Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision adopting a programme of Community action 1999-2003 on pollution-related diseases in the context of the framework for action in the field of public health'
C 19/6 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 1. 98 3. 3. 3. 1. In this connection the Committee would further stress the importance of monitoring systems for rare diseases in order to identify trends over time and regional clusters. As such trends do not generally emerge until after 10 years, the Committee thinks that the continuity of the proposed action programme should be ensured, even after 2003. 3. 4. It goes without saying that the Commission should ensure that there is consistency and comp- lementarity between all the Community initiatives relat- ing to rare diseases. This particularly applies to the proposed action programme, current and future research activities on rare disease and the envisaged regulation on orphan medicinal products (where research, develop- ment and marketing of such medications must be closely coordinated). 3. 5. The Committee is pleased to note that, as part of the programme, the Commission envisages fostering cooperation with relevant international organizations and third countries; these should include Japan and the United States. Brussels, 29 October 1997. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision adopting a programme of Community action 1999-2003 on pollution- related diseases in the context of the framework for action in the field of public health’ (1) (98/C 19/03) On 27 June 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 129 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 October 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Lemmetty; co-rapporteurs: Mr Fuchs and Mr Linssen. At its 349th plenary session (meeting of 29 October 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 106 votes in favour and 3 abstentions. 1. Introduction The Commission has presented a communication 1. 1. concerning a programme of Community action on pollution-related diseases in the context of the frame- work for action in the field of public health. The communication is accompanied by a proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision adopting a programme of Community action on pollution-related diseases to be carried out within this framework in the period 1999-2003. 1. 2. The action programme is based on Articles 3(o) and 129 of the Treaty establishing the European Com- munity which set health protection as a priority objec- tive. In its communication of 24 November 1993 on the framework for action in the field of public health (2), the Commission defined a framework for future action at Community level in order to attain these objectives. 1. 2. 1. Following on the Communication, the Com- mission has also recently adopted action programmes on injury prevention and rare diseases. 1. 3. The Economic and Social Committee has empha- sized the link between environmental pollution and health on a number of occasions in the past. In its (1) OJ C 214, 16. 7. 1997, p. 7. (2) COM(93) 559 final, 24. 11. 1993. 21. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/7 opinion of 6 July 1994 on the Commission’s framework communication on public health (1), the Committee urged the Commission to adopt a broad approach to the issue stressing the importance of the environment for the promotion of health. The present communication and proposal for an 1. 4. action programme are concerned mainly with health problems caused by environmental pollution. Pollution contributes to many of the major causes of morbidity and mortality in the European Community; among the examples cited by the Commission are respiratory problems, allergies, cancers, cardio-vascular diseases and infectious diseases, neurological disorders and immunological impairment. In addition, auditory and other adverse health effects caused by noise have become an issue of growing importance. 1. 4. 1. Allergies are amongst the commonest chronic disorders affecting up to one third of the population in developed countries and the prevalence is increasing (2). It has to be pointed out, however, that when the Commission proposal refers to ‘allergies’, it means, for the most part, respiratory allergic conditions (i. e. it is not concerned with food allergies or allergies caused by skin contact). — there is evidence that current levels of exposure to pollutants represent a health risk and, furthermore, the number of people exposed to pollutants is considerable; — the disease produces a substantial burden of mor- bidity and/or mortality and/or there is evidence that it is becoming considerably more widespread; and — Community action yields added value compared to measures taken by Member States. 1. 9. Applying these criteria, the Commission iden- tifies diseases related to air pollution, primarily respirat- ory diseases and allergies, as priority areas for the proposed programme. 2. Community action programme on pollution-related diseases 1999-2003 2. 1. The Commission proposes a five-year action programme focusing mainly on prevention of asthma and other respiratory diseases and allergies. The prevention of pollution-related diseases has 1. 5. three elements: first, reducing the amount of pollutants by taking action at their source; second, seeking to limit people’s exposure to them; and third, mitigating the effects on individuals who are exposed to them. 2. 2. The programme will be implemented by increas- ing the level of information on pollution-related diseases, improving risk perception and risk management with respect to pollution-related diseases and supporting measures aimed at prevention of the diseases covered by the programme. 1. 6. Although data on pollution-related diseases does exist at Community level and in the Member States, the data at Community level does not provide a clear picture of the relationship between environmental pollution and ill health. 2. 3. The proposal provides for consultation with Member States, relevant international organizations and third countries. In addition, the programme will be subject to ongoing evaluation and evaluation reports will be drawn up at specified intervals. The Commission gives overviews of action taken 1. 7. in Member States and at international and Community level to address the problem of pollution-related diseases. The proposal lays down the financial framework 2. 4. for only the first year (1999) of the programme, leaving a decision on the financial framework for the last four years until a later date. 1. 8. In the light of the above considerations, and taking account of the action being taken in this field elsewhere and the limited resources available, the Com- mission proposes the following selection criteria for determining priority areas for the programme: — public health measures relating to the disease con- cerned are not being undertaken as part of other Community programmes; 3. General comments 3. 1. The Economic and Social Committee welcomes the Commission’s communication and proposal for a Community action programme. All in all, the Com- mission document shows a high level of competence and specialist knowledge. (1) OJ C 388, 31. 12. 1994. (2) European Allergy White Paper. The UCB Institute of Allergy, May 1997. 3. 2. The Committee endorses the action programme because it is well reasoned and the proposed measures are clearly set out. It is also timely, well-founded and C 19/8 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 1. 98 provides for a major Community contribution to the measures being taken in the field of public health. In addition, and even if there is already a large body of information on pollution-related diseases, the pro- gramme will yield necessary added value. 4. 3. Regarding the third specific objective (‘Respirat- ory diseases and allergies’), the Committee stresses that, using the same general criteria, the action programme could have been targeted at some other important diseases. 3. 2. 1. The Committee considers the overviews of existing measures being taken at various levels, as presented by the Commission, to be particularly useful. In addition, the proposed mix of horizontal and disease-specific measures is practicable. the Committee is convinced that 3. 2. 2. The Committee stresses the importance of reducing the amount of pollutants by taking action at their source. The Committee has a number of observations to 3. 3. make, which should not, however, detract from the value of the proposal or the importance of the subject it addresses. 4. Specific comments 4. 1. With regard to the first specific objective of the action programme (‘Improvement of information’), the Committee would underline the importance of compiling scientific data on the causal relationship between pol- lution and disease and of collating and evaluating existing data on causality in cooperation with Member States. 4. 2. As for the second specific objective (‘Risk percep- tion and management’), the Committee would point out that in order to i) prevent needless alarm among the general public and ii) encourage people to minimalize exposure to environmental risks, considerably more than the provision of information alone is needed. Research in the field of risk communication shows that people are calmed much more by proper communication in which their fears are taken seriously than by data. For this, they must have confidence in those providing the information. Furthermore, attention must also be paid to such aspects as the social environment and competence of the persons concerned. 4. 2. 1. In this context the Committee would also underline that communication and the provision of information should be organized systematically; it is particularly important to study the target group before- hand. Brussels, 29 October 1997. 4. 3. 1. In this connection, the Committee would like to emphasize the importance of preventing also other allergies, such as food allergies. 4. 4. The Committee is pleased to note that it will receive copies of the evaluation and implementation reports. 4. 5. The Committee would highlight the importance of cooperation with national authorities, the European Environment Agency, the WHO and third countries. 4. 5. 1. It is also important to acknowledge the work that the USA Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has carried out in the field of risk assessment and management with respect to pollution related-diseases. The Committee considers it important for the Com- munity to be able to benefit from such work. 4. 6. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of work, the Committee urges the Commission to ensure that the proposed measures are consistent with and complementary to actions envisaged under the health monitoring programme (1) and any other Community action relevant to pollution-related diseases, such as those under the framework of the Fifth Community Action Programme for the Environment — ‘Towards Sustainability’ (2). In the view of the Committee, a weakness of the 4. 7. programme is the uncertainty surrounding its funding. Whilst the Committee understands the reasons for this, it would be desirable if the Commission could put forward at least an outline of the funding requirements for the years 2000-2003, and if the budgetary authorities could ensure that such requirements were subsequently met — a multiannual programme should not run the risk of remaining uncompleted on account of budgetary matters. (1) Proposal: OJ C 338, 16. 12. 1995 — ESC Opinion: OJ C 174, 17. 6. 1996. (2) Proposal: OJ C 138, 17. 5. 1993 — Opinion ESC: OJ C 287, 4. 11. 1992. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS