In an op-ed article featured in the French daily newspaper Le Monde on November 30, some 100 scientists condemn the strategies employed by the chemicals industry in order to influence European Union (EU) legislation on endocrine disruptors.
With occupational cancers the primary cause of work-related deaths in the European Union (EU), occupational exposure limits (OELs) were a big topic at the recent 12th annual European Trade Union Institute seminar on chemicals and worker protection.
A new European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) report identifies more than 70 carcinogenic substances for which binding limit values for exposure of workers at the workplace should be defined at EU level.
Approximately thirty leading European researchers, trade unionists and representatives of associations gathered this week for a seminar organised jointly by the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI), the Belgian association Santé & Solidarité, and the Free University of Brussels (ULB).
The European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) is praising a recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning chemical substances categorised as being ‘of very high concern’ on account of their carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic properties.
More than 40 trade unionists from 14 European countries attended the ETUI’s annual seminar on chemical substances held in Dublin on June 25th and 26th. An important focus of this 11th edition of the event was the risks linked to exposure to pesticides in the agriculture sector.
From the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI): Two new reports cast a harsh light on the roles played by chemical industry lobbies and senior European Commission officials in postponing the adoption of criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
Report from the European Trade Union Institute: An important international meeting on toxic products opened in Geneva on 4 May with, as one of the main items on its agenda, the inclusion of chrysotile in the Rotterdam Convention. In spite of the deleterious effects of this form of asbestos, lobbying by producer and importer states has so far enabled this carcinogenic substance to remain outside the purview of this instrument.