The European Commission’s environment and health action plan 2004-2010, although only an implementation plan for the EU Strategy on Environment and Health (SCALE), has created major waves in European Parliamentary debates and a report drawn up by Ms. Frédérique Ries, MEP (ALDE, Belgium), which criticizes the Action Plan for; not bringing forward funding necessary to implement the plan, not concentrating on the health of EU’s Children and for lack of positive actions in the face of scientific evidence.

The report was voted nearly unanimously 576 votes for, 48 against and 13 abstentions at the parliament’s plenary sitting of 23 February 2005. The major controversy came in a vote on the reduction of exposure to already identified hazards to the health of particularly vulnerable populations. The European Parliament considered that: ’without prejudice to existing Community legislation and following the opinion of the relevant Scientific Committee, urgent consideration needs to be given to restricting the marketing and/or the use of the following dangerous substances, to which new-born babies, children, pregnant women, elderly persons, workers and other high-risk sections of the population are heavily exposed, as safer alternatives become available:
 six products from the phthalate family (DEHP, DINP, DBP, DIDP, DNOP, BBP) in domestic products for indoor use and in medical devices, except where such a restriction would have a negative impact on medical treatment,
  chlorinated solvents used in the manufacture of paint, coatings and polymers,
 mercury used in dental amalgams and in non-electrical or non-electronic measuring and monitoring devices,
 cadmium, in its different applications,
 three products from the organophosphate pesticide family (chlorpyriphos, diazinon and malathion) and endosulfan, an organochlorine pesticide, in all their uses;’

EEN Director Genon Jensen said ’The Parliament has sent a clear message to the European Commission and Members States that the health of our children is a priority that requires EU resources and funding, political support and above all decisive action to implement polices to protect these vulnerable populations.’

European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), welcomed the EU Parliamentary vote on Health and Environment Action Plan, but deplored arbitrary discrimination against the chemicals mentioned above.

"The action plan proposed by the Commission did not deserve its name because it did not contain any concrete preventative action" declared the rapporteur, Frédérique Ries (ALDE, Belgium), after the vote. "It is rather a programme to evaluate the incidence of the global environmental on health," she said according to a report in Euroactiv.

The Greens/EFA call commission action plan an "non-action plan" saying that research alone will not protect children from pollution

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas stated in response to the critcism, during debate, of the action plan that ’the gradual setting-up of an integrated environment and health information system, in which human bio-monitoring will play an essential role, is the added value of the Action Plan’ and regarding the financial future of the action plan he stated ’we very much welcome Parliament’s support in its role as budgetary authority for the funding to implement the Action Plan. We are constrained by the existing budgetary initiatives until 2006 and we will make the best use of all available funds.’