. The existing provisions of Directive 2001/20/EC appear to have hampered the conduct of clinical trials in Europe. This Directive aimed to simplify and harmonise the administrative provisions  governing clinical trials in the European Union. However, experience shows that a harmonised approach to the regulation of clinical trials has only been partly achieved. This makes it in particular difficult to perform a clinical trial in several Member States. Now, the legal form of a Regulation will ensure a coherent procedure for submission of applications for authorisations of clinical trials and their substantial modifications. Indeed, experience shows the difficulties that are created if Member States, in their cooperation, base their work on similar, but different transposing national laws. Only the legal form of a Regulation ensures that the Member States base their assessment of an application for authorisation of a clinical trial on an identical text, rather than on diverging national transposition measures.”

Francoise Grossetête (France), Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats).

Fostering research efforts in accord with patients’ safety

“Our objective with this new legislative framework for clinical trials in Europe should be twofold: on the one hand to support and foster research efforts in the field of medical and biomedical sciences in the EU, and on the second hand to ensure subjects or patients’ safety and the adequacy of trials carried out throughout the Union. We should all work towards this same direction and aim at designing an optimal legislative framework which should deliver on concrete public health, societal and competitive outcomes.”

Antonyia Parvanova (Bulgaria), Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Read more?

EU policy on Medicinal products for human use and the proposal for amendments to the 2001 Clinical Trials Directive
The position of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) on the proposal

Text: Katalin Fodor.

Photo: iStockphoto.

Europe's nuclear power plants have hundreds of defects, with dozens of reactors failing to meet international standards, according to the European Union. What do members of parliament think about these results?

After carrying out stress tests on its 132 nuclear reactors as a response to the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, in March 2011, the EU have reported “further improvements are needed in almost all of them.” The largest number of concerns was found in France. The main aim of the stress tests was to assess their safety and robustness in facing extreme (if unlikely) natural events, especially flood and earthquakes. The costs of safety upgrades could be up to 25 billion euros, a European Union report revealed in October 2012. What do members of the European Parliament think about the tests and results?

Improving safety

“This exercise should be about striving to continually improve nuclear safety, not about questioning its existence or seeking to over regulate it out of existence. It would be extremely disappointing if this became an exercise in forcing Germany’s position on nuclear energy down the throats of other countries.”

Konrad Szymanski (Poland), European Conservatives and Reformist

Shut down older plants

“We must be aware that these stress tests evaluated only the bare minimum. They didn't even manage to detect microcracks on Belgian reactors, and they do not include the risks of a terrorist attack or a plane crash, which are treated separately because they relate to security and not to safety issues. In short, works will be numerous and an estimated 30 to 200 million euros will be spent per reactor. The final costs will exceed 10 billion euros for France alone. Here is a very basic and simple lesson to learn: the most vulnerable and older nuclear plants must be shut down as a priority and for good.”

Michèle Rivasi (France), the Greens/European Free Alliance

Focus on transparency

“In light of the Commission's report, the legal framework has to be reinforced, as well as the self-organisation of the EU's nuclear energy sector. We should particularly focus on transparency, the cooperation between regulators and with the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group. A proper safety framework and culture should aim to be the most ambitious worldwide so as to ensure that nuclear energy can play its future role in a competitive low-carbon EU economy.”

Romana Jordan (Slovania), Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats)

All EU states must act

“Basically, it doesn't change the German nuclear phase-out plan at all. But it cannot be that we in Germany turn off safe nuclear power plants whilst neighboring countries continue to use unsafe plants for another 20 years. Therefore, all EU member states must now take action. Thus, where upgrades are not possible or are more costly with regard to the remaining terms [of the reactor’s life], we must discuss the possibility of closure.”

Jürgen Creutzmann (Germany), Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe

Read more?

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the comprehensive risk and safety assessments ("stress tests") of nuclear power plants in the European Union and related activities. Brussels, 4th October 2012. COM(2012) 571 final.

Text: Claartje Doorenbos

Photo: gettyimages

©iStockphoto

Materials defined as ‘nano’ are sized in billionths of a meter and show different physical and chemical properties from the bulk form. If added to a product they can enhance or change its features. For example, titanium dioxide is a known ultraviolet absorber and sun reflector additive in sunscreens, but manufacturers prefer it in its nano form. That’s because it makes the sunscreen transparent on the skin, instead of white. As well as declaring their presence on the label, the EU will require producers to submit a detailed safety report on the nanomaterials used.

Unanswered questions
It's difficult to decide for or against nano-labelling, because many questions need to be answered first. For example which nano definition do we want to use? Which size range do we choose for that and do we include natural particles as well? What should this labelling tell the consumer? Should consumers handle nano-products differently from standard ones? I don’t see these questions answered fully yet. Once we have the answers, then labelling more consumer products might be a good idea. Personally I would prefer a sunscreen without nanoparticles, but most sunscreens sold in Germany include them already.
Rene Röspel, German MP.

Consumers should be informed
Nanotechnology is a powerful scientific field. Its advances can offer great opportunities for the EU’s growth, competitiveness and sustainable development. At the same time, nanomaterials may bear risks for consumers and workers. If cosmetics include nanomaterials, safety concerns must be paramount. Consumers should be informed of all product ingredients, including nanomaterials, in order to choose their products accordingly. I am therefore in favour of the labelling of nano-content in cosmetics and sunscreens. I personally will continue to use sunscreen containing nano-particles. Cosmetics manufacturers are prepared for the change in legislation and will have the opportunity to provide consumers with an even bigger variety.
Richard Seeber, EU MP from Austria.

Nano-labelling in food should come before cosmetics
I clearly support the labeling of cosmetics and sunscreens containing nanomaterials. According to the Woodrow Wilson inventory on nanotechnology, 143 cosmetics products and 33 sunscreens currently on the market contain nanoparticles, so I suppose manufacturers will have to endeavor to evaluate safety and labelling standards. Similarly with the case of labeling of GM food products, I assume that nano-cosmetics labeling will slow down the business. In my opinion labelling is much important for food products containing nanomaterials, since several studies show that there is lack of safety information on various nanoparticles used in food. Personally I would not buy nano-sunscreens nor eat food containing nanomaterials.
Maya Graf, Swiss MP.

Could labelling cause alarm?
I am not against the nano-labelling of cosmetics and products containing nanomaterials in general. But it’s important that any label comes with a key to understand what it says: the possible risks, the appropriate behavior to minimize that risk – we also need more research on these issues. But a label with no explanations could unleash alarmed reactions in the population. Personally I don’t have problems using sunscreens with added nanoparticles, since there is no proven risk for the skin. Instead, I would be more careful with products or materials that free nanoparticles in the air, because they could easily get into contact with our lungs thin tissue, altering cellular functions.
Vittorio Prodi, EU MP from Italy.

Text: Emiliano Feresin.
 

Crossing borders, or not?

The EU has recently made it easier for patients to cross borders to take advantage of shorter waiting times, newer or cheaper medical treatments, or different rules. Members of the European Parliament have their say.

Health tourism?

"Care is not a commercial, tradable good; it is a basic need for everyone. The new EU directive will mean that insurers drive patients abroad in search of cheaper treatment. But patients – especially if they are seriously ill – just need care in their region, close to their family and a doctor who speaks their language. Health tourism will be a logical consequence of this law, with patients from rich countries able to travel to less expensive countries, where they may be given priority over the local, poorer patients.”

Kartika Liotard (European Parliament, SP, Netherlands), www.imtj.com

Long overdue

“At present, the waiting list for a hip replacement in the UK is over 12 months, so a British person waiting for a hip replacement will be able to go for an operation in France and be reimbursed for the bulk of the cost by the NHS in Britain. The [European] directive [on medical tourism] is long overdue and will profit all patients.”

Peter Liese (European Parliament, EPP, Germany), www.imtj.com

Read more?
Health portal of the European Union: www.health-eu.eu

Closer Co-operation

“People prefer to receive their healthcare close to home. However, sometimes the need for certain treatments, such as for rare diseases, leads patients to go abroad. That will also bring about closer and improved health co-operation between member states.”

John Dalli (European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, Malta – www.imtj.com

Milestone

“The new rules [for medical tourism] represent a real milestone for cross-border healthcare in Europe. […] The right balance has been found between protecting national health systems and strengthening patients’ rights.”

Sarah Ludford (European Parliament, Liberal Democrat, UK), www.imtj.com

Bus loads of citizens?

"We are not trying to promote medical tourism . . . I'm quite convinced we are not going to see bus loads of citizens going from one member state to another. If the treatment abroad is cheaper than at home, only the cost of the treatment will be reimbursed.”

Francoise Grossetete (European Parliament, UMP, France), Irish Times

Text: Philip Dröge
Photo: © Masterfile