The Scientific Committee of the EMCDDA, extended with experts from the Member States
and Representatives of the Commission, Europol and EMEA, are required under Article 4 to
draw up a report on all aspects of the Risk Assessment and reflecting all opinions on those
aspects

7.1 The scientific evidence presented to the meeting shows that MBDB has effects which
are similar to those of MDMA, although most studies show that MBDB is less potent
than MDMA. However, factors related to dosage and the use of other related drugs
might increase the neurotoxicity of MBDB.

7.2 Arising from 7.1 and because MDMA is subject to control in Member States, one
opinion is that MBDB should be subject to similar measures which would also allow
appropriate action by law-enforcement agencies against the manufacture of and
trafficking in MBDB.

7.3 Also arising from 7.1, a second opinion is to advise against such an intervention for a
number of reasons including the relatively low prevalence of MBDB use and its supply
and because some evidence suggests that MBDB is less attractive to users than
MDMA. This opinion would recommend active monitoring of the market for MBDB and
of the involvement of organised crime, as well as regular evaluation of the situation
and ongoing research.

7.4 The meeting endorsed the view that toxicological data on MBDB are so scarce that
any definitive scientific risk assessment would be hazardous. The experts were of
the view that to render a risk assessment valid, all kinds of toxic effects should be
taken into account including the effects of interaction of other drugs, and that as a
priority a toxicological study should be performed in order to identify possible chronic
consequences of neurotoxicity.

7.5 The expert participants noted that MBDB had been identified in 14 Member States.
Information provided to the EMCDDA through the Reitox National Focal Points suggest
that MBDB is almost always sold and consumed as ecstasy. Users are aware that
different ecstasy tablets may have different effects. In most cases they do not
attribute these differences specifically to MBDB. Anecdotal reports from some Member
States suggest that MBDB may not be as attractive as MDMA to users.

7.6 No specific evidence of social risks directly linked to MBDB have been reported. This is
probably also due to the fact that it does not have a separate identity as a product on
the market or within the reporting mechanism in some Member States.

7.7 The meeting noted that indications from Europol did not point to a high level of
manufacture of, trafficking in and involvement of organised crime with MBDB when
compared with other synthetic drugs. It was pointed out that the total number of MBDB
tablets seized in the European Union was relatively low compared with the total
number of seized ecstasy tablets. It was further noted that MBDB had no generally
recognised or accepted medical, pharmaceutical or industrial use.

7.8 A matter of concern may be the fact that the main precursor chemicals of BDB which
may be used in the synthesis of MBDB are widely and commercially available:

piperonal, commonly used in the perfumes industry; at the EU level, piperonal is
included in the Regulation (EEC) no. 900/92 of 31 March 1992 modifying the
Regulation (EEC) no. 3677/90 related to measures to be taken to prevent the
diversion of a number of substances for the illicit manufacture of narcotics and
psychotropic substances in third countries. Directive (EEC) no. 109/92 deals with
similar controls relating to the Internal Market.

1-bromopropane and 1-nitropropane, two high-volume chemicals (production
exceeding 1 million pounds in the US). These substances are not under the same
regulation as piperonal, safrole, isosafrole and other precursors commonly used in
the manufacture of synthetic drugs.

Lisbon, 10 November 1998