This week's media reaction to a European Commission consultation paper on sex discrimination has been immediate, copious and - in some cases - highly emotional. The suggestion that sexist advertising might become a thing of the past, or that gender might no longer be used in determining insurance premiums, has provoked outrage in some quarters.

This reaction to what is a technical discussion round - this paper has as yet been circulated only within the Commission - is not surprising. It serves to show the importance of the kind of issues raised: how business sectors such as insurance and pensions calculate risk and set prices; how tax systems make distinctions on the basis of gender; and how the media and advertising sectors view men and women. Some of the ideas in the consultation paper are ambitious; most of the fields are complex; no political decision on how to proceed has been taken.

No doubt the media discussion will continue and so I should like, at this early stage, to help structure the debate. I propose considering the issue under three headings: economic, political and legal.

In spite of the Cassandra cries from representatives of the insurance and pensions industries, the economic aspect is not necessarily the most controversial. I have not heard a conclusive argument to the effect that outlawing gender as a factor in risk calculation would render insurance and pension systems inoperable. It is true that, if gender were no longer a risk yardstick, other criteria to assess risk - such as lifestyle - would need to be introduced or given greater weight. This would certainly mean substantial change and at least one-off expense for the sectors concerned. But would insurance and pension systems be rendered inoperable? Would consumers, taken as a whole, necessarily suffer?

The political question may be even clearer-cut. Let us for the sake of argument suppose that there were statistical data showing that black people, as a class, had a shorter life expectancy than white people. Would it be acceptable to charge black people a higher tariff for life assurance? Is it acceptable that women (even those who will never bear children) in fact now pay more for health insurance than men? The answers to these questions, in political terms, are clear. And so, therefore, is the political case for gender neutrality.

It is the third heading, the legal dimension, that is by far the most complex and the most likely to set the limits of efforts to tackle gender discrimination outside the workplace. (Legislation against discrimination in the workplace, including employee contributions to company pension schemes, is already well established in European Union statute.) The legal dimension dictates the margin for political action and that in turn sets the terms of the economic debate.

Any legal discussion starts with the question of what the EU is legally empowered to do. However undesirable it may be, for instance, that women are stereotyped in advertising, it is not clear whether the EU has the power to act against this under the treaty of Rome's anti-discrimination clauses. The television directive already outlaws, inter alia, sex discrimination and material that offends human dignity in television advertising. But it leaves open the question as to the precise definition of such material. In any case, that directive does not cover other media, nor does it cover questions of sex discrimination in television broadcasting more generally. Perhaps it is time to consider a voluntary, EU-wide code for advertising and media, in consultation with member states and business.

Likewise, it will take a long debate with all interested parties to identify what aspects of insurance, pension and tax systems may fall on the wrong side of the legal line. Tax systems are not as a rule EU territory - but they certainly are when basic EU treaty principles are at stake, such as discrimination on the grounds of nationality. This debate must and will continue.

Gender discrimination is abhorrent in any form; the political case for acting against it is an open and shut one. The economic case for retaining the status quo where discrimination exists is clearly inadmissible. But the legal dimension of gender discrimination is a complex one - and I am determined to pursue it to its conclusion, in consultation with all concerned. One thing is certain: the present consultation paper does not, alas, mean that the end is nigh for sex discrimination.

The writer is European commissioner for employment and social affairs