{"id":9112,"date":"2025-03-18T19:27:46","date_gmt":"2025-03-18T18:27:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esc-info.eu\/?p=9112"},"modified":"2025-05-28T15:09:15","modified_gmt":"2025-05-28T14:09:15","slug":"european-ngos-vs-scheer-opinion-on-rf","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esc-info.eu\/cs\/european-ngos-vs-scheer-opinion-on-rf\/","title":{"rendered":"European NGOs vs. SCHEER Opinion on RF"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The letter, signed by leading NGOs advocating for public health and environmental protection (listed below), lists several concerns over SCHEER’s scientific integrity and bias. In particular, it criticizes the SCHEER Opinion on the need to revise the Council Recommendation 1999\/519\/EC and Directive 2013\/35\/EU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The signatories argue that the SCHEER opinion is fundamentally flawed, both in its methodology and composition of experts, leading to a biased assessment that fails to reflect the scientific consensus on RF-EMF risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the NGOs, the SCHEER working group is dominated by individuals with conflicts of interest, including ties to the telecommunications industry, which undermine its independence. Additionally, the NGOs argue that SCHEER ignored or downplayed a large body of scientific research showing harmful biological non\u2013thermal effects of RF-EMF exposure at levels below current regulatory limits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are the key points of the letter:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Lack of Independence:<\/strong> Several members of the SCHEER working group have connections to the telecom industry, creating a conflict of interest.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Biased Methodology:<\/strong> SCHEER allegedly ignored significant scientific evidence demonstrating adverse health effects from RF-EMF exposure, including neurological disorders, cancer risks, and oxidative stress. Further, the methodology for evaluating and weighing of the evidence is flawed and biased.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Exclusion of Environmental Impact:<\/strong> The SCHEER Opinion fails to assess the consequences of RF-EMF exposure on wildlife and ecosystems.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Contradiction with Other Scientific Assessments:<\/strong> The SCHEER Opinion contradicts findings from independent scientific bodies, such as for instance the French National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), the BioInitiative group, which acknowledged significant risks linked to RF-EMF exposure.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    This initiative represents a significant pushback against regulatory decisions that fail to account for the available independent scientific research on RF-EMF exposure. The signatory NGOs remain committed to ensuring public health and environmental protection and remain at the forefront of EU policy decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The NGOs call on the European Commission to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n