Document OGra4xO6VyGQ91nbR7eoko2L
AIA-8
lAlgiiFfl ..lir.'.'fta.'^ i --j^2fenri.-iV:-
AIA Ath S.'ecirriVE CO.'ihinEE MiEUNC 1 JULY 1973 ACSHOA ITEM 6
EJCTRACT fROli MINUTES OF 3rd MEETING 07 EEC ADVISORY COUNCIL ON 20th MAY 1973
fe?.tW'1.
r ?**
7. Labelling.
1
7.1. Considerable time was'spent on discussing the pro's and contra's of labelling. Opinions on the desirability of starring at this moment; a volun tary labelling scheme differed widely from one country to the .
other*, but there was general agreement on the necessity to prepare a label In order.not to be taken by surprise later on.,
7.2. As for the-type of label and jib wording, AlA/London would
circulate a questionnaire among EAC members asking them to
give their countries views on the following points :
l. Should the label refer.to the fact that the product contains
. asbestos 7
'
' 2. Should it contain the words "CAUTION" or "WAnNrNC" 7
3. Should the label refer to the nature of the danger 7
1
. (creation of dust - inhaling dust?.
4_. Should the label contain an advise to observe safety instruct ior 5. Should there be a mention of "HEALTH HAZARDS" 7
S. Should the label contain a logo and if $o, which one 7
7,3.
It was felt that the EAC should agree on and propose a "minimum
y .f
Statement for the label, to which individual countries could add
further information according to nations! requirements.
T. 4.
Various members reported on the present situation or future actio^!V*V.
in their country as regards labelling. .
Most participants ware in favour of an action in various stages,
the switching oyer from one stage to a further Jess favourable
one, depending on outside pressure :
1 st * stave : health and safety recommendations included
in a leaflet together with recommendations for handline.
UBm 'i9^9
,r- --*
h,.
AIA-8
-.. ._--^.ii.
.
tfri.'
r^aasr. >
.
slacking etc. .. of the product) similar to the Eterrsit leaflet),
2nd.stage : label according to the French or U.K, model, '
* but without the logo.
.
3rd stage ; idem, with logo,
7,5, Many of the participants were of the opinf.cn that it was advisable
to adopt the U.K. label as such if the use of a label was unavoida-$V,p ble. Hedlscussing its wording could bring along the risk of having sSrh
to include the word "cancer'' in it. The fact that this label had ijr
$fibeen found satisfactory to the' U.K, authorities was also seen as a lii*
good argument for avoiding the EEC to press for a less favourable one (such as the skull and cross-bones used for "toxic" substances)-V^v
It was also believed that, in order-to stanu a chance for the ESC .
fe|Kto accept the lego put forward by the industry, the whole asbestos
Industry within the EEC should agree on and start using one and
the same logo,
.
T.6. The EAC secretary was asked to keep contact with Mr. KRUGER
7,7.
of UNICE on the matter,
.
, sVowv./f: fear
In those countries where it was felt It was still too eurjy to surt roPTfl. voluntary labelling, in fear of a- possible negative influence on saletV^l^v
,
. rfer",.
steps should be taken in ordar to prepar.e. commercial people for ?&>;
the idea, making clear that in the absence of an industry's inltiatfv
we could run the . risk of being imposed the "skull and cross-bones'^;^'
symbol for our products*. It should also be pointed out .to them'tfia^l^ ' t-wirS,
the fact to agree on- a kind of label did not imply the agreement.
of starting to use it right now.
'.
Pi
7.-.8, Mr, van der REST asked U.K. members to do-their utmust to' obtain that U, K. asbestos containing goods exported to the continenti^t*
should not yet be labelled, as this would put the continental: in du str
in a difficult position.
-.
19"30
lip ip
itWe, fpfi flt-..
? JlfiMWEL'd____i ill
4iiriaiwa
ffi.t. 9,T. j--iQti