A4-0073/99
19 February 1999A4-0073/99
Following a request by the Conference of Committee Chairmen , the President of Parliament announced at the sitting of 13 March 1998 that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development had been authorised to draw up a report on a new strategy for agriculture in arctic regions and that the Committee on Regional Policy had been asked for its opinion .
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development appointed Mrs Sirkka-Liisa Anttila rapporteur at its meeting of 22 January 1998 .
It considered the draft report at its meetings of 19/20 January and 17/18 February 1999 .
At the last meeting it adopted the motion for a resolution unanimously , with one abstention .
The opinion of the Committee on Regional Policy is attached .
The report was tabled on 19 February 1999 .
The deadline for tabling amendments is 12 noon on 18 March 1999 .
whereas arctic and sub-arctic regions comprise approximately 2 . 5% of the area of farmland in use and 38% of the area of forests in the EU ; whereas forests are an indissoluble part of arctic farming , but only once in a generation is significant income derived from sales based on them ,
whereas in arctic , sub-arctic , mountainous and sparsely populated areas , farming is of vital importance in keeping the land inhabited and the regions viable ,
whereas the strengths of arctic agriculture include the high standard of environmental protection , the low livestock density per hectare and the use of livestock farming and treatment methods which are sustainable from the points of view of ethics and animal welfare ,
whereas residues of heavy metals and other substances in arctic foodstuffs are very low , very little use is made of plant protection products on account of the low prevalence of plant diseases , animals' health is good and antibiotics are not used to prevent animal diseases
whereas the occurrence of salmonella in food products in various areas presents a risk to the health of consumers ,
whereas Europe succeeds on world markets only by virtue of its quality production ,G .
whereas because of the small population base , peripheral location and centralised trade structure of arctic areas and , to some extent , because of administrative obstacles which affect them , certain agricultural production costs are much higher there than elsewhere in the EU ,
whereas the Agenda 2000 proposals relating to the price of cereals place cereals in a more competitive position than grass fodder in countries where it is not possible to cultivate maize , thereby driving livestock production in completely the wrong direction from the point of view of ecology and ethics by causing ruminants to be fed on concentrates and cereals , which do not form part of their natural diet ,I .
whereas the common agricultural policy was tailored to the requirements of the best conditions prevailing in mainland Europe and does not take sufficient account of the agricultural production problems caused by the special production conditions in the EU's arctic , sub-arctic or mountain regions or indeed the drought-stricken Mediterranean regions ,
whereas the annual temperature sum in the European Union ( 3 ) ranges from 400°C to 3000°C ,K .
whereas the best conditions for cultivation and agricultural production exist in regions where the annual temperature sum is between 2200°C and 1400°C ,L .
whereas high temperature sums , attaining figures as high as 3000°C , together with low rainfall , cause drought , particularly in the Mediterranean ,M .
whereas the EU's arctic and sub-arctic regions comprise Finland , the area of Sweden north of Stockholm , parts of Scotland and certain Alpine regions where the annual temperature sum lies between 1300°C and 400°C ,N .
whereas the range of crops which can be cultivated is substantially smaller in arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions than elsewhere in Europe ; whereas the cost of plant breeding for the requisite varieties is high on account of the small volume involved ,O .
whereas yields fall by around 400 kg per 100°C reduction in the temperature sum ,P .
whereas the producer prices obtainable on the market in high-production-cost arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions are often insufficient to cover agricultural production costs , which jeopardises the survival of motivation for enterprise and work in farming ,Q .
whereas the short growing and grazing seasons and smaller yields , including grass and pasture yields , in arctic regions lead to higher production costs per hectare and livestock unit ,R .
whereas the climatic disadvantages of the EU's arctic and sub-arctic regions , with their short growing and grazing seasons , place agriculture in these regions at a permanent competitive disadvantage ,S .
whereas in addition to their climatic disadvantage , the widely dispersed locations of field parcels in arctic regions , the efficient machinery necessitated by the short sowing and harvesting seasons and the need to dry cereals and hay add to farm production costs ,T .
whereas the arctic climate does not dry cereals or hay adequately , so that they have to be dried mechanically to ensure that they will keep during storage ,U .
whereas the Agenda 2000 proposal metes out extremely harsh treatment to less-favoured areas where the viability of agriculture is already poor , and whereas under Agenda 2000 producer prices would fall , and this fall would be only partially compensated , which represents a grave threat to the survival of agricultural production on the European family-farming model in the EU's arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions ,V .
whereas costs are higher in the arctic regions on account of the long distances over which goods have to be transported , the long journeys to ports , for example , and the brevity of the periods during which ports are not closed by ice ,W .
whereas in arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions it will be extremely difficult to meet the pasturing requirement for cattle set forth in Agenda 2000 , as roughage must be stored for use during the long winter , and this takes up at least 2/3 of the area down to grass ,X .
whereas the proposed additional milk quota for arctic and mountain regions does not solve the problem of viability of milk production , and cannot be regarded as compensation for the loss of income
whereas the additional quota will create pressure to reduce the producer price for milk as competition increases ; whereas in arctic regions it will be difficult to produce milk in accordance with the additional quota because no compensation is to be paid for the price reduction ,Y .
whereas cattle farming in arctic regions is based on good stock and long indoor feeding , which naturally raise costs ; whereas the high mean yield leads to high unit costs , so that the milk producer price compensation ought to be higher ;
whereas roughage has to be harvested and stored during the short growing season for use during the period of more than 8 months when cattle have to be kept indoors ,1
Considers it important to attain the objective stated as follows in the conclusions of the Luxembourg summit of December 1997: 'European agriculture must , as an economic sector , be versatile , sustainable , competitive and spread throughout European territory , including regions with specific problems' ;2 .
Considers that the above-mentioned European Council conclusion of December 1997 can best be attained by regionalising agricultural policy and incorporating into the rules of the common agricultural policy the requisite special measures for the EU's arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions where the annual temperature sum is less than 1300° C and drought-stricken regions ;3 .
Considers that the EU's common agricultural policy should be regionalised and flexibilised so as to take account of the special needs of arctic , sub-arctic , mountain and drought-stricken regions ;4 .
Considers that enterprise and the motivation to work should be preserved in agriculture throughout EU territory , which means that producers should derive the bulk of their income from the market and that it should be based on their production , rather than in the form of subsidies ;5 .
Considers that the problems of viability and competitiveness faced by arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions require special systems , which should be funded primarily by the Community ; considers that the continuity of agriculture in the EU is under particular threat in arctic regions and other regions affected by special problems ;6 .
Calls for producers to receive compensation for losses of income arising from the Agenda 2000 proposals , taking full account of regional conditions ;7 .
Considers it indispensable to review the basis for subsidies under the common agricultural policy's organisation of the market in cereals to take better account of the fall in producer prices , particularly real losses in regions where conditions are difficult ;8 .
Considers that additional costs arising from permanent climatic disadvantages , such as short growing and grazing seasons , long distances , widely dispersed locations of field parcels and cold winters should be taken into account in the common agricultural policy's area-based and livestock subsidies in arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions ;9 .
Recalls that although ownership of forests is a traditional element in arctic agriculture , only once in a generation is significant income derived from sales based on them ;10 .
Reiterates its call in its Resolution of 18 June 1998 ( 4 ) on Agenda 2000 for support to be paid for grass silage in arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions , corresponding to that paid for maize silage ;11 .
Considers it evident that high unit costs in milk production require higher compensation payments to milk producers ; takes the view that the same support should be paid in respect of the proposed additional quota for arctic and mountain regions as for the basic quota ;12 .
Considers that , since the changes to the basis for the extensification premium proposed in Agenda 2000 are totally unsuited to arctic production conditions , the requirements for the extensification premium should be altered , taking into account the whole feed production area on a farm for the purpose of calculating extensiveness , and the grazing requirement should be waived for areas covered with snow ;13 .
Considers it essential to study the viability and competitiveness of beef production based on dairy cattle breeds and the scope for inclusion in the EU's quality system ;14 .
Calls on the Commission to clarify the real impact of the proposed additional milk quota on the producer price for milk and the viability of milk production in arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions , taking account of the impact of greater competition on producer prices ;15 .
Calls on the Commission to promote more actively than at present sustainable development and high standards of environmental protection , animal welfare and ethically sound agriculture throughout EU territory by rendering subsidies conditional on compliance with such requirements , and calls on the Commission to render conditions for payment of environmental subsidies more stringent with the aim of reducing use of fertilisers and plant protection products ;16 .
Urges the Commission to adopt ambitious objectives for reducing to a minimum the prevalence of salmonella within EU territory and halting the use of antibiotics to prevent animal diseases , with the aim of safeguarding the health of consumers ;17 .
Considers it important to improve the expertise of food laboratories in the EU in order to obtain reliable information about food safety ;18 .
Considers it essential that good European farming practice should consistently be taken as a condition for direct support throughout the EU so that the high ethical and environmental standards applied in European agriculture can be asserted as one of the central objectives of the next WTO negotiations ;19 .
Urges the Commission , in future decisions on support , to take account of the additional costs arising from the need to dry cereals and hay ;20 .
Regards it as a fundamental precondition for the viability of production that national support systems under which the amount of subsidy payable depends on the number of head of livestock should be permitted in pig , poultry and sheep farming in arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions where production costs are significantly higher than elsewhere in Europe on account of climatic and natural conditions ; considers that transitional periods do not eliminate such permanent natural disadvantages ;21 .
Considers it important to identify higher costs of production inputs in certain arctic and peripheral regions , arising partly from administrative factors and partly from the distortion of competition by the centralisation of trade , and to find ways of achieving genuine competition in the production input sector ;22 .
Considers it important to take account in Community support schemes of the fact that production costs in arctic and peripheral regions are increased by the long transport distances ;23 .
Considers that agriculture in the northernmost parts of the EU is of the utmost importance not only for the production of foodstuffs but also with a view to preserving a varied and living countryside and maintaining and facilitating employment and social structures in all parts of the countries concerned ; considers that flexible and specially adapted agricultural support is needed in this specific region in order to be able to keep the countryside alive and protect this unique environment ;24 .
Considers it important that local production , local processing , on-farm processing , direct sales of products and diversification of production should be encouraged and that smallness of scale should be supported ;
calls on the Commission , therefore , to study the scope for aiding small-scale production and traditional production systems , breeds and species ; does not consider the quota system appropriate to Arctic agriculture , and takes the view , inter alia , that free milk quotas are too small and ought to be adjusted to enable local processing to be further developed ;25 .
Considers that support must cover the entire production chain , from the production of raw materials to the processed product , so as to help small-scale processing develop , whereas current rules are chiefly geared to the needs of 'largescale' activities ; considers also that support systems must be tailored to current farm ownership structures and size ;26 .
Considers that agriculture in sub-Arctic and Arctic regions is traditionally very environment-friendly and that it should continue to be geared increasingly towards environmentally sustainable production , which , in addition to minimising pollution , also entails taking due account of the energy consumed in the production of food ;27 .
Considers it important to encourage and enable people to remain in the northernmost regions of Europe and hence stem population loss , and to facilitate immigration to them , in order to prevent depopulation ;
believes that , in view of the harsh conditions , including seven-month winters and poor soil , the scope for part-time farming is a condition that must be encouraged , for example by providing assistance for combining farming with other occupations ;28 .
Takes the view that ecologically and environmentally sound tourism should be promoted and its marketing developed ;29 .
Considers that communications and transport in Arctic and sub-Arctic regions are seriously hampered by geographical and climatic factors , and that these problems are further aggravated by the sparseness of population and the distances to population centres and markets ; considers that aid for transport is called for in these regions ;30 .
Considers that , with regard to the provision of public services , the subsidiarity principle should continue to be complied with , allowing Member States to define requirements for services available to society at large ; .
stresses that subsidised services and services provided by public bodies are often the only way of supplying , for example , public transport in sparsely populated areas , health care and social services ;31
Stresses the importance of enabling the Sami culture and reindeer farming to develop on the Sami people's own terms , with Community support ;32 .
Proposes special assistance within reindeer farming for investment to enhance product-development skills and develop local processing of reindeer products which should ultimately give individual reindeer-owners more employment while reducing the need to increase numbers of reindeer , thus also easing pressure on reindeer pastures ;33 .
Calls on the Commission to study ways of aiding mobile slaughterhouses in order to avoid unnecessary animal transport and increase viability ;34 .
Calls for specific support for decentralised production and direct marketing of regional products in order to reduce long-haul transport and to increase consumer access to fresh and high-quality food .
Calls on the Commission to draw up a comprehensive account of the differences in biological conditions affecting agriculture in the EU's arctic and mountain regions in comparison with the rest of the EU and to make the necessary adjustments to the common agricultural policy ;36 .
Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission .
B EXPLANATORY STATEMENTSPECIAL PROBLEMS AFFECTING AGRICULTURE IN THE ARCTIC AND SUB-ARCTIC REGIONS OF THE EU AND WAYS OF SOLVING THEM1 .
INTRODUCTIONOn 1 January 1995 , three new Member States acceded to the European Union .
The accession of Finland and Sweden imparted a Nordic dimension to the EU , as well as incorporating into it arctic and sub-arctic regions and giving it a 1300km common border with Russia .
Keeping the long border inhabited is important to Finland for defence reasons .
The accession of Austria , Finland and Sweden also substantially increased the EU's forestry resources , rendered the EU selfsufficient in timber and brought some of Western Europe's last wildernesses within the EU .
The Union acquired a completely new Northern conifer belt , a region where renewal and sustainable use of forests has for decades been one of the pillars of the Member States' economies .
Although ownership of forests is an essential element of arctic agriculture , however , it is important to remember that only once in a generation is significant income derived from sales based on them .
The enlargement of 1995 created new challenges for the EU's agricultural policy .
The common agricultural policy was tailored to the requirements of the best conditions prevailing in mainland Europe and is not appropriate to agriculture in the EU's arctic , sub-arctic or mountain regions or indeed the drought-stricken Mediterranean regions .
These regions therefore require price and support systems suitable to their own conditions and needs .
The purpose of this report is to identify the special problems facing arctic and sub-arctic regions and to seek solutions to them .
The renewal of the common agricultural policy which began in 1992 , which entailed reducing producer prices to bring them closer to market levels and paying compensation for the price reductions in the form of direct income support , will result in an impossible equation in regions with higher production costs - arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions .
Farm incomes will consist largely of support payments , and the costs of economic activity will similarly have to be met from support payments . The enterprise element will be lost altogether from economic activity , as will the motivation to work .
In arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions , special permanent price and support systems are needed , by means of which to place the EU's arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions on a footing of equality with the bulk of mainland Europe as regards the scope for farming .
The common agricultural policy must be regionalised , not nationalised , in order to take better account of the special needs of arctic , sub-arctic , mountain and indeed drought-stricken regions .
The aim is to safeguard the continuity and viability of agricultural production throughout EU territory .
Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome and the communiqué of the Luxembourg summit of December 1997 likewise require this .
It must be possible to farm throughout the European Union , including in the less favoured areas .
The principal objective of this report is to state the problems facing arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions and to find solutions to them .
The Santini report identified the special problems of mountain regions .
This report perhaps excessively stresses the special character of agriculture in Finland and northern Sweden , for example at the expense of Scotland and the Alps , because the statistics available concerning the former are the best and clearest .
THE BIOLOGICAL BASE The basis of all farm production is the cultivation of crops , which is entirely dependent on the effective temperature sum during the growing season .
The temperature sum shows incontrovertibly that the preconditions for agricultural production deteriorate degree by degree as one goes from south to north .
The annual temperature sum in Europe is shown in the annexes .
The range of cultivable crops available is very significantly reduced in arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions .
Moreover , yields fall by an average of 400-500 kg per hundred degrees of the temperature sum .
This explains the low yields in arctic regions in comparison with those in much of mainland Europe .
The same pattern is found with grass feed and other pasture yields .
In addition to the decline in yields as one moves into the arctic regions , production costs rise .
Because of the short sowing season ( approximately one week ) and brief harvest , investment in machinery per hectare and per kilo yield increases .
On account of the brevity of the sowing and harvest periods , it is not possible to manage large areas even with efficient machinery .
One cost which does not even exist elsewhere is that of drying cereals and hay .
The higher costs of cultivating crops and grass are directly reflected in livestock farming in the form of higher feed costs .
The shorter the growing season , the longer feed has to be preserved ; and the colder the climate , the greater the investment in animal shelters and their heating .
Accordingly I recommend in my report that the European Union be divided into various temperature zones .
The effective temperature sum in the core regions of mainland Europe averages 2000° C per annum , whereas in arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions the figure ranges between 1300° and 400° C .
In the Mediterranean , the excessively high annual temperature sum of 3000° C , in conjunction with low rainfall , causes drought .
In these regions , on account of the natural disadvantages and the climate , special permanent aid and permanent schemes are needed to place arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions , on the one hand , and mainland Europe , on the other , on an equal footing as regards agricultural production conditions .
Differences in temperature sum are an indisputable source of differences in conditions and competitive disadvantages .
The common agricultural policy should therefore be regionalised .
Arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions require their own schemes , which must take climate into account .
Support to arctic and mountain regions and special schemes to preserve agricultural enterprise should apply in regions where the annual temperature sum is below 1300° C .
This would mean that support was provided to Sweden north of Stockholm , parts of Scotland , Finland , ( northern Estonia ) and certain Alpine regions .
SPECIAL CONDITIONS IN ARCTIC AND SUB-ARCTIC REGIONS Finland and the area of Sweden north of Stockholm lie between latitudes 60° and 70° .
The Commission defines agricultural regions north of latitude 62° , together with certain nearby areas , as arctic and sub-arctic .
In defining these regions , the Commission took particular account of low population density , the proportion of the total land area which was used for agriculture and the proportion of the total agricultural land area which was used to produce crops for human consumption .
5 million Finns and just over 2 million Swedes live in the EU's arctic and sub-arctic regions .
For the purposes of this report , regions where the effective temperature sum is less than 1300° C per annum are defined as arctic and sub-arctic .
The grounds for this lie in the biological conditions described in section 2 above and other factors which hamper agricultural production , such as the freezing of the land in winter and the snow cover , which restrict the cultivation of crops , the grazing of livestock , etc .
The proximity of the Gulf Stream makes farming possible in the arctic and sub-arctic regions by raising the temperature 3° to 4° above that found elsewhere at the same latitudes .
Between these countries' capitals and their northern regions , climate differs substantially .
The mean growing season in southern Finland and central Sweden is 170 days , whereas in the north it is only about 100 days .
Differences in the effective temperature sum are large: it ranges from 1300°C in the south to as low as 500°C in the northernmost regions .
Such a small temperature sum means that wheat and oilseed crops can only be grown in the south of these countries .
However , barley , oats , grass for grazing and potatoes can be grown virtually everywhere .
The short growing season makes it necessary to breed crop strains which are specially adapted to arctic conditions and for farmers to keep reserve stores of seed for all eventualities .
In many parts of arctic Europe , livestock farming , especially milk production , is the only viable form of agriculture .
Apart from the small temperature sum , other climatic problems faced by arctic and sub-arctic agriculture are the short growing season , drought in early summer , night frosts , rain during the harvest season and unfavourable conditions during winter .
Sometimes the land is still frozen in mid-summer .
Additional problems include the need to keep fields dry ( because of soil frost , it is necessary to dig ditches deeper than elsewhere in Europe and to maintain a denser network of ditches in order to drain meltwater from the fields ) , the acidity of the soil , which makes it necessary to add lime , the need to dry corn between threshing and storage , and the need to breed crop varieties suited to northern conditions .
The long hours of daylight in summer go some way to compensate for differences in growing conditions in different parts of the countries .
The nights are short , especially in the central and northern regions of Sweden and Finland .
Certain crop varieties cannot tolerate the long periods of daylight , which limits the number of crop varieties which can be cultivated .
Options for farming in arctic and sub-arctic regions are very limited in comparison with those which exist in competing countries .
In comparison with farmers in most of the rest of Europe , farmers in the arctic are at a disadvantage with regard to costs ( natural conditions , structure ) , regional factors ( production spread over a large area , waters , location ) , adjustment ( sudden changes in the operating environment , the requirement to adjust to them within a transitional period of a mere five years ) and markets ( purchasing power concentrated in population centres remote from the region's core areas ) .
Because of the region's special conditions , the area in which its products can be marketed is small .
The population is sparse and distances long , making it difficult for vendors to reach customers .
As a result , producers are not highly organised , and their influence over the sale and prices of goods is limited .
In the future , the volume of arctic and sub-arctic agricultural production will depend on how operations are rendered viable and competitive .
Developments will depend not only on farmers' professional skills and adaptability but also to a large extent on the EU's agricultural policy , which lays down the parameters for enterprise .
The accession of Sweden and Finland to the EU entailed an enormous change in the operating environment for agriculture in the two countries , and a short transition period cannot eliminate permanent disadvantages arising from their northerly location and the conditions which go with it .
The strengths of arctic agriculture - in accordance with the Acts of Accession to the EU - include environmental protection and preservation of rural areas , which are among the main objectives of agricultural policy .
Arctic food production is clean , and livestock are farmed in accordance with ethically sustainable principles .
The quantity of pesticides used in arctic regions is only a fraction of what has been used elsewhere .
Livestock stocking densities in arctic and mountain regions are substantially lower than the EU mean .
Nearly all active farms have undertaken to comply with the conditions for environmental subsidies to farmers .
Elsewhere in the EU too , for example in Greece , southern Italy , Spain , Portugal , northern Sweden , Scotland and the Alps , conditions are substantially less favourable to agriculture than in the EU's main farming regions .
The number of farms in northern Sweden fell more sharply after accession to the EU than elsewhere .
'Northern Sweden' is here defined as meaning part of the Svealand plains , the forests of central Sweden and upper and lower Norrland .
The combined cultivable area of northern Sweden ( the seven northernmost counties ) is 522 000 ha , which is 19% of all cultivable land in Sweden .
There are 23 000 farms ( of more than 2 ha ) , with an average size of about 22 ha , and 490 of these have more than 100 ha of cultivable land .
There are many small farms in northern Sweden .
The mean size of farms in the arctic region of northern Sweden is 18 . 8 ha , and the main crops are grass for use as feed , barley and oats .
In the north , mean yields are 55-60% of the mean for the country as a whole .
The mean number of cattle on dairy farms is 22 .
5 .9% of Sweden's pigs and 4 . 8% of its chickens are in the north .
Pigmeat production fell by 10 . 4% in 1996 and milk production by 8 . 2% .
It is difficult to obtain separate statistics on the overall development of agriculture in northern Sweden , as the information available concerns the whole country , disregarding the major differences between farms in the south and in the north .
On the whole , agriculture in southern Sweden is similar to that in large areas of mainland Europe , while agriculture in Sweden's arctic region is very similar to Finnish agriculture .
Eligibility ceilings for aid have been laid down area by area in Sweden to prevent production from being moved to higher-subsidy areas .
Aid is paid in respect of 476 380 ha in northern Sweden .
In regions where production conditions are poor , support is paid per head of livestock or hectare .
Northern Sweden's share of total support paid in the country was 59% .
The northernmost parts of the country receive national aid , based mainly on the quantity of milk produced .
The structure of agriculture in northern Sweden is more favourable than Finland's , as the ratio of production costs to producer prices has remained more reasonable .
The structure of agriculture in Sweden will alter radically over the next decade , which will have an impact on the viability of rural areas and on farms , services and the food sector .
Traditionally , one farmer has indirectly employed at least two other people .
Before Finland and Sweden acceded to the EU , Scotland was its most sparsely populated region .
One fifth of its territory is classified nationally as being of outstanding natural beauty , 24% of its territory consists of nature conservation areas and 85% of its farmland possesses LFA status .
The rugged terrain of the highlands , high rainfall , strong winds , acidic soils , short growing season , limited range of cultivable plants and livestock options , and long and difficult journeys make the problems facing Scotland's farmers very similar to those elsewhere in the arctic .
The wettest areas have a mean annual rainfall of 3200 mm !
It is difficult to market farm produce from the islands , on account of the long sea voyages involved .
It is expensive and arduous to develop an effective infrastructure , for example ferries , roads and bridges , because of the difficult terrain .
Scotland has some 17 000 full-time farmers ; the mean farm size is 160 ha .
In the highlands , sheep-farming is virtually the only type of farming possible .
It is in these regions that most of Scotland's breeding ewes are produced , while a national genetic reserve is maintained , which also preserves the sustainability of agriculture .
The BSE crisis caused a collapse in beef production throughout Britain , which further increased concern about the industry's future in the highlands .
Between 1981 and 1991 , the remotest island regions lost nearly 6% of their population to the towns .
Remoteness raises the cost of living , which according to the Rural Scotland Price Survey ( RSPS ) is 11% higher in remote rural areas than in population centres .
Fuel prices are also high in remote areas .
The RSPS found , for example , that in the winter of 1996-1997 diesel fuel cost 19 . 8% more in the islands than in population centres .
The government and the EU must undertake to solve the problems , or else young farmers will abandon their family farms .
Tourism is a big source of income in Scotland , and it is directly affected by the problems in agriculture .
In 1997 the total area of farmland in Finland was 2 . 46 million ha , and there were 155 337 registered farms .
The number of farms had fallen by 14 370 since the previous year .
The mean size of holding in Finland is 15 . 8 ha of cultivable land and 46 . 4 ha of forest .
There are 49 222 farms where farming is the main source of income: their mean size is 28 . 6 ha .
Thus farms are not particularly big , particularly cattle farms .
The small size of farms in Finland is due to two land reforms which have been implemented this century: the Lex Kallio of 1922 and , after the war , measures to find land for farmers from the lost territory of Karelia .
Altogether , some 3 million ha - an area equivalent to Belgium - was apportioned among small farmers under the land settlement policy .
The arctic and sub-arctic countryside is typified by small , often asymmetrical field parcels located far apart and separated by woods and waters , a factor which further increases the costs of agricultural production .
In 1998 , ECU 588 million was paid in national subsidies to Finnish farmers .
Farming in the arctic is based on family farms .
The mean age of farmers in Finland is lower than anywhere else in the EU: in 1996 it was 46 . 4 years
There is a high degree of mechanisation per hectare .
Most farms have at least one tractor , together with other basic machinery required for the type of production concerned .
Farming is very capital-intensive because of the mechanisation necessitated by short sowing and harvest periods .
Modern farming requires a large area of land and many buildings and machines , but most farms provide employment for only one or two people .
Some 6% of the Finnish workforce is employed in agriculture .
In sparsely populated arctic areas , however , between 50% and 80% of the population work in agriculture , making it a major employer , retainer of the population and source of a multiplier effect .
Partly because of the shortage of other employment in arctic and sub-arctic regions , it is important to ensure that farming remains possible and viable there .
Agriculture is closely bound up with the industries which produce farm inputs and which process agricultural products .
Food processing has been Finland's third largest industry in recent years .
Food production employs around 330 000 people in Finland , 190 000 in Sweden and 60 000 in Scotland .
Agriculture and the food industry are an even more important source of employment when one considers them from the point of view of the regional economy .
In Finland there are around 250 municipalities where at least 20% of the population are employed in agriculture .
If farming is abandoned , it is difficult to find alternative employment in the same area , which encourages migration to the population centres of the south .
Before accession to the EU , income formation in agriculture in Finland and Sweden was based on price decisions agreed in farm income negotiations between the State and producer organisations .
The structure of farm incomes before and after accession , covering the whole of the five-year transition period , is shown in an annex .
The common agricultural policy introduced new elements into farmers' decision-making .
Their decisions were hampered immediately after accession by unanticipated and greater than expected price changes and by the fact that economic returns were now more dependent than previously on political decisions .
In mountain , island and highland regions , many problems are similar to those in the arctic , such as long distances , remoteness , limited options for farming , difficult transport links , distant markets , short growing seasons and difficult climate .
In arctic regions , yields are low because of the small temperature sum , but in addition these yields are expensive to produce .
Returns fall rapidly , and are further reduced by labour and capital costs and other variable costs: arable farm incomes consist wholly or largely of various kinds of subsidy .
The continued survival of arable farming in the arctic will depend on the level and type of support provided by the EU .
Financial incentives are needed for enterprise in arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions .
The EU's common market and structural policy must ensure that farming can survive in all Member States , as required by Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome .
An exceptionally large proportion of farm incomes in arctic regions is dependent on subsidies .
If support is provided in the wrong form , farmers' decisions will be affected accordingly , and the result could be widespread sham farming .
The viability of rural areas should not be based entirely on support but rather on enterprise and competitiveness .
To farmers in arctic , sub-arctic and mountain regions , the uncertainties attendant upon the Agenda 2000 programme are similar to those at the time of accession a few years ago .
For Finnish farmers , for example , the price reductions proposed by the Commission would result in losses of income totalling ECU 150 million , destroying the viability of farming in arctic and sub-arctic regions .
Because of agricultural conditions in the arctic , crop yields are only half of those in much of mainland Europe , so that unit production costs are virtually double .
Calculated in the light of these small yields , EU cereal subsidies in the north are little more than half what they are in mainland Europe , and are not adequate to safeguard the viability of arable farming in the EU's most difficult production regions after the Agenda 2000 reforms .
The reforms will also further distort the relative competitiveness of grass fodder in comparison with cereals .
The reductions in producer prices proposed under Agenda 2000 will further damage the viability of cereal farming .
A 20% cut in the intervention price will mean that , at least in the case of feed cereals , variable costs exceed the market price .
That being the case , any farmer who wishes to make a profit will have to minimise his costs in order to obtain area-based farm support .
This will result in sham farming , and that in turn will lead to the cutting-off of EU support .
According to research into the economics of agriculture , accession to the EU reduced the viability of Finland's best production region , in the south , by 50% .
Implementation of Agenda 2000 would reduce the viability of cereal farming by at least a further 30% .
Area-based subsidies are calculated on the basis of yields .
It would be unjust to farmers in arctic and mountain regions to pay compensation for the cut in the producer price on the basis of the mean regional yield .
In arctic and mountain regions , the producer price for cereals would no longer even cover variable production costs .
The arctic climate does not allow cereals to dry sufficiently for them to be threshed and stored directly .
Drying grain artificially adds to costs .
Compensation should be paid for this on the basis of the actual cost of drying the cereals .
It is essential to support cereal-growing by means of a price mark-up based on production in order to maintain the competitiveness of cereal production in the arctic , and this would eliminate the danger of sham farming .
Before Finland and Sweden joined the EU , the low-yield region was southern Europe , where cereal production costs are likewise low .
In Finland , northern Sweden , Scotland and the Alps , cereal yields are low but costs high .
Support based on yields is perfectly appropriate in the south , where both yields and costs are low .
In the new Member States , Sweden and Finland , low yields in conjunction with high costs have led to a situation in which the small area-based subsidies have been insufficient to cover production costs .
The principal means of improving the viability of arable production in arctic and mountain regions is by changing the basis on which subsidies are distributed .
Agricultural production in arctic and sub-arctic regions is mainly based on livestock farming , which accounts for 52% of farm incomes .
Since the 1970s , dairy farming has had to develop in the context of measures to restrict production .
In order for milk production to survive in the arctic , a quota system will continue to be needed after 2006 .
Milk production has been in decline for a long time .
The EU support system is taking production in a direction which is neither ecologically nor ethically desirable , as it is changing the emphasis in the feeding of ruminants towards types of feed which are not natural to them .
Ruminants naturally eat large quantities of grass-based feed , but the support system proposed under Agenda 2000 will encourage the feeding of dairy cattle on feed from off-farm sources , which is environmentally damaging .
Feeding large quantities of concentrates also increases the risk of acidosis , ketosis , torsion of the abomasum and foot and mouth disease , and makes it impossible to produce quality cheeses .
The multiannual grazing which , it is proposed , should be a condition for payment of the extensification premium is not possible in the arctic , where pastureland has to be cultivated in order to maintain yields and renewed at 3-4-year intervals .
In the long term , grass-based feed , which was competitively priced before accession , is likely to become less competitive , as feed unit yields for them in the more favoured regions of mainland Europe are substantially higher than in the arctic .
This will lead to changes in the rural landscape , too .
Special support should be introduced for grass silage in arctic and sub-arctic regions corresponding to that paid for maize silage .
The European Parliament endorsed a call for this in the report by Mr Arlindo Cunha .
During the drafting of the Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals , it became clear that the administrative prices of dairy products were to be cut by 15% .
The extra quotas which Agenda 2000 promises to farmers in arctic and mountain regions will lead to fiercer national competition in dairy production , which will result in a fall in producer prices .
It will be extremely difficult to increase milk production in the arctic in line with the extra quotas because production will not be supported: rather , milk will be produced at the world market price .
Thus the same aid should be paid for the extra quotas as for the basic quota .
Cattle farming in the arctic is based on good stock and long indoor feeding .
This raises production costs , inter alia because of the cost of buildings and feed .
The high mean yield is produced at high unit costs , too .
The animals' carcase weights are relatively low because production is based on dairy cattle breeds .
Beef production has not benefited from the EU quality programme because too little meat is produced from beef breeds .
Before accession , Finland and Sweden were 110-115% self-sufficient in beef .
This year , consumption will exceed production .
Despite this , producer prices are among the lowest in the EU .
In the early days of membership , producer prices for beef were expected to be around the EU average , while the cost of feeding cattle would fall .
However , this forecast proved incorrect: production costs have risen , except for the price of cereals .
At present , beef production is one of the least viable types of farming in the arctic .
The rules governing the extensification premium under Agenda 2000In Finland and Sweden , both dairy and beef cattle have to be fed indoors on welfare grounds .
During the winter , livestock are fed on roughage produced on the farm , and grass silage is the most efficient feed .
In the EU's arctic and sub-arctic regions , large areas of pastureland are required to produce feed for the winter , and it is not possible for animals to graze during the winter .
The cost of producing grass is substantially higher than that of producing cereals .
In arctic conditions , maize cannot be cultivated and the grazing season is only 3-4 months .
Dairy farming and beef production in Finland and Sweden is environmentally sound and extensive as regards the feeding of livestock and the surface area on which manure is spread .
80% of bulls and cows currently receive the extensification premium .
On most farms , the area on which feed is grown is at least 1 . 4 ha per livestock unit .
The vast majority of farms participate in the environmental programme .
Thus the changes to the basis for the extensification premium and the definition of pasture proposed in Agenda 2000 are not appropriate to arctic production conditions .
Pasture has to be renewed every 3-4 years
Livestock have to be fed indoors all winter .
Milk and beef production in accordance with the farm's grass-feed strategy should remain eligible for the EU's extensification premium .
The grazing requirement for the extensification premium will be impossible to comply with , were it only because of the winter snow cover .
The total feed production area of a farm should be taken into account for the purpose of calculating extensiveness .
Changes in the basis for calculating the extensification premium must not compel farmers to switch to intensive production methods which jeopardise the welfare of livestock , which is what will happen if Agenda 2000 is implemented as it stands .
Pig farmingIn the EU , pig and poultry farming is regarded as further processing of cereals , and the Commission believes in intensive production and the complete effectiveness of the market .
Pigmeat is produced both in units specialising in the fattening of pigs for meat production , with young pigs being bought in for the purpose , and in combined piggeries , where most of the young pigs required for fattening are bred on the same farm .
As the price of feed cereals will fall further under Agenda 2000 , a corresponding fall in feed costs is likely , which would be accompanied by a fall in the market price of pigmeat .
Pigmeat production costs are substantially higher than producer prices .
The viability of this type of farming depends largely on the number of head of livestock and on area-based support .
In the arctic , piggeries are significantly smaller than in the EU's intensive production countries .
The cold winters add to piggeries' construction costs .
Although world market prices for feed have fallen , the price of factory-produced feed has risen in the arctic .
Sheep-farmingMembership of the EU has led to a major change in sheep farming in arctic and sub-arctic regions .
The situation in Finland is well-nigh disastrous .
The general trend in Sweden is similar , although not yet as desperate .
The market is out of balance . Sheepmeat is being imported although the domestic producer price is low .
Slaughterhouses do not even wish to slaughter sheep , because it is not profitable to set up production lines for small numbers of animals .
The level of national support has been set on the assumption that the mean producer price for sheepmeat and production support for wool in the EU would remain unchanged , but both assumptions have proved erroneous .
The producer price in Finland is substantially lower than the mean figure , and the wool production premium has been abolished .
The possibilities afforded by small slaughterhouses and other post-processing units should be reviewed and exploited more effectively than at present .
In the light of what is possible , efforts should be made to alter the support system from passive support to a system which provides greater incentives , e . by introducing support per animal for slaughter .
Poultry farmingOverproduction of hens' eggs and the resultant collapse in market prices are a serious problem in Finland .
Whereas the market for hens' eggs used to be strictly regulated by law , a completely free market has been instituted without a transition period .
Poor profitability is the biggest threat to the industry .
Broiler chicken production is based on small units where the cold climate adds to construction and heating costs , as the birds need plenty of heat .
The high hygiene standard of feed , heat treatment of all feed , and quarantine storage of batches of raw materials are expensive measures to ensure that birds remain in good health .
In the arctic , measures to keep poultry production free of salmonella , as well as the region's remote location , raise production costs .
Newly hatched chicks and birds for slaughter are transported to small , dispersed units , which is expensive .
Turkey production could in future be an option , for example for farms which have to abandon egg production .
Imported meat has been found to contain salmonella , despite the accompanying certificates .
In the interests of fair competition , a country which produces clean meat ought to accept only meat produced in the same way .
Investment subsidies are vital to the industry .
In support policy , turkey production is linked to broiler chicken production , as a result of which it has suffered from large unjustified cuts in support .
Horticulture is a significant factor in the economy and employment in sparsely populated areas , particularly on islands , where a limited area of land is available .
Arctic and sub-arctic horticultural products are of a high quality , both externally and internally .
Unit production costs are high because of the climate , higher building and energy costs , transport distances and the small size of units .
Storage costs are also higher in the arctic than elsewhere in the EU .
Support is needed to compensate for high costs .
During the transition period , area-based support and warehousing subsidies were vital to the survival of horticulture .
It will remain necessary for various subsidies to be paid to compensate for the problems and higher production costs arising from arctic or mountain location .
Special cropsNon-food crop production ( e . g .oilseed flax , agri-cellulose and flax ) is a field which presents farmers and rural areas with possibilities for new production and enterprise involving products to replace non-renewable resources or imports from outside the EU .
The EU's set-aside scheme permits non-food crops to be produced contractually if the value of the part of them put to use as feed or food is less than half the total value of the product .
Because of the completely inadequate sugar beet production quota , the sugar industry is cutting production in the arctic .
Finland and Sweden need a share in the EU's sugar beet production corresponding to their consumption .
In order for the cultivation of special crops to continue , production support must be paid in accordance with the actual conditions in a region .
For example , it will no longer be possible to grow rape in Finland with the level of support proposed in Agenda 2000 .
If Agenda 2000 is implemented , it will endanger the growing of sunflowers and spring rape in some regions .
Oil-crop production cannot survive without a domestic oil-pressing industry , while in turn the industry must have access to adequate supplies of domestically produced raw materials .
OPINION ( Rule 147 )for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Developmenton a new strategy for agriculture in arctic regions ( report by Mr Anttila )Committee on Regional PolicyDraftswoman: MaLou LindholmPROCEDUREAt its meeting of 25 June 1998 the Committee on Regional Policy appointed Mrs MaLou Lindholm draftswoman .
It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 26 October and 25 November 1998 .
At the latter meeting it adopted the following conclusions unanimously .
As a result of the enlargement of the European Union to include Sweden and Finland , the Union has now acquired both a Nordic dimension and an Arctic dimension .
Northern Sweden and Finland have a sub-Arctic ( north of 62° latitude ) or Arctic ( north of 66° latitude ) climate . This means they have a lot of snow and cold winters , with only a few hours' daylight each day , lasting for up to seven months .
The region is very sparsely populated ( 2-8 people per km2 ) and long distances are a feature of it .
To give some indication of the distances involved in this very peripheral region , Utsjoki in Finland is more than 1100 km from Helsinki as the crow flies , and Kiruna in Sweden is more than 2900 km from Brussels .
In many respects , conditions in northern Scotland are comparable to those in northern Sweden and Finland .
The climate is cold and severe . In winter the mean temperature is below -10° C .
Northern Sweden and Finland are covered in snow from November till May and sometimes longer .
Continuous ground-frost persists for about eight months , further reducing the growing season .
The soil is poor , and the days are very short in winter . The growing season ranges from 100 to 160 days . On account of the severe climate , agriculture mainly concentrates on livestock farming: milk and meat production based on roughage .
Most farmers also engage in forestry .
The sparseness of the populationFinland and Sweden each have enormous sparsely populated rural regions .
Northern Sweden alone is as large as Switzerland , Austria , Denmark and the Netherlands put together .
During the accession negotiations , sparsely populated areas ( Objective 6 ) were defined as being regions with a population density of less than 8 people per km2 .
Mean population density in Sweden's Objective 6 region is 2 people per km2 , the lowest figure in the EU .
The region comprises 50% of Sweden's total area but contains only 5% of its population .
In Finland's Objective 6 region , the mean population density is 4 people per km2 .
The EU's mean population density was 147 per km2 before Austria , Sweden and Finland became members ; now it has fallen to 89 per km2 .
Emigration and negative birthrates because of the harsh living conditions have resulted in a declining population , which moreover is threatened by an unbalanced age structure , with many elderly people .
At present , more men than women are living in this region .
It is important that women and young people should stay in sparsely populated areas if they are not to degenerate into wildernesses .
There is a serious risk of depopulation on account of poor social services , poor communications , isolation and limited sources of income .
Unemployment is very high in this region .
It is important to safeguard and preserve basic structures and employment particularly suited to this region's geography and climate .
Unemployment is very high and there are few jobs in industry and processing .
The sparse population and long distances make projects expensive .
Particularly in sparsely populated areas , combining many part-time jobs is the only way of attaining a reasonable standard of living .
This approach should therefore receive regional-policy funding .
Alternative sources of income include offering goods for sale , processing of agricultural products , environmentally sound tourism and local production , for example of handicrafts .
The region's infrastructure must be further developed .
Transport systems mostly follow north-south routes , so that in many cases east-west communications are inadequate .
In view of the long distances involved , transport requires support , particularly to develop roads , railways and sea transport , both within the region and with the rest of the country .
The region's peripheral location and long distances within it also give rise to high transport costs , which in turn lead to uncompetitively high prices for products and hence less employment .
AgricultureIn order to attain a regional balance and to allow viable agriculture to remain possible in the northernmost regions of the EU , financial support for agriculture in northern Sweden and Finland is called for .
Agricultural regions north of latitude 62° ( i . e . 50% of the total area of Sweden and 60% of that of Finland ) have hitherto qualified for special aid on the grounds of their difficult conditions and special needs .
Although conditions are so difficult , agriculture in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions provides the local people with many of their basic foodstuffs .
Products from these regions are of high quality , but climatic conditions , the smallness of units and transport costs make them expensive .
Farming is on a small scale , and much of its produce is processed outside the region .
However , processing within the region , either on farms or in villages , is becoming increasingly important . Aid schemes for small-scale processing should be developed .
The procurement directive should be amended to permit the local sale of products to users , e . g . in the public sector ( for example to hospitals , old people's homes and schools ) .
In northern Sweden and Finland , regional aid is provided for agriculture in the form both of national aid and of EU aid .
The purpose of national aid is to preserve traditional agricultural production and production methods which are particularly wellsuited to the region's climate .
The EU quota systems , for example for milk , do not operate satisfactorily there .
The purpose of compensatory payments which are partly financed by the EU ( LFA aid ) is to ensure that agriculture can survive in regions where production conditions are less favourable .
Accordingly , the Accession Treaty allows Finland and Sweden to continue to provide national aid long-term to enable farming to continue in particular regions .
This aid has to be approved by the Commission .
The Sami have their own history , their own occupations and their own language , which helps them to maintain their cultural cohesion .
Their main industries are reindeer-farming , fishing , hunting , handicrafts and related production .
In order to exploit natural resources at all times of the year in an Arctic environment where living conditions are extremely harsh , a traditional knowledge of nature is required .
The best evidence of this is that reindeer-farming - an ancient way of life - has succeeded in adapting to modern conditions and has managed to remain economically viable .
Within the reindeer industry as a whole , the degree of local processing of reindeer products within is relatively low . Investment is therefore needed to promote this .
The aim should be to develop the reindeer industry and other Sami industries as an ecologically and economically sustainable sector by means of the many-sided use of resources , better contact with markets , efficient production , even when it is on a small scale , and a high degree of local processing .
The Committee on Regional Policy calls on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development , as the committee responsible , to incorporate the following points in its report:1 .
Considers that agriculture in the northernmost parts of the EU is of the utmost importance not only for the production of foodstuffs but also with a view to preserving a varied and living countryside and maintaining and facilitating employment and social structures in all parts of the countries concerned ; considers that flexible and specially adapted agricultural support is needed in this specific region in order to be able to keep the countryside alive and protect this unique environment ;2 .
Considers it important that local production , local processing , on-farm processing , direct sales of products and diversification of production should be encouraged and that smallness of scale should be supported ;
calls on the Commission , therefore , to study the scope for aiding small-scale production and traditional production systems , breeds and species ; does not consider the quota system appropriate to Arctic agriculture , and takes the view , inter alia , that free milk quotas are too small and ought to be adjusted to enable local processing to be further developed ;3 .
Considers that support must cover the entire production chain , from the production of raw materials to the processed product , so as to help small-scale processing develop , whereas current rules are chiefly geared to the needs of 'large scale' activities ; considers also that support systems must be tailored to current farm ownership structures and size ;4 .
Considers that agriculture in sub-Arctic and Arctic regions is traditionally very environment-friendly and that it should continue to be geared increasingly towards environmentally sustainable production , which , in addition to minimising pollution , also entails taking due account of the energy consumed in the production of food ;5 .
Considers it important to encourage and enable people to remain in the northernmost regions of Europe and hence stem population loss , and to facilitate immigration to them , in order to prevent depopulation ; believes that , in view of the harsh conditions , including seven-month winters and poor soil , the scope for part-time farming is a condition that must be encouraged , for example by providing assistance for combining farming with other occupations ;6 .
Takes the view that ecologically and environmentally sound tourism should be promoted and its marketing developed ;7 .
Considers that communications and transport in Arctic and sub-Arctic regions are seriously hampered by geographical and climatic factors , and that these problems are further aggravated by the sparseness of population and the distances to population centres and markets ; considers that aid for transport is called for in these regions ;8 .
Considers that , with regard to the provision of public services , the subsidiarity principle should continue to be complied with , allowing Member States to define requirements for services available to society at large ; stresses that subsidised services and services provided by public bodies are often the only way of supplying , for example , public transport in sparsely populated areas , health care and social services ;9 .
Stresses the importance of enabling the Sami culture and reindeer farming to develop on the Sami people's own terms , with Community support ;10 .
Proposes special assistance within reindeer farming for investment to enhance product-development skills and develop local processing of reindeer products which should ultimately give individual reindeer-owners more employment while reducing the need to increase numbers of reindeer , thus also easing pressure on reindeer pastures ;11 .
Calls on the Commission to study ways of aiding mobile slaughterhouses in order to avoid unnecessary animal transport and increase viability ;12 .
Calls for specific support for decentralised production and direct marketing of regional products in order to reduce long-haul transport and to increase consumer access to fresh and high-quality food .
A4-0236/98
15 June 1998A4-0236/98
By letter of 27 April 1998 the Council consulted Parliament , pursuant to Article 3 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 2894/94 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area , on draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No ( 11 )/98 of .
1998 amending Annex I ( Veterinary and phytosanitary matters ) to the EEA Agreement . At the sitting of 29 April 1998 the President of Parliament announced that he had referred the draft Decision to the Committee on External Economic Relations as the committee responsible and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Protection for their opinions .
At its meeting of 20 May 1998 the Committee on External Economic Relations appointed Mrs Ferrer rapporteur .
It considered the draft Decision and the draft report at its meeting of 15 June 1998 . At that meeting it adopted the draft legislative resolution unopposed with 1 abstention .
At the same meeting the committee decided to apply the procedure without debate set out in Rule 99 ( 1 ) of the Rules of Procedure .
The following took part in the vote: Castellina , chairman ; Sainjon , vice-chairman ; Ferrer , rapporteur ;
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Protection have decided not to deliver opinions .
The report was tabled on 15 June 1998 .
Instructs its President to forward this opinion to the Council and Commission .
To provide the necessary certainty and consistency in law , the EEA Joint Committee has to incorporate all relevant Community legislation into the EEA Agreement .
The Committee accordingly needs to adopt a Decision to amend Annex I ( Veterinary and phytosanitary matters ) to the EEA Agreement .
The annex in question contains a very long list of Community acts ( basic and implementing texts ) on highly technical matters relating more specifically to:I .
Veterinary inspections for the purposes of intra-Community trade , applying both to products originating from the Union and those originating from non-member countries , and measures to combat animal diseases .
Zootechnical standards applying specifically to cattle , swine , sheep and goats , equidae , or pure-bred animals in general .
Notification of animal diseases and control measures for diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease , classical swine fever , encephalomyelitis , African horse sickness , avian influenza , Newcastle disease , and fish , mollusc , and other animal diseases .
Animal health: trade in live animals and animal embryos or semen and their placing on the market .
Animal health: trade in animal products and their placing on the market ( applying to fresh meat , poultrymeat , meat products , milk and milk-based products , rabbit meat and farmed game meat , and wild-game meat ) .
Public health: trade in animal products and their placing on the market ( applying to fresh meat , meat products , minced meat , egg products , fishery products , molluscs , milk and milkbased products , rabbit meat and farmed or wild game meat , and products obtained from other animals ) .
'Measures relating to many sectors' ( substances having hormonal or thyrostatic effects and beta-agonists , hormones , residues , BST , zoonoses , animal waste , medicated feedingstuffs , and various pathogens ) .
Animal imports from third countries .
Animal welfare ( transport and slaughter ) .
Feedingstuffs: additives , straight and compound feedingstuffs , analysis and inspection methods , undesirable substances and products , and bioproteins and the like .
Phytosanitary matters ( seeds ) .
The measures proposed are of a purely technical nature .
Their purpose is to make for better harmonization of the legislation in force within the EEA , thereby benefiting all contracting parties , and they thus mark a step forward towards closer cooperation among European countries .
The Committee on External Economic Relations therefore endorses the draft common position of the Community .
A4-0362/97
14 November 1997A4-0362/97
At its sitting of 23 April 1997 the European Parliament decided , pursuant to Rule 135 ( 2 ) of its Rules of Procedure , to set up a temporary committee to follow up the recommendations on BSE .
On 24 April 1997 the Temporary Committee held its constituent meeting and appointed Mr Böge rapporteur .
The Conference of Presidents decided at its meeting of 13 November 1997 to submit the report to plenary as the basis for an exchange of views , without the possibility of tabling amendments .
The Temporary Committee to follow up the recommendations on BSE ,- having regard to the report of the Temporary Committee of Inquiry into BSE ( A4-0020/97 ) ,- having regard to the decision of the European Parliament of 19 February 1997 on the conclusions of the Temporary Committee of Inquiry into BSE ( 1 ) ,- having regard to the progress reports submitted by the European Commission on 6 June , 9 July , 8 September and 8 October 1997 ,A .
whereas the European Parliament on the basis of its resolution of 19 February 1997 has succeeded , through the setting up of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE , the threat of a motion of censure and the establishment of a Temporary Committee to follow up the recommendations on BSE , in taking action on its rights vis-à-vis the Commission and achieving a position in institutional terms which now allows effective checks on the administration ,B .
whereas in all measures to prevent and combat BSE preventative consumer protection must have absolute priority ,C .
whereas following the most recent scientific publications there is now substantial proof that nvCJD in humans is in practice identical with BSE , being caused by the same infective agent ,I .
Calls on the Conference of Presidents to forward this report to the European Parliament's standing committees and to its plenary for information and with the request to take appropriate measures ;2 .
Calls on the Conference of Presidents , on the basis of this report , to schedule a debate on the follow-up of the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE by the European Commission at the earliest possible part-session of the European Parliament ;3 .
Welcomes the Commission's announcement that in future it will report twice a year to the European Parliament and the Council on further progress in the activities to strengthen consumer protection in general and to combat BSE in particular ;II .
Notes that the Commission has implemented completely or in part most of the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE or has agreed to clear deadlines for implementation ( see Fourth Progress Report , table A ) ; the following should be noted in particular:- point 1 ( transparency-related recommendations )- point 2 ( monitoring , inspection , reorganization of Commission services )- point 3 ( public health protection ; use of meat-and-bone meal )
Notes with satisfaction the considerable progress made in particular with regard to transparency , strengthening Community monitoring mechanisms and legislative initiatives which have been proposed or are in the process of adoption on public health and consumer protection ;6 .
Stresses that deficiencies which remain and areas where further action is needed will be dealt with in more detail in the conclusions on the individual points ;7 .
Notes that of the more than seventy recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE the following five points have not been implemented:- point 5 .
1 ( proposals for legislation for claiming back the costs for BSE )- point 5 .
2 ( disciplinary measures )- point 5 .
3 ( administrative proceedings against the United Kingdom )- point 5 .
5 ( proceedings against the British Government for the failure of the Minister for Agriculture ,
1 ( use of the motion of censure against individual members of the Commission ) ;8 .
Recommends that the standing committees ascertain that proposed legislation is consistent with the aims laid down by the Committee of Inquiry into BSE ;9 .
Notes that since the committee of inquiry finished its work , the findings of scientific research have established a link between the new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease and BSE , thus increasing the magnitude of the responsibilities identified by the committee of inquiry ; notes that the breach of the export ban also became known only after the committee of inquiry's report was published and that the follow-up committee did not have a mandate to investigate new responsibilities or amend the committee of inquiry's assessment ;III .
 ( Note: The recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE were summarised by the rapporteur ( cf .
135 ) , approved by the Temporary Committee in this form , and forwarded to the Commission as a structure for its progress reports .
These recommendations are indicated in the text below in bold type .
This is followed by the conclusions and recommendations of the Temporary Committee , in normal type and numbered sequentially ) .
Transparency of the action to combat BSE1 .
1 Comprehensive information policy to guarantee the widest possible dissemination of relevant research data and findings10 .
Welcomes the fact that the report of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE and the setting up of this committee has led to the Commission taking the first essential steps towards making the action to combat BSE transparent through information measures , both as regard the inspection reports and the work of the scientific committees ( placing on the Internet , access to documents , presentation of minority opinions ) ;11 .
Points out , however , that real transparency will exist only when all the Commission Directorates-General keep the European Parliament adequately informed as part of the normal programme of work ;1 .
2 Reform of the rules governing the work of the advisory scientific committees
Notes that the Commission has still not improved the administrative procedures for reimbursing the expenses of the members of the advisory scientific committees and recalls the Commission's agreement to implement this measure by December 1997 .
Notes that the European Parliament's demand that , in the appointment of members of the advisory scientific committees , only objective professional qualifications should be taken into account and that a neutral and interdisciplinary science council should therefore be responsible for appointments has only been implemented in part ;
6 Involvement of doctors of human medicine in animal health issues to assess possible risks to public health .
Welcomes the fact that , in order to ensure an adequate representation of qualified experts in human medicine in the 'veterinary medicine measures in connection with public health' subgroup of the scientific veterinary committee , the Commission will readvertize the relevant selection procedure ;
3 Setting up of a joint Commission and European Parliament body with a fixed term of office to monitor the implementation of the measures set out in the BSE report and to submit an appropriate report to the European Parliament .
Thanks the Commission , and in particular the Commissioner responsible , Mrs Bonino , and the Director-General responsible of DG XXIV , for its constructive and open cooperation with the Temporary Committee ;16 .
Welcomes the Commission's proposal to make available to the European Parliament and the general public the conclusions of the reports of the veterinary inspection visits and the recommendations for measures following on therefrom ;1 .
4 Ensuring transparency when publicising the results of the debates of the advisory scientific committees17 .
Insists that the content and results of the deliberations of the scientific committees should be forwarded systematically to the relevant and competent parliamentary committees ;18 .
Insists , in view of the Commission's influence on the scientific committees identified by the Committee of Inquiry into BSE , on the participation of Members of the European Parliament as observers in the discussions of the scientific committees and the possibility of proposing points of special concern for the agenda ;1 .
5 Guarantee that Parliament's rapporteurs have access to the advisory committees' data and documents19 .
Points out that the deficit in terms of the lack of opportunity for Members of the European Parliament to participate in the deliberations of the scientific committees has partly been made up by the Commission's agreement to give access to all documents , including confidential documents , and to make the chairmen of the scientific committees available to Parliament to answer questions and for discussions ;1 .
5 Other transparency-related recommendations20 .
Welcomes the withdrawal of the press literature presented by the Commission"s spokesman"s service on 16 December 1996 and considers that this withdrawal indicates acceptance of the inquiry"s findings ;2 .
Monitoring the action to combat BSE and protect public health and animal health2 .
1 Strengthening of Community monitoring and inspection mechanisms to ensure compliance with Community law and the protection of public and animal health in the internal market21 .
Recognizes the need for appropriate staffing levels and funds for the Commission's inspection services ; points out , however , that responsibility for implementing Community legal provisions lies with the Member States and that the Commission"s task can only be to supplement them by monitoring their activities and in particular to monitor recognized problem areas ;22 .
Calls for such monitoring to be undertaken either on the initiative of the Member States or on the basis of an independent Commission decision ;23 .
Criticizes the fact that the Commission monitored the deficiencies of British port checks in July and September 1996 but then not until June 1997 and recommends that where there are well known shortcomings there should in principle be a timely post-control in order to ensure that recommendations from the FVO are implemented rapidly ;24 .
Notes that the Commission failed to ensure timely post-control of the implementation of the ban on exports of beef from the United Kingdom , despite known shortcomings , that the European Parliament has already pressed for this , in its resolution no B4-0879/96 , prior to the adoption of the committee of inquiry's report and points out in this context that until August 1997 the veterinary authorities in the UK had no legal instrument for carrying out physical checks on consignments of meat unless they involved the police ;25 .
Is disturbed at the scale of the traffic in meat of British origin and deplores the lack of coordination between the police and customs services of the Member States , and between EUROPOL and UCLAF and the lack of information or the delays with which certain Member States provide information to the relevant Commission services ;26 .
Suggests that the Committee on Budgetary Control examines scrupulously the question of export refunds for beef within the procedure for the clearance of accounts for 1996 and 1997 in order to identify the scale of the fraud associated with breaches of the ban ;27 .
Notes that the Commission relied on the statements by the British Government that the legislation was adequate , even though the legal basis for effective checks came into effect only in August 1997 ;28 .
Notes also that the measures and inspection activities of the Member States and the Commission within the internal market options were not adequate to prevent a massive breach of the ban on British beef and that the Member States and the Commission therefore did not succeed in ensuring that the health of the population was protected against potentially infectious meat ;29 .
Notes that the Commission , in the light of the experiences with the breach of the ban on exports from the United Kingdom in the implementation of Directive 662/89 , has still not submitted a proposal to the Council and the European Parliament for improvements to the monitoring system , which links checks in the country of origin with spot checks and physical checks at the frontiers and improved information to the authorities in the country of destination ; draws attention , however , to the agreement by the President of the Commission , Mr Santer who has announced the submission of proposals on the monitoring system by February 1998 at the latest ;30 .
Expects that for the duration of the ban there will be systematic provision for a notification requirement for all meat or animal consignments from the United Kingdom , a notification of the veterinary authorities of the recipient country and a return notification to the authorities of the country of origin ; this cross-border check and information system should also be introduced for random checks and spot checks of movements of meat in the internal market ;31 .
Expects that the information from the inspection reports and the associated recommendations for action will be made available to the European Parliament and the general public and calls on the Council and the Standing Veterinary Committee to take the appropriate decision ;32 .
Expects the Commission to examine the information about tests for post-mortem identification of cases of BSE in slaughter cattle , which produce results within 24 hours and , if necessary , to introduce these testing systems on a broad basis in order to ensure general checks on animals for slaughter ;33 .
Notes that the Commission must improve certain aspects of personnel management , in particular by speeding up the administrative procedures for the recruitment of personnel in general and selection procedures in particular with a view to filling vacancies as soon as possible and urges the Commission likewise to encourage internal transfers so as to be able to re-allocate available posts to DG XXIV ;34 .
Calls on the Commission , for the 1998 financial year , to grant the services and bodies responsible for BSE the maximum in human resources in the framework of the redeployment of vacant posts ;2 .
2 Setting up of a European Agency for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Inspection35 .
Calls on the Commission , on the basis of the IGS report , to submit as soon as possible a proposal for the efficient organization of a veterinary inspection office and in the meantime to ensure that the existing coordination problems are minimized ;2 .
3 Improved organisation and management of staff in certain units ( objectives , communication , monitoring and penalties ) in order to minimise the chances of deficient operation36 .
Recalls also that , before DG XXIV was established , the consumer protection service contained a food risk analysis unit that never took constructive action over BSE ;37 .
Welcomes the extension of the remit of Directorate-General for 'Consumer Policy and Consumer Health Protection' ( DG XXIV ) and emphasises the crucial significance of the functioning of the newly established 'Analysis of health risks' unit as an effective early warning system ;38 .
Points to the desirability of establishing a formal footing for DG XXIV's role in coordinating such tasks vis-à-vis other related Directorates-General ;39 .
Expects that , given the evident shortcomings in communication and management ascertained in the past , the Commission will in future ensure more timely legislative , political and legal action the basis of the manual of procedures announced for early 1998 and an improved flow of information ;3 .
Adoption of all relevant measures for the protection of public health3 .
1 Creation of appropriate legal bases40 .
Notes with satisfaction that the Commission has responded to the justified demands of the European Parliament for a comprehensive application of the co-decision procedure and has submitted appropriate proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference and expects that the Commission will urge the Member States to put these proposals into effect ;41 .
Notes that the extension of the co-decision procedure to the areas of animal health and plant protection ( amended Article 129 of the EC Treaty ) would not have been possible without the determined action of the European Parliament to deal with the BSE crisis ;42 .
Stresses however that , with regard to public health , the principle of subsidiarity should not lead to inactivity on the part of the European institutions ;43 .
Regrets that , because of the opposition of the Member States , application of the co-decision procedure to basic legislative decisions in the field of agricultural policy ( Article 43 of the EC Treaty ) cannot be achieved and expects that the Commission will continue to urge that this demand be implemented ;44 .
Welcomes the Commission"s commitment to apply Article 100a of the EC Treaty in the area of animal health and food quality and safety and , in the case of beef labelling , its willingness to take action on this approach before the European Court of Justice ;45 .
Expects the Commission in future consistently to exploit any leeway for interpretation with regard to application of the appropriate legal basis in favour of the greatest possible involvement of the European Parliament ;3 .
2 Preparation of a framework directive on Community food law following wide-ranging consultations involving the different stages of the food chain and consumers" organisations with a view to improving environmental protection and human health ; in the process Community legislation on product liability to be amended by September 1997 at the latest with the aim of including primary product liability and a proposal to be submitted for legislation regarding liability arising from the risk related to the activity46 .
Notes the measures already taken by the Commission to prepare a framework directive on European food law and the directive governing responsibility for primary agricultural products adopted by the Commission on 12 October 1997 and points out that the Commission has given an undertaking to submit appropriate proposals which should have Article 100a or 129 ( Treaty of Amsterdam ) as the legal basis by the middle of 1998 ;47 .
Welcomes the measures already taken by the Commission to prepare a framework directive on European food law and a directive governing responsibility for primary agricultural products and calls on the Commission to submit both proposals to the European Parliament as quickly as possible and expects that in future the Commission will follow a policy in which higher priority is given to the principles of health and consumer protection than to other key principles of the internal market ;3 .
3 Commission proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference for improving the division of powers between EU institutions and Member States in the field of health protection and consumer protection and which define clearly the responsibility for the comprehensive monitoring of the performance of statutory tasks48 .
Notes that the Commission submitted appropriate proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference , although only some of them were carried ;49 .
Notes that some Member States do not have an adequate sense of right and wrong in relation to European jurisdiction and expects the Commission in particular in its activities on health and consumer protection to take account of this situation and implement European law consistently ;3 .
4 Establishment of a Public Health Protection Unit50 .
Notes the Commission"s organisational arrangements to distinguish clearly between legislative work on the one hand and scientific advice and surveillance on the other , and notes also that this may in individual cases involve a greater need for coordination and cooperation between the various Commission services ; points out however that the necessary division between administrative and legislative tasks within the Commission should not mask the fact that the real monitoring of the European administration must be the responsibility of the European Parliament ;51 .
Calls for effective coordination and cooperation between the various Commission services and the Member States to ensure a high level of public health and consumer protection in the definition and implementation of Community policies and activities ;3 .
5 Action against Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease ( CJD )52 .
Emphasises the need for European coordination and financial support for research activities on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies ( TSE ) in general and the new variants of CJD in particular , as there are still considerable gaps in knowledge and also because there is very little private and commercial interest in research in this area ;53 .
Draws attention to the link shown between BSE and nvCJD ; considers that it is essential to continue research with a view to demonstrating the mechanism for transmission of this disease from animals to humans ;54 .
Welcomes the measures taken by the Commission to evaluate the research projects that have been submitted , so that , now that there has been approval of the supplementary budget in October 1997 , the projects can start immediately ;55 .
Notes that the Council's common position on the Commission's proposal on creating a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the European Community represents a considerable watering down of the Commission text ;56 .
Regrets deeply that the Council once again did not agree to approve these additional funds at the discussions in the conciliation committee of 23 September 1997 ;57 .
Points to the need to launch further projects designed to open up a more direct avenue to research into nvCJD ( human BSE ) , bearing in mind that the projects submitted to date relate solely to subjects connected with the animal kingdom and the recent findings of British researchers confirm that BSE and nvCJD are closely linked ;3 .
7 Submission of a proposal for compensating nvCJD victims and their relatives and entry of the relevant appropriations in the preliminary draft 1998 budget58 .
Criticizes strongly the Commission's hesitant and tardy approach to implementing the recommendation of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE on the compensation of nvCJD victims ;59 .
Welcomes the Commission's agreement that , in a spirit of solidarity and in addition to the money made available by the Member States , funds can be provided from the Community budget if the Member States also introduce appropriate initiatives ;60 .
Criticises the fact that the Commission has failed in the 1998 preliminary draft budget to provide appropriations for compensation for those who have suffered as a result of CJD and their relatives , in response to which the European Parliament has taken the initiative at the first reading of the preliminary draft budget for 1998 to enter a budget heading to that effect ;61 .
Calls on the Commission , therefore , forthwith and in cooperation with the British government to adopt a no fault compensation system in this special case ;62 .
Considers support for the associations active in this field to be a first step in the right direction and calls on the British government and the Commission to discuss appropriate measures jointly with these organizations ( for example the nvCJD Families Association ) ;3 .
6 Closer cooperation of the Community human and animal health services with the World Health Organisation and the International Office of Epizootics , on a basis of scientific rigour63 .
Welcomes the Community"s intended accession to the Codex Alimentarius and the International Office of Epizootics ( IOE ) ;64 .
Supports the endeavours to maximise the transparency of the international bodies ;65 .
Recommends that the standing committees of the European Parliament accept decisions by international bodies as a basis for their work in future only if the transparency of the decisionmaking process in these bodies is guaranteed with particular attention being paid to the minority votes ;3 .
7 Matters concerning animal feedingstuffs , and especially meat-and-bone meal3 .
1 ( together with the European Parliament: )Immediate convening of a scientific conference to look into the problems of using animal proteins in feedingstuffs to serve as the basis for a future Commission proposal to the Council , with a view to recommending its prohibition in future , if this is considered advisable ( Meat-and-bone meal processing standards )66 .
Stresses that the recycling of carcases and slaughter waste by the production of meat-andbone meal may be continued only when the separate treatment of the carcases of fallen stock is assured and that meat-and-bone meal can only be released for feed purposes if it has been produced from slaughter waste from animals fit for human consumption ; considers , however that the essential precondition for the functioning of carcase recycling is the strict observance of safe processing standards ;67 .
Stresses that the recycling of carcases and slaughter waste by the production of meat-andbone meal offers the best alternative on economic , environmental and health policy grounds ;68 .
Stresses that in the processing standards which have been binding since 1 April 1997 ( at least 20 minutes at 133 ? C and 3 bar ) , the concern must be not only to combat BSE but also , in terms of disease prophylaxis , to ensure the comprehensive and effective removal of potential pathogens and that , to this end , binding hygiene rules must be drawn up ;69 .
Points out that , since the new variant is now known to be transmitted vertically and between species , every precaution must be taken to protect public health ;70 .
Points out that Member States which cannot or do not want to observe the high standards for carcase processing can only make use of incineration which is an unsuitable option on account both of its environmental impact and of its high cost and the consequent difficulty of ensuring that the procedure is properly followed in all the Member States , thereby averting irregularities ;71 .
Calls on the Commission to publish a list of the rendering plants operating in the Member States and to update this list every six months ;72 .
Recalls that at the meat-and-bone meal conference on 1 and 2 July 1997 there was a fundamental dispute between two scientists ( Dr Riedinger and Dr Taylor ) concerning the safety of certain inactivation processes ; considers that , as it was not possible to clarify this important question conclusively , it must now be put to the competent scientific committees for discussion and evaluation , as agreed by the Commissioner , Mrs Bonino , and the outcome of these deliberations reported to Parliament ; ( Scientific meat-and-bone meal research )73 .
Is concerned that there are still major shortcomings as regards fundamental research on meatand-bone meal ; considers that the appropriate research programmes must therefore be extended and stepped up , with appropriate involvement of the competent and interested research institutions ;74 .
Stresses that in research on meat-and-bone meal an analytical test method to monitor observance of processing standards ( ELISA test ) and a test procedure to detect meat-andbone meal in concentrates ( Ispra test ) have now been developed ; considers that to check the validity of these methods collaborative tests should be carried out as quickly as possible in the EU ; ( International relations )75 .
Emphasises that meat-and-bone meal processing standards in the USA are absolutely inadequate ; notes that lines of conflict with the EU are already emerging on this matter as the European Parliament's approval of the forthcoming WHO agreements will doubtless be closely linked to the guarantee of a high level of preventive consumer and health protection ; considers that the relevant provisions in the WHO and the Codex Alimentarius must therefore be further developed towards a definition of the safety standard for meat-and-bone meal ;76 .
Expects the Commission to do all in its power to ensure that the strict Community processing standards and the high level of preventive consumer and health protection prevail in the forthcoming WTO agreements , with a consumer's concern clause being proposed in order to guarantee a high level of preventive consumer and health protection ;77 .
Considers that the precautionary principle of the European Union must be to demand an appropriate level of health protection for the food safety of its citizens ; considers that this should be fully recognized by all the Member States ;3 .
2 Submission forthwith of proposals for regulations governing the questions of animal feed and dealing with the following:3 .
1 Confirmation of the general ban on the feeding of meat-and-bone meal to ruminants78 .
Notes that no adequate rules have been drawn up on the labelling of meat-and-bone meal , although meat-and-bone meal may not be fed to ruminants and should therefore be labelled accordingly ; calls for this ban to appear in clearly legible form on all packaging ; notes also that clear indications must be given on compound feedingstuffs as to whether they are intended for ruminants or other animals ; considers that appropriate measures must also be adopted to ensure that during manufacture no mixing with concentrates for ruminants occurs ;3 .
2 Ban on the feeding of carcasses or offal of sick animals to all animals79 .
Calls for fallen stock to be removed completely from processing , also for reasons of social acceptability ; notes that this would mean that only slaughter waste and slaughter by-products which are also suitable for human consumption would be processed into meat-and-bone meal ; such a measure covers about 15% of material and , on the basis of the system used in Sweden and Switzerland , would lead to the development of a separate carcase rendering line with correspondingly high costs , which should however be met for reasons of preventive consumer protection ;80 .
Considers it to be absolutely essential to take a decision on this question before the end of the year ;81 .
Notes that the removal of all sources of potential contamination and its secure storage pending incineration fulfils one of the conditions of the Florence agreement , notwithstanding the necessarily slow process of safe incineration ;82 .
Points out that in preparation for the rapid establishment of two separate processing lines and in view of the large amounts of meat-and-bone meal stored and awaiting destruction in the United Kingdom the questions associated with the destruction of tallow and meat-and-bone meal for energy production , relating in particular to the risks which that poses , must be clarified by all those concerned as quickly as possible ;83 .
Recommends that the Commission and the Member States , in particular the UK , concentrate on considering how the remaining meat-and-bone meal can be destroyed as quickly and as efficiently as possible and calls in particular for clarification as to whether the meat-and-bone meal in question cannot also be destroyed in Member States other than the UK , subject of course to maintenance of the highest possible standards of security during transport , and for examination of the matter of how and whether other incineration facilities could be brought on stream ;3 .
3 Only the offal of animals which have been released for human consumption may , after it has been adequately sterilized ( at 133 ?C , 3 bar for 20 minutes ) , be fed to non-ruminants such as pigs , poultry and fish84 .
Takes the view that , even if material presenting risks and carcases are removed from the food chain and disposed of separately , there must be no lowering of the current processing and utilization standards for meat-and-bone meal ( 113 ? C , 20 minutes , 3 bar ; ban on feeding to ruminants ) and calls on the Commission in this connection to ensure the immediate application of current legislation in all Member States ;85 .
Notes the Commission's very late decision to prohibit the transport of meat-and-bone meal , which has not been produced in accordance with the applicable standards into other Member States or third countries ;86 .
Calls for immediate proposals by the UK government to remove the backlog of meat-andbone meal presently stored in controlled stores in the UK ;3 .
3 Assurance to the European Parliament that Decision 96/449/EEC is implemented throughout the Community by 1 April 1997 as regards the standards applicable to the processing of meat-and-bone meal and that Member States will not be granted extensions87 .
Considers that , in the necessary and welcome institution of proceedings for infringement of the Treaty against certain Member States , the Commission must at the same time , and in order to avoid unnecessary consumer uncertainty , always make public and assess the varying degree of risk for consumers of non-implementation in the Member States ;88 .
Notes that meat-and-bone meal which does not conform to the legal standards is still being fed to animals ; notes , therefore , that some Member States have not fulfilled one of the basic demands made by the Committee of Inquiry into BSE with the aim of safeguarding the health of consumers and that the tardy decision by the Commission on the institution of Treaty infringement proceedings has neither had the necessary effect nor has it as yet been able to solve the problem ;3 .
8 ( together with the Council ; by 1 September 1997: )Measures to ensure uniform respect of maximum guarantees for the elimination of suspect meat-and-bone meal and dangerous or possibly dangerous animal waste , together with a ban on exports of these products to third countries89 .
Points out that up to now there has been no scientifically exact and conclusive definition of 'high risk' , 'low risk' and 'specified risk material' ; moreover , the 12-month age limit for material presenting a risk has been set arbitrarily ; there is an urgent need for clarity in terms of materials derived from animals destined for human or animal consumption as in the long term the consumer cannot be told that he can enjoy eating one part of the animal while another part of the same animal constitutes a risk ;90 .
Notes the information contained in the letter of the British Ministry for Agriculture of 6 November 1997 and asks the British Government and the Commission to continue examining the problems associated with landfill and in so doing to clarify what the risks to safety are and to ensure that meat that is fit neither for human nor for animal consumption is safely disposed of ;91 .
Calls for the definition of BSE-free places of origin according to IOE standards not only to relate to third countries but also to be applied in the EU , in order to recognise the regionally differing risk potential and take it into account ; the origin of animals must be able to be clearly proven so that the eradication of BSE as a gradual process can be verified on a Community level and herds demonstrating this level of clearance can re-enter the market , subject to compliance with the Florence conditions and taking into account the results of EU inspections ; this process would at the same time give regions affected by BSE clear guidelines which would enable them in the long term to eradicate the BSE problem and become BSEfree ;92 .
is aware that such regional differentiation poses not inconsiderable technical difficulties , owing to the internal market , but expects the Commission to submit appropriate proposals in view of the high priority which is now clearly accorded to preventive health and consumer protection and in the interests of the many farmers whose products are of a high quality and who have suffered through no fault of their own during the BSE crisis93 .
Takes note of the statement by Commissioner Fischler that Member States may adapt their programmes which are eligible under Structural Funds Objective 5a in order to obtain EU aid towards the necessary technical upgrading ;94 .
Points out that the decision on risk material of 30 July 1997 contains loopholes and must be rectified with regard to the arrangements for pharmaceutical products ; the potential supply problems and legal uncertainties in the case of pharmaceuticals and diagnostic processes resulting from that Commission decision must be remedied as soon as possible ;95 .
Insists therefore that further thorough scientific analyses of specified risk material ( SRM ) be conducted , addressing also the 12-month age limit and the significance of maternal transmission ;3 .
9 Amendment of the legislation on animal nutrition with inclusion in labelling of a mandatory explicit declaration for feedingstuffs by their manufacturers which should facilitate the clear identification of components and of the origin of ingredients and on user instructions96 .
Notes that the Commission , despite agreeing to carry out an investigation by the middle of 1998 has not yet declared its unequivocal commitment to quantitative and qualitative declarations for feedingstuffs in the form of clear indications of the components and the origin of the ingredients and calls on the Commission to establish the technical conditions and controls ( tests - cf 3 .
1 ) required for that purpose and to submit an appropriate proposal ;4 .
Adoption of measures to restore the smooth functioning of the markets4 .
1 Efforts to achieve all possible cooperation with the UK authorities responsible for eradication of BSE and BSE-related protection measures with a view to ending the crisis as soon as possible97 .
Notes that , as stated by the Commission itself , harmonization of the monitoring plans and improved cooperation within the Union in particular as regards application of Directive 89/608 and Article 16 of Directive 89/622 are vital and calls on the Commission to take relevant action as soon as possible ;98 .
Calls on the Commission to prohibit completely the deliberate removal of health markings from meat and carcases , with the exception of unavoidable removal during normal cutting and processing operations ;99 .
Stresses that the principle of subsidiarity presupposes the will to transpose and apply Community legislation in the Member States and notes in this connection that the UK , the Council and the Commission have until very recently failed to display the resolve needed to deal with the BSE crisis quickly and comprehensively ;100 .
Calls on the Commission , therefore , to submit appropriate proposals before the end of 1997 for improving the UK system of monitoring the beef export ban , which would sensibly combine checks at the place of origin with a greater number of random physical checks at ports and an effective system for passing on information to the authorities of the country of destination101 .
Calls on the Commission to institute improvements to the monitoring system by systematically providing , for the duration of the export ban , for compulsory notification of all consignments of meat or animals from the UK , for information to be forwarded to the veterinary authorities of the country of destination and acknowledgements to be sent to the authorities of the country of origin ; such a cross-border monitoring and information system should be introduced for the purposes of carrying out random checks on consignments of meat within the internal market and generally for the purpose of import/export bans designed to protect consumers ;102 .
Welcomes the Commission's suggestions for lines of action as regards the strengthening of veterinary checks in the United Kingdom and in the European Union in general and considers it appropriate that these lines of action should be turned into appropriate measures ;103 .
Calls on the Commission to draw up a special report by 31 January 1998 on all measures taken to improve the system ( legislation etc . ) , on progress made in the Food and Veterinary Office ( on the basis of the IGS report ) , on BSE inspections , on action to solve cases of fraud and on the matter of a veterinary inspections office ;104 .
Notes with satisfaction that , with regard to the plants visited in the UK , substantial and effective efforts have been made ( documentation , surveillance , cutting up , staining ) to prevent meat which is unfit for human consumption from being placed on the market ; notes , however , that such measures were not applied in the case of animals slaughtered earlier and trusts that such efforts are not confined to the plants which were visited ; consequently calls on the Commission to keep on examining implementation of the measures ;4 .
2 The following considerations should be seen as fundamental elements in future changes to the rules of the CAP:4 .
1 Priority for the market interests of the COMs is only a shortsighted policy option for the CAP4 .
2 Restoration of consumer confidence through appropriate guarantees for public health protection is the only way to ensure a viable agricultural policy which satisfies both consumers and producers ( Cf .
Stresses that effective consumer protection can be guaranteed only if the Commission does not confine itself to remedial measures and controls , but rigorously applies the precautionary principle so as to include methods of production within its control remit and studies agricultural policy measures to ascertain their effects on consumers ;106 .
Calls on the Commission and the Member States to submit proposals for a system of inspections on agricultural holdings ;107 .
Believes that , if the health inspections carried out in the European area are to be effective and hence deserve the total confidence of consumers and citizens , the Member States must undertake to harmonize their criminal law , since this is a sine qua non of the foregoing and an essential political means of ensuring that international fraud in general and fraud of the type involving contaminated meat-and-bone meal in particular are severely punished , not least by the criminal courts ;4 .
3 Submission without delay of a proposal for a harmonized system of certification for meat in order to restore consumer confidence in this sector108 .
Notes that a Commission proposal on the labelling of beef has already been adopted by the Council ( Regulation ( EC ) No 820/97 ) and welcomes the proceedings instituted by the Commission before the European Court of Justice concerning the appropriate legal basis ( Article 100a rather than Article 43 of the Treaty ) ;109 .
Requests the Commission , on the basis of Article 100a of the Treaty , to submit a proposal amending Regulation ( EC ) No 820/97 , providing for the labelling of beef to become compulsory throughout the Community during 1998 rather than on 1 January 2000 ;110 .
Deplores the fact that the system of compulsory labelling for beef and veal in Regulation ( EC ) No 820/97 has not been applied immediately ;111 .
Recommends that the relevant standing committees attach particular importance to improving those rules ;5 .
Measures corresponding to the responsibilities identified by the committee of inquiry5 .
1 Submission of legislative proposals with a view to making the authorities which have allowed the disease to appear and spread responsible for the financial costs of BSE112 .
Notes that the Commission has not yet implemented the above recommendation by the committee of inquiry on BSE ;113 .
Notes that the Commission has still not introduced measures designed to enforce claims for damages based on the principle of making the responsible party pay and calls on it to review its position in the light of the arguments set out in the opinion of Parliament's Legal Service ;5 .
2 Adoption of the necessary personnel and disciplinary measures with regard to the incorrect behaviour of Commission officials114 .
Notes , in the light of the steps announced by Commissioner Liikkanen on 17 September 1997 when he appeared before the temporary committee , that the Commission has not implemented fully enough the committee of inquiry on BSE's recommendation that it adopt personnel and disciplinary measures ;115 .
Welcomes in particular the fact that a reorganization has taken place at all levels of the veterinary services , as part of which officials have been transferred ;116 .
Notes , however , that the Commission refuses to institute disciplinary measures as it allegedly has not established any significant grounds for doing so ;117 .
Recommends that Parliament's standing committees , in the light of past experience , insist in future that , in addition to Commission experts and Commissioners themselves , Commissioners' chefs de cabinets are also required to provide information and account for their actions ;118 .
Criticizes the failure to apply Article 88 of the Staff Regulations ( suspension from duty ) ;119 .
Calls on the Commission to initiate disciplinary inquiries without delay , in all relevant cases , on the basis of the instances of personal misconduct by individual Commission officials identified in the committee of inquiry on BSE's report and points out in this connection that the disciplinary provisions contained in the Staff Regulations provide for disciplinary measures ranging from a written warning or reprimand to removal from post ;120 .
Recommends , in view of this , that Parliament call on the Commission to arrange without delay , on the basis of the committee of inquiry on BSE's findings and of files which have not yet been examined , an internal inspection by the Inspections générales des Services concerning the handling of the BSE crisis by the responsible Commission departments ;121 .
Calls on the Commission , in view of the criticized shortcomings of the Staff Regulations as they stand , to submit a new , more appropriate text amending the current disciplinary provisions and insists on the agreement of the President of the Commission , Mr Santer , that such an amendment of the Staff Regulations will be made before 1999 ;122 .
Calls on the Commission to analyse its internal decision-making processes with a view to ensuring effective checks at each stage in both administrative and policy terms ;5 .
3 If the Commission denies responsibility , as was suggested by the Commission President on 15 January 1997 when speaking before the committee of inquiry , immediate bringing of administrative proceedings against the United Kingdom for repayment of all sums allocated in previous years for the purposes of eradicating BSE123 .
Notes that the Commission has not yet implemented the above recommendation by the committee of inquiry on BSE ;124 .
Calls on the Commission , in the context of the clearance of accounts , to give priority to ascertaining whether BSE-related expenditure by the UK is in accordance with Community rules , and , if it is not , to consistently refuse funding ;125 .
Points out that it falls to Parliament , pursuant to Article 206 of the Treaty , to give discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget and that Parliament will return to this matter on that occasion ;126 .
Takes the view that the Commission already has ample information to warrant immediate verification of matters pertaining to the clearance of accounts in relation to BSE-related measures in the UK and calls for a report on this subject to be submitted without delay to Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control ;5 .
4 Application of the procedure under Article 169 of the Treaty to those Member States which have not fulfilled their obligations under the Treaty127 .
Welcomes the fact that the Commission has instituted Treaty infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty against a number of Member States for failing to implement certain key aspects of Community legislation on BSE ; notes , however , that the length of Treaty infringement procedures takes no account of immediate risks to people and the environment ;128 .
Encourages the Commission to apply for temporary injunctions from the European Court of Justice more frequently than in the past , to make greater use of the existing protective measures in the agricultural market regulations and to report back to the European Parliament and to seek an amendment of the Treaty in order to give a stronger institutional basis to such rights of intervention ;129 .
Calls on the Commission always to conduct follow-up inspections , prior to infringement proceedings , in order to ascertain whether shortcomings identified and criticized during an earlier inspection have in fact been remedied ;130 .
Is of the opinion that the cost of such follow-up inspections must , in principle , be borne in full by the Member State concerned ;5 .
5 ( After being called upon to do so by the European Parliament: )Institution of proceedings against the UK government in the European Court of Justice on the basis of Article 3 ( 2 ) of the joint decision of Parliament , the Council and the Commission of 19 April 1995 and Article 169 of the Treaty on account of the failure of Mr Hogg , the UK Minister of Agriculture , to appear before the committee131 .
Notes that the Commission has not yet implemented the above recommendation by the committee of inquiry on BSE ;132 .
Asks Parliament to request the Council to make a binding declaration to the effect that Article 3 ( 2 ) of the interinstitutional decision of 19 April 1995 will in future be interpreted by all Members of the Council in such a way that a Member State's government is required to send one of its members to appear before a committee of inquiry of the European Parliament at that committee's request ;133 .
Calls on the Commission , as guardian of the Treaties , to institute appropriate proceedings in the European Court of Justice with the aim of guaranteeing in full Parliament's right of inquiry , should the Council consider itself unable to make such a binding declaration ;134 .
Welcomes the clarification given by Commission President Santer that the Commission will support the European Parliament's position in the 1999 renegotiation of the interinstitutional agreement , making it compulsory for members of the government of a Member State to appear before European Parliament committees of inquiry ( cf .
1 Proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference for an amendment of the Treaty enabling a motion of censure to be tabled against individual members of the Commission ( Article 144 , to be carried by the same majority as is required in the case of a motion of censure against the Commission as a whole )135 .
Notes that the Commission has not yet implemented the above recommendation by the Committee of Inquiry into BSE and demands that models be devised to ensure that cases of individual misconduct are punished , without such action conflicting with the notion of the Commission's collegiate structure constituting the foundation on which it operates ;136 .
Criticizes the Commission's opposition to introducing a motion of censure on individual Members of the Commission , but maintains this political demand as a way of ensuring that the Commission is fully accountable to Parliament ;6 .
2 Submission of proposals by the Commissioner for Agriculture for the re-structuring of the current CAP , to cover:137 .
Notes that detailed analysis of the proposals for reforming agriculture set out in Agenda 2000 in order to ascertain their compatibility with the committee of inquiry on BSE's demands would go far beyond the temporary committee's remit , especially since , as the timetable stands , the specific amendments to the legislation will not be available until after the temporary committee completes its work ;138 .
Recommends therefore that the standing committee responsible for agriculture also ascertain whether the agricultural reforms are consistent with the aims laid down by the committee of inquiry on BSE ;139 .
Considers , however , that a fundamental assessment should be made , on the basis of the key figures for agricultural policy set out in Agenda 2000 , with regard to the committee of inquiry's demands ;6 .
1 Promotion of extensive farming practices140 .
Points out that the common agricultural policy is the responsibility of the Community and the financial resources provided by consumers and taxpayers to impose Community preference should be distributed to agricultural producers in accordance with stringent criteria designed to maintain the quality of the food chain , animal health and welfare , and the environment and calls therefore for due account to be taken , in accompanying measures , of environmental and social standards and structural differences ;141 .
Welcomes in principle the measures which enable individual farmers to move towards less intensive production , boost production of regional products or switch to other forms of production ; considers there to be a danger , however , that the proposed price cuts could frustrate the aim of moving towards less intensive production , at least in the case of certain types of farming ;142 .
Believes that a strict quality control system should be established whereby the Community would endorse a food chain and provide complete guarantees to consumers ;6 .
2 Increase the amount of land under cultivation6 .
3 Ban on all practices which could be harmful for animal health and human health143 .
Welcomes the fact that , as a result of the experience with BSE , the use of Avoparcin as a growth promoter was banned as a precaution , on 1 April 1997 ; calls for the precautionary principle to be applied also to other antibiotics and growth promoters , since , in the agricultural production of foodstuffs , unlike in medicine , no risks or side-effects may be tolerated ;144 .
Calls for the negotiations in the WTO not to give in to the attempt to import meat treated with hormones from the USA , Canada , Australia and New Zealand ;145 .
Is critical of the slow progress made in reviewing feedingstuffs additives such as Carbadox , Olaquinox , Ronidazole and Dimetridazole , pursuant to Directive 70/524 ( EEC ) , despite the fact that the Commission report on this subject in 1991 recommended that authorization of these substances be reviewed owing to their genotoxic and carcinogenic properties ; calls on the Commission to conclude the work of the Standing Committee on Feedingstuffs as soon as possible with the aim of banning these substances unless it is clearly established by scientific means that they are safe ; points out also that Ronidazole and Dimetridazole have been banned as veterinary medicinal products since 1994 and 1995 respectively and that authorization of Carbadox and Olaquinox as feedingstuffs additives has allowed the WTO Panel to argue , in relation to the ban on the use of hormones , that the EU health protection standards were inconsistent ;146 .
Welcomes the joint stance of the Council , the Commission and the European Parliament on banning imports of meat treated with hormones despite the external pressures to which they are subject and recalls the European Parliament's position on genetically modified organisms ;6 .
3 Strict vigilance concerning the reporting of all BSE cases throughout the European Union as there is reason to believe that there have been instances of under reporting147 .
Notes that it has not been possible to dispel beyond all doubt in all Member States suspicions that large number of BSE cases have gone unreported thus justifying further monitoring of the cases presented in all Member States and making it necessary to encourage active monitoring on the basis of the existing BSE notification requirement ;148 .
Calls on the Commission , in view of the importance of a properly functioning Communitywide reporting system , to submit without delay the proposal it announced for a Council regulation on the monitoring of BSE , which , as it is , will come at least five years too late ;6 .
4 Review of the Florence decision of 11 June 1996 ( 96/362 ) to lift the import ban on gelatin derived from cattle149 .
Welcomes the de facto suspension of the decision to lift the ban on imports of gelatin made from bovine animal products although no rule based on any of the seriously flawed scientific debates have been repealed ;150 .
Welcomes the Commission's decision in principle to exclude materials that present a risk from the food chain and to allow them to be used in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products only where absolutely essential to prevent shortages of medicines ; recalls in this connection the need to amend Decision 97/534 so as firstly to guarantee the supply of safe raw materials and secondly to enable the materials in question to continue to be used in diagnostic equipment ;6 .
5 Cooperation with the Member States so that the public is kept systematically and fully informed about all aspects of nutrition that are important for public health151 .
Endorses the Commission's line of relying more on regulations rather than directives for food legislation in future , so as to ensure a uniformly high level of consumer information and prevent distortions of competition ;6 .
6 Changes to the common agricultural policy so as to create a framework which makes possible and reinforces the responsibility of agricultural holdings for the production of healthy food using sustainable farming methods152 .
Notes that Parliament's call for social and environmental criteria to be applied to the granting of aid is echoed in the form of a statement of intent in Agenda 2000 ; but that it is now necessary to give specific shape to and incorporate them in these criteria proposals for legislation ;153 .
Calls on the Commission to be consistent in applying the principle of adapting measures to local conditions in the case of proposals for individual production sectors , as this is an important prerequisite for the production of healthy food and for sustainable farming ; welcomes in this connection the positive response of the Commission in acknowledging the need for regional and/or local factors to be taken into account when determining optimum specific intensity ( inputs/output balance ) ;154 .
Calls on the Commission , as part of the forthcoming reform of the CAP , to lay down in Community law with the aim of protecting health a binding framework for sustainable farming and in particular methods of keeping and feeding animals that are appropriate to the species concerned and to make the granting of aid to individual holdings , the payment of premiums and direct payments dependent on fulfilment of such conditions ;155 .
Sees in this context a need to apply Regulation 2078/92 more flexibly and , where necessary , to increase co-financing by the EU correspondingly , although 100% financing by the EU must be excluded on principle ;156 .
Urges that , in the context of Agenda 2000 , compensatory payments be linked to a code of good agricultural practice with a view to ensuring sustainable farming methods and compliance with the nitrates directive , subject to WTO competition rules ;157 .
Calls on the Commission in addition to draw up proposals on sustainable farm practices which must go beyond regular soil sampling , fertilizer audits and the fleshing-out of the nitrates directives ;
The mandate of the Temporary CommitteeWith the decision setting up a temporary committee to follow up the recommendations on BSE adopted by the European Parliament on 23 April 1997 , the committee received the mandate 'without prejudice to the powers and responsibilities of the standing parliamentary committees as regards legislative issues .
to monitor the action taken by the European Commission on the recommendations made by the Temporary Committee of Inquiry into BSE'The temporary committee must submit a report to the Conference of Presidents before the first partsession in November 1997 .
This is the text of the report .
It is not the task the Temporary Committee to declare itself for or against the introduction of a motion of censure against the European Commission .
Pursuant to its mandate , the Temporary Committee is merely evaluating the implementation of the recommendations made by the committee of inquiry into BSE .
Moreover , the European Parliament"s right to table a motion of censure is based solely on Article 144 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with Rule 34 of the European Parliament"s Rules of Procedure .
Such a motion of censure can be tabled at any time by one tenth of the members of the European Parliament and does not depend on the submission of a report by a parliamentary committee .
The treatment of the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSEFirstly , the rapporteur prepared a summary of the recommendations contained in the report of the committee of inquiry into BSE ( cf .
There is thus now a complete and clearly structured list of recommendations , making it possible to 'tick off' the monitoring tasks point by point .
This list is based on the broad structure of the committee of inquiry"s report and hence covers the following areas:1 .
Transparency of the action to combat BSE ;2 .
Monitoring the action to combat BSE and protect public health and animal health3 .
Adoption of all relevant measures for the protection of public health ;4 .
Adoption of measures to restore the smooth functioning of the markets ;5 .
Measures corresponding to the responsibilities identified by the committee of inquiry ;6 .
Other recommendations .
The detailed structure of the list of recommendations differs from the listing in the BSE report as each point usually relates to only one recommendation while the various sections in the BSE report sometimes contain more than one recommendation and sometimes the same recommendation is repeated , for good reasons , in several places .
This list of recommendations also determines the structure of this report .
Both in Part A 'Conclusions and recommendations' and in the explanatory statement the relevant recommendations contained in the committee of inquiry"s report are first presented in bold type , followed by the conclusions and explanatory remarks .
When the committee started its work , the European Commission was requested to report back to the Temporary Committee at regular intervals on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the committee of inquiry into BSE .
These progress reports ( initially called 'Report on the state of activities' by the Commission ) also follow the structure of the list of recommendations and were submitted on 6 June , 9 July , 8 September and 8 October .
The fourth progress report ( 'Final Consolidated Report' ) of 8 October 1997 provides an overview once again of all the measures taken to date and therefore forms part of this report as a separately published Annex .
The fourth progress report will provide a clear picture of how many of the recommendations the Commission has already implemented and where practical action is still needed .
The rapporteur is therefore not going to comment separately and in detail on each individual point . This applies in particular to the large number of points which have been implemented satisfactorily .
As a rule the recommendations concerned are thus reproduced only down to the first sub-level . Any further levels , are generally subsumed under the corresponding sub-point ( e . : the conclusions and explanatory statement concerning 3 .
where a particular sub-level is of special importance is the text reproduced verbatim ( e .
The focus of the evaluation and the subject of the associated conclusions and recommendations are therefore primarily those recommendations that are of particular political relevance – for example , where opinions differ and where further action is considered necessary .
The organization of the committee's workThe Temporary Committee considered the follow up by the European Commission of the recommendations made by the committee of inquiry into BSE on the basis of the Commission"s progress reports submitted in the months of May to November 1997 in 12 meetings involving with a total of 29 days .
From the rapporteur"s viewpoint , the instrument of the monthly updated Commission progress report , used by the European Parliament for the first time , proved to be a valuable tool .
The clear structure made it possible to deal with the individual topics precisely and on a continuous basis .
In this connection the Commission"s positions were continuously developed and modified on the basis of the discussions in the committee .
For the Commission , responsibility for coordination and management lay with the Commissioner , Mrs Bonino , who made herself available for discussions with the committee on many occasions .
Mr Reichenbach , Director General of Mrs Bonino"s Directorate General XXIV also attended all committee meetings and was its main contact in its day-to-day work .
When required - particularly in presenting the progress reports - the Directors General of the other DGs concerned ( I , III , V , VI and VII ) or their representatives also attended the meetings .
The Committee also had discussions with the representatives of the Commission"s Legal Service , the Commission's Inspectorate General ( Inspections générales des Services ) , the EU"s anti-fraud unit ( UCLAF ) and the Chairman of the Multidisciplinary Committee , Professor Kemper .
The President of the Commission , Mr Santer , held a final exchange of views with the committee in October 1997 .
On relevant individual points , the Committee also invited Commissioners Oreja , Fischler and Liikanen .
There was also an exchange of views with the British Minister for Agriculture , Dr Cunningham and , in his capacity as acting President of the Council of Agricultural Ministers , the Luxembourg Minister for Agriculture , Mr Boden .
Contacts within the European Parliament included the MEPs Mr Brinkhorst and Mr Tillich ( Committee on Budgets ) on the 'Financial impact of the BSE crisis' , Mr Valverde Lopez ( Environment ) and Mr Tappin ( Budget ) on the 'European Agency for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Inspection' and Mr Linkohr ( Research ) on BSE- and CJD-related research .
The legal implications of implementing the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE were discussed with representatives of Parliament"s Legal Service .
In addition to its meetings , the Committee was also heavily involved in organising the preparation of the International Scientific Conference on Meat-and-Bone Meal held on 1/2 July 1997 in Brussels .
To this end it established a four-person working group , comprising the vice-chairman Mr S .
This group had several meetings with the Commission officials from DG responsible for the organization of the Conference , and despite some pressure of time discussions took place in an open and constructive atmosphere and could be completed rapidly .
The results of the meat-and-bone meal conference were summarised by the rapporteur in a working document ( Working Document No 2 of 7 July 1997 , PE 221 .
144 ) , but are also reproduced at the appropriate points ( in particular under 3 .
At the invitation of the British Minister for Agriculture , Dr Cunningham , a committee delegation made an on-the-spot visit from 28 to 30 September 1997 to learn about the implementation of BSErelated measures in the United Kingdom and the monitoring of them by the Commission .
During its visit to the United Kingdom committee members had the opportunity to obtain comprehensive and practical information about the existing BSE-related problems .
On-the-spot visits were in particular to the port of Dover ( export checks ) , a dairy farm , a slaughterhouse ( implementation of the selective cull programme ) , a meat-and-bone meal plant , a meat-and-bone meal store and an incineration plant for meat-and-bone meal .
In addition there were opportunities for talks with the Minister for Agriculture , Dr Cunningham , and the Churchill family , representing the British victims of nvCJD .
The visit took place in an open and constructive atmosphere .
Representatives of the British Ministry of Agriculture were always available to answer additional questions and to take part in expert discussions .
Those members who had already been part of the delegation from the Committee of Inquiry into BSE which visited the United Kingdom in December 1996 commented favourably on the improvements in atmosphere and content since this visit .
The results of the delegation's visit and any shortcomings which remain appear in the appropriate points ( see in particular points 3 .
Concerning the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE ( Note: The recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE were summarised by the rapporteur ( cf .
135 ) , approved by the Temporary Committee in this form , and forwarded to the Commission as a structure for its progress reports .
These recommendations are indicated in the text below in bold type . They are followed by the relevant explanations in normal type .
Transparency of the action to combat BSE1 .
1 Comprehensive information policy to guarantee the widest possible dissemination of relevant research data and findingsAs regards enhancing the transparency of the action to combat BSE , the committee welcomes the fact that the Commission has implemented an extensive range of measures , both as regards the inspection reports and the work of the scientific committees .
This new openness contrasts favourably with the disinformation activities of individual Commission officials uncovered by the Committee of Inquiry into BSE .
By placing the information on the Internet and taking other measures , in particular access to documents and the presentation of minority opinions , interested specialists would now seem to have open access .
In this connection , the organisation of the meat-and-bone meal conference on 1 and 2 July 1997 was a positive step and provided an excellent forum for a public scientific and political discussion .
2 Reform of the rules governing the work of the Advisory Scientific CommitteesThere have been a number of changes geared towards transparency in the structure and working methods of the Advisory Scientific Committees , which the rapporteur basically welcomes .
A European Parliament observer followed the procedure for selecting the members of the Scientific Steering Committee .
The fact that the committee members are remunerated for their work should help to ensure the cooperation of independent scientists .
Shortcomings still remain in the changes in the administrative procedure for reimbursing expenses .
Although improvements have been discussed the point is now to adopt and implement them swiftly . 3 Setting up of a joint Commission and European Parliament body with a fixed term of office to monitor the implementation of the measures set out in the BSE report and to submit an appropriate report to the European ParliamentThe rapporteur considers that this point has been covered by the European Parliament's decision to set up a temporary committee to follow up the recommendations on BSE and the submission of the four progress reports by the European Commission , with the participation of all the DirectoratesGeneral concerned .
Cooperation between the Committee and the Commission has basically been open , constructive and objective . This is mainly due to the commitment of the Commissioner responsible , Mrs Bonino and the Director-General of DG XXIV .
Therefore both are to be thanked– also because of and indeed in view of the differences in opinions that still persist .
Ensuring transparency when publicising the results of the debates of the advisory scientific committeesHere , as in the case of point 1 . 1 , the general picture is on the whole positive
This applies in particular to the Commission"s commitment to publish the agendas , minutes and opinions of the scientific committees .
However , there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the majority on the committee and the Commission as regards the participation of members of the European Parliament in the deliberations of the scientific committees .
The President of the Commission , Mr Santer , turned down this proposal in his letter to the chairman of the committee of 13 August 1997 , arguing that a clear distinction had to be made between the powers of the European Parliament and the Commission and that it was necessary to guarantee the independence of the work of the scientific committees .
Moreover , the President of the European Parliament , Mr Gil-Robles , points out in his letter to committee chairmen of 25 July 1997 that at a meeting with Mr Santer , Mrs Green and Mr Martens of 8 July 1997 all present had agreed that it was not appropriate for the Members of the European Parliament to participate in these meetings .
In this connection it should be remembered , however , that the Commission's influence on the scientific committees identified by the Committee of Inquiry into BSE could not have taken place if members of the European Parliament had been present .
Participation by Members of Parliament thus does not mean compromising the independence of the working of the scientific committees but is , rather , the best guarantee that this independence will be fully maintained in future .
However , the Commission"s behaviour with regard to the management of vacant posts suggests that it is not so much a college as a group of individual commissioners , who are primarily concerned with their own portfolios and not with the general interest of the Commission .
In this connection it must be pointed out once again that the Member States are responsible for implementing Community legislation .
The Member States are therefore primarily responsible for swift transposition of the law and its effective administration .
The Commission can never replace the national monitoring systems , but only supplement them by monitoring their activities .
However , on the basis of risk analysis , the Commission must concentrate particularly on monitoring existing and recognised problem areas .
In July 1996 there was then an inspection of the British external controls when serious shortcomings were ascertained .
This was followed by four further checks in the United Kingdom , but they related to other areas ( such as the over thirty months scheme ) .
Despite the known shortcomings the British external controls were not inspected again until June 1997 , when yet again serious weaknesses were identified .
These management errors on the Commission"s part resulted in six months being lost .
These experiences once again demonstrate how important it is to provide for automatic follow-up inspections ( cf .
However , this procedure also demonstrates once again the high standard of the Commission"s on-thespot inspections , where highly qualified inspectors repeatedly detect weaknesses which normally should long since have been identified by the national authorities .
The detection of shortcomings , as recently in Schleswig Holstein , is proof yet again of the failure of national monitoring systems and also demonstrate the quality of the EU inspectors" work .
The experiences with the application of Directive 662/89 in connection with the breach of the ban on exports from the United Kingdom were not very positive as checks were insufficient and ineffective .
In order to improve this situation permanently in future the Commission should submit to the Council and the European Parliament a proposal to improve the monitoring system .
This proposal should link checks in the country of origin with , if needed or in special situations , spot checks and physical checks at the frontiers and improved information to the authorities of the country of destination .
The Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice stated in his opinion at the end of September 1997 that the ban on exports of beef from the United Kingdom was legal .
Should the Court of Justice follow this view such a ruling would further strengthen the role of the Commission .
It is to be welcomed that the Court of Justice in its preliminary ruling of 12 July 1996 had already given consumer protection precedence over economic interests .
Further confirmation of this position would not only support the similar position of the European Parliament but would also give the Commission the possibility to implement more easily preventive health and consumer protection measures in respect of the Member States and , for example , take action in a more consistent manner in future on questions of withdrawal of licences in the case of severe infringements of Community law .
There is justifiable incomprehension about the time it takes to recruit external personnel for the European civil service - it is not unusual for vacancies to remain empty for a year or longer .
Here the Commission is requested , as a matter of urgency , to speed up substantially its own administrative procedures , particularly in connection with the recruitment of specialist staff for the inspection service .
2 Setting up of a European Agency for Veterinary and Phytosanitary InspectionThe Commission"s proposal for a Council Regulation on the creation of a European agency for veterinary and phytosanitary inspection is under discussion in Parliament"s standing committees .
The Committee on the Environment ( rapporteur: Mr Valverde Lopez ) is the committee responsible in this consultation procedure and the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries have been asked for their opinions .
In its discussions the Temporary Committee has paid close attention to this subject and has heard the rapporteur Mr Valverde Lopez and the draftsman of the Committee on Budget's opinion Mr Tappin .
In the meantime the Commission has withdrawn its initial proposal and in its new proposal it intends to replace the original legal basis ( Article 43 of the EC Treaty ) by the co-decision procedure under Article 100a and also to take up other proposals made by the European Parliament .
It has also announced that it will submit the new proposal to the European Parliament on the basis of a prior analysis of the situation of the inspection services in the Member States .
The decision to transform the Veterinary and Phytosanitary Office ( new name 'EC Office for Product Quality Inspection and Audit' ) into a European agency with its seat in Ireland was taken on 29 October 1993 jointly by the Member State governments .
However , the relocation of the office to Ireland makes the necessary coordination with other Commission services considerably more difficult and in no way enhances the effectiveness of this important agency .
Hence Parliament"s standing committees are called on to ensure , in the framework of their involvement , that in the practical implementation of the Council Decision of 29 October 1993 the inevitable coordination problems are kept to a minimum .
3 Improved organisation and management of staff in certain units ( objectives , communication , monitoring and penalties ) in order to minimise the chances of deficient operation . At its meeting of 12 February 1997 the Commission approved a reorganisation of the Commission services responsible for health protection , whereby in particular the remit of the Directorate General for Consumer Policy and Consumer Health Protection was considerably widened ( DG XXIV ) .
The work of the newly established 'Analysis of health risks' unit , which is directly answerable to the Director-General , will be crucial for the effectiveness of this new organisational structure .
It is only to be hoped that with this unit the Commission will be able to establish a workable early warning system , so as to prevent the development of situations like the BSE crisis at a very early stage .
The committee of inquiry into BSE found serious organisational shortcomings in the Commission"s work .
For example , in the past inspection reports disappeared en route through the hierarchy .
The Commission is expected to ensure an improved flow of information and more timely legislative , political and legal action in future on the basis of the announced manual of procedures , bearing in mind the obvious communication and management shortcomings of the past .
Adoption of all relevant measures for the protection of public health3 .
1 Creation of appropriate legal basesThe Commission has responded to the justified demands of the European Parliament for comprehensive application of the co-decision procedure and submitted appropriate proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference .
This is very much to be welcomed , although regrettably the application of co-decision to basic legislative decisions in the field of agricultural policy ( Article 43 of the EC Treaty ) has proved unworkable because of the resistance of the Member States .
On the other hand it must be pointed out that the extension of the co-decision procedure to the areas of animal health and plant protection ( amended Article 129 of the EC Treaty ) would not have been possible without the determined action of the European Parliament to deal with the BSE crisis .
The work of the Commissioner responsible for negotiations at the Intergovernmental Conference , Mr Oreja who , despite a very tight schedule , gave every assistance to the Temporary Committee up to the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference is therefore acknowledged and he is thanked .
On 11 February 1997 President Santer , in a speech to the European Parliament , announced the Commission"s commitment to apply Article 100a of the EC Treaty in all areas of animal health and food quality and safety .
The Commission is clearly also willing to take action on this approach before the European Court of Justice .
On 22 July 1997 it instituted proceedings against the Council on the subject of beef labelling , since the Council had adopted the corresponding regulation on the basis of Article 43 of the EC Treaty .
The rapporteur cordially welcomes this new political approach by the Commission , but also expects that the Commission will in future consistently exploit any leeway for interpretation with regard to the application of the appropriate legal basis in favour of the greatest possible involvement of the European Parliament .
2 Preparation of a framework directive on Community food law following wide-ranging consultations involving the different stages of the food chain and consumers' organisations with a view to improving environmental protection and human health ; in the process Community legislation on product liability to be amended by September 1997 at the latest with the aim of including primary product liability and a proposal to be submitted for legislation regarding liability arising from the risk related to the activityThe Commission has undertaken various important activities in preparation for a framework directive on European food law ( publication of a Green Paper on the general principles of food law ; organisation of an interdisciplinary conference on this subject in autumn 1997 ) .
The Commission is about to discuss a proposal for a Directive governing liability for primary agricultural products .
The rapporteur calls on the Commission , on conclusion of this preparatory work , formally to submit both proposals to the European Parliament as quickly as possible .
3 Commission proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference for improving the division of powers between EU institutions and Member States in the field of health protection and consumer protection and which define clearly the responsibility for the comprehensive monitoring of the performance of statutory tasksThe Commission submitted a series of proposals , in particular concerning the amendment of Article 129 of the EC Treaty ( health ) and Article 129a of the EC Treaty ( consumer protection ) to the Intergovernmental Conference , but in fact only some of them were carried .
The most important political result here is the extension of the co-decision procedure to animal health and plant protection ( amended Article 129 of the EC Treaty ) .
4 Establishment of a Public Health Protection UnitIn the field of public health the Commission has made fundamental organisational changes . DG XXIV has been given particular responsibility for consumer health protection with regard to scientific advice , risk assessment and inspections . At the same time DG V"s health responsibilities remain unaffected .
At the same time a clear distinction has been made between legislative work on the one hand and scientific advice and surveillance on the other .
In individual cases this may of course involve a greater need for coordination and cooperation between the individual Commission services , but this should be achievable by making the necessary improvements to the organizational procedures .
5 Action against Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease ( CJD )Research work into transmissible spongiform encephalopathies ( TSEs ) in general and the new variant of CJD in particular will have to be intensified and extended in the light of the considerable gaps in knowledge that still exist .
There is also an urgent need for coordination and funding at European level , since there is very little private or commercial interest in this area , given the low incidence of CJD ( one per million of the population ) .
The measures taken to date by the Commission to evaluate the research projects that have been submitted are to be welcomed .
the Commission undertook to examine opportunities to support Member States in the compensation of CJD victims , in a spirit of solidarity .
But the Committee is not clear as to the progress and results of this examination .
It is established , therefore , that the Commission has not implemented this recommendation by the committee of inquiry into BSE .
In this connection the rapporteur has submitted his own draft amendment to the draft budget for 1998 , proposing a budget line B3-4308 'expenditure to compensate persons who have been damaged by nvCJD in the EU' .
During the delegation's visit to the United Kingdom members of the Temporary Committee met at their own request Mr and Mrs Churchill as representatives of the British victims of nvCJD .
The Churchills described very effectively the situation of the victims of nvCJD and the inadequacies of the British health system which as yet does not appear to have been dealing with this illness in an appropriate manner .
The discussion with the Churchills took place against the background of the new scientific findings published in Nature , from which it can be assumed that nvCJD is in practice identical with BSE .
It is highly probable that the term 'Human BSE' will be used instead of nvCJD .
The victims of Human BSE/nvCJD have three main policy demands:1 .
A public judicial inquiry into BSE ;2 .
Creation of a care programme for those suffering from Human BSE ;3 .
Establishment of a compensation fund based on a no fault compensation scheme .
The rapporteur is very sympathetic to these demands .
While the first two demands are directed to the competent offices in the United Kingdom the third demand calls for direct and immediate action on the part of the Commission .
Addendum following presentation of the Fourth Progress ReportThe European Parliament's Committee on Budgets has in the meantime approved the creation of a budget heading proposed by the rapporteur to compensate nvCJD sufferers .
Parallel to this , there was also a positive outcome to the Commission's deliberations on the matter .
The Commission's agreement that additional funds may be raised from the Community budget , in a spirit of solidarity , to add to those already provided by the Member States , if the Member States also take initiatives to that effect , is therefore to be welcomed .
Financial support for the organizations active in this area ( such as the nvCLD Families Association ) is certainly an initial step in the right direction .
The British Government and the Commission should now , therefore , discuss appropriate measures with the relevant organizations as soon as possible .
It should not be forgotten , however , that the greatest financial need lies with the families themselves who have to care for their dying relatives through a long period of suffering faced with a health service which has not yet developed adequate facilities to deal with this disease .
It is above all incumbent on the United Kingdom to alleviate the suffering of the families concerned as far as at all possible and to enable those afflicted with nvCJD to die with dignity .
6 Closer cooperation of the Community human and animal health services with the World Health Organisation and the International Office of Epizootics , on a basis of scientific rigourThe structures and working methods of the international bodies ( WHO ; Codex Alimentarius ; IOE ) , as well as the role of the Commission were clearly detailed for the first time in the second progress report , and discussed at length in the Temporary Committee .
In particular , it became clear that for the Commission to have only observer status cannot do justice to EU interests in an optimum manner .
The Community"s intention to become a full member is thus to be welcomed .
The objections of individual members of the Council to Commission membership are therefore unjustified and should be abandoned promptly .
The case of BSE also shows that shortcomings in the transparency of working methods exists not only in the Commission but also at international level .
Thus , a joint meeting of the World Health Organisation and the International Office for Epizootics on 1 and 2 September 1994 was quite controversial and it was not possible to reach agreement .
However , the IOE record of the meeting gives a misleading account of the content and course of this meeting , in that there is no reference at all to the lack of consensus .
This example demonstrates that greater efforts must be made to maximise transparency in these international bodies as well .
It is to be welcomed that the Commission , as opposed to its initial statement to the committee of inquiry , has since recognised the shortcomings of the record-keeping at that meeting ( second progress report ) .
The standing committees of the European Parliament are recommended to pay particular attention to the decisions of the international bodies .
In future they should only accept their decisions as a basis for their own work provided that the transparency of the decision making process in these bodies is guaranteed .
7 Matters concerning animal feedingstuffs , and especially meat-and-bone meal3 .
1 ( together with the European Parliament: )Immediate convening of a scientific conference to look into the problems of using animal proteins in animal feedingstuffs to serve as the basis for a future Commission proposal to the Council , with a view to recommending its prohibition in future , if this is considered advisableOn 1-2 July 1997 the international scientific conference on meat-and-bone meal advocated by the Committee of Inquiry into BSE took place in Brussels with about 300 delegates from the scientific and consumer protection sectors , national authorities and European political circles .
The subject was dealt with under four main topics covering scientific , legislative , ecological and economic and consumer policy aspects .
The European Parliament"s role as the co-organiser was emphasized by the opening speech by the committee chair , Mrs Roth-Behrendt , the closing speech by the rapporteur and the chairing of two sessions by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf and Mr Jové Peres .
In addition , delegates were constantly made aware of the importance of the European Parliament in dealing with the BSE crisis by the active participation of committee members in the discussions .
Overall the meat-and-bone meal conference and its results can be assessed as positive .
As called for by the European Parliament , it represents a new approach to information policy by the Commission with a wide public , thus allowing a comprehensive discussion of this important subject .
The Commission intends to present documentation on this conference in the near future .
The conference provided an opportunity to take stock of the most important questions connected with the production and use of meat-and-bone meal , and in many areas there was basic agreement among the delegates .
One of the most important results of the meat-and-bone meal conference is the broad consensus that the recycling of animal carcases and slaughter waste by the production of meat-and-bone meal offers the best alternative on economic , environmental and health policy grounds .
However the essential precondition for the functioning of this traditional economic cycle is the observance of safe processing standards .
In setting safe processing standards , the concern must be not only to combat BSE but also , in terms of disease prophylaxis , to ensure the comprehensive and effective removal of all potential pathogens .
Member States which cannot or do not want to observe the high standards for carcase processing can only make use of incineration .
At the meat-and-bone meal conference there was a fundamental dispute between two scientists ( Dr Riedinger and Dr Taylor ) concerning the safety of certain inactivation processes .
As it was not possible to clarify this important question conclusively it is now to be put to the competent scientific committees for discussion and evaluation as the Commissioner , Mrs Bonino , told the temporary committee at its meeting of 23 September 1997 .
The outcome of these deliberations is to be reported to the European Parliament .
It is disturbing that there are still major shortcomings as regards fundamental research .
The appropriate research programmes must therefore be extended and stepped up with a balanced involvement of the competent and interested research establishments .
In research on meat-and-bone meal an analytical test method to monitor the observance of processing standards ( ELISA test ) and a test procedure to detect meat-and-bone meal in concentrates ( Ispra test ) have now been developed .
To check the validity of these methods collaborative tests should now be carried out as quickly as possibly in the EU .
It was clearly demonstrated to the delegates at the meat-and-bone meal conference that the meat-andbone meal processing standards in the USA are absolutely inadequate .
Lines of conflict with the EU are already emerging on this matter as the European Parliament's approval of the forthcoming WHO agreements will doubtless be closely linked to the guarantee of a high level of preventive consumer and health protection .
The relevant provisions in the WHO and the Codex Alimentarius must therefore be further developed towards a definition of the safety standard for meat-and-bone meal .
2 Submission forthwith of proposals for regulations governing the questions of animal feed and dealing with the following:3 .
1 Confirmation of the general ban on the feeding of meat-and-bone meal to ruminantsMeat-and-bone meal may not be fed to ruminants and should be labelled accordingly .
Appropriate measures must also be adopted to ensure that during manufacture no mixing with concentrates for ruminants occurs .
2 Ban on the feeding of carcases or offal of sick animals to all animalsFor reasons of social acceptability , an investigation must be made of whether fallen stock , i . animals not suitable for human consumption , should be removed completely from processing .
This would mean that only slaughter waste and slaughter by-products which are also suitable for human consumption will be processed into meat-and-bone meal .
Such a measure covers about 15% of material and , on the basis of the system used in Sweden and Switzerland , would lead to the development of a separate carcase rendering line with correspondingly higher costs .
The Commission has announced that by October 1997 it will present a consultation paper on the basis of the results of the meat-and-bone meal conference , which amongst other things will address the question of removing fallen stocks from the feedingstuffs chain .
The rapporteur therefore considers it absolutely essential that a decision on this issue should be taken before the end of the year .
During the visit of the delegation of the Temporary Committee to Great Britain a meat-and-bone meal plant was also visited .
It was interesting to note that the tallow produced there was used for energy purposes with better emission values than that for the burning of heavy oil .
In view of the large quantities of meat-and-bone meal ( at present about 250 000 tonnes and rising ) the question of the burning of meat-and-bone meal is being considered closely .
There are technical problems but it should be possible to solve them .
With current incineration capacities it would however be about 20 years before the existing material is dealt with .
An expansion of capacity is planned but often meets with opposition from local neighbours who in one case handed a petition on this matter to the delegation .
3 Only the offal of animals which have been released for human consumption may , after it has been adequately sterilized ( at 133 ?C , 3 bar for 20 minutes ) , be fed to non-ruminants such as pigs , poultry and fishTakes the view that there must be no lowering of the current processing and utilization standards for meat-and-bone meal ( 113 ? C , 20 minutes , 3 bar ; ban on feeding to ruminants ) .
The Commission must instead ensure the immediate application of current legislation in all Member States ;3 .
3 Assurance to the European Parliament that Decision 96/449/EEC is implemented throughout the Community by 1 April 1997 as regards the standards applicable to the processing of meat-and-bone meal and that Member States will not be granted extensionsDecision 96/449/EEC was adopted by the Commission on 18 June 1996 .
The Member States therefore had plenty of time to make the necessary preparations for its implementation by the 1 April 1997 deadline .
Nevertheless , a variety of shortcomings persist as regards implementation .
One Member State ( France ) is even refusing altogether to apply the Decision .
After initially failing to display the necessary resolve in verifying whether the Decision was being applied in full and in instituting infringement proceedings in good time , the Commission decided on 26 June 1997 to institute the first stage of infringement proceedings against ten Member States pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty .
The institution of those proceedings by the Commission was necessary and is therefore welcome in principle .
However , the Commission must at the same time , in order to avoid unnecessary consumer uncertainty , always make public and assess the varying degree of risk for consumers of non-implementation in the Member States .
8 ( together with the Council ; by 1 September 1997: )Measures to ensure uniform respect of maximum guarantees for the elimination of suspect meat-and-bone meal and dangerous or possibly dangerous animal waste , together with a ban on exports of these products to third countriesThis paragraph is closely linked in with paragraph 3 .
To expand upon what was said in that paragraph , it must be pointed out that up to now there has been no scientifically exact and conclusive definition of 'high risk' , 'low risk' and 'specified risk material' .
There is an urgent need for clarity , as in the long term the consumer cannot be told that he can enjoy eating one part of the animal while another part of the same animal constitutes a risk .
It should be pointed out in this connection that the definition of BSE-free places of origin according to IOE standards should relate not only to third countries but must also be applied in the EU , in order to take the regionally differing risk potential into account .
The origin of animals must be able to be clearly proven .
Regions affected by BSE would at the same time receive clear guidelines which in the long term would make it possible for them to eradicate the problem of BSE and become BSE-free .
On 30 July 1997 , the Commission adopted a Decision prohibiting the use of specified-risk material ( SRM ) in food and feedingstuffs and so did not wait for the final decision of the Scientific Steering Committee .
The Scientific Steering Committee did not reach a definitive conclusion at its meeting of 8 September 1997 , either .
Irrespective of the priority accorded to consumer protection , individual aspects of the Commission Decision do not satisfy exact scientific criteria .
Examples include paragraph 15 of the Decision , which states that the TSE situation may vary between Member States , the setting of the one-year age limit for animals , the withdrawal scenario and the problems affecting pharmaceuticals production .
Commissioner Fischler told the temporary committee on 24 September 1997 that Member States may adapt their programmes which are eligible under Structural Funds Objective 5a in order to obtain EU aid for the necessary technical upgrading .
He quite rightly stated that he was prepared to refer the matter of the age threshold in conjunction with other factors , such as maternal transmission , to the scientific committees .
9 Amendment of the legislation on animal nutrition with inclusion in labelling of a mandatory explicit declaration for feedingstuffs by their manufacturers which should facilitate the clear identification of components and of the origin of ingredients and on user instructionsThe Commission has since submitted a directive on the marketing and labelling of straight and compound feedingstuffs ( Directive 97/47/EC ) .
In a further decision , the ban on the feeding to ruminants of protein obtained from mammalian tissue , for which veterinary legislation already provided , was incorporated into feedingstuffs legislation .
The committee of inquiry on BSE attached particular importance to the compulsory and unambiguous declaration of ingredients , not only as regards components , e . 'protein' but also as regards the origin of ingredients ( e . g , protein from soya ) .
Qualitative labelling of this kind poses a number of technical problems , especially as regards the identification of ingredients and the monitoring of such arrangements .
The Commission has agreed to work towards ensuring that these problems are resolved .
In particular , it is planned that Member States' official laboratories will carry out a study , on the basis of which the Commission intends to draw political conclusions by the end of the first half of 1998 .
It must be pointed out , however , that the Commission has still only said it is prepared to examine the question of qualitative labelling .
It has not yet stated its commitment in principle to this form of declaration for ingredients or given an undertaking to submit appropriate proposals once the technical difficulties have been resolved , and it should therefore be reminded to do so .
Adoption of measures to restore the smooth functioning of the markets4 .
1 Efforts to achieve all possible cooperation with the UK authorities responsible for eradication of BSE and BSE-related protection measures with a view to ending the crisis as soon as possibleThe principle of subsidiarity presupposes a will on the part of the Member States to transpose and apply legislation .
The UK has hitherto had a good reputation for transposing Community legislation quickly and fully into national law .
When it came to light this summer that there had been various breaches of the beef export ban , it became clear , however , that the export ban adopted in March 1996 had not been fully transposed into UK law until 1 August 1997 .
The UK therefore stands accused of failing , until very recently , to display the resolve needed to deal with the BSE crisis quickly and comprehensively .
The visit by a delegation from the temporary committee to the UK on 28-30 September 1997 , however , offers some hope that the change of government in the UK has brought about a fundamental change in UK government attitudes .
During the visit , the UK endeavoured to ensure transparency and cooperation and displayed a sincere desire to find the best possible solutions to the BSE-related problems faced .
This does not mean , of course , that the UK government is not pursuing specific national interests , which are not always necessarily identical with European interests , and that shortcomings do not remain in some areas .
One such critical area is the system for monitoring the export ban adopted in March 1996 , of which there have been several breaches of a criminal nature .
The visit to the port of Dover on 28 September 1997 showed that some important mechanisms needed to provide effective protection for consumers outside the UK were still not in place .
Whilst the frequency of checks has been increased ( 16 x 3 hours per month now , instead of 2 x 24 hours per month ) and there is a graduated surveillance system , ranging from the checking of documents to , in suspicious circumstances , an inspection of the load and complete unloading of the HGV ( physical checks ) , random checks are not carried out .
Members of the committee were able to ascertain for themselves that since August , during the periods when checks were carried out , there had been virtually no consignments of meat .
Only one physical check had been carried out in this connection ( on petfood ) .
The monitoring authority's computer system is up and running only for live animals , but is still being developed to deal with meat .
The Commission is therefore called upon to help identify and eliminate existing weaknesses by carrying out on-the-spot inspections .
It is also called upon to submit a proposal for improving the UK monitoring system , which would sensibly combine checks at the place of origin with a greater number of random physical checks at ports and an effective system for passing on information to the authorities of the country of destination .
On 29 September 1997 , members of the delegation were able to see a positive example of UK government efforts to contain BSE in action when they visited a slaughterhouse involved in the selective-cull programme .
They were shown an effective system consisting in checks on ear tags and registration numbers , followed by the cutting-up and staining of carcasses , and finally removal to a MBM processing plant in closed and sealed containers .
If this procedure is followed throughout the UK , and the rapporteur has no reason to doubt that it is not , there are practically no realistic opportunities for fraud .
Given the effective slaughter and destruction system for OTM animals , there are only two possible explanations for the cases of fraud that have recently come to light .
Either the meat illegally exported from the UK could in theory have been from animals slaughtered before the present slaughtering system was introduced ( May 1996 ) or , more likely , it was meat authorized for human consumption in the UK and then illegally shipped to the continent to take advantage of the considerable price differentials that at times existed .
It must be added , however , that notwithstanding the good overall impression made on the delegation as regards the cull programme , the Commission still identified shortcomings in its inspection reports of January and April 1997 .
There were , for example , shortcomings in the implementation of the system , e . discrepancies between the weight of material when it left the slaughterhouse and the weight when it arrived at the rendering plant .
The UK is called upon to ensure that an effective remedy is found to this problem .
2 The following considerations should be seen as fundamental elements in future changes to the rules of the CAP:4 .
1 Priority for the market interests of the COMs is only a shortsighted policy option for the CAP4 .
2 Restoration of consumer confidence through appropriate guarantees for public health protection is the only way to ensure a viable agricultural policy which satisfies both consumers and producersThis demand relates to the reform of the CAP and is therefore dealt with in paragraphs 6 .
3 Submission without delay of a proposal for a harmonized system of certification for meat in order to restore consumer confidence in this sectorThe Commission submitted a proposal in good time on the registration of bovine animals and the labelling of beef , which has already been adopted by the Council ( Regulation ( EC ) No 820/97 ) .
Both Parliament and the Commission considered Article 100a of the Treaty to be the correct legal basis , but the Council adopted the regulation unanimously on the basis of Article 43 .
The Commission is to be commended on having challenged this in the European Court of Justice .
Its adoption by the Council has meant that a voluntary labelling system has been introduced , on a transitional basis , which is not set to become compulsory in all Member States until 1 January 2000 .
In view of the recently revealed breaches of the ban on exports of beef from the UK , the Commission is called upon to submit , on the basis of Article 100a of Treaty , a proposal providing for the labelling of beef to become compulsory throughout the Community at an earlier date , ideally at some point during 1998 .
Measures corresponding to the responsibilities identified by the committee of inquiry5 .
1 Submission of legislative proposals with a view to making the authorities which have allowed the disease to appear and spread responsible for the financial costs of BSEThe committee of inquiry's wording causes problems , since submission of the relevant legislative proposals would immediately raise the question of a possible violation of the legal principle of nonretroactivity , and the Commission has to date never submitted legislative proposals of this type .
Irrespective of legislative measures , however , the question remains of enforcing claims for damages based on the principle of making the responsible party pay .
This recommendation is therefore closely connected with paragraph 5 .
3 , which looks at the possibility of bringing administrative proceedings against the UK .
In this connection , the Commission points out that the Treaties do not provide for action for damages against the UK and that bringing such action before a British court would not be an appropriate course of action .
According to the First Progress Report ( p . 35 of the English version , footnote 14 ):'It would be highly problematic to determine what the damages might be .
Financial contributions have been made by the Community in full knowledge[ ![ of the actions of the United Kingdom .
'In view of the breaches of the export ban which subsequently came to light and the delay in transposing Community legislation into national law , this assessment by the Commission takes on fresh significance and constitutes an argument for rather than against bringing a claim for damages against the UK .
Unlike the Commission , Parliament's Legal Service , in its opinion , does not consider the chances of successfully bringing a claim for damages in a British court to be hopeless from the outset .
The Commission is therefore called upon to review its negative position on this matter in the light of the arguments put forward .
2 Adoption of the necessary personnel and disciplinary measures with regard to the incorrect behaviour of Commission officialsAs regards the measures taken by the Commission to deal with the BSE crisis , the committee of inquiry on BSE noted substantial management errors , inadequate coordination and serious organizational shortcomings .
In addition , it found that at least four Commission officials had committed personal errors which went beyond shortcomings of a mere organizational and structural nature .
The committee of inquiry therefore considered it necessary to recommend personnel and disciplinary measures with regard to the personal misconduct of certain Commission officials .
The temporary committee had an opportunity to exchange views on this matter with Mr Liikanen , Commissioner responsible for personnel matters , Mr Fischler , Commissioner with political responsibility for DG VI , and with the Head of the Commission's Legal Service , Mr Dewost , during which it became clear that the Commission was now taking decisive action to tackle organizational weaknesses ( separation of legislative activities and monitoring ; reorganization of DG VI ) .
As regards personnel matters , the officials responsible for veterinary issues have been assigned to other duties , some outside DG VI .
Article 50 of the Staff Regulations ( Retirement in the interests of the service ) has been applied to one official .
The rapporteur wishes to point out that these transfers represent the absolute minimum action necessary .
It is obvious that further misconduct on the part of the officials concerned in areas of relevance to BSE is no longer possible because they have been transferred .
However , neither transfer nor application of Article 50 of the Staff Regulations is of a disciplinary nature , i . they do not constitute a judgement of individual misconduct in the past .
It must be pointed out that , depending on the gravity of the misconduct established during disciplinary proceedings , the Staff Regulations provide for varying degrees of disciplinary measures ranging from a mere reprimand or a warning to removal from post .
Disciplinary inquiries are initiated if , as in the case in question , there are well-founded indications of individual misconduct .
The inquiries are , however , conducted in such a way as not to prejudge the outcome , are governed by rule-of-law principles and decisions are subject to European judicial review .
The Commission has so far launched disciplinary proceedings in just one case .
However , in view of the cases of personal misconduct it identified , the committee of inquiry on BSE in no way assumed there would be just one case , but recommended disciplinary action in several cases .
The rapporteur therefore notes that the Commission has not implemented the recommendation fully enough .
The Commission has even stated that the personnel measures outlined ( transfers and application of Article 50 ) were merely aimed at improving management of the veterinary services and had nothing to do with the BSE crisis .
This line of argument would , not only in view of the considerable impact of general management shortcomings and organizational weaknesses on the handling of the BSE crisis , appear to be more than questionable .
It must be made clear to every Commission official that he cannot hide behind management errors and organizational shortcomings , of which there were plenty in this case , and that , in the case of individual misconduct , he will be personally called to account .
The Commission is therefore called upon to launch disciplinary inquiries in the other relevant cases , tooIn 1995 , the Commission began to take a number of measures in order to remedy the general organizational shortcomings that had become apparent .
At the request of Mr Legras , the responsible Director-General , the Inspections générales des services ( IGS ) carried out an internal inspection of the veterinary services , which was , however , confined to one small sector ( bighead disease in pigs ) .
When the results of the inspection were submitted , Mr Legras , in a note dated 17 November 1995 to Commissioner Fischler , recommended extensive organizational and personnel changes .
Commissioner Fischler issued instructions in a note dated 12 December 1995 for such changes to be made .
The question remains open as to why BSE was a taboo area in earlier inquiries and why the Commission , in view of past mistakes , has never launched similar internal inquiries in relation to BSE .
This consistent failure to act might suggest that former Commissioners and their cabinets could be implicated by such inquiries .
In view of this , it is recommended that Parliament call on the Commission to arrange without delay , on the basis of the committee of inquiry's findings and of files that have not yet been examined , an internal service inspection by the Service Général concerning the handling of the BSE crisis .
Addendum following presentation of the Fourth Progress ReportWith regard to its handling of the BSE crisis , the Commission continues to admit only to a breakdown in organization .
It refuses to take disciplinary measures against individual officials , however , because it claims not to have found any 'compelling reasons' which would justify such proceedings .
However welcome the reorganization and the reshuffle of officials at all levels of the veterinary service is , it is not an adequate response to the personal misdemeanours unearthed by the BSE Committee of Inquiry .
It is indicative in this respect that of the range of punishments provided by the disciplinary rules , not even those which may be imposed under Article 87 of the Staff Regulations without consulting the Disciplinary Board ( written warning/reprimand ) have yet been applied .
The rapporteur does not share the Commission's view that 'past failings' have already 'been remedied' .
The suspicion that springs more readily to mind is that by drawing a final line under the matter prematurely , something is being hushed up and a cover-up is taking place to absolve the officials implicated , even at cabinet level .
Even for the organizational failings of an administration , there are people responsible , in an administrative or political capacity , for what happens .
Undoubtedly , by threatening to pass a vote of no confidence in the Commission for failure to act , the European Parliament unequivocally assigned political responsibility not only to the previous but also the present Commission .
Moreover , in the light of experience , the European Parliament should insist in future that the heads of the Commissioners' private offices should also be made accountable as well as Commission experts and the Commissioners themselves .
In its Inspectorate General , the Commission has an effective instrument with which to dispel the suspicion of a cover-up .
Only an internal investigation into the handling of the BSE crisis by the responsible Commission departments can draw a line under the Commission's organizational and personal failings in the past and create a viable foundation for future cooperation with the European Parliament on a basis of confidence .
Notwithstanding the preceding fundamental criticism of the Commission's conduct in regard to taking disciplinary measures , Commission President Santer's commitment to undertake a thorough review of the Staff Regulations , with particular regard to the practicability of disciplinary proceedings , points in the right direction and is , therefore , to be warmly welcomed .
3 If the Commission denies responsibility , as was suggested by the Commission President on 15 January 1997 when speaking before the committee of inquiry , immediate bringing of administrative proceedings against the United Kingdom for repayment of all sums allocated in previous years for the purposes of eradicating BSEThe committee of inquiry on BSE introduced its recommendation with the words 'If the Commission denies responsibility' quite deliberately .
After the temporary committee has completed its work , this proviso can no longer apply .
The Commission representatives openly admitted to the committee that their institution was partly to blame for past mistakes , even though personal misconduct by individual officials has hitherto gone largely unpunished .
Nevertheless , there remains the problem of how to enforce claims for damages against the UK ( cf . paragraph 5 . 1 ) and the question of whether it is possible to demand repayment of EU monies paid to the UK to help eradicate BSE .
In the light of the temporary committee's deliberations , the clearance of accounts would appear to be an appropriate means of ensuring that the conditions laid down in Community legislation have been met in the case of BSE-related expenditure effected by the UK and financed from the Community budget .
If the Commission establishes that Community rules have not been complied with , e . as a result of inadequate export controls , it may decide to refuse funding .
In the past , this procedure has in other cases led to considerable sums being repaid to the Community budget .
The Commission is therefore called upon to give priority , in the context of the clearance of accounts , to ascertaining whether BSE-related expenditure by the UK is in accordance with Community rules , and , if it is not , to consistently refuse funding .
Moreover , pursuant to Article 206 of the Treaty , it falls to Parliament to give discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget .
The rapporteur is in no doubt that Parliament will return to the rendering of accounts for BSE-related expenditure on that occasion .
Commissioner Fischler gave the following account to the temporary committee on 24 September 1997 concerning veterinary inspections in the UK:'During one visit ( in April 1997 ) , checks were also made on the selective slaughter procedures , and , during a subsequent visit , in July 1997 , we checked what action had been taken in response to the problems identified in April .
We then wrote to the UK authorities recommending procedural improvements designed to protect Community resources and prevent fraudulent trade in beef covered by the various schemes .
Bilateral talks were held in Brussels on problems which required further clarification'In view of this , the rapporteur takes the view that the Commission already has ample information to warrant immediate verification of matters pertaining to the clearance of accounts in relation to BSErelated measures in the UK .
4 Application of the procedure under Article 169 of the Treaty to those Member States which have not fulfilled their obligations under the TreatyThe Commission initially lacked the necessary resolve as regards monitoring to ascertain whether Decision 96/449/EEC ( procedure for the heat treatment of animal waste ) was being applied in full and as regards the timely institution of infringement proceedings .
However , it did decide on 26 June 1997 to institute the first stage of Treaty infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty against 10 Member States ( cf . paragraph 3 .
In mid-September 1997 , infringement proceedings were instituted against the UK concerning controls at slaughterhouses and cutting plants .
In view of the measures taken , it must be acknowledged that the Commission has implemented the committee of inquiry's recommendation in a satisfactory manner , if not always as quickly as possible .
In this connection , the Commission was asked by the rapporteur to answer a number of questions on the monitoring of the situation in the UK and to provide the relevant original documents .
It complied on 22 September 1997 , when it handed over two relevant files .
These files reveal that weaknesses exist prior to the institution of Treaty infringement proceedings .
Where shortcomings are noted during veterinary inspections , the situation is discussed with the Member State concerned , which then usually promises to do better .
The Commission often takes it at its word and a follow-up inspection to ascertain whether the shortcomings identified have actually been remedied normally does not take place , at least not automatically .
This leads to considerable delays in instituting infringement proceedings , which then become necessary if , despite the assurances of the Member State concerned , the shortcomings criticized have not been adequately remedied .
The Commission is therefore called upon always to conduct follow-up inspections , prior to infringement proceedings , in order to ascertain whether shortcomings identified and criticized during an earlier inspection have in fact been remedied .
Since inadequate implementation of Community rules identified during an initial inspection necessitates the follow-up inspection , the cost of the latter should in principle be borne in full by the Member State concerned .
5 ( After being called upon to do so by the European Parliament: )Institution of proceedings against the UK government in the European Court of Justice on the basis of Article 3 ( 2 ) of the joint decision of Parliament , the Council and the Commission of 19 April 1995 and Article 169 of the Treaty on account of the failure of Mr Hogg , the UK Minister of Agriculture , to appear before the committeeThe committee of inquiry on BSE assumed that the then UK Minister of Agriculture , Mr Hogg , was legally bound to appear before it .
However , the UK government interprets the English version of Article 3 ( 2 ) of the interinstitutional decision of 19 April 1995 as not providing for any such legal obligation .
The new UK government is sticking by this interpretation .
The current Minister of Agriculture , Mr Cunningham , has given a personal undertaking to the temporary committee that he would appear before a committee of inquiry of the European Parliament if so requested in future , but rejected the idea that he was legally obliged to do so .
The Commission shares the UK's interpretation and therefore considers the chances of success of proceedings against the UK pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty for failing to comply with the obligation laid down in Article 3 ( 2 ) of the interinstitutional decision of 19 April 1995 to be 'less than slight' .
The report drawn up by Parliament's Legal Service ( cf . Annex II to this report ) stresses Parliament's right of inquiry as guaranteed by Article 138c in conjunction with Article 5 of the Treaty and comes to the conclusion that the government of the Member State concerned must give proper reasons for its refusal and , in any event , nominate a member of the government whom the committee of inquiry can contact in order to proceed with its work .
The UK government has done neither .
The interinstitutional decision comes up for review in 1999 , i .e at the end of Parliament's current term .
In order to avoid proceedings being instituted in the European Court of Justice , Parliament should formally request the Council to agree on a binding interpretation which would in future ensure that a member of a government would appear before a committee of inquiry of the European Parliament .
The temporary committee has itself already addressed a such a request to the Luxembourg Presidency .
When the interinstitutional decision is reviewed in 1999 , its wording should be made unambiguous .
If the Council considers itself unable to give such a binding interpretation , the Commission is called upon , as guardian of the Treaties , to institute appropriate proceedings in the European Court of Justice with the aim of fully upholding Parliament's right of inquiry ,6 .
Other recommendations6 .
1 Proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference for an amendment of the Treaty enabling a motion of censure to be tabled against individual members of the Commission ( Article 144 , to be carried by the same majority as is required in the case of a motion of censure against the Commission as a whole )The Commission rejects the use of a motion of censure on individual Members of the Commission arguing that it is incompatible with the principle of the Commission as a collegiate body and has therefore not submitted a corresponding proposal to the Intergovernmental Conference .
It is therefore clear that this recommendation by the committee of inquiry on BSE has not been implemented .
The rapporteur takes the view that , regardless of the Commission's collegiate nature , each individual Member of the Commission is politically and personally accountable for all actions and omissions in the area for which he is responsible .
The call for the introduction of a motion of censure on an individual Member of the Commission should be maintained as way of ensuring that the Commission is fully accountable to Parliament .
The political groups represented in Parliament will , if necessary , need to come to an agreement on a political mechanism which guarantees that the political accountability of individual Commissioners is appropriately defined , even if not at the level of a motion of censure provided for in the Treaty .
It should also be pointed out in this connection that the outcome of the IGC in Amsterdam substantially strengthened the institutional role of the Commission President , e . as regards the allocation of portfolios to Members of the Commission .
This , however , also means that he bears greater responsibility for taking action where individual Commissioners are clearly failing in their duties or for re-allocating portfolios as necessary in response to initiatives of the European Parliament .
2 Submission of proposals by the Commissioner for Agriculture for the re-structuring of the current CAP , to cover:6 .
1 Promotion of extensive farming practices6 .
2 Increase the amount of land under cultivation6 .
3 Ban on all practices which could be harmful for animal health and human healthThe changes to the CAP announced in Agenda 2000 and due to be set out in greater detail in the proposals for amendments to the regulations governing individual COMs constitute the background against which the committee of inquiry's demands are to be considered .
Detailed analysis of the proposals for reforming agriculture to ascertain their compatibility with its demands would , however , go far beyond the BSE committee's remit .
As the timetable stands , the specific amendments to legislation will not be available until after the follow-up committee has completed its work .
The task of ascertaining whether the agricultural reforms are also consistent with the objectives laid down by the BSE committee falls to the standing committee responsible for agriculture .
The followup committee's report should therefore contain only some basic comments .
Consideration of the proposal for a regulation amending the COM in beef announced in the section of Agenda 2000 devoted to agriculture should be brought forward and given priority , in order , amongst other things , to achieve a balanced market as soon as possible .
The non-marketing premium introduced in individual Member States since 1992 , also known as the 'Herod premium' , can then be scrapped , as it is not compatible with beef production methods which take into account animal welfare and species-related factors .
The call for more extensive farming practices and for an increase in the area under cultivation may , if local factors are taken into account , promote the aims of sustainable agriculture .
It has to be borne in mind that an assessment of production intensity and/or its impact on the environment must be based on optimum specific intensity ( i .e the best possible relationship between inputs and output in a given set of circumstances ) , which varies according to local conditions and type of product .
The Commission's assertion that the scrapping of compulsory set-aside and reorientation of premiums would inevitably lead to greater extensification must be questioned .
Experience with the 1992 CAP reform , when the Commission likewise claimed that reorganization of the system would lead to extensification , shows that , at least in some regions and some types of farming , there has been no reduction in intensity .
The annual rate of production growth has , however , declined on the whole .
The banning of all forms of farming potentially damaging to animal or human health is , as in the case of food safety and quality , to be regarded as a fundamental prerequisite .
It is therefore to be welcomed that , as a result of the experiences with BSE , the use of Avoparcin as a growth promoter was banned as a precaution , after a protracted struggle , on 1 April 1997 .
3 Strict vigilance concerning the reporting of all BSE cases throughout the European Union as there is reason to believe that there have been instances of under reportingSuspicions that large numbers of BSE cases in the EU have gone unreported have as yet not been substantiated , though they were recently rekindled by a statistical study by Wilesmith , Schreuder and Straub , which assumes a high rate of under reporting and claims , for instance that , in Germany , the number of BSE cases is 48 times higher than the five cases recorded .
The methods used in this study are , however , seriously flawed .
The report is based on inadmissible statistical calculations and in particular does not take account of the different structures and infection rates in the cattle breeds exported from the UK .
Commission representatives have conceded to the temporary committee that such flaws exist .
Theories that there have been considerably more cases of BSE than have actually been recorded have still not been substantiated and therefore bear more relation to speculation .
Nevertheless , it must be stressed that any suspected withholding of information has to be investigated very thoroughly by the Member States and the Commission so as to nip credibility problems in the bud .
The Commission has therefore begun drawing up a proposal for a Council instrument on the monitoring of BSE .
It was becoming clear as long ago as the early 1990s that BSE would not be confined to the UK for ever .
Thus 15 cases were recorded in Ireland between 1985 and 1989 .
In 1990 , a case came to light in Switzerland .
1991 saw the first cases of BSE in France .
In view of this , the Commission proposal , however welcome and necessary it may be , comes at least five years too late .
4 Review of the Florence decision of 11 June 1996 ( 96/362 ) to lift the import ban on gelatin derived from cattleThe Florence decision laid down a series of conditions and procedures which would have permitted the export of gelatin made from British bovine animal products .
In the meantime , the Commission has in effect suspended implementation of the Florence decision in the light of 'later information that inactivation of the BSE agent could not be guaranteed in the production process' ( First Progress Report , p . 39 of the English version ) , and this is to be welcomed .
It must be made clear in this connection that the committee of inquiry on BSE uncovered a large number of peculiarities in connection with the gelatin decision .
The Scientific Steering Committee is due to deliver an opinion on tallow and tallow products , sperm and embryos shortly .
5 Cooperation with the Member States so that the public is kept systematically and fully informed about all aspects of nutrition that are important for public healthThe most direct form of cooperation between the Commission and the Member States on food safety is in the field of legislation , with the provision of consumer information generally taking priority .
The Commission has hitherto submitted most of its proposals for food legislation in the form of directives .
This has proved a hindrance to transposition , since , pursuant to Article 189 of the Treaty , directives are binding as to the result to be achieved but leave to the Member States the choice of form and methods .
Without constituting unlawful practice , this has often meant that Member States have applied legislation differently , which has not done much to encourage the provision of full consumer information or to create a level playing field for competition .
The Commission has therefore announced that it intends to rely on regulations more in future , something which has not met with unqualified approval from the Member States but which is emphatically welcomed by the rapporteur .
As regards the provision of consumer information on the quality of foodstuffs , there is a clear demarcation between the Member States and the Commission .
At Community level , sectoral quality rules exist only in exceptional cases ( e . fruit , eggs and wine ) and multi-sectoral rules exist only in specific areas ( e . designations of origin and organic farming ) .
In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity , quality policy is a matter for the Member States , many of which allow producers to adopt voluntary rules ; quality standards and quality seals are laid down on an independent basis and can then be promoted accordingly .
Such efforts on the part of producers should be flanked more and receive greater encouragement at the national level .
The rapporteur also welcomes the information campaign on food safety proposed by the Commission in Article B5-103 of the 1998 draft budget .
6 Changes to the common agricultural policy so as to create a framework which makes possible and reinforces the responsibility of agricultural holdings for the production of healthy food using sustainable farming methods
The Commission is called upon to consistently apply the principle of adapting measures to local conditions when submitting proposals for individual production sectors , as this is a prerequisite for the production of healthy food and for sustainable farming ; welcomes in this connection the positive response of the Commission in acknowledging the need for regional and/or local factors to be taken into account when determining optimum specific intensity .
In this context , Regulation 2078/92 must be applied more flexibly and , where necessary , co-financing by the EU must be increased correspondingly , although 100% financing by the EU must be ruled out on principle .
The Commission agreed to draw up a report on the practical implementation and effectiveness of Regulation 2078/92 .
It must now be submitted without delay .
SUMMARY EVALUATIONOn 23 April 1997 , the Temporary Committee was given a remit 'to monitor the Commission's followup of the recommendations made by the Committee of Inquiry into BSE' .
The remit quite deliberately involved a process .
Given the time-frame within which European policy normally takes place , it cannot be expected that all the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE will be fully implemented within six months .
It is more important that the Commission shares the European Parliament's policy objectives and takes appropriate decisions which it implements in accordance with a clear and agreed timetable
Further monitoring of the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE is now the responsibility of the European Parliament's various standing committees .
It must be stressed in this context that a purely numerical approach to follow-up of the Committee of Inquiry's recommendations does not do justice to the complexity of the subject matter .
A multitude of different , complex fields are involved in which progress is being made little by little , i .e as part of a political process .
An unequivocal , definitive overall assessment in terms of 'mission accomplished' or 'mission failed' is seldom possible .
Overall , however , it should be stressed that a great deal of progress has been made in a relatively short time .
The Commission has , in fact , implemented most of the Committee of Inquiry's recommendations either in full or in part .
This applies , in particular , to the reorganization of its departments , the effort to improve transparency , the initiation of proceedings for infringement of the Treaties , legislative initiatives and future strengthening of cooperation on veterinary checks .
In implementing recommendations with a bearing on consumer policy , the Commission has made good progress .
Nevertheless , wherever problems arise in the legal 'mire' - including different assessments by the legal services - the Commission does not exactly distinguish itself by its particular commitment and resolve .
The missing detail and the need for further action are clearly addressed under the individual points .
Most of the conclusions also relate to this continued need for action .
Notwithstanding the positive overall impression , there is fundamental disagreement between the European Parliament and the Commission on the following five points of a total of over sixty which , it must be noted , the Commission has failed to implement:- Point 5 .
1 ( legislative proposals for recovering the costs of BSE )- Point 5 .
2 ( disciplinary measures )- Point 5 .
5 ( proceedings against the British Government for the failure of the Agriculture Minister , Mr Hogg , to appear before the committee )- Point 6 .
1 ( motion of censure against individual members of the Commission ) .
A5-0225/2002
7 June 2002
REPORT on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on genetically modified food and feed Amendment 1Recital 2 a ( new ) ( 2a ) The precautionary principle must be taken into account in implementing this regulation .
In special cases where the risk to health or the environment is scientifically uncertain , the precautionary principle provides a basis for determining risk management measures or other measures to safeguard the high level of protection of health which has been opted for in the Community .
Both in the Commission’s communication 2000/1 of 2 February 2000 on the precautionary principle and in Regulation 2002/178 laying down the general principles of food law ( Article 6 ( 3 ) , Article 7 and Recitals 20 and 21 ) , this new approach to European food policy is stressed , and the precautionary principle is also expressly provided for in Directive 2001/18/EC ( Articles 1 and 4 and Annex II ) .
Accordingly , the precautionary principle should also have a place in this proposal for a regulation .
In order to protect human and animal health , food and feed consisting of , containing or produced from genetically modified organisms ( hereunder called "genetically modified food and feed" ) should undergo a safety assessment through a Community procedure before being placed on the market within the Community .
In order to protect human and animal health , food and feed consisting of , containing or produced from or with the aid of genetically modified organisms ( hereunder called "genetically modified food and feed" ) should undergo a safety assessment through a Community procedure before being placed on the market within the Community .
Consumers may not object to the use of genetically modified organisms in the production of foods solely out of fears for their personal health or that of their families .
There are a wide range of reasons why they may not wish to purchase products in the processing of which GMOs have been used .
These include religious , ethical and environmental reasons: followers of certain religions may object to any use of pig products , strict vegetarians to any use of animal products , and so on .
For some , therefore , the actual presence or otherwise of GMOs in the final product is not the issue .
As it is in all of our interests to respect the diversity and multicultural nature of our European societies , it is imperative that all of these consumers should have the right to make an informed choice on the basis of their beliefs .
The requirements arising from the directives , regulations and administrative provisions concerning the evaluation and authorisation of food and feed and of raw materials intended for their production should be identical for all products imported into the European Union , in order to avoid the creation of unequal and unfair conditions of competition .
Self-explanatory .
Experience has shown that authorisation should not be granted for a single use , when a product is likely to be used both for food and feed purposes ; therefore such products should only be authorised when fulfilling authorisation criteria for both food and feed .
Experience has shown that authorisation must not be granted for a single use , when a product is likely to be used both for food and feed purposes ; therefore such products should only be authorised when fulfilling authorisation criteria for both food and feed .
Intended to strengthen the provisions .
concerning certain products used in animal nutrition , as last amended by Council Directive 1999/20/EC , provides for an approval procedure for feed materials produced using different technologies that may pose risk to human or animal health and the environment ; these feed materials containing , consisting of or produced from GMOs should fall instead under the scope of this Regulation .
concerning certain products used in animal nutrition , as last amended by Council Directive 1999/20/EC , provides for an approval procedure for feed materials produced using different technologies that may pose risk to human or animal health and the environment ; these feed materials containing , consisting of or produced from GMOs must fall instead under the scope of this Regulation .
Intended to strengthen the provisions .
This Regulation covers food and feed produced “from” a GMO but not food and feed “with” a GMO .
The determining criterion is whether or not material derived from the genetically modified starting material is present in the food or in the feed .
Processing aids as defined in Council Directive 89/107/EEC , which are only used during the food or feed production process , are not covered by the definition of food or feed and , therefore , are not included in the scope of this Regulation . Nor are food and feed which are manufactured with the help of a genetically modified processing aid .
Thus , food produced with a genetically modified enzyme that does not remain in the final product and products obtained from animals fed with genetically modified feed or treated with genetically modified medicinal products will be subject neither to the authorisation requirements , nor to the labelling requirements laid down in this Regulation .
This Regulation covers food and feed produced “from” a GMO and 'with the aid of a GMO' , as well as food obtained from animals which at a certain stage were fed with feed labelled in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation .
The provisions set out in this Regulation shall apply regardless of whether or not the GMO is present in the final food or feed product .
Processing aids as defined in Council Directive 89/107/EEC , which are used during the food or feed production process , come within the scope of this Regulation .
Similarly , food and feed produced with the aid of a genetically modified processing aid shall be included .
In this way , food produced with a genetically modified enzyme which does not remain in the final product and products obtained from animals fed with genetically modified feed or feed obtained with the aid of a GMO , or treated with genetically modified medicinal products , shall be subject to the authorisation and labelling requirements laid down in this Regulation .
The proposal for a regulation under consideration must not concentrate exclusively on regulating the traceability of GMOs and food and feed obtained from them , but must also consider food and feed obtained with a GMO .
In fact , an enzyme , like any other molecule which accelerates the chemical process of transformation , plays an active role in all the various chemical and molecular reactions which the production of the food product entails and hence the principle of substantial equivalence of two end products cannot be applied , if one is obtained in a natural manner and the other with a GMO , because in any event they are unnatural substances for which at present there is no experimental evidence that they may lead to the production of identical foodstuffs , either organoleptically or as regards taste , flavour , etc .
It is therefore fair that the rules on labelling and traceability of GMOs should also apply to products obtained with a GMO .
The whole structure of the proposal for a regulation should therefore be revised in the light of this amendment to the recital .
Harmonised labelling requirements should be laid down for genetically modified feed to provide final users , in particular livestock farmers , with accurate information on the composition and properties of feed , which enable the user to make an informed choice .
Harmonised labelling requirements must be laid down for genetically modified feed to provide final users , in particular livestock farmers , with accurate information on the composition and properties of feed , which enable the user to make an informed choice .
Intended to strengthen the provisions .
In order to establish that the presence of this material is adventitious or technically unavoidable , operators must be in a position to demonstrate to the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of the genetically modified food or feed .
In order to establish that the presence of this material is adventitious or technically unavoidable , operators must demonstrate to the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of the genetically modified food or feed .
Strengthens the obligation on operators .
In order to ensure the practicability and feasibility of this Regulation , a threshold of 0 .5 % , with the possibility of establishing lower levels , should be established for minute traces in food or feed of genetically modified material authorised under Community legislation , where the presence of such material is adventitious or technically unavoidable ; Article 21 ( 2 ) of Directive 2001/18/EC lays down the possibility of setting maximum thresholds .
Under A a maximum threshold may be introduced for ‘products where adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of authorised GMOs cannot be excluded’ .
Similarly , Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 49/2000 of 10 January 2000 fixes a threshold of 1% only for authorised food produced from ingredients produced from authorised GMOs or containing such ingredients .
In contrast , the maximum threshold put forward in Article 5 of the proposal applies to non-authorised products .
A threshold for non-authorised GMOs and for products produced from non-authorised GMOs would undermine all the European Union’s legislation on biosafety .
Member States should encourage and contribute to the drawing up of guides to good segregation practice to be applied by food operators in order to avoid adventitious contamination by genetically modified organisms .
With a view to safeguarding the supply of non-genetically modified foodstuffs and , thereby , consumer choice , many food operators have already introduced effective traceability and segregation systems aimed at avoiding the risk of adventitious contamination by genetically modified organisms .
Guides to good segregation practice based on an analysis of risks at all stages in the food chain , from seed supplier to distributor , have been drawn up and introduced by trade associations .
Encouragement should be given to such guides ( along the lines of the guides to good hygiene practice developed pursuant to the 1993 directive on food hygiene ) aimed at operators wishing to remain below the threshold for adventitious contamination by GMOs .
Risks to the environment may be associated with foods and feed which contain or consist of GMOs .
Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC provides that no product consisting of or containing a GMO may be placed on the market without inter alia a risk assessment having been carried out in accordance with that part of the Directive .
However , that requirement is waived in respect of any product covered by sectoral Community legislation that provides for a specific environmental risk assessment at least equivalent to the environmental risk assessment carried out in accordance with Annexes II and III to that Directive .
This Regulation should satisfy the conditions for the waiver to apply the requirements of that Directive .
It is therefore also necessary that its provisions in regard to risk management , labelling , monitoring , information to the public and safeguard clause , must be at least equivalent to those laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC .
Risks to the environment may be associated with foods and feed which contain or consist of GMOs .
Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC provides that no product consisting of or containing a GMO may be placed on the market without inter alia a risk assessment having been carried out in accordance with that part of the Directive .
Food and feed which also fall within the scope of Directive 2001/18/EC may be authorised only if approval for placing on the market has previously been granted in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC .
In so far as the regulation has the status in future of ‘sectoral legislation’ within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 12 ( 3 ) of Directive 2001/18/EC , the Commission will propose a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council in accordance with these provisions .
Pending the entry into force of that regulation , any GMOs as or in products , in so far as they are authorised by the provisions of this regulation , may be placed on the market only after having been accepted for placing on the market in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC ( third sentence of Article 12 ( 3 ) of Directive 2001/18/EC ) .
This is not a sectoral directive , and cannot therefore be treated as such .
It is also necessary to ensure that the provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC , which were adopted following a lengthy and complicated conciliation procedure between Parliament and the Council last year , are not undermined by this regulation .
The consistency of European legislation must be ensured .
A register of genetically modified food and feed authorised under this Regulation shall be established , including product specific information , studies which demonstrate the safety of the product , and sampling and detection methods ; non-confidential data should be made available to the public .
A register of genetically modified food and feed authorised under this Regulation shall be established , including product specific information , independent , peer-reviewed studies which demonstrate the safety of the product , and sampling and detection methods ; non-confidential data should be made available to the public .
Any study may be useful , but only independent , peer-reviewed studies should be accepted by legislators and public authorities as reliable indicators .
Amendment 13Article 1 , introductory part The objective of this Regulation is: The objective of this Regulation , in accordance with the precautionary principle , is:
This new approach to European Food Policy is stressed both in Commission communication COM ( 2000 ) 0001 of 2 February 2000 on the precautionary principle and in Regulation 178/2002 laying down the general principles of food law ( Article 7 ( 3 ) , Article 7 , and recitals 20 and 21 ) ; and the precautionary principle is also expressly enshrined in Directive 2001/18/EC ( Articles 1 and 4 , and Annex II ) .
For that reason , the precautionary principle should also be enshrined in this proposal for a regulation .
to prevent the unintended presence of material consisting of , containing or produced from GMOs in food and feed .
The need to respect consumers' and producers' freedom of choice means that measures must be taken to ensure the co-existence of GM production and Non-GM production .
The amendment is in line with Action 17 of the Commission Communication 'Life Sciences and biotechnology - A Strategy for Europe' ( COM ( 2002 ) 27 ) which calls for 'agronomic and other measures to ensure the viability of conventional and organic farming and their sustainable coexistence with genetically modified crops' .
the definitions of 'organism' , 'genetically modified organism' ( 'GMO' ) , 'deliberate release' and 'environmental risk assessment' laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC shall apply ; ( 2 ) the definitions of 'organism' , 'genetically modified organism' ( 'GMO' ) , 'deliberate release' and 'environmental risk assessment' laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC shall apply ; this Regulation shall not apply to organisms which have been genetically modified using a technique or method referred to in Annex I B to Directive 2001/18/EC ;
Article 2 ( 2 ) of Directive 2001/18 defines ‘GMO’ .
Article 3 ( 1 ) of the Directive explicitly excludes from its scope organisms obtained through the techniques of genetic modification listed in Annex I B .
In the interests of legal certainty and consistency , the definitions applicable in the fields of traceability and labelling in Directive 2001/18 and in this Regulation must be coherent .
'genetically modified food or feed' means food or feed containing , consisting of or produced from genetically modified organisms ; ( 3 ) 'genetically modified food' means food containing , consisting of or produced from genetically modified organisms ; ( 3a ) 'genetically modified feed' means feed containing , consisting of or produced from genetically modified organisms ;
Clarification of the text , in particular through reference to genetically modified organisms within the meaning of the definition laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC and to the exemption of certain GMOs from the scope of the provisions in accordance with Annex I B of the directive .
'Genetically modified organisms for food use' means a genetically modified organism which is not exempted from the application of Directive 2001/18/EC and that may be used as food or as a source material for the production of food ; ( 4 ) 'Genetically modified organisms for food use' means a genetically modified organism which may be used as food or as a source material for the production of food ;
Article 2 ( 4 ) of this regulation assumes that certain GMOs can be exempted from the authorisation requirement under Directive 2001/18/EC .
There is no such exemption possibility , however , nor should it be possible to introduce one .
'Genetically modified organisms for feed use' means a genetically modified organism which is not exempted from the application of Directive 2001/18/EC and that may be used as feed or as a source material for the production of feed ; ( 5 ) 'Genetically modified organisms for feed use' means a genetically modified organism which may be used as feed or as a source material for the production of feed ;
Article 2 ( 5 ) of this regulation assumes that certain GMOs can be exempted from the authorisation requirement under Directive 2001/18/EC .
There is no such exemption possibility , however , nor should it be possible to introduce one .
'Control sample' means the genetically modified organism or its genetic material ( positive sample ) or the parental organism or its genetic material that has been used for the purpose of the genetic modification ( negative sample ) ;
The parental organism or its genetic material used for the purpose of the genetic modification refers to the negative sample , and the wording must therefore make a clear distinction between it and the positive control sample .
'final consumer' means: - as regards food , anyone who purchases a foodstuff for their personal or private consumption ; - as regards feed , a farmer who purchases , for the purpose of feeding animals intended in any way for human consumption , feeds containing , consisting of or produced from genetically modified organisms .
The term 'final consumer' needs to be defined in the regulation .
food derived from animals fed at any stage with feed consisting of GMOs , containing GMOs , produced from them or containing such ingredients , provided that the feed is labelled in accordance with this Regulation .
The current practice of many operators clearly shows that consumers wish to know whether animal products offered for human consumption stem from animals fed on genetically modified feed .
The regulation should therefore enable operators and consumers to exercise their freedom of choice also with regard to such products .
Consequently , the regulation should require a pre-marketing approval for products derived from animals fed on GM feed and should make the labelling of such products obligatory .
Where necessary , it may be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) whether a type of food falls within the scope of this Section .
Clarifies the grounds for amending the scope of the text through the commitology procedure , and specifies that the regulatory committee cannot decide to exclude a food from the scope of the provisions if it was originally included .
present a risk for human health or the environment , - present a danger to human health or the environment ,
There is no such thing as zero risk ; alternative wording is consistent with that used in Regulation ( EC ) 258/97 , concerning novel foods .
The authorisation referred to in paragraph 2 may cover: - a genetically modified organism and foods containing or consisting of that genetically modified organism as well as foods produced from that genetically modified organism , or - a food produced from or containing an ingredient produced from a genetically modified organism as well as foods produced from or containing that food . The authorisation referred to in paragraph 2 may cover: - foods containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms as well as foods produced from such genetically modified organisms , or - a food produced from or containing an ingredient produced from a genetically modified organism as well as foods produced from or containing that food , or - food derived from animals fed at any stage with feed consisting of , containing or produced from GMOs , provided the feed is labelled in accordance with this regulation . The amendment clarifies that marketing approvals granted under this regulation shall be without prejudice to Community law which addresses aspects other than food safety .
Adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified material Deleted The presence in food of material which contains , consists of or is produced from genetically modified organisms in a proportion no higher than 1 % or lower thresholds established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , shall not be considered to be in breach of Article 4 ( 2 ) , provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable and that the genetically modified material has been subject to a scientific risk assessment made by the relevant Scientific Committee ( s ) or the European Food Authority , which concludes that this material does not present a risk for human health or the environment .
In order to establish that the presence of this material is adventitious or technically unavoidable , operators must be in a position to demonstrate to the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of the genetically modified organisms ( or produce thereof ) .
The threshold provided for in Article 5 applies to non-authorised GMOs .
Such a threshold undermines the European Union's legislation on biosafety .
Under Article 21 ( 2 ) of Directive 2001/18/EC , a maximum threshold may be introduced for 'products where adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of unauthorised GMOs cannot be excluded' .
The threshold for food produced from GMOs authorised in the Community is regulated in new Article 13a ( 1 ) .
The Authority shall acknowledge receipt of the application , in writing , to the applicant within 15 days of its receipt .
The acknowledgement shall state the date of receipt of the application .
The Authority shall acknowledge receipt of the application , in writing , to the applicant within 15 working days of its receipt .
The acknowledgement shall state the date of receipt of the application .
References to time periods are made variously to “X days” , or “Y months” .
Time periods should be described consistently and should , ideally , specify whether the number of days is absolute or “working” days , and in accordance with which Member State’s calendar of Bank Holidays .
 ( ba ) in the case of GMOs for food use , food containing or consisting of GMOs and in accordance with article 14 . 3 of directive 2001/18 , the assessment report indicating the GMO in question may be placed on the market ;
For simplification , this addition to Article 6 ( b ) replaces the provisions of Article 6 . 5 , which can be deleted , as these provisions are covered by the authorisation under Directive 2001/18/EC on deliberate release to the environment .
a copy of the studies , which have been carried out and any other material which is available to demonstrate that the food complies with the criteria laid down in Article 4 ( 1 ) ; ( e ) a copy of the studies , including independent , peer-reviewed studies , which have been carried out and any other material which is available to demonstrate that the food complies with the criteria laid down in Article 4 ( 1 ) ;
Any study may be useful , but only independent , peer-reviewed studies should be accepted by legislators and public authorities as reliable indicators .
a proposal for the labelling of the food or foods produced from it accordance with Article 14 ( 1 ) ;
It is appropriate to have the applicant comment on the type of labelling , in particular as , under Article 7 ( 5 ) ( d ) of the regulation , the European Food Safety Authority is expected to provide a labelling proposal .
information on the place where the reference material or the samples of the applicant are to be made available to authorities and operators in the EU ;
The EFSA and the competent authorities of the Member States ( or monitoring laboratories ) need this information in order to enforce the legislation , but operators also need it in order to be able to monitor and keep a check on their own supplies .
Ready access to the applicant’s samples or reference material is also important to operators in the EU for use in their own checks .
Standardised guidelines serve to make it easier to handle dossiers .
In the case of an application relating to a GMO for food use , references to ‘food’ in paragraph 3 shall be interpreted as referring to food containing , consisting of or produced from the GMO in respect of which an application is made .
In the case of an application relating to a GMO for food use , references to ‘food’ in paragraph 3 shall be interpreted as referring to food containing , consisting of , or produced from the GMO in respect of which an application is made or derived from animals fed with feed consisting of , containing or produced from GMOs if the feed is labelled in accordance with this regulation .
The Regulation should require pre-marketing approval of food derived from animals which have been fed with GMOs 'Food' should therefore also refer to such animal products .
In the case of genetically modified organisms or foods containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms , the application shall also be accompanied by: 5 .
The application shall also be accompanied by: ( a ) the complete technical dossier supplying the information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC or , where the placing on the market of the genetically modified organism has been authorised under part C of Directive 2001/18/EC , a copy of the authorisation decision ; b ) a monitoring plan for environmental effects according to Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC , including a proposal for the time-period of the monitoring plan ; this time-period may be different from the proposed period for the consent .
a monitoring plan for environmental effects according to Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC , including a proposal for the time-period of the monitoring plan ; this time-period may be different from the proposed period for the consent .
In such case , Articles 13 to 24 of Directive 2001/18/EC shall not apply .
In the case of products simply produced from GMOs but containing no GMOs , too , the documents for the GMO authorisation procedure under Directive 2001/18/EC should be examined by the competent authorities .
Furthermore , the regulation should not replace Directive 2001/18/EC , but , rather , complement it .
The Commission , having first consulted the Authority , may establish , in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , implementing rules for the application of this Article .
The Commission , having first consulted the Authority and the competent national offices under Directive 2001/18/EC , shall establish , in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , implementing rules for the application of this Article .
An optional provision must be avoided at all costs so as to counter the risk of a legal vacuum .
The Authority shall publish detailed guidance concerning the preparation and the presentation of the application .
Before the entry into force of this Regulation , the Authority shall publish detailed guidance concerning the preparation and the presentation of the application .
Detailed guidance should be in place before the adoption of the Regulation to assist the application process .
Guides to good segregation practice for food and food ingredients The Member States shall encourage and contribute to the drawing up of guides to good segregation practice to be applied by food operators in order to avoid the risk of adventitious or technically unavoidable contamination of food by genetically modified material .
With a view to safeguarding the supply of non-genetically modified foodstuffs and , thereby , consumer choice , many food operators have already introduced effective traceability and segregation systems aimed at avoiding the risk of adventitious contamination by genetically modified organisms .
Guides to good segregation practice based on an analysis of risks at all stages in the food chain , from seed supplier to distributor , have been drawn up and introduced by trade associations .
Encouragement should be given to such guides ( along the lines of the guides to good hygiene practice developed pursuant to the 1993 directive on food hygiene ) aimed at operators wishing to remain below the threshold for adventitious contamination by GMOs .
The Authority shall within 15 days of its receipt forward the application to the competent authority or authorities of the Member States .
The competent authorities , designated by the Member States , shall forward comments or reasoned objections within four months of the receipt of the application to the Authority which shall immediately circulate them to all competent authorities .
Where the Authority's opinion is not in accordance with the opinion of a competent authority of a Member State , the Authority's opinion shall provide an explanation of the reasons for the differences .
It is essential that the Authority makes full use of the capacity and expertise of the competent authorities of the Member States .
shall make the summary of the dossier mentioned in Article 6 ( 3 ) ( l ) available to the public ; ( c ) shall make the summary of the dossier mentioned in Article 6 ( 3 ) ( l ) available to the public ; it shall also be ensured that , on request , the public has reasonable access to the entire application , excluding confidential information .
An appropriate reference shall be made in connection with publication of the summary ;
Only access to the complete dossier will enable the public to make an informed judgment .
Information which , if circulated , could harm an applicant’s competitive position , must be treated confidentially , however ( see also Article 31 , Confidentiality ) .
may ask a competent authority designated in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2001/18/EC to carry out an environmental risk assessment ; ( e ) shall take account of the results of the environmental risk assessment under Directive 2001/18/EC ;
Necessary environmental risk assessments ( ERAs ) must continue to be carried out by the competent authorities under Directive 2001/18/EC .
The European Food Safety Authority should be called in an advisory capacity .
shall ask the appropriate human and animal health risk assessment body of the Member State in which the person applying for authorisation is established to carry out a human and animal health risk assessment , and shall take due account of the findings of the assessment ;
As with assessments of the environmental risks of GMOs , the Authority should take due account of the findings of human and animal health risk assessments carried out by the relevant bodies .
shall forward to the Community reference laboratory referred to in Article 33 the particulars referred to in Article 6 ( 3 ) ( h ) and ( i ) and shall ask it to test and validate the method of detection and identification proposed by the applicant ; ( f ) shall forward to the Community reference laboratory referred to in Article 33 the particulars referred to in Article 6 ( 3 ) ( i ) and ( j ) .
The reference laboratory shall test and validate the method of detection and identification proposed by the applicant and shall subsequently publish that method ;
Testing and validating detection procedures are the Community laboratory's task .
The wording ‘shall ask it’ is therefore too weak and unclear .
In the case of genetically modified organisms or food containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms falling within the scope of this Section , the evaluation shall respect the environmental safety requirements laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC to ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to prevent the adverse effects on human health and the environment which might arise from the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms .
During evaluation of requests for the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms , the necessary consultations shall be held by the Authority with the bodies set up by the Community and/or the Member States in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC .
In the case of genetically modified organisms or food containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms falling within the scope of this Section , the environmental safety requirements laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC shall apply to the evaluation to ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to prevent the adverse effects on human health and the environment which might arise from the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms .
During evaluation of requests for the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms , the Authority shall give the Commission and the competent national bodies under Directive 2001/18/EC a decisive role along similar lines to the provisions in Directive 2001/18/EC .
In general , appraisals of the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms must be made in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC .
The competent national bodies under Directive 2001/18/EC must be involved in a decisive way in evaluating applications for placing on the market .
where appropriate , any conditions or restrictions which should be imposed on the supply or use of the food and/or foods produced from it , including post-market monitoring requirements based on the outcome of the risk assessment ; ( e ) where appropriate , any conditions or restrictions which should be imposed on the supply or use of the food and/or foods produced from it , including post-market monitoring requirements based on the outcome of the risk assessment and effective measures to prevent the unintended presence of the food or foods produced from it in other products ;
The need to respect consumers' and producers' freedom of choice means that measures must be taken to ensure the co-existence of GM production and Non-GM production .
The amendment is in line with Action 17 of the Commission Communication 'Life Sciences and biotechnology - A Strategy for Europe' ( COM ( 2002 ) 27 ) which calls for 'agronomic and other measures to ensure the viability of conventional and organic farming and their sustainable coexistence with genetically modified crops' .
a method for detection , including sampling and identification of the transformation event and , where applicable , for the detection and identification of the transformation event in the food and/or in foods produced from it ; ( f ) the method , validated by the reference laboratory , for detection , including sampling , access to appropriate reference material , identification of the sequence of the transformation event and , where applicable , for the detection and identification of the transformation event in the food and/or in foods produced from it or with it ;
The EFSA and the competent authorities of the Member States ( or monitoring laboratories ) need this information in order to enforce the legislation , but operators also need it in order to be able to monitor and keep a check on their own supplies .
information as to where the reference material or the samples of the applicant are to be made available to operators in the EU and for analytical purposes ;
Ready access to the applicant’s samples or reference material is important to operators in the EU for use in their own checks and to test their supplies of raw materials for possible GMO origin .
The Authority shall forward its opinion to the Commission , the Member States and the applicant , including a report describing its assessment of the food and stating the reasons for its opinion .
The Authority shall forward its opinion to the Commission , the Member States , the appropriate national food safety , environmental risk and human and animal health risk assessment authorities or bodies and the applicant , including a report describing its assessment of the food and stating the reasons for its opinion .
Given that the appropriate bodies in the two areas referred to have been consulted , it seems paradoxical for them not to receive a copy of the Authority's opinion .
The Authority shall make its opinion public , after deletion of any information identified as confidential , in accordance with Article 31 .
The public may make comments to the Commission within 30 days from this publication .
The Authority shall also immediately make public its opinion , the assessment report and the grounds for the opinion .
The public may make comments to the Commission within 3 months from this publication .
Reference shall be made to the possibility for the public to have access to the entire application , excluding confidential information .
To make an informed judgment , the public must have access to all significant documents relating to the authorisation procedure .
In the process , the information which , if circulated , could harm the applicant’s competitive position , must be treated confidentially .
Save in exceptionally complex cases , within three months of receipt of the opinion of the Authority , the Commission shall prepare a draft of the decision to be taken in respect of the application , taking into account Community law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration .
Where the draft decision is not in accordance with the opinion of the Authority , the Commission shall provide an explanation of the reasons for the differences .
Save in exceptionally complex cases , within three months of receipt of the opinion of the Authority , the Commission shall prepare a draft of the decision to be taken in respect of the application , taking into account Community law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration .
Where the draft decision is not in accordance with the opinion of the Authority , the Commission shall give reasons for taking a decision that differs from the Authority's opinion .
The Commission's draft decision shall be immediately made public .
Where the Commission's decision differs from the Authority's opinion , the Commission should state exactly why it took that decision .
The draft decision shall also include the opinions of the authorities required to be consulted in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC .
With a view to fully informing consumers , all aspects taken into account in drawing up the opinion of the Food Safety Authority must be incorporated into the authorisation .
A final decision on the application shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) .
The public shall be given access to the issues discussed in connection with the risk management decision and the result of the vote .
The decision must be transparent and comprehensible .
The Commission shall without delay inform the applicant of the decision taken .
The decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities .
The Commission shall without delay inform the applicant of the decision taken ; it shall also , at the earliest opportunity , notify its decision to the European Parliament , the Member States and the appropriate food safety , environmental risk and human and animal health risk assessment authorities or bodies .
The authorisation granted in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Regulation shall be valid throughout the Community for ten years and shall be renewable in accordance with Article 12 .
The authorised food shall be entered in the Register referred to in Article 30 .
Each entry in the Register shall mention the date of authorisation and shall include the particulars referred to in paragraph 2 .
Without prejudice to the procedure provided for in Article 11 , the authorisation granted in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Regulation shall , throughout the Community , terminate after ten years and shall be renewable in accordance with Article 12 .
Each entry in the Register shall mention the date of authorisation and shall include the particulars referred to in paragraph 2 and shall indicate how and where interested members of the public can access the files relating to the application for authorisation , including the evaluation by the Authority , the opinions of the national bodies , the local authorities and public opinion , as well as the issues discussed in the context of the decision on risk management and the outcome of the vote .
Clarification of the text , with a view to avoiding any risk of conflicting with Article 11 .
The documents accessible to the public must include the opinions delivered by the local authorities .
within one year of the entry into force of this Regulation , the Authority shall , after verification that all the information required has been submitted , notify the Commission that it has received the information required under this Article .
The product concerned shall be entered in the Register .
Each entry in the Register shall mention the date at which the concerned product was first placed on the market and shall include the particulars referred to in Article 8 ( 2 ) as appropriate .
within one year of the entry into force of this Regulation , the Authority shall , after verification that all the information required has been submitted , notify the Commission that it has received the information required under this Article .
The Register entry shall also include the indication as to how and where the public can have access to the application dossier and information submitted subsequently , including the Authority’s assessment and , where applicable , opinions by national bodies and by the public , plus the issues discussed and results of votes in connection with risk management .
The product register provided for in Article 9 should also contain information on public bodies from which , where appropriate , product information can be obtained .
Where the notification and accompanying particulars referred to in paragraph 1 ( a ) are not supplied within the period specified or are found to be incorrect , or where an application is not submitted as required by paragraph 2 within the period specified , the Commission , acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , shall adopt a measure requiring the product concerned and any products derived from it to be withdrawn from the market .
Such a measure may provide for a limited period of time within which existing stocks of the product may be used up .
A product either presents a potential danger or it does not .
If it does , or gives reasonable grounds for concern that it may do , then there can be no justification for delaying its withdrawal .
After an authorisation has been issued in accordance with this Regulation , the authorisation-holder shall comply with any conditions or restrictions which have been imposed in the authorisation .
Where post-market monitoring as referred to in Article 6 ( 3 ) ( k ) and Article 6 ( 5 ) ( b ) has been imposed on the authorisation-holder , he shall ensure that it is carried out and shall submit reports to the Authority in accordance with the authorisation .
After an authorisation has been issued in accordance with this Regulation , all parties concerned shall comply with any conditions or restrictions which have been imposed in the authorisation .
The monitoring reports , excluding confidential information , shall be made accessible to the public .
In order to provide maximum protection and ensure maximum clarity , all parties concerned and not only the authorisation-holder must bear responsibility for compliance with conditions attached to the authorisation .
It is essential to ensure public accessibility , excluding confidential information , even after authorisation has been issued .
The authorisation-holder shall forthwith inform the Authority of any new scientific or technical information which might influence the evaluation of the safety in use of the food .
In particular , the authorisation-holder shall forthwith inform the Authority of any prohibition or restriction imposed by the competent authority of any third country in which the food is placed on the market .
The Authority shall examine the information forwarded and shall notify the Commission and the Member States .
The information forwarded shall be made accessible to the public .
Involvement of the Member States and the public must be ensured at all stages of the process of placing a product on the market .
Where , on its own initiative or following a request from a Member State or from the Commission , the Authority is of the opinion that an authorisation granted in accordance with this Regulation should be modified , suspended or revoked , it shall forthwith transmit this opinion to the Commission .
The opinion shall be made accessible to interested members of the public .
The authorisation-holder has a right to be informed of the intention to modify or revoke the authorisation .
Even in the event of authorisation being revoked , suspended or modified , the Authority shall be obliged to communicate the fact to the local authorities .
The Commission shall examine the opinion of the Authority as soon as possible and prepare a draft of the decision to be taken .
The draft shall be made accessible to the public .
Public accessibility must be ensured .
The Commission shall without delay inform the authorisation-holder of the decision taken .
The decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities .
The Register shall be amended as appropriate .
The public shall be given access to the issues discussed and results of votes in connection with the risk management decision .
Public accessibility must be ensured .
a report on the results of the monitoring , if so specified in the authorisation ; ( b ) a report on the results of the post-market monitoring of the use of food for human consumption , if so specified in the authorisation in accordance with Article 6 ( 3 ) ( k ) of this Regulation ;
Clarification of the text .
any other new information which has become available with regard to the evaluation of the safety in use of the food and the risks of the food to the consumer or the environment ; ( c ) without prejudice to the obligations laid down in Article 10 ( 3 ) , any other new information which has become available with regard to the evaluation of the safety in use of the food and the risks of the food to the consumer or the environment ;
Intended to avoid a conflict between Article 10 ( 3 ) and Article 12 ( 2 ) ( c )
Where , for reasons beyond the control of the authorisation-holder , no decision is taken on the renewal of an authorisation before its expiry date , the period of authorisation of the product shall automatically be extended until the Commission takes a decision .
Where , for reasons beyond the control of the authorisation-holder , no decision is taken on the renewal of an authorisation before its expiry date , the authorisation of the product shall automatically be extended by one year .
Self-explanatory .
are derived from animals which have received feed which is labelled in accordance with the provisions of this regulation .
In order to ensure that consumers are informed and can choose freely , the labelling of GMO products must be as comprehensive as possible .
This Section shall not apply to processing aids .
This amendment not only promotes enforceability and prevention of fraud , it also aims to prevent a situation in which practically all foods will have to be labelled and the labelling exercise does not achieve its aim of providing choice to consumers .
In order to establish that the presence of this material is adventitious or technically unavoidable , operators must be in a position to supply evidence to satisfy the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of the genetically modified organisms ( or produce thereof ) .
The Commission shall draw up a list of criteria for determining these ‘appropriate steps’ .
This is essential in order to ensure legal certainty for all parties concerned .
Adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified material 1 .
There shall not be any requirement to label in accordance with this section foods which contain material produced from genetically modified organisms in a proportion no higher than 0 . 5% or a lower threshold established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable .
In order to establish that the presence of this material is adventitious or technically unavoidable , operators must be in a position to supply evidence to satisfy the competent authorities that they have taken all appropriate steps to avoid the presence of genetically modified organisms ( or products derived from them or obtained with the aid of a GMO ) .
In cooperation with the Authority , the Member States and the local authorities , the Commission shall lay down appropriate measures to ensure that the utmost care is taken and to avoid contamination .
Standard criteria for assessing ‘adventitious and technically unavoidable contamination’ shall be defined .
a threshold may be introduced for ‘products where adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of authorised GMOs cannot be excluded’ .
In contrast , the threshold put forward in Article 5 of the proposal applies to non-authorised products .
A threshold for non-authorised GMOs and for products produced from non-authorised GMOs would undermine all the European Union’s legislation on biosafety .
The last sentence is important because for example maize protein is contaminated with various Bt-maize varieties and herbicide-resistant maize varieties , so that the possible sources of contamination could continually multiply .
If the threshold applies to each individual contaminant , the total contamination could therefore be higher .
Local authorities must be included among the bodies responsible for ensuring the utmost care and avoiding contamination .
Where the food consists of more than one ingredient , the words ‘genetically modified’ or ‘produced from genetically modified [name of organism] but not containing a genetically modified organism’ shall appear in the list of ingredients provided for in Article 6 of Directive 2000/13/EC in parentheses immediately following the ingredient concerned .
Alternatively , these words may appear in a footnote to the list of ingredients . It shall be printed in a font of at least the same size as the list of ingredients .
Where the food consists of more than one ingredient , the words ‘genetically modified’ or ‘produced from genetically modified [name of organism] or 'produced from animals fed with genetically modified organisms' or 'produced with the aid of genetically modified ( name of organism )' or 'product obtained from animals fed with feed obtained with the aid of a genetically modified organism' shall appear in the list of ingredients provided for in Article 6 of Directive 2000/13/EC in parentheses immediately following the ingredient concerned , in a font at least as large as that in which the ingredient's name appears .
Alternatively , these words may appear in a footnote to the list of ingredients . It shall be printed in a font of at least the same size as the list of ingredients .
In order to enable consumers to make an informed choice , the print must be sufficiently large and easy to read .
The proposal for a regulation under consideration must not concentrate exclusively on regulating the traceability of GMOs and food and feed obtained from them , but must also consider food and feed obtained with a GMO .
In fact , an enzyme , like any other molecule which accelerates the chemical process of transformation , plays an active role in all the various chemical and molecular reactions which the production of the food product entails and hence the principle of substantial equivalence of two end products cannot be applied , if one is obtained in a natural manner and the other with a GMO , because in any event they are unnatural substances for which at present there is no experimental evidence that they may lead to the production of identical foodstuffs , either organoleptically or as regards taste , flavour , etc .
It is therefore fair that the rules on labelling and traceability of GMOs should also apply to products obtained with a GMO .
Where the ingredient is designated by the name of a category , the words ‘contains [name of ingredient] produced from genetically modified [name of organism] but not containing a genetically modified organism’ shall appear in the list of ingredients .
Where the ingredient is designated by the name of a category , the words ‘contains [name of ingredient] produced from genetically modified [name of organism]’ or ‘contains [name of ingredient] produced from animals fed with genetically modified organisms’ shall appear in the list of ingredients printed in a font at least the same size as the list of ingredients .
The purpose of the amendment is to make labelling clearer .
Consumer irritation should be avoided .
The print must be sufficiently large and easy to read .
Where there is no list of ingredients , the words ‘genetically modified’ or ‘produced from genetically modified [name of organism] but not containing a genetically modified organism’ shall appear clearly on the labelling .
Where there is no list of ingredients , the words ‘genetically modified’ or ‘produced from genetically modified [name of organism]’ or ‘contains [name of ingredient] produced from animals fed with genetically modified organisms’ shall appear clearly on the labelling in a font sufficiently large to enable them to be easily identified and read .
The purpose of the amendment is to make labelling clearer .
Ingredients derived from animals fed with GMOs should be labelled accordingly .
The print must be sufficiently large and easy to read .
Where the food is offered for sale to the ultimate consumer or to mass caterers without pre-packaging , the information required under this paragraph must be displayed on or in connection with the display of the food .
Where the food is offered for sale to the ultimate consumer or to mass caterers without pre-packaging , or in small pre-package containers , the information required under this paragraph must be permanently and visibly displayed either on the food display or right next to it , or on the packaging material , in a font sufficiently large for it to be easily identified and read .
Labelling must be clear , so as to prevent any confusion on the part of consumers about the goods they are purchasing .
Furthermore , in order to enable consumers to make an informed choice , the print must be sufficiently large and easy to read .
Where a food is not equivalent to its conventional counterpart as regards: ( a ) Where a food is not equivalent to its conventional counterpart as regards these characteristics or properties: - composition , - composition , - nutritional value or nutritional effects , - nutritional value or nutritional effects , - intended use of the food , - intended use of the food , - implications for the health of certain sections of the population . - implications for the health of certain sections of the population .
Where necessary , it may be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) whether a type of feed falls within the scope of this Section .
a genetically modified organism and feed containing or consisting of that genetically modified organism as well as feed produced from that genetically modified organism , or - feed containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms as well as feed produced from such genetically modified organisms , or
The amendment clarifies that marketing approvals granted under this Regulation address the food and feed safety aspect of genetically modified food and feed whereas the release of GMOs into the environment is covered by Directive 90/220/EEC which as of 17 October 2002 will be replaced by Directive 2001/18/EC .
Adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified material Deleted The presence in feed of material which contains , consists of or is produced from genetically modified organisms in a proportion no higher than 1 % or lower thresholds established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , shall not be considered to be in breach of Article 17 ( 2 ) , provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable and that the genetically modified material has been subject to a scientific risk assessment made by the relevant Scientific Committee ( s ) or the European Food Authority , which concludes that this material does not present a risk for human health , animal health or the environment .
In order to establish that the presence of this material is adventitious or technically unavoidable , operators must be in a position to demonstrate to the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of the genetically modified organisms ( or produce thereof ) .
The threshold provided for in Article 18 applies to non-authorised GMOs .
Such a threshold undermines the European Union’s legislation on biosafety .
Under Article 21 ( 2 ) of Directive 2001/18/EC , a threshold may be introduced for ‘products where adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of authorised GMOs cannot be excluded’ .
The threshold for GMOs authorised in the Community is regulated in new Article 26a ( 1 ) .
a copy of the studies which have been carried out and any other material which is available to demonstrate that the feed referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) complies with the criteria laid down in Article 17 ( 1 ) , and in particular for feed falling within the scope of Directive 82/471/EEC , the information required under Directive 83/228/EEC on the fixing of guidelines for the assessment of certain products used in animal nutrition ; ( e ) a copy of the studies , including independent , peer-reviewed studies which have been carried out and any other material which is available to demonstrate that the feed referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) complies with the criteria laid down in Article 17 ( 1 ) , and in particular for feed falling within the scope of Directive 82/471/EEC , the information required under Directive 83/228/EEC on the fixing of guidelines for the assessment of certain products used in animal nutrition ;
Any study may be useful , but only peer-reviewed studies should be accepted by legislators and authorities as a basis for decision-making .
either an analysis , supported by appropriate information and data , demonstrating that the feed referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) is not different to a conventional feed , having regard to the criteria specified in Article 27 ( 3 ) ( c ) , or a proposal for labelling the feed referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) in accordance with Article 27 ( 3 ) ( c ) and ( 4 ) ; ( f ) a proposal for labelling the feed referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) consisting of , containing or produced from genetically modified organisms in accordance with Article 27 ( 3 ) ( a ) , ( c )and ( 4 ) ;
It is appropriate to have the applicant comment on the type of labelling , in particular as , under Article 20 ( 5 ) ( d ) of the Regulation , the European Food Safety Authority is expected to provide a labelling proposal .
information on the place where the reference material or the samples of the applicant are to be made available to authorities and operators in the EU ;
The EFSA and the competent authorities of the Member States ( or monitoring laboratories ) need this information in order to enforce the legislation , but operators also need it in order to be able to monitor and keep a check on their own supplies .
Ready access to the applicant’s samples or reference material is also important to operators in the EU for use in their own checks .
Standardised guidelines serve to make it easier to handle dossiers .
For genetically modified organisms and feed referred to respectively in Article 16 ( 1 ) ( a ) and ( b ) , the application shall also be accompanied by: 5 .
The application shall also be accompanied by: ( a ) the complete technical dossier supplying the information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC or , where the placing on the market of the genetically modified organism has been authorised under Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC , a copy of the authorisation decision ; ( b ) a monitoring plan for environmental effects according to Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC , including a proposal for the time-period of the monitoring plan ; this time-period may be different from the proposed period for the consent .
a monitoring plan for environmental effects according to Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC , including a proposal for the time-period of the monitoring plan ; this time-period may be different from the proposed period for the consent .
In the case of products simply produced from GMOs but containing no GMOs , too , the documents for the GMO authorisation procedure under Directive 2001/18/EC should be examined by the competent authorities .
That is the purpose of the proposed amendments in the introductory clause and subparagraph ( a ) .
Furthermore , the regulation should not replace Directive 2001/18/EC , but , rather , complement it .
The Commission , having first consulted the Authority , may establish , in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , implementing rules for the application of this Article .
The Commission , having first consulted the Authority and the competent national offices under Directive 2001/18/EC , shall establish , in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , implementing rules for the application of this Article .
JustificationAn optional provision must be avoided at all costs so as to counter the risk of a legal vacuum .
The Authority shall within 15 days of its receipt forward the application to the competent authority or authorities of the Member States .
The competent authorities , designated by the Member States , shall forward comments or reasoned objections within four months of the receipt of the application to the Authority which shall immediately circulate them to all competent authorities .
Where the Authority's opinion is not in accordance with the opinion of a competent authority of a Member State , the Authority's opinion shall provide an explanation of the reasons for the differences
It is essential that the Authority makes full use of the capacity and expertise of the competent authorities of the Member States .
shall make the summary of the dossier mentioned in Article 19 ( 3 ) ( l ) available to the public ; ( c ) shall make the summary of the dossier mentioned in Article 19 ( 3 ) ( l ) available to the public ; it shall also be ensured that , on request , the public has reasonable access to the entire application , excluding confidential information .
An appropriate reference shall be made in connection with publication of the summary ;
Only access to the complete dossier will enable the public to make an informed judgment .
Information which , if circulated , could harm an applicant’s competitive position , must be treated confidentially , however ( see also Article 31 , Confidentiality ) .
may ask the appropriate feed assessment body of a Member State to carry out a safety assessment of the feed referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) ; ( d ) shall ask the appropriate feed assessment body of the Member State in which the person applying for authorisation is established to carry out a safety assessment of the feed referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) , and shall take due account of the findings of the assessment ;
As with environmental risk assessments , the Authority should take due account of the findings of food safety assessments carried out by the appropriate bodies .
may ask a competent authority designated in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2001/18/EC to carry out an environmental risk assessment ; ( c ) shall take account of the results of the environmental risk assessment under Directive 2001/18/EC ;
Necessary environmental risk assessments ( ERAs ) must continue to be carried out by the competent authorities under Directive 2001/18/EC .
shall ask the appropriate human and animal health risk assessment body of the Member State in which the person applying for authorisation is established to carry out a human and animal health risk assessment , and shall take due account of the findings of the assessment ;
As with assessments of the environmental risks of GMOs , the Authority should take due account of the findings of human and animal health risk assessments carried out by the appropriate bodies .
shall forward to the Community reference laboratory referred to in Article 33 the particulars referred to in Article 19 ( 3 ) ( i ) and ( j ) and shall ask it to test and validate the method of detection and identification proposed by the applicant ; ( f ) shall forward to the Community reference laboratory referred to in Article 33 the particulars referred to in Article 19 ( 3 ) ( i ) and ( j ) .
The reference laboratory shall test and validate the method of detection and identification proposed by the applicant and shall subsequently publish that method ;
Testing and validating detection procedures are the Community laboratory's tasks .
The wording ‘shall ask it’ is therefore too weak and unclear .
During evaluation of requests for the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms , the necessary consultations shall be held by the Authority with the bodies set up by the Community and/or the Member States in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC .
In the case of genetically modified organisms and feed referred to respectively in Article 16 ( 1 ) ( a ) and ( b ) , the environmental safety requirements laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC shall apply to the evaluation to ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to prevent the adverse effects on human and animal health and the environment which might arise from the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms .
During evaluation of requests for the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms , the Commission and the national and local authorities competent within the meaning of Directive 2001/18/EC shall be involved by the Authority in accordance with the provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC .
During the evaluation of requests the Authority must take account of the contribution of the local authorities .
where appropriate , any conditions or restrictions which should be imposed on the placing on the market , including specific conditions or restrictions for use and handling , including post-market monitoring requirements based on the outcome of the risk assessment ; ( e ) where appropriate , any conditions or restrictions which should be imposed on the placing on the market , including specific conditions or restrictions for use and handling , including post-market monitoring requirements based on the outcome of the risk assessment and effective measures to prevent the unintended presence of the feed or feed produced from it in other feed products ;
The need to respect consumers' and producers' freedom of choice means that measures must be taken to ensure the co-existence of GM production and Non-GM production .
The amendment is in line with Action 17 of the Commission Communication 'Life Sciences and biotechnology - A Strategy for Europe' ( COM ( 2002 ) 27 ) which calls for 'agronomic and other measures to ensure the viability of conventional and organic farming and their sustainable coexistence with genetically modified crops' .
a method for detection , including sampling and identification of the transformation event and , where applicable , for the detection and identification of the transformation event in the feed referred to in Article 16 ( l ) ; ( f ) the method , validated by the reference laboratory , for detection , including sampling and identification of the transformation event and , where applicable , for the detection and identification of the transformation event in the feed referred to in Article 16 ( l ) ;
information on the place where the reference material or the samples of the applicant are to be made available to operators in the EU ;
The EFSA and the competent authorities of the Member States ( or monitoring laboratories ) need this information in order to enforce the legislation , but operators also need it in order to be able to monitor and keep a check on their own supplies .
Ready access to the applicant’s samples or reference material is also important to operators in the EU for use in their own checks .
The Authority shall forward its opinion to the Commission , the Member States and the applicant , including a report describing its assessment of the feed referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) and stating the reasons for its opinion .
The Authority shall forward its opinion to the Commission , the Member States , the appropriate national food safety , environmental risk and human and animal health risk assessment authorities or bodies and the applicant , including a report describing its assessment of the feed referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) and stating the reasons for its opinion .
Given that the appropriate bodies in the two areas referred to have been consulted , it seems paradoxical for them not to receive a copy of the Authority's opinion .
The Authority shall make its opinion public , after deletion of any information identified as confidential , in accordance with Article 31 .
The public may make comments to the Commission within 30 days from this publication .
The Authority shall also immediately make public its opinion , the assessment report and the grounds for the opinion .
Reference shall be made to the possibility for the public to have access to the entire application , excluding confidential information .
To make an informed judgment , the public must have access to all significant documents relating to the authorisation procedure .
In the process , information which , if circulated , could harm the applicant’s competitive position must be treated confidentially .
Amendment 93Article 20 , paragraph 8 Before the entry into application of this Regulation , the Commission shall publish a recommendation on the nature of the risk assessment to be undertaken by the Authority for the purpose of preparing its opinion .
The Authority should decide itself on the nature of the risk assessment it is to undertake for the purpose of preparing its opinion .
Save in exceptionally complex cases , within three months of receipt of the opinion of the Authority , the Commission shall prepare a draft of the decision to be taken in respect of the application , taking into account Community law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration .
Where the draft decision is not in accordance with the opinion of the Authority , the Commission shall provide an explanation of the reasons for the differences .
Save in exceptionally complex cases , within three months of receipt of the opinion of the Authority , the Commission shall prepare a draft of the decision to be taken in respect of the application , taking into account Community law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration .
The Commission’s draft decision shall be immediately made public .
It is important that the public should have access to the information . That should be ensured as early as at the draft stage .
The draft decision shall also include the opinions of the authorities required to be consulted in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC .
A final decision on the application shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) .
The public shall be given access to the issues discussed in connection with the risk management decision and the result of the vote .
The decision must be transparent and comprehensible .
The Commission shall without delay inform the applicant of the decision taken .
The Commission shall without delay inform the applicant of the decision taken ; it shall also , at the earliest opportunity , notify its decision to the European Parliament , the Member States and the appropriate food safety , environmental risk and human and animal health risk assessment authorities or bodies .
The authorisation granted in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Regulation shall be valid throughout the Community for ten years and shall be renewable in accordance with Article 25 .
The authorised feed shall be entered in the Register referred to in Article 30 .
Without prejudice to the procedure provided for in Article 24 , the authorisation granted in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Regulation shall , throughout the Community , terminate after ten years and shall be renewable in accordance with Article 25 .
Each entry in the Register shall mention the date of authorisation and shall include the particulars referred to in paragraph 2 and shall indicate how and where interested members of the public can access the files relating to the application for authorisation , including the evaluation by the Authority , the opinions of the national bodies , the local authorities and public opinion , as well as the issues discussed in the context of the decision on risk management and the outcome of the vote .
within one year of the entry into force of this Regulation , the Authority shall , after verification that all the information required has been submitted , notify the Commission that it has received the information required under this Article .
within one year of the entry into force of this Regulation , the Authority shall , after verification that all the information required has been submitted , notify the Commission that it has received the information required under this Article .
Each entry in the Register shall mention the date at which the concerned products were first placed on the market and shall include the particulars referred to in Article 21 ( 2 ) as appropriate .
The Register entry shall also include the indication as to how and where the public can have access to the application dossier and information submitted subsequently , including the Authority’s assessment and , where applicable , opinions by national bodies and by the public , plus the issues discussed and results of votes in connection with risk management .
The product register provided for in Article 22 should also contain information on public bodies from which , where appropriate , product information can be obtained .
Where the notification and accompanying particulars referred to in paragraph 1 ( a ) are not supplied within the period specified or are found to be incorrect , or where an application is not submitted as required by paragraph 2 within the period specified , the Commission , acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , shall adopt a measure requiring the product concerned and any products derived from it to be withdrawn from the market .
Such a measure may provide for a limited period of time within which existing stocks of the product may be used up .
If it does , or gives reasonable grounds for concern that it may do , then there can be no justification for delaying its withdrawal .
After an authorisation has been issued in accordance with this Regulation , the authorisation-holder shall comply with any conditions or restrictions which have been imposed in the authorisation .
Where post-market monitoring as referred to in Article 19 ( 3 ) ( k ) and Article 19 ( 5 ) ( b ) has been imposed on the authorisation-holder , he shall ensure that it is carried out and shall submit reports to the Authority in accordance with the authorisation .
After an authorisation has been issued in accordance with this Regulation , all parties concerned shall comply with any conditions or restrictions which have been imposed in the authorisation .
The monitoring reports , excluding confidential information , shall be made accessible to the public .
In order to ensure maximum legal certainty , all parties concerned and not only the authorisation-holder must bear responsibility for compliance with conditions attached to the authorisation .
It is essential to ensure public accessibility , excluding confidential information , even after authorisation has been issued .
The authorisation-holder shall forthwith inform the Authority of any new scientific or technical information which might influence the evaluation of the safety in use of the feed referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) .
In particular , the authorisation-holder shall forthwith inform the Authority of any prohibition or restriction imposed by the competent authority of any third country in which the feed referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) is placed on the market .
The Authority shall examine the information forwarded and inform the Commission , the Member States and the local authorities .
The information forwarded shall be made accessible to interested members of the public .
Once the information received has been checked , the Authority shall be obliged to communicate it to the local authorities too .
Where , on its own initiative or following a request from a Member State or from the Commission , the Authority is of the opinion that an authorisation granted in accordance with this Regulation should be modified , suspended or revoked , it shall forthwith transmit this opinion to the Commission , the authorisation-holder , the Member States and the local authorities .
The opinion shall be made accessible to interested members of the public .
JustificationThe authorisation-holder has a right to be informed of the intention to modify or revoke the authorisation .
Even in the event of authorisation being revoked , suspended or modified , the Authority shall be obliged to communicate the fact to the local authorities .
The Commission shall examine the opinion of the Authority as soon as possible and prepare a draft of the decision to be taken .
The draft shall be made accessible to the public .
The Commission shall without delay inform the authorisation-holder of the decision taken .
The Commission shall without delay inform the authorisation-holder of the decision taken .
It shall also , at the earliest opportunity , notify its decision to the European Parliament , the Member States and the appropriate food safety , environmental risk and human and animal health risk assessment authorities or bodies .
The public shall be given access to the issues discussed and results of votes in connection with the risk management decision .
This Section shall not apply to feed containing , consisting of or produced from genetically modified organisms in a proportion no higher than the thresholds established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable .
In establishing the lowest achievable tolerance level , the most recent state of science and technology shall be taken into account .
Thresholds for the labelling of GMO derivatives should be established in comitology , taking into account the most recent state of science and technology .
In order to establish that the presence of this feed is adventitious or technically unavoidable , operators must be in a position to supply evidence to satisfy the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of the genetically modified organisms ( or produce thereof ) .
Article 26 ( 2 ) has been replaced by new Article 26a , ‘Adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified material’ .
Feed containing material produced from genetically modified organisms in a proportion no higher than 0 . 5% or lower maximum values established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , need not be labelled in accordance with this Section , provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable .
In order to establish that the presence of this material is adventitious or technically unavoidable , operators must be in a position to supply evidence to satisfy the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of genetically modified organisms in products produced from them .
In cooperation with the Authority and Member States , the Commission shall lay down appropriate measures to be complied with to ensure that the utmost care is taken and to avoid contamination , so as to guarantee a uniform assessment of ‘adventitious and technically unavoidable contamination’ or , as the case may be , to create the same basis for this to be established .
 , a threshold may be introduced for ‘products where adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of authorised GMOs cannot be excluded’ .
In contrast , the threshold put forward in Article 5 of the proposal applies to non-authorised products .
A threshold for non-authorised GMOs and for products produced from non-authorised GMOs would undermine all the European Union’s legislation on biosafety .
No person shall place a feed referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) on the market unless he ensures that the particulars specified below are shown , in a clearly visible , legible and indelible manner , on an accompanying document or , where appropriate , on the packaging , on the container or on a label attached thereto: 3 .
To protect farmers , feed coming within the scope of this regulation must be clearly labelled .
A reference on accompanying documents is not enough .
for feed produced from genetically modified organisms: “produced from genetically modified [name of the feed from which the feed is produced] but not containing a genetically modified organism” ; - for feed produced from genetically modified organisms: “produced from genetically modified [name of the feed from which the feed is produced]” ;
The purpose of the amendment is to make labelling clear .
Irritations are to be avoided .
for feed referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) ( b ) the name of the feed shall be accompanied by the relevant unique code as established in Regulation ( EC )…/… of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms ; ( b ) for feed referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) ( b ) the name of the feed on the packaging , containers , a label or an accompanying document shall be accompanied by the relevant unique code as established in Regulation ( EC )…/… of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms or obtained with the aid of a genetically modified organism ;
Where the feed consists of more than one ingredient and is a compound feeding stuff as defined in Council Directive 79/373/EEC as amended , the words ”genetically modified” or ”produced from genetically modified [name of organism]” shall appear in the list of ingredients , provided for in Article 5c of that Directive , in parentheses immediately following the ingredient concerned .
Alternatively , these words may appear in a footnote to the list of ingredients . It shall be printed in a font at least the same size as the list of ingredients .
JustificationTo be consistent with the corresponding proposal on compound foods ( Article 14 ( a ) of the Commission’s proposal ) and to take into account relevant legislation on the labelling of animal feed .
In addition to the requirements laid down in paragraph 3 ( a ) and ( b ) and as specified in the authorisation , the labelling or accompanying documents of feed falling within the scope of this Section which do not have a conventional counterpart shall contain appropriate information about the nature and the characteristics of the feed concerned .
The Commission shall ensure that the requirements arising from the directives , regulations and administrative provisions concerning the evaluation and authorisation of food and feed and of raw materials intended for their production are no less rigorous for products imported into the European Union , in order to avoid the creation of unequal and unfair conditions of competition .
The word 'may' must not be used , as it is likely to create legal uncertainty .
The register shall include information on the method ( s ) validated by the Community reference laboratory , pursuant to Articles 7 ( 3 ) ( f ) and 20 ( 3 ) ( f ) , and on the methods used by the national reference laboratories .
All the methods used by the reference laboratories in the context of monitoring and implementation by the Member States should be made public .
In particular , where a method has not been validated reliable information must be provided on the different methods used , in order to avoid confusion .
Where a Member State , as a result of new information or a reassessment of existing information , has detailed grounds for considering that the use of a food or feed authorised in accordance with this Regulation endangers human health , animal health or the environment , it may provisionally restrict or prohibit the use and/or sale of the food or feed on its territory , as well as suspending or otherwise restricting the import thereto or export therefrom , of the food or feed in question until a final decision is taken in accordance with Article 11 or Article 24 , as appropriate .
In the event of force majeure , the Member States must be in a position to take rapid decisions and apply the precautionary principle on their territory .
The wording corresponds to the safeguard clause laid down in Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC .
It is imperative that member state authorities be allowed to act swiftly .
This in no way interferes with their , or the Commission's , ability to take more considered steps at a later date .
If the Commission , following information received from a Member State pursuant to paragraph 1 or on its own initiative , considers that emergency measures are necessary , it may adopt them in accordance with Article 36 ( 3 ) .
These emergency measures may remain in place until a final decision is taken in accordance with Article 11 or Article 24 , as appropriate .
Member States shall ensure that , in the event of a severe risk , emergency measures , such as suspension or termination of the placing on the market , shall be applied , including information to the public . The Member State shall immediately inform the Commission , the Authority and the other Member States of actions taken under this Article and give reasons for its decision and the new information or new assessment on which its decision is based , indicating whether and how the conditions of the consent should be amended or the consent should be terminated .
A decision on this shall be taken within three months in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 3 ) .
In the event of force majeure , Member States must be in a position to take decisions quickly and apply the precautionary principle within their territory .
The emergency clause of the Novel Food Regulation ( EC ) No 258/97 allows Member States to restrict or suspend trade in and use of novel food if the Member State has "detailed grounds for considering that the use of the novel food or food ingredient endangers human health or the environment .
" The clause which will continue to apply to novel foods and food ingredients should remain unchanged .
 ( a ) In the case of a genetically modified variety as referred to in Article 4 ( 4 ) an environmental risk assessment equivalent to that laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC shall be carried out .
 ( b ) Until a European Parliament and Council Regulation , referred to in Article 12 ( 3 ) of Directive 2001/18/EC , laying down the procedures ensuring that the risk assessment , requirements regarding risk management , labelling , monitoring as appropriate , information to the public and safeguard clause are equivalent to those laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC enters into force , genetically modified varieties shall only be accepted for inclusion in a national catalogue after having being accepted for marketing in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC .
 ( c ) Articles 13 to 24 of Directive 2001/18/EC shall no longer apply to genetically modified varieties once the Regulation referred to in subparagraph ( b ) and a sectoral Council Regulation regulating genetically modified plant varieties , introduced on a proposal from the Commission based on the appropriate legal basis in the Treaty have entered into force .
 ( d ) The technical and scientific details of the implementation of the environmental risk assessment shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 40 .
While under the current Directive genetically modified plant varieties may simply be regulated through a Council Regulation , Art . 12 ( 3 ) of Directive 2001/18/EC requires for all such "sectoral legislation" , that horizontal European Parliament and Council Regulation on sectoral legislation has to be adopted before a GMO may be excluded from the scope of Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC .
/2001 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law , establishing the European Food Authority , and laying down procedures in matters of food safety , is accepted only if it has been authorised pursuant to Regulation ( EC ) No 258/97 for food or under Directive 90/220/EEC or Directive 2001/18/EC for feed or Regulation ---/---/EC on genetically modified food and feed .
Member States shall ensure that a variety intended to be used in food or feed as defined in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation ( EC ) No 178/2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law , establishing the European Food Authority , and laying down procedures in matters of food safety , is accepted only if it has been authorised under the relevant legislation .
There is no need to list in detail the various regulations and directives under which a plant variety should have been approved before it is accepted for registration .
Amendments to Directive 2001/18/EC Directive 2001/18/EC is amended with effect from the date of entry into force of this Regulation as follows: "The following Article 12a is inserted: Article 12a Adventitious presence of GMOs in products Articles 13 to 21 shall not apply to the placing on the market of traces of a GMO or combination of GMOs in products intended for direct use as food or feed , or for processing , in a proportion no higher than 1 % or lower thresholds established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30 ( 2 ) , provided that these traces of GMOs are adventitious or technically unavoidable and that the GMOs have been subject to a scientific risk assessment made by the relevant Scientific Committee ( s ) or the European Food Authority , which concludes that the GMOs do not present a risk for human health or the environment .
In order to establish that traces of GMOs are adventitious or technically unavoidable , operators must be in a position to demonstrate to the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid them" .
It makes no sense to decisively alter a directive which was adopted only a year ago following a lengthy and complicated conciliation procedure between Parliament and the Council .
As a result of the proposed amendment , in addition , the directive would legalise the marketing of unauthorised genetically modified organisms in flagrant breach of the precautionary principle to which express reference is made in Article 1 of Directive 2001/18/EC .
The labelling requirements laid down in this Regulation shall not apply to products which have been lawfully manufactured and labelled in the Community , or which have been lawfully imported into the Community and put into circulation , before the date of application of this Regulation .
For a period of not more than twelve months following the date of its application , the labelling requirements laid down in this Regulation shall not apply to products which have been lawfully manufactured and labelled in the Community , or which have been lawfully imported into the Community and put into circulation , before the aforementioned date .
The Commission's proposal is in essence reasonable , but should be subject to a time limit , as the shelf life of some processed foods is extremely long .
No later than two years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation and in the light of experience gained , the Commission shall forward to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the implementation of this Regulation accompanied , where appropriate , by any suitable proposal .
The report and , where appropriate , any suitable proposal shall be made accessible to the public .
Following the revised GMO Release Directive ( 2001/18/EC ) , the proposal for a regulation is an important step in regulating the GMO field at Community level .
The proposal for a regulation essentially covers: ?authorisation and labelling of genetically modified food ?authorisation and labelling of genetically modified feed .
ScopeTo ensure a high level of protection for human and animal health , this proposal extends the scope of current Community legislation on GMOs to feed produced from GMOs .
The provisions for food are also more far-reaching than has been the case to date .
The scope has been extended to products produced from GMOs .
The traceability of genetic modification in an end product is no longer a prerequisite for authorisation and labelling . That means , for instance , that highly refined soya and maize oils would be authorised and labelled .
In the interests of maximising consumers' freedom of choice , the labelling provisions under this proposal are also to apply to products derived from animals fed with genetically modified feed .
Adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified materialThresholds for adventitious and technically unavoidable contamination are necessary .
The proposal provides for a 1% threshold for the presence of GMOs .
It is unacceptable that that provision should also apply to GMOs which are not authorised in the Community .
It is vital that this be avoided , otherwise all European Union biosafety legislation will be undermined .
The rapporteur has therefore removed Articles 5 and 18 ( 'Adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified material' ) from the authorisation section and reinserted them in the labelling section ( new Articles 13a and 26a ) .
The threshold laid down is to be reduced to 0 . 5% and should be taken as an aggregate value for contamination in the ingredient concerned .
This should be determined on the basis of the raw ingredient .
Authorisation procedureIn order to streamline and rationalise the current authorisation procedure for genetically modified foods , the Commission proposes that the European Food Safety Authority should carry out risk assessments .
As provided for in the proposal for a European Food Safety Authority , that Authority should also carry out risk assessment for genetically modified feed .
The proposed regulation is based on the 'one door - one key' principle .
Thus , so it is intended , a single application will suffice for: ?authorisation for the deliberate release of a GMO into the environment in accordance with the criteria under Directive 2001/18/EC ?and authorisation for the use of that GMO in food and/or feed in accordance with the criteria under the proposed regulation .
The authorisation procedure is excessively localised and over-specific .
The release of genetically modified organisms into the environment is regulated by the Release Directive ( 2001/18/EC ) .
It must be ensured that the provisions of the new regulation are compatible with the Release Directive and complement rather than supersede it .
It makes no sense to decisively alter a directive which was adopted only one year ago following a lengthy and complex conciliation procedure between Parliament and the Council .
Transparency of the authorisation procedureRecitals 5 and 6 call for a clear and transparent authorisation procedure .
Accordingly , amendments have been tabled to several articles with a view to guaranteeing the public's right to information .
for the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Policyon the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed
SHORT JUSTIFICATIONThe interests of the consumer and the responsible citizen should be given top priority .
The right of individuals to decide whether or not they wish to consume a given product can only be guaranteed if the producer is required to provide full information .
In order to create the conditions for ensuring that consumers have freedom of choice , appropriate provisions need to be laid down .
The Commission proposal does not , however , contain provisions concerning this aspect .
LabellingCompared with the Novel Foods Regulation , the proposal lays down more stringent rules on the labelling of genetically modified organisms .
Under the new rules , labelling is no longer only required where the presence of GMOs is demonstrated in the product concerned .
Rather , it is enough for GMOs to have been used in one of the stages of production , even if they are no longer found in the final product .
On paper , this approach means taking more effective account of GMOs . However , there is a risk that it may not be possible to implement controls in practice and that the regulation will fail to properly fulfil its objectives .
In order to ensure that GMOs which cannot be detected in the final product are labelled , it is necessary to trace the ingredient concerned through the respective production chain back to its ‘origin’ .
However , traceability is only possible if businesses are required to set up appropriate documentation systems .
Such systems must be able to be checked , in order to ensure that consumers are not deceived and their freedom of choice is not infringed .
In addition , it is imperative to press ahead with the development of techniques for detecting genetically modified material .
AuthorisationThe authorisation requirement for GMOs does not go far enough .
Additives , flavourings and extraction solvents still do not require special authorisation , even where they have been produced from GMOs .
Furthermore , where a decision has not been taken on an application to renew an authorisation , for products subject to authorisation , before the relevant expiry date , the period of authorisation is automatically extended .
This provision is contrary to the interests of consumers , who may possibly be continuing to consume a product likely to be harmful to human health .
Threshold for the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOsThe threshold of 1 % proposed by the Commission is far too high , and could have serious consequences for human beings and the environment .
By way of illustration , this would mean that a consignment of 100 000t of food or feed could contain 1 000 t of genetically modified organisms , without prior tests having been carried out to verify whether the product is likely to be harmful to health and without the product undergoing checks .
Directive on release of GMOsUnder the provisions of the directive on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms , GMOs may be released or placed on the market by the relevant notifier only if the latter has carried out a comprehensive environmental risk assessment in respect of the risks posed by GMOs to human beings , animals and the environment .
This stringent directive on the release of GMOs , which protects human beings and the environment by laying down high requirements as regards the safety of GMOs , should not be undermined by the new regulation .
In the interests of legal certainty , it is therefore important to ensure that the provisions of the new GMO regulation are consistent with the provisions of the directive on the release of GMOs .
Structure of the textThe structure of the regulation is not easy to follow .
In some places , we propose restructuring the text in order to make it clearer and more coherent and more easily comprehensible .
Risks posed by GM foodsNo long-term studies have so far been carried out on the effects of genetically modified foods on human health and possible consequences for the environment .
European Union citizens , rightly , therefore , take a very critical approach to genetically modified foods , and wish to know how the food they buy has been produced .
Their right to choose or reject genetically modified products must be ensured in all cases .
A prerequisite for this is to create conditions of transparency , which demands detailed disclosure and labelling of genetically modified food and feed .
Freedom of choice for individuals is one of the fundamental values of a democracy , and must be reflected in the regulations of the European Union .
The interests of citizens should therefore be paramount , and not those of big food companies .
The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market calls on the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Policy , as the committee responsible , to incorporate the following amendments in its report: Text proposed by the Commission ( 2 )Amendments by Parliament
Experience has shown that authorisation should not be granted for a single use , when a product is likely to be used both for food and feed purposes ; therefore such products should only be authorised when fulfilling authorisation criteria for both food and feed .
concerning food additives authorised for use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption , as last amended by Directive 94/34/EC of 30 June 1994 , provides for authorisation of additives used in foodstuffs .
In addition to this authorisation procedure , food additives containing , consisting of or produced from GMOs should fall also under the scope of this Regulation for the safety assessment of the genetic modification , while the final authorisation should be granted under the procedure laid down in Directive 89/107/EEC .
concerning certain products used in animal nutrition , as last amended by Council Directive 1999/20/EC , provides for an approval procedure for feed materials produced using different technologies that may pose risk to human or animal health and the environment ; these feed materials containing , consisting of or produced from GMOs should fall instead under the scope of this Regulation .
Harmonised labelling requirements should be laid down for genetically modified feed to provide final users , in particular livestock farmers , with accurate information on the composition and properties of feed , which enable the user to make an informed choice .
Harmonised labelling requirements must be laid down for genetically modified feed to provide final users , in particular livestock farmers , with accurate information on the composition and properties of feed , which enable the user to make an informed choice .
In order to establish that the presence of this material is adventitious or technically unavoidable , operators must be in a position to demonstrate to the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of the genetically modified food or feed .
To avoid creating an unfair obstacle to trade , a list should be drawn up of countries with comparable standards , the results of whose assessments shall be recognised for the purposes of the assessment referred to in Articles 5 , 18 and 22 .
The duplication of tests should be avoided where standards are comparable , as they could be seen as obstacles to trade .
It would seem sensible , therefore , to reach agreement on comparable standards , for example in the framework of the OECD .
Risks to the environment may be associated with foods and feed which contain or consist of GMOs .
Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC provides that no product consisting of or containing a GMO may be placed on the market without inter alia a risk assessment having been carried out in accordance with that part of the Directive .
However , that requirement is waived in respect of any product covered by sectoral Community legislation that provides for a specific environmental risk assessment at least equivalent to the environmental risk assessment carried out in accordance with Annexes II and III to that Directive .
This Regulation should satisfy the conditions for the waiver to apply the requirements of that Directive .
It is therefore also necessary that its provisions in regard to risk management , labelling , monitoring , information to the public and safeguard clause , must be at least equivalent to those laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC .
Risks to the environment may be associated with foods and feed which contain or consist of GMOs .
Food and feed which also fall within the scope of Directive 2001/18/EC may be authorised only if approval for placing on the market has previously been granted in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC .
In so far as the regulation has the status in future of ‘sectoral legislation’ within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 12 ( 3 ) of Directive 2001/18/EC , the Commission will propose a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council in accordance with these provisions .
Pending the entry into force of that regulation , any GMOs as or in products , in so far as they are authorised by the provisions of this regulation , may be placed on the market only after having been accepted for placing on the market in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC ( third sentence of Article 12 ( 3 ) of Directive 2001/18/EC ) .
This is not a sectoral directive , and cannot therefore be treated as such .
It is also necessary to ensure that the provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC , which were adopted following a lengthy and complicated conciliation procedure between Parliament and the Council last year , are not undermined by this regulation .
The consistency of European legislation must be ensured .
For the purposes of this Regulation: For the purposes of this Regulation: ( 1 ) the definitions of 'food' , 'feed' , 'placing on the market' and 'traceability' , laid down in Regulation ( EC ) No .
/2001 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law , establishing the European Food Authority , and laying down procedures in matters of food safety shall apply ; ( 1
 ) the definitions of 'food' , 'feed' , 'placing on the market' and 'traceability' , laid down in Regulation ( EC ) No 178/2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law , establishing the European Food Safety Authority , and laying down procedures in matters of food safety [33] shall apply ; for the purposes of this Regulation 'food' and 'feed' shall include any substance which even though not consumed as a food ingredient by itself , is intentionally used in the processing of foods , feed or their ingredients , to fulfil a certain technological purpose during treatment or processing and may result in the unintentional but technically unavoidable presence of residues of the substance or its derivatives in the final product ;
the definitions of 'organism' , 'deliberate release' and 'environmental risk assessment' laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC shall apply ; ( 2a ) 'genetically modified organism ( GMO )' means a genetically modified organism in accordance with the definition laid down in Article 2 ( 2 ) of Directive 2001/18/EC , with the exception of organisms obtained through the modification techniques set out in Annex I B to Directive 2001/18/EC
'genetically modified food' means food containing , consisting of or produced from genetically modified organisms ; ( 3a ) 'genetically modified feed' means feed containing , consisting of or produced from genetically modified organisms
'genetically modified organism for food use' means a genetically modified organism that may be used as food or as a source material for the production of food
'genetically modified organism for feed use' means a genetically modified organism which is not exempted from the application of Directive 2001/18/EC and that may be used as feed or as a source material for the production of feed ;
 ( 6 ) 'produced from genetically modified organisms' means derived , in whole or in part , from genetically modified organisms , but not containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms
 ( 6 ) 'produced from genetically modified organisms' means derived , in whole or in part , from genetically modified organisms , but not containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms
 ( 7 ) 'control sample' means the genetically modified organism or its genetic material ( positive sample ) or the parental organism or its genetic material that has been used for the purpose of the genetic modification ( negative sample ) .
Clarification of the text , in particular through reference to genetically modified organisms within the meaning of the definition laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC and to the exemption of certain GMOs from the scope of the provisions in accordance with Annex I B of the directive .
This Section shall apply to: ( a ) genetically modified organisms for food use , ( a ) genetically modified organisms for food use , ( b ) food containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms , ( c ) food produced from or containing ingredients produced from genetically modified organisms .
 ( c ) food produced from or containing ingredients produced from genetically modified organisms .
Where necessary , it may be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) whether a type of food falls within the scope of this Section .
Where necessary , it may be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) that further types of food fall within the scope of this Section .
Clarifies the grounds for amending the scope of the text through the commitology procedure , and specifies that the regulatory committee cannot decide to exclude a food from the scope of the provisions if it was originally included .
Food falling within the scope of this Section must not: 1 .
Food falling within the scope of this Section must not: - present a risk for human health or the environment , - present a danger for human health or the environment , - mislead the consumer , - mislead the consumer , - differ from the food which it is intended to replace to such an extent that its normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous for the consumer .
- differ from the food which it is intended to replace to such an extent that its normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous for the consumer .
Consistency with the Novel Foods Regulation .
a proposal for the labelling of the food or foods produced from it accordance with Article 14 ( 1 ) ;
Article 6 ( 3 ) sets out the items to be included in all applications .
Paragraphs 3 ( f ) and ( g ) stipulate that the applicant must make a proposal for labelling of food which is not equivalent to their conventional counterparts or which may give rise to ethical concerns ( Article 14 ( 2 ) & ( 3 ) ) .
This amendment adds a reference to Article 14 ( 1 ) which addresses the specific labelling for genetic modification .
The amendment reflects the wording of Article 7 ( 5 ) ( d ) .
where relevant , a proposal for a maximum threshold for the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence in other foods of material produced from the genetically modified organism ;
The tolerance threshold should be established on a case-by-case or product-by-product basis , depending on the raw materials used , the type of the product and the scientific capabilities to identify traces of DNA or protein in the final product .
information on where reference material or samples will be made available by the applicant to the authorities and operators in the EU ;
The EFSA and the competent authorities of the Member States ( or control laboratories ) require this information in order to be able to enforce legislation , and operators need it in order to be able to control and monitor their own supplies .
Easy access to samples or reference material held by the applicant is very important for operators in the EU in order to allow them to carry out their own controls .
In the case of genetically modified organisms or foods containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms , the application shall also be accompanied by: 5 .
the complete technical dossier supplying the information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC or , where the placing on the market of the genetically modified organism has been authorised under part C of Directive 2001/18/EC , a copy of the authorisation decision ; 6 . the complete technical dossier supplying the information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC and a copy of the authorisation decision ;
Article 6 ( 5 ) ( a ) implies that GMOs may be authorised for food use under this Regulation although they have not been approved against Directive 2001/18/EC .
Thus , the proposed Regulation shall replace as so-called sectoral legislation part C of Directive 2001/18/EC which regulates the placing on the market of GMOs .
While such sectoral legislation is in principle possible , Art . 12 ( 4 ) of Directive 2001/18/EC stipulates that before such legislation is adopted "procedures ensuring that the risk assessment , requirements regarding risk management , labelling , monitoring as appropriate , information to the public and safeguard clause are equivalent to those laid down in this Directive shall be introduced , in a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council .
" Since there has to date been no such regulation and the Commission has not proposed any such regulation or procedures , the regulation now being proposed cannot be considered ‘sectoral legislation’ .
Thus , Directive 2001/18/EC and the proposed regulation apply in parallel to GMOs for human or animal consumption ; this approach is also more appropriate and must be upheld .
In the case of genetically modified organisms or food containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms falling within the scope of this Section , the evaluation shall respect the environmental safety requirements laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC to ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to prevent the adverse effects on human health and the environment which might arise from the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms .
During evaluation of requests for the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms , the necessary consultations shall be held by the Authority with the bodies set up by the Community and/or the Member States in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC .
The competent authorities are represented on the advisory forum of the EFSA , which has sufficient powers for the purpose of evaluation .
where relevant , a proposal for a maximum threshold for the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence in other foods of material produced from the genetically modified organism ;
The tolerance threshold should be established on a case-by-case basis or product-by-product basis depending on the raw materials used , the type of the product and the scientific capabilities to identify traces of DNA or protein in the final product .
a method for detection , including sampling and identification of the transformation event and , where applicable , for the detection and identification of the transformation event in the food and/or in foods produced from it ; ( f ) a method for detection , including sampling , access to appropriate reference material , identification of the sequence for the transformation event and , where applicable , for the detection and identification of the transformation event in the food and/or in foods produced from it ; ( g ) information on where reference material or samples will be made available by the applicant to operators in the EU ;
The EFSA and the competent authorities of the Member States ( or control laboratories ) require this information in order to be able to enforce legislation , and operators need it in order to be able to control and monitor their own supplies .
Easy access to samples or reference material held by the applicant is very important for operators in the EU in order to allow them to carry out their own controls .
Before the entry into application of this Regulation , the Commission shall publish a recommendation on the nature of the risk assessment to be undertaken by the Authority for the purpose of preparing its opinion .
The European Commission shall decide , in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) of this Regulation , on the nature of the risk assessment to be undertaken by the Authority for the purpose of preparing its opinion .
The aim of this article is unclear .
The impression is given that the Commission can choose which risks are to be analysed .
In the event of a draft decision which envisages the granting of authorisation , the draft decision shall include the particulars mentioned in Article 7 ( 5 ) , the name of the authorisation-holder and , where appropriate , the unique code attributed to the genetically modified organism as referred to in the Regulation ( EC ) No . of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms .
In the event of a draft decision which envisages the granting of authorisation , the draft decision shall include the particulars mentioned in Article 7 ( 5 ) , the name of the authorisation-holder and , where appropriate , the unique code attributed to the genetically modified organism as referred to in the Regulation ( EC ) No . of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms .
The draft decision shall also include the opinions of the authorities required to be consulted in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC .
With a view to fully informing consumers , all aspects taken into account in drawing up the opinion of the Food Safety Authority must be incorporated into the authorisation .
The authorisation granted in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Regulation shall be valid throughout the Community for ten years and shall be renewable in accordance with Article 12 .
The authorised food shall be entered in the Register referred to in Article 30 .
Each entry in the Register shall mention the date of authorisation and shall include the particulars referred to in paragraph 2 .
Without prejudice to the procedure provided for in Article 11 , the authorisation granted in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Regulation shall , throughout the Community , terminate after ten years and shall be renewable in accordance with Article 12 .
Clarification of the text , with a view to avoiding any risk of conflicting with Article 11 .
By derogation to Article 4 ( 2 ) , a product falling within the scope of this Section which has been placed on the market under Directive 90/220/EEC before the entry into force of Regulation ( EC ) No 258/97 or in accordance with the provisions laid down in Regulation ( EC ) No 258/97 may continue to be placed on the market , used and processed provided that the following conditions are met: 1 .
By derogation to Article 4 ( 2 ) , a product falling within the scope of this Section which has been placed on the market under Directive 90/220/EEC before the entry into force of Regulation ( EC ) No 258/97 or in accordance with the provisions laid down in Regulation ( EC ) No 258/97 may continue to be placed on the market , used and processed provided that the following conditions are met ( this shall also apply to products that represent a further stage in the processing of such products ):
Necessary in order to establish transitional rules for additionally processed products .
a report on the results of the monitoring , if so specified in the authorisation ; ( b ) a report on the results of the post ?market monitoring of the use of food for human consumption , if so specified in the authorisation in accordance with Article 6 ( 3 ) ( k ) of this Regulation ;
any other new information which has become available with regard to the evaluation of the safety in use of the food and the risks of the food to the consumer or the environment ; ( c ) without prejudice to the obligations laid down in Article 10 ( 3 ) , any other new information which has become available with regard to the evaluation of the safety in use of the food and the risks of the food to the consumer or the environment ;
Where , for reasons beyond the control of the authorisation-holder , no decision is taken on the renewal of an authorisation before its expiry date , the period of authorisation of the product shall automatically be extended until the Commission takes a decision .
This Section shall apply to foods which are to be delivered as such to the final consumer or mass caterers in the Community and which: 1 .
This Section shall apply to foods referred to in Article 3 ( 1 ) which are to be delivered as such to the final consumer or mass caterers in the Community .
- contain or consist of genetically modified organisms , or - are produced from or contain ingredients produced from genetically modified organisms .
The scope of this section should correspond to the definition contained in Article 3 .
This Section shall not apply to foods in which the presence of protein or DNA resulting from genetic modification cannot be detected ;
The labelling of foods produced with GMOs must be able to be controlled and enforced .
In order to ensure that labelling requirements are enforceable , they must be based on the detectable presence of protein or DNA resulting from genetic modification .
This Section shall not apply to foods containing material which contains , consists of or is produced from genetically modified organisms in a proportion no higher than the thresholds established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable .
This Section shall not apply to foods containing material which is produced from genetically modified organisms in a proportion no higher than the thresholds established in accordance with Article 5 of this Regulation , provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable .
In order to establish that the presence of this material is adventitious or technically unavoidable , operators must be in a position to supply evidence to satisfy the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of the genetically modified organisms ( or produce thereof ) .
This Section shall not apply to foods obtained from animals fed with GMOs or products derived therefrom .
This point is stated in the introduction to the regulation as well as in the summary report , but should also be expressly stated here in order to avoid confusion .
In addition to the labelling requirements laid down in paragraph 1 , the labelling shall also mention any characteristic or property , as specified in the authorisation , in the following cases: 2 .
In addition to the labelling requirements laid down in paragraph 1 , the labelling shall mention the following characteristics or properties , as specified in the authorisation: ( a ) Where a food is not equivalent to its conventional counterpart as regards: ( a ) Where a food is not equivalent to its conventional counterpart as regards these characteristics or properties: - composition , - - nutritional value or nutritional effects , - - intended use of the food , - intended use of the food , - implications for the health of certain sections of the population .
- implications for the health of certain sections of the population .
 ( b ) Where a food may give rise to ethical or religious concerns .
 ( b ) Where the characteristics or properties of a food may give rise to ethical or religious concerns .
Feed falling within the scope of this Chapter must not: ( a ) present a risk for animal health , human health or the environment ; ( b ) mislead the user ( c ) harm the consumer by impairing the distinctive features of the animal products ( d ) differ from feed which it is intended to replace to such an extent that its normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous for animals or humans .
Where necessary , it may be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) whether a type of feed falls within the scope of this Section .
 ( d ) differ from feed which it is intended to replace to such an extent that its normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous for animals or humans .
No person shall place on the market , use or process a product referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) for feed use or feed falling within the scope of this Section unless it is covered by an authorisation granted in accordance with this Section and the relevant conditions of the authorisation are adhered to .
No product referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) for feed use or feed falling within the scope of this Section shall be authorised unless the applicant for such authorisation has adequately and sufficiently demonstrated that it satisfies the requirements of paragraph 1 .
No product falling within the scope of this Section shall be authorised unless the applicant for such authorisation has adequately and sufficiently demonstrated that it satisfies the requirements of paragraph 1 .
Paragraph 19 ( f ) stipulates that the applicant must , where relevant , make a proposal for labelling if the feed is not equivalent to its conventional counterpart
This amendment requires the applicant to propose in addition a label referring to the genetic modification of the feed ( Art .
information on where reference material or samples will be made available by the applicant to the authorities and operators in the EU ;
The EFSA and the competent authorities of the Member States ( or control laboratories ) require this information in order to be able to enforce legislation , and operators need it in order to be able to control and monitor their own supplies .
Easy access to samples or reference material held by the applicant is very important for operators in the EU in order to allow them to carry out their own controls .
the complete technical dossier supplying the information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC or , where the placing on the market of the genetically modified organisms has been authorised under Part Cof Directive 2001/18/EC , a copy of the authorisation decision ; ( a ) the complete technical dossier supplying the information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC and a copy of the authorisation decision ;
While such sectoral legislation is in principle possible , Art .12 ( 4 ) of Directive 2001/18/EC stipulates that before such legislation is adopted "procedures ensuring that the risk assessment , requirements regarding risk management , labelling , monitoring as appropriate , information to the public and safeguard clause are equivalent to those laid down in this Directive shall be introduced , in a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council .
" Since there has to date been no such regulation and the Commission has not proposed any such regulation or procedures , the regulation now being proposed cannot be considered ‘sectoral legislation’ .
Thus , Directive 2001/18/EC and the proposed regulation apply in parallel to GMOs for human or animal consumption ; this approach is also more appropriate and must be upheld .
information on where reference material or samples will be made available by the applicant to operators in the EU ;
The EFSA and the competent authorities of the Member States ( or control laboratories ) require this information in order to be able to enforce legislation , and operators need it in order to be able to control and monitor their own supplies .
Easy access to samples or reference material held by the applicant is very important for operators in the EU in order to allow them to carry out their own controls .
The Authority shall make its opinion public , after deletion of any information identified as confidential , in accordance with Article 31 .
The Authority shall make its opinion public , after deletion of any information identified as confidential , in accordance with Article 31 , but including the information referred to in Article 20 ( 5 ) ( f ) and ( g ) .
The public may make comments to the Commission within 30 days from this publication .
JustificationOperators need this information in order to be able to control and monitor their own supplies .
In the event of a draft decision which envisages the granting of authorisation , the draft decision shall include the particulars mentioned in Article 20 ( 5 ) , the name of the authorisation holder , and , where appropriate , the unique code attributed to the genetically modified organism as referred to in the Regulation ( EC ) No , ,/ , , , of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms .
The authorisation granted in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Regulation shall be valid throughout the Community for ten years and shall be renewable in accordance with Article 25 .
Without prejudice to the procedure provided for in Article 24 , the authorisation granted in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Regulation shall , throughout the Community , terminate after ten years and shall be renewable in accordance with Article 25 .
By derogation to Article 17 ( 2 ) , products as referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) which have been authorised or legally placed on the market before the date of application of this Regulation - under Directives 90/220/EEC or 2001/18/EC , including use as feed , - under Directives 90/220/EEC or 2001/18/EC , including use as feed , - under Directive 82/471/EEC , which are produced from GMOs , or - under Directive 82/471/EEC , which are produced from GMOs , or - under Directive 70/524/EEC which contain , consist of or are produced from GMOs , - under Directive 70/524/EEC which contain , consist of or are produced from GMOs , may continue to be placed on the market , used and processed provided that the following conditions are met: may continue to be placed on the market , used and processed provided that the following conditions are met:
Transitional arrangement for products from third countries .
Where , for reasons beyond the control of the authorisation-holder , no decision is taken on the renewal of an authorisation before its expiry date , the period of authorisation of the product shall automatically be extended until the Commission takes a decision .
Where for reasons beyond the control of the authorisation-holder , no decision is taken on the renewal of an authorisation before its expiry date , the authorisation of the product shall automatically be extended by one year .
In order to ensure that labelling requirements are enforceable , they must be based on the detectable presence of protein or DNA resulting from genetic modification .
This Section shall not apply to feed containing , consisting of or produced from genetically modified organisms in a proportion no higher than the thresholds established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable .
This Section shall not apply to feed containing , consisting of or produced from genetically modified organisms in a proportion no higher than the threshold referred to in Article 5 ( 1 ) , provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable .
In order to establish that the presence of this feed is adventitious or technically unavoidable , operators must be in a position to supply evidence to satisfy the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of the genetically modified organisms ( or produce thereof ) .
Member States shall ensure that a variety intended to be used in food or feed as defined in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation ( EC ) No … ./2001 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law , establishing the European Food Authority , and laying down procedures in matters of food safety , is accepted only if it has been authorised pursuant to Regulation ( EC ) No 258/97 for food or under Directive 90/220/EEC or Directive 2001/18/EC for feed or Regulation ---/---/EC on genetically modified food and feed .
Member States shall ensure that a variety intended to be used in food or feed as defined in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation ( EC ) No 178/2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law , establishing the European Food Authority , and laying down procedures in matters of food safety , is accepted only if it has been authorised under the relevant legislation .
There is no need to list in detail the various regulations and directives under which a plant variety should have been approved before it is accepted for registration .
for the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Policyon the proposal for a Council regulation on the proposal of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed
After the vote the draftsman , Danielle Auroi , decided not to table the opinion under her name .
Joseph Daul , chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development , therefore agreed to take it over .
At the last meeting it adopted the following amendments unopposed , with 1 abstention .
IntroductionThis proposal for a regulation needs to be discussed within a specific context: that of the large-scale release of GMOs , without controls or genuine traceability , and of the contamination of conventional organisms ( or products ) with a slight GMO content .
Its main concern is guaranteed traceability .
The proposal is particularly concerned with animal feed as a whole , and even directly , in terms of cultivated fields ( see the AFSSA report on the contamination of non-GMO maize fields with modified maize ) .
There is an equally serious problem in relation to transformation products intended for human consumption , including retail products ( see the study carried out by the French magazine 60 millions de consommateurs on GMOs in food ) .
These studies also prove that scientists are now able to detect GMO traces present in a concentration of under 1% .
This contamination by GMOs raises the issue of the progressive introduction of a product which the majority of consumers do not want .
It represents an attack on freedom of choice , and may also be seen as a knowing tactic used by GMO producers .
However , the Commission proposal seems tacitly to accept this situation .
In addition , GMOs in animal feed bear no relation to the customary justification of GMOs as having a therapeutic goal .
There are only two vaccines on the list of the GMOs authorised under Directive 2001/18/EC , formerly 90/220/EEC , while the other authorisations are for agricultural products for commercial purposes , and just one might be useful in animal rearing ( a kit for the detection of antibiotics residues in milk ) .
When the Council adopted Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms ( repealing Directive 90/220/EEC ) , on 12 March 2001 , six Member States reaffirmed their intention to ensure , within the framework of the powers conferred on them , that new consents for the planting and placing on the market of GMOs were suspended pending the adoption of effective provisions on total traceability for GMOs , enabling reliable labelling to be guaranteed for all products derived from GMOs .
As a result , on 25 July 2001 , the Commission adopted its proposals for new regulations on genetically modified food and feed and on the traceability of GMOs .
This proposal by the Commission is also a response to a long-standing wish expressed by Parliament , which in December 1999 had already called on the Commission ‘to come forward rapidly with proposals for the labelling of GMOs in animal feed and products derived from animals reared on GMO feed’ .
Parliament did not imply that in accepting Directive 2001/18/EC , it was accepting a possible contamination of conventional products by GMOs .
In its January 2002 issue the French monthly publication 60 millions de consommateurs published the results of an analytical investigation which revealed that of 103 items of maize ?and soya-based food intended for human consumption , 36 contained genetically modified organisms .
The results of these analyses are worrying and demonstrate that products which might be thought GMO-free , since they are unlabelled , contain GMOs all the same .
This means that there are questions to be answered on traceability and ways to perpetuate a GMO ?free strain .
Accepting the Commission’s proposal would result in the authorisation of a level of possible contamination of food by GMOs , without precise labelling and therefore without genuine information for European citizens , and in opposition to the opinion of the majority .
However , we now have the scientific means available to lower the 1% threshold , since much lower levels have been detected .
In any case , such a provision must permit consumers who wish to avoid GMOs totally in their diet to exercise their freedom of choice without any constraint , as is their legitimate right .
The proposal for a regulation remains ambiguous on points which must be clarified in order to have genuine traceabilityAnimal products derived from animals fed on genetically modified feedProducts derived from animals which have been fed on feed produced from GMOs are not categorised as products ‘produced from GMOs’ and are not covered by the proposed regulation .
In the same way ingredients , such as enzymes , vitamins or additives , various products genetically modified with the help of micro-organisms , would not be covered by the proposed regulation .
These systematic exceptions are not justified .
Thresholds for traces of GMOs produced from authorised GMOsProducts containing material produced from GMOs may be put on the market without labelling only if:1 . the content of material produced from authorised GMOs does not exceed 0 . 5%2 . the presence of material produced from authorised GMOs is genuinely ‘adventitious’ or ‘technically unavoidable’3 . There must be a guarantee of traceability for imported products .
It is known that some large European retailers use rice from China in their products , and there is no guarantee that this is GMO-free .
The same derogation cannot be granted to non-authorised GMOs , since this would have the effect of undermining all European Union legislation on bio-safety .
Contamination by GMOs and the ‘polluter pays’ principleIn order to establish that the presence of genetically modified material is adventitious or technically unavoidable , the Commission proposes that operators should be in a position to demonstrate to the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of genetically modified organisms ( or products produced from such organisms ) .

This concept of a maximum threshold places the burden of proof on the shoulders of producers and processors who do not wish to use GMOs or products of GMOs .
They must demonstrate that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid contamination .
In fact , it is those who produce and use GMOs who should be obliged to take all possible steps to avoid contamination of other products by their own .
The relationship between the proposed regulation and relevant Community legislationThe Commission proposes that Articles 13 to 24 of Directive 2001/18/EC should not apply to GMOs authorised under the proposed regulation because this regulation is ‘sectoral legislation’ under Article 12 of the directive .
Unfortunately , the Commission has forgotten that before sectoral legislation is adopted Parliament and the Council must introduce in a regulation ‘procedures ensuring that the risk assessment , requirements regarding risk management , labelling , monitoring as appropriate , information to the public and safeguard clause are equivalent to those laid down in this Directive’ ( see Article 12 ( 3 ) of Directive 2001/18/EC ) .
Article 12 ( 3 ) categorically states that ‘until the Regulation enters into force , any GMO as or in products as far as they are authorised by other Community legislation shall only be placed on the market after having been accepted for placing on the market in accordance with this Directive .
’ Since there has to date been no such regulation and the Commission has not proposed any such regulation , the regulation now being proposed cannot be considered ‘sectoral legislation’ under Article 12 .
Thus , Directive 2001/18/EC and the proposed regulation apply in parallel to GMOs for human or animal consumption ; this approach is also more appropriate and must be upheld .
ConclusionThese Commission proposals seem too tentative , or even woolly .
Therefore , your rapporteur calls on the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Policy , as the committee responsible , to include the following amendments in the opinion which it adopts .
AMENDMENTSThe Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development calls on the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Policy , as the committee responsible , to incorporate the following amendments in its report: Text proposed by the Commission ( 4 )Amendments by Parliament
In order to protect human and animal health , food and feed consisting of , containing or produced from genetically modified organisms ( hereunder called "genetically modified food and feed" ) should undergo a safety assessment through a Community procedure before being placed on the market within the Community .
In order to protect human and animal health , food and feed consisting of , containing or obtained or derived from genetically modified organisms ( hereunder called "genetically modified food and feed" ) should undergo a safety assessment through a Community procedure before being placed on the market within the Community .
This amendment , if adopted , shall be extended to the entire text of the regulation .
The most suitable term should be used in each language .
The same change is proposed in the draft opinion by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez on the Commission proposal concerning traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms .
The requirements arising from the directives , regulations and administrative provisions concerning the evaluation and authorisation of food and feed and of raw materials intended for their production should be identical for all products imported into the European Union , in order to avoid the creation of unequal and unfair conditions of competition .
The new authorisation procedures for genetically modified food and feed should include the new principles introduced in Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC [19] .
Thus , genetically modified food and feed should only be authorised for placing on the Community market after a scientific evaluation of the highest possible standard , to be undertaken under the responsibility of the European Food Authority , of any risks which they present for human and animal health and , as the case may be , for the environment .
This scientific evaluation should be followed by a risk management decision by the Community , under a regulatory procedure ensuring close co-operation between the Commission and the Member States .
They should further make use of the new framework for risk assessment in matters of food safety set up by Regulation ( EC ) No . laying down the general principles and requirements of food law , establishing the European Food Safety Authority , and laying down procedures in matters of food safety [20] .
Thus , genetically modified food and feed should only be authorised for placing on the Community market after a scientific evaluation of the highest possible standard , to be undertaken under the responsibility of the European Food Safety Authority , of any risks which they present for human and animal health and , as the case may be , for the environment .
This scientific evaluation should be followed by a risk management decision by the Community , under a regulatory procedure ensuring close co-operation between the Commission and the Member States .
This amendment , if adopted , shall be extended to the entire text of the regulation .
The correct name for the Authority must be employed .
The labelling should include objective information that a food or feed consists of , contains or is produced from GMOs ; clear labelling , irrespective of the detectability of DNA or protein resulting from the genetic modification in the final product , meets the demands expressed in numerous surveys by a large majority of consumers , facilitates informed choice and precludes potential misleading of consumers as regards method of manufacture or production .
 ( 20 ) The labelling should include objective information that a food or feed consists of , contains or is produced from GMOs or is derived from a GMO where DNA or protein resulting from genetic modification is detected ; however , if it is not possible to detect analytically DNA or protein which has been modified by means of genetic engineering , the product need not bear a GMO label .
If it is not possible to demonstrate analytically that a product which is to be marketed contains a detectable level of genetically modified DNA or protein , there is no reason for GMO labelling of a food or feed .
In such circumstances , the labelling would not be of any benefit to the consumer .
Moreover , EU importers would be placed at a competitive disadvantage , since in practice it is very difficult to monitor production in third countries .
of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms ensures that the specific information concerning the genetic modification is available at each stage of the placing on the market of GMOs and food and feed produced thereof and should thereby facilitate accurate labelling .
Regulation ( EC ) No of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability and labelling of food and feed products obtained or derived from genetically modified organisms ensures that the specific information concerning the genetic modification is available at each stage of the placing on the market of GMOs and food and feed produced thereof and should thereby facilitate accurate labelling .
This amendment seeks to secure consistency with the draft opinion on the Commission proposal concerning traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms .
In order to ensure the practicability and feasibility of this Regulation , a threshold of 1 % , with the possibility of establishing lower levels , should be established for minute traces in food or feed of genetically modified material not authorised under Community legislation , where the presence of such material is adventitious or technically unavoidable ; Directive 2001/18/EC should be amended accordingly .
The feasibility of this Regulation shall be ensured by means of the establishment , under Directive 2001/18 as amended by European Parliament and Council Regulation No …/… concerning traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms , of a threshold of 1 % , with the possibility of establishing lower levels , for minute traces in food or feed of genetically modified material not authorised under Community legislation , where the presence of such material is adventitious or technically unavoidable .
the definitions of 'organism' , 'genetically modified organism' ( 'GMO' ) , 'deliberate release' and 'environmental risk assessment' laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC shall apply ; ( 2 ) the definitions of 'organism' , 'genetically modified organism' ( 'GMO' ) , 'deliberate release' and 'environmental risk assessment' laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC shall apply ; this Regulation shall not apply to organisms which have been genetically modified using a technique or method referred to in Annex I B to Directive 2001/18/EC ;
Article 3 ( 1 ) of the Directive explicitly excludes from its scope organisms obtained through the techniques of genetic modification listed in Annex I B .
In the interests of legal certainty and consistency , the definitions applicable in the fields of traceability and labelling in Directive 2001/18 and in the Regulation must be coherent .
'control sample' means the genetically modified organism or its genetic material ( positive sample ) or the parental organism or its genetic material that has been used for the purpose of the genetic modification ( negative sample ) .
Control samples using parental lines as negative controls are of little help for enforcement and other testing laboratories .
Parental lines are hardly ever used for commercial planting and thus are of academic interest only .
This Section shall apply to: ( a ) genetically modified organisms for food use , falling within the scope of Directive 2001/18 , ( b ) food containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms , ( b ) food containing or consisting of these genetically modified organisms , ( c ) food produced from or containing ingredients produced from genetically modified organisms .
The scope of this proposal should be in line with the proposal on GM traceability and labelling , COM ( 2001 ) 182 final , and Directive 2001/18 on deliberate release to the environment .
Adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified material The presence in food of material which contains , consists of or is produced from genetically modified organisms in a proportion no higher than 1 % or lower thresholds established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , shall not be considered to be in breach of Article 4 ( 2 ) , provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable and that the genetically modified material has been subject to a scientific risk assessment made by the relevant Scientific Committee ( s ) or the European Food Authority , which concludes that this material does not present a risk for human health or the environment .
Adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified material The presence in food of material which contains , consists of or is produced from genetically modified organisms in a proportion no higher than 1 % or any other threshold established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , shall not be considered to be in breach of Article 4 ( 2 ) , provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable and that the genetically modified material has been subject to a scientific risk assessment made by the relevant Scientific Committee ( s ) or the European Food Safety Authority , or by third countries with comparable food safety standards , which concludes that this material does not present a risk for human health or the environment .
A list of countries with comparable food safety standards shall be established .
In order to establish that the presence of this material is adventitious or technically unavoidable , operators must be in a position to demonstrate to the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of the genetically modified organisms ( or produce thereof ) .
The Commission shall establish within six months after the publication of this regulation and in close cooperation with the ( competent authorities of the ) Member States guidelines defining criteria for these appropriate steps to avoid the presence of GMOs and products thereof .
These guidelines shall be made public .
JustificationTo allow flexibility to define other thresholds in accordance with a case-by-case approach to each food crop or other food ingredient .
In the context of rapid and broad development of GM crops outside the EU , food manufacturers are experiencing increased difficulty in avoiding adventitious presence of GMOs approved in third countries in the food chain .
In order to achieve uniformity of requirements within the EU on the demonstration to the Competent Authorities of the Member States that the operator has taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of the GM food and feed and facilitate the movement of goods , appropriate guidelines for “identity preserved” supplies should be defined as soon as possible .
The Authority shall acknowledge receipt of the application , in writing , to the applicant within 15 days of its receipt .
The acknowledgement shall state the date of receipt of the application .
The Authority shall acknowledge receipt of the application , in writing , to the applicant within 15 working days of its receipt .
References to time periods are variously made to “X days” or “Y months” .
The time periods should be consistently described and should , ideally , specify whether the number of days is absolute or “working days” , and in accordance with which Member State’s calendar of Bank Holidays .
a method for detection , including sampling and identification of the transformation event and , where applicable , for the detection and identification of the transformation event in the food and/or in foods produced from it ; ( i ) a method for detection , including sampling and identification of the transformation event ;
In view of the large number of food preparations and the complexity of sampling , extraction and method of determination for such a wide range of products , applicants may confine themselves to providing methods of determination for the actual genetic modification in question .
where appropriate , a proposal for post-market monitoring for the use of the food for human consumption ; ( k ) where the food is not equivalent to its conventional counterpart in accordance with Art 14 ( 2 )a , second , third and fourth indent and where appropriate , a proposal for post-market monitoring for the use of the food for human consumption ;
Whilst post-market monitoring is included in the proposal , we are nowhere near a practical proposal for how this could be achieved across the EU , effectively a major stumbling block for authorisations .
Post-market monitoring , whilst feasible for medicines , will be extremely difficult and extremely expensive to implement in the case of internationally traded foodstuffs and ingredients .
For these reasons , post-market monitoring should be restricted to those cases deemed during the course of the safety assessment to be sufficiently different from the conventional product to require surveillance .
This section shall not apply to foods in which neither protein nor DNA resulting from genetic modification is detectable .
The intention is to prevent fraud and make the regulation applicable and enforceable .
These exemptions are stated in the introduction of the regulation and also in the summary report but should also be stated here explicitly to avoid confusion .
This Section shall not apply to foods containing material which contains , consists of or is produced from genetically modified organisms in a proportion no higher than the thresholds established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable .
What is essential for consumers is to know not whether GMOs have been used at some stage in the production process but whether the end product contains GMO residues or not .
Since it is also not possible to detect GMO residues in products imported from third countries , compulsory labelling could place European products at a competitive disadvantage .
This Section shall not apply to foods produced from animals fed with GMOs or products thereof .
The intention is to prevent fraud and make the regulation applicable and enforceable .
These exemptions are stated in the introduction of the regulation and also in the summary report but should also be stated here explicitly to avoid confusion .
Where the food consists of more than one ingredient , the words 'genetically modified' or 'produced from genetically modified [name of organism] but not containing a genetically modified organism' shall appear in the list of ingredients provided for in Article 6 of Directive 2000/13/EC in parentheses immediately following the ingredient concerned .
Alternatively , these words may appear in a footnote to the list of ingredients . It shall be printed in a font of at least the same size as the list of ingredients .
 ( a ) Where the food consists of more than one ingredient , the words 'genetically modified' or 'produced from genetically modified [name of ingredient]' shall appear in the list of ingredients provided for in Article 6 of Directive 2000/13/EC in parentheses immediately following the ingredient concerned .
Labelling is dealt with in several texts relating to GMOs , namely in Directive 2001/18 , Article 26 , in Regulation 1139/98 ( with the wordings ‘produced from genetically modified [ingredient]’ and ‘genetically modified’ ) and also in Regulation 50/2000 ( with the wording ‘produced from genetically modified [ingredient]’ ) .
For the sake of consistency between the different texts on GMOs and to facilitate the implementation of the new package of regulations , the wordings should be changed in line with the existing wording .
Where the ingredient is designated by the name of a category , the words 'contains [name of ingredient] produced from genetically modified [name of organism] but not containing a genetically modified organism' shall appear in the list of ingredients .
Where the ingredient is designated by the name of a category , the words 'contains genetically modified [name of ingredient] or produced from genetically modified [name of organism]' shall appear in the list of ingredients .
It is necessary to provide for the possibility that the label may also need to include GM ingredients in the list of ingredients .
Where there is no list of ingredients , the words 'genetically modified' or 'produced from genetically modified [name of organism] but not containing a genetically modified organism' shall appear clearly on the labelling .
 ( c ) Where there is no list of ingredients , the words 'genetically modified' or 'produced from genetically modified [name of ingredient’ shall appear clearly on the labelling .
Labelling is dealt with in several texts relating to GMOs , namely in Directive 2001/18 , Article 26 , in Regulation 1139/98 ( with the wordings ‘produced from genetically modified [ingredient]’ and ‘genetically modified’ ) and also in Regulation 50/2000 ( with the wording ‘produced from genetically modified [ingredient]’ ) .
For the sake of consistency between the different texts on GMOs and to facilitate the implementation of the new package of regulations , the wordings should be changed in line with the existing wording .
Paragraphs ( a ) , ( b ) , ( c ) and ( d ) shall not apply to food and feed obtained or derived from GMOs in which DNA or protein deriving from genetic modification is not detected .
The methods of analysis currently available do not always detect traces of genetic modification in products obtained from GMOs .
It follows that universal labelling would give rise to numerous cases of fraud and would not help achieve the basic objective , namely to ensure informed consumer choice .
Detailed rules for implementing this Section may be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) .
In particular , the provisions of Article 14 ( 4 ) shall be given effect by measures which specify inter alia: ( a ) the level of varietal purity required for seed planted for the production of the crop in question ;
the standard distances to be respected between varieties planted ;
the methods to be applied to cleaning harvesting equipment to eliminate traces of GMO prior to harvesting a crop in respect of which it is to be claimed that it is non-GM
the measures to be taken to avoid the presence of DNA segments of GM origin in the non-GM product , in particular insofar as such segments are present in dust ;
the level to which transport equipment must be cleaned to ensure the absence of GMO traces in the non-GM product ;
the arrangements to be made at the point of first delivery to ensure the absence of comminglement of the non-GM product , including cleaning of bins and tanks , and of transfer equipment ( augers , conveyor belts , etc .
 ( g ) the arrangements to be made for certifying by independent surveyors , for sealing onward shipments by road , whether bagged , by container , by bulk in trucks , by rail wagon , or by barge , to the point of further loading , including the preservation of the integrity and identity of the shipment at each point of transfer before an ocean terminal or transfer point is reached
the arrangements for sampling and testing at each stage of the transport , having regard to the need to deliver the non-GM product to the final user in a form which respects the level of absence of GM material required by this regulation for the non-GM claim to feature on the labelling of the food or feed product in question .
These measures would ensure the preservation of the identity of a crop and enable operators claiming that a food does not contain GMOs to substantiate that claim .
This Section shall apply to: ( a ) genetically modified organisms for feed use falling within the scope of Directive 2001/18 ; ( b ) feed containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms ; ( b ) feed containing or consisting of these genetically modified organisms
feed produced from genetically modified organisms .
The scope of this proposal should be in line with the proposal on GM traceability and Directive 2001/18 .
Amendment 23Article 17 ( 2 ) No person shall place on the market , use or process a product referred to in Article 16 for feed use or feed falling within the scope of this Section unless it is covered by an authorisation granted in accordance with this Section and the relevant conditions of the authorisation are adhered to .
No person shall place on the market , use or process a product referred to in Article 16 for feed use unless it is covered by an authorisation granted in accordance with this Section and the relevant conditions of the authorisation are adhered to .
Feed not falling within the scope of this section is already dealt with in the reference to Article 16 ( 1 ) .
No product referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) for feed use or feed falling within the scope of this Section shall be authorised unless the applicant for such authorisation has adequately and sufficiently demonstrated that it satisfies the requirements of paragraph 1 .
The presence in feed of material which contains , consists of or is produced from genetically modified organisms in a proportion no higher than 1 % or lower thresholds established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , shall not be considered to be in breach of Article 17 ( 2 ) , provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable and that the genetically modified material has been subject to a scientific risk assessment made by the relevant Scientific Committee ( s ) or the European Food Authority , which concludes that this material does not present a risk for human health , animal health or the environment .
The presence in feed of material which contains , consists of or is produced from genetically modified organisms in a proportion no higher 1 % , with the possibility of lower levels to be established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , shall not be considered to be in breach of Article 4 ( 2 ) , provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable and that the genetically modified material has been subject to a scientific risk assessment made by the relevant Scientific Committee ( s ) , or the European Food Safety Authority , which concludes that this material is safe for human health or the environment .
The nature of this type of financial support requires that all practical steps should be completed within a relatively short time-frame , ensuring that all financial commitments are finalised before the end of the budgetary year .
The financial rules applicable , provide for a series of steps which this call for proposals fully respects .
The period between pre-information early-January and deadline for applications end-April should allow a maximum number of interested parties to submit a proposal
Therefore , the Commission does not see any need for an additional extension of the deadline .
As far as a country participation is concerned , the call for proposals specifies the need for transnational co-operation of institutions .
Therefore , counting the number of project co-ordinators per country provides a false view of actual participation of institutions per country .
As far as the quality of projects is concerned , no assessment can be given yet , as the Evaluation Committee still has to start the analysis .
Given that the deadline for transmitting an application is determined i . by the date of mark by the post , the Commission provides for an additional number of weeks to allow all projects to be received by the Commission before the proposals are opened and the assessment is started .
Over the next two months the Commission will proceed: first with the evaluation of the proposals and second with the procedures related to the budgetary commitment with the objective to have the contracts signed before the summer holidays .
Subject: Adjustment of the regulation regarding exclusive purchasing obligationsIn its answer to written question E-2383/99 ( 6 ) , the Commission states that 'it is in general not to be expected that a brewer with a market share below 30% will be able , on its own , to foreclose the market to its competitors by imposing a non-compete obligation on the pubs it is supplying .
' On the one hand , according to Horeca Vlaanderen , 56% of cafés and public houses are in the hands of brewers with a market share below 10% .
On the other hand , Interbrew has requested a five­year exemption for exclusive contracts .
Despite the reassuring statements by the Commission concerning Regulation ( EC ) 2790/1999 ( 7 ) , exclusivity contracts are becoming the general norm applying in all areas .
What measures and/or adjustments to the regulation is the Commission considering - possibly in consultation with the Belgian Competition Authority - in order to put an end to exclusive purchasing obligations for owners of cafés and public houses ? Does the Commission intend to grant Interbrew a five-year exemption for exclusive contracts ?
AnswerThe honourable Member states that 56% of Belgian cafés are controlled by brewers with a market share of less than 10% .
This position is based on an article in the Belgian newspaper De Standaard , in which figures from Horeca Flanders are used .
According to further information from Horeca Flanders , 70% of the cafés in Belgium are tied by means of exclusive purchasing agreements with brewers or wholesalers ( beer merchants ) , of which 80% ( this means 56% of all Belgian cafés ) are supplied by beer merchants .
The remaining 30% of the cafés is not tied to any brewer or beer merchant .
Therefore , based on the Horeca Flanders figures the conclusion cannot be drawn that 56% of Belgian cafés are tied by brewers with a market share of less than 10% .
As to the specific questions raised by the honourable Member , the Commission can make the following observations .
In such situations , the Commission would follow its standard practice of keeping close and constant liaison with national authorities .
The Belgian beer market , and more particularly the effect of exclusive purchase agreements , is being investigated in the context of Interbrew’s request for an exemption from the prohibition of article 81 ( 1 ) of the EC-Treaty for its distribution contracts .
This notification is dealt with in the broader context of the Commission’s investigation concerning a possible abuse of a dominant position by Interbrew , which started with surprise inspections in July 1999 .
This case is currently being assessed by the Commission .
It is too early to comment on the possible outcome hereof .
Subject: Airfares to remote airportsWith reference to Article 6 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) 2409/92 ( 8 ) , will the Commission confirm that a Member State can intervene in situations in which airfares are excessively high , having regard to all relevant factors ?
In particular , given extremely high costs both of scheduled and of chartered flights ( or of scheduled flights connecting to holiday charters ) from airports in the Scottish Highlands and Islands , would there be a sufficient legal base for intervention by the Scottish Executive or the UK Government as the appropriate authority in the Member State , provided the conditions stipulated in the Regulation were fulfilled ?
AnswerIt is indeed the case that , under Council Regulation ( EEC ) 3409/92 , a Member State may decide to require an air carrier to withdraw its so-called "basic fare" for a given route , if that fare is excessively high in relation to the air carrier's costs . ( The basic fare usually equates to the standard full fare for the journey ) .
If it chooses to challenge a fare in this way , the Member State must draw up a decision and present its reasoning to the Commission and the air carrier involved .
A Member State may only proceed if the Commission raises no objections .
If it wants to take such an action , in essence , a Member State must show that the air carrier is making an unacceptably high profit from a given route .
As regards the specific situation in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland , the Commission cannot make any comment or any judgement in the absence of a proposal and clear argumentation from the appropriate authorities in the United Kingdom .
It must be noted that ten routes in the Scottish Highlands and Islands are operated under a public service obligation contract .
The routes include those from Glasgow to Barra , Cambeltown and Tiree , and various other routes within the Shetland Islands , the Orkney Islands and the Western Isles .
Fares for these routes cannot be challenged since they are offered according to a formula agreed between the United Kingdom authorities and the operating air carrier .
Any problems relating to the fares charged for these routes must be addressed by the authorities concerned through the provisions of the public service contract .
AnswerThe seminar on Directive 91/271/EEC on urban waste water treatment organised on 19 March 2001 by the Commissioner with responsibility for the environment resulted inter alia in statements by France and the Federal Republic of Germany on the subject of the outstanding information on waste water treatment in towns .
Both Member States announced that they would be presenting information forthwith . Germany has already provided the first batch of documents .
The Commission will scrutinise the additional information and take all necessary measures , including , if appropriate , initiating infringement proceedings , to ensure that the urban waste water directive is duly transposed .
Subject: Further information regarding GauchoIn a previous oral question ( H-0082/01 ( 9 ) ) posed at the February part-session , I alerted the Commission to the dangers of fipronil ( Regent ) and imidacloprid ( Gaucho ) , substances which are particularly harmful to bees . The Commission stated in its reply that it was not aware of similar problems in other Member States to those experienced in France .
However , according to the French National Beekeepers' Association , Spain , Italy , Portugal and Belgium are facing the same problems ( rapid decline in stocks , abnormal gathering behaviour ) , and are linking these to the presence of imidacloprid in the area around their hives .
In the light of this new information , does the Commission intend to carry out a study to determine precisely what are the effects of the use of these substances on the environment ? Pending the re­evaluation of these substances at Community level due to be carried out in July 2001 , does the Commission not take the view that the 'precautionary principle' should be applied , given the risks to the environment ?
AnswerAs already mentioned in the Commission's answer to question H-0082/01 imidacloprid and fipronil are to be reviewed in the framework of the Community re-evaluation programme of existing active substances .
According to Article 4 of Directive 91/414/EEC it is the Member State's obligation to ensure that existing active substances do not cause any unacceptable effects on non-target species , including honeybees .
On 6 April 2001 , the Commission adopted Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 703/2001 laying down the active substances of plant protection products to be assessed in the second stage of the work programme referred to in Article 8 ( 2 ) of Directive 91/414/EEC and revising the list of Member States designated as rapporteurs for those substances
This Regulation covers fipronil .
It provides that the time limit for the submission to the rapporteur Member State of the dossiers by the notifiers and the other relevant information by any interested party is set at 30 April 2002 .
The Commission invites the honourable Member to encourage that all relevant information concerning possible effects of fipronil on honeybees is submitted before that deadline to the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State , France .
It is expected that the Commission will adopt by the end of this year a Regulation to cover the third phase of the review programme ; imidacloprid will be included in this Regulation .
An epidemiological study will be carried out in France over the next 2 years , and its results will be taken into consideration during the review both in France and in the Community re-evaluation programme .
The Commission has until now not received any scientific information on similar problems in other Member States .
The Commission continues to believe that , based on the information available , it is not necessary to take immediate action at Community level .
However , if there are particular concerns for certain uses , Member States have the possibility to take the necessary measures .
The Commission understands this is the case in practice because , as a precaution , France has suspended the use of imidacloprid on sunflowers and none of the other Member States mentioned by the honourable Member have granted an authorisation on sunflowers .
The Commission will follow further developments and will take the appropriate measures in due course should this be required .
Subject: Presidency of BulgariaA group of 75 Members of Parliament , representing all political forces , asked the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Bulgaria for a binding interpretation of Article 93 , paragraph 2 , of the Constitution .
That Article stipulates that candidates eligible for the Presidency must have ‘resided in the country for the five years preceding the election’ .
The Court ruled that only those citizens who had resided in Bulgaria for more than six months a year during the five years prior to the election were eligible candidates .
That ruling excludes 800 000 Bulgarian citizens from the basic right of being eligible to stand for election to the Presidency of the Republic .
Does the Commission consider the interpretation by the Bulgarian Constitutional Court of Article 93 , paragraph 2 , to be too restrictive ?Does it take the view that this interpretation by the Court is in line with Article 6 ( 1 ) and 6 ( 2 ) of the Treaty on European Union regarding respect for fundamental rights ?
Subject: Eligibility to hold presidential office in BulgariaAt the request of 75 Members of the Bulgarian Parliament , the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Bulgaria has issued a ruling on the interpretation of Article 93 ( 2 ) of the Constitution .
That article stipulates that , to be eligible for the presidency , candidates must have been resident in the country for at least five years by the date of the election .
According to the Court , only candidates who have resided in Bulgaria for more than six months a year in the five years preceding the election may stand for election as president .
In general terms , it would not be appropriate for the Commission to comment on the detail of the court case .
The Commission is not in a position to give a view on whether the interpretation of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court is too restrictive , or on its potential compatibility with Article 6 . 2 of the Treaty on the European Union .
However , the Commission notes that the Bulgarian Constitution has different provisions on eligibility for election to the National Assembly , which do not include a residence requirement , so there remains a possibility to participate in the political life of the country .
The Commission follows closely the fulfilment of the various criteria for Union membership by all Candidate countries including Bulgaria .
In this context , the independence of the judiciary , as well as functioning of the democratic institutions , are crucial elements which are monitored on an annual basis and reflected in the Commission's Regular Report which is issued in autumn every year .
This year the Commission will of course pay particular attention to the general and presidential elections in Bulgaria .
Subject: Classification of bark , woodchips and sawdust for combustionResidual products from sawmills and forest industries in the form of bark , woodchips and sawdust are a valued form of biofuel and energy raw material both within industry and for domestic heating .
They are also recycled as high-quality fibre raw material .
According to EU classification , however , such residual products constitute waste , which results in unnecessary complications such as authorisation for transport and storage facilities .
The use of such biofuel is being impeded rather than encouraged .
Is the Commission prepared to take steps to alter the classification of bark , woodchips and sawdust when used as fibre raw material , biofuel or energy raw material ?
AnswerIt is correct that residues which are subjected to a discarding operation fall under the Community definition of waste set out in Directive 75/442/EEC ( as amended ) ( 10 ) 1 as interpreted by the Court of Justice on a number of occasions .
The fact that such residues can substitute alternative energy raw material or be recycled as high-quality fibre raw material waste , does not mean that recovery of such waste has no environmental protection relevance .
The Commission doubts that the use of residues is impeded rather than encouraged by European law , since Directive 75/442/EEC makes a clear distinction between waste for recovery and waste for disposal so that the recovery of waste is encouraged .
In particular , Article 11 sets out conditions under which Member States may derogate from the permit requirements .
Moreover , wood waste - if not contaminated by halogenated organic compounds or heavy metals - is excluded from the scope of Directive 2000/76 on the incineration of waste ( Article 2 ( 2iv ) ) .
Nevertheless , the Commission is aware that the different interpretations given in some cases to the waste definition by national authorities can be problematic .
The Commission is presently assessing the issue and all elements , including legitimate expectations of all stakeholders , are being given full consideration .
Subject: EU funding to combat tuberculosisFollowing the choice of theme of ‘DOTS - TB Cure for All’ for World TB Day on 24 March 2001 , can the Commission say what it is doing to ensure that DOTS ( Directly Observed Treatment Short Course ) is received by more than just 25% of the world's tuberculosis sufferers ?Will the Commission devote more resources to this problem ? If not , why not ?
AnswerThe Commission fully recognises that the scale of the global tuberculosis ( TB ) problem requires an extraordinary response from the international development community .
Developing countries need a massive increase in support that will need to be sustained over many years .
Effective TB control and care will necessitate resources to strengthen national health systems , to provide essential TB drugs , diagnostics , and vector control products and to roll out successfully the DOTS approach .
The World Health Organisation ( WHO ) recommended DOTS produces cure rates of up to 95% even in the poorest countries , prevents new infections and the development of drug resistant strains of TB .
Even if a lot of progress has been registered since 1995 , additional efforts are necessary in order to promote the wide-spread use of DOTS ; the potential of this cheap and effective strategy to reduce TB morbidity and deaths has not yet been realised in all settings .
Since DOTS was introduced on a global scale , some very encouraging results have been reported .
In half of China , cure rates among new cases are 96% .
In Peru , widespread use of DOTS for more than five years has led to the successful treatment of 91% of cases .
By the end of 1998 , all 22 of the high burden countries that bear 80% of the estimated incident cases had adopted DOTS .
WHO targets for the years to come are to detect 70% of new infectious TB cases and to cure 85% of those detected .
To this end , Governments , NGOs and civil society must continue to act to improve TB control to reach these targets worldwide .
The accelerated Programme for Action ( PFA ) against TB , and against HIV/AIDS and malaria , the other two major communicable diseases associated with poverty – presented recently to Parliament and Council - highlights indeed the importance for further investments and public private partnerships for public health priorities in developing countries .
The Commission is now developing detailed workplans and will further examine , with WHO in particular and other donors concerned , opportunities to accelerate and scale up resource flows to needy countries to confront these diseases .
Subject: Report by Christa Klaß , MEP , on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vineOn 24 October 2000 , Parliament adopted by a large majority a report ( A5-0195/2000 , C5-0090/2000 ) on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine .
What stage has been reached in the further consideration of this document in the Council ? Why has the Council not yet completed its consideration of this directive ? When will the directive be placed on the Council's agenda for final consideration and forwarded to the Member States for implementation ?Is it not also the Commission's duty as guardian of the Treaties actively to press the Council to take a decision on Parliament's reports within a reasonable period of time ?The Commission's proposal and Parliament's report on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine create greater legal certainty for the economic partners concerned in these areas which are so important for wine-growing in the EU .
Clear rules on cultivation , authorisation , registration and checks should simplify trade and establish a clear legal basis therefor .
It is incomprehensible that , five months later , the Council has still not reached a decision .
AnswerFollowing the adoption by the Parliament on 24 October 2000 of the draft amendment of Council Directive 68/193/EEC on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine the initial proposal of the Commission has been updated to endorse the amendments of the Parliament .
The item was included in the agenda of the Agriculture Council meetings of 20 November 2000 and 19 December 2000 , but it was withdrawn both times .
It was later discussed in the meeting of the Agriculture Council held on 29 January 2001 .
At this meeting some Member States expressed reservations concerning the GMO issues in relation to the state of play in the then ongoing conciliation procedure on modification of Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms .
The Commission , in the light of the Parliament opinion , gave several explanations to questions concerning references to the genetically modified vine material and also strongly emphasised the urgency of the approval of the new amended Directive so as to update rules on cultivation , authorisation , registration and checks .
The recent adoption of Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms now permits clarification of the remaining issues which were the subject of reservations of some Member States .
The Commission is considering the situation in the light of this adoption and with a view to pursing the procedure with the Council .
Subject: PHARE programme BG 313In the year 2000 , acting on behalf of the Commission , Deloitte [amp] Touche audited PHARE programme BG 313 relating to the Bulgarian social dialogue .
The results of the audit are said to correspond to the findings of the Bulgarian Ministry of Labour .
The information that I have from Member States is that it is broadly acceptable to them as well .
There is agreement that it is desirable to agree the revision in time for 1 January 2002 so that the benefit to the farming community can come in as quickly as possible .
The principle of the Commission's proposals is broadly acceptable to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development , though there are differences in emphasis .
The committee proposes a premium 50% higher than that put forward by the Commission .
The lower premium for milking-sheep and goats is rejected and a higher supplement proposed for sheep and goats in less favoured areas .
There are strong pressures within the committee that the market organisation should make greater provision for national differences .
A number of proposals have been put forward . They cover such matters as extensification , de-stocking and the buy-out of premium rights .
There are also proposals which would allow Member States to make additional headage and area payments . These would be based on objective criteria which could cover , inter alia , environmental considerations , tagging and traceability .
Sheep farming has not made the productivity advances seen in other agricultural sectors .
Amendments have been introduced calling for Commission support for increased marketing promotion .
Targeting young people to encourage consumption will be important for success .
The committee recognises that this is an interim stage and looks forward to reports from the Commission on environmental impact , traceability and pasturing techniques .
It is anticipated that this will lead to wider reforms in the Agenda 2000 mid-term review .
The Agriculture Committee looks to the Commission for a positive response to the amendments it has proposed .
– Mr President , my report on behalf of the Committee on Budgets is brief , because the Committee on Budgets was asked to give its opinion on the proposal by the Commission .
We were broadly supportive .
First of all , it streamlines the policy , making it simpler and much more defensible within the GATT negotiations , thereby providing longer-term security for farmers engaged in sheep and goat farming .
We proposed an amendment in relation to individual tagging .
We did not propose in that way to enter into the area of food safety , or indeed the business of the Committee on Agriculture .
We simply wanted to ensure that premiums were paid on sheep and goats that actually existed and that we had a means of ensuring that the animals could be counted and accounted for .
Since I am responsible to the Committee on Budgetary Control for animal products , I felt it my duty to insert that amendment .
Speaking for myself , I can say that the Committee on Budgets has its responsibilities .
This is largely a neutral proposal by the Commission , but the Committee on Agriculture has its responsibilities to farmers .
I support the position it has taken in this respect .
I support the Doyle amendment which was passed by the Committee on Agriculture .
As regards costs , the Committee on Budgets added approximately EUR 400 million in horizontal cuts that the Council deducted from the budget so we added EUR 400 million this morning .
We added another EUR 400 million in relation to animal health measures .
The budget this year is 2% more in real terms than we started with last year , and in real terms it is more than 5% , when you consider the outturn .
It is my opinion , and the opinion of EPP members in the Committee on Budgets , that there are sufficient funds to meet the request of the Committee on Agriculture: if the Doyle position is accepted by this Parliament and by the Council there are sufficient resources to finance the policy .
It will be a shift of money from the rich areas to the poor areas , from the bigger farmers to the smaller farmers .
It is a social and regional measure that we could do with .
I reiterate what my colleague , Mr McCartin , has just said . He is speaking on behalf of the Committee on Budgets . There is money there to support the proposals that were passed by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development , for a EUR 30 fixed rate premium and a EUR 9 supplement premium .
There is money there .
I appeal to colleagues to support the views of the Agriculture Committee .
I fear tonight's vote – on a Thursday night – may be unrepresentative of the large majority decision at the Agriculture Committee on this particular issue .
The Community average income of sheep and goat producers is generally amongst the lowest of all sectors , especially in northern Europe where lambs are reared in meat production systems .
I quote the words of the Commission: "Unlike beef and other commodities , the Community is deficient in sheepmeat and , under the present regimes , there is a major exodus from sheep production , especially in northern Europe .
The beef regime unwittingly also supports this exodus from sheep production as ewes are counted for extensification payment under this regime but are not paid for , thereby encouraging farmers who have the option to decrease their sheep and increase their cattle on a holding to draw down more extensification payments .
"The most cost-effective solution from a common agricultural policy point of view is to ensure that the sheep and goat regimes , together with the impact of the beef regime , encourage as much land as possible to be kept in Europe in sheep production .
It is at least four times as expensive to support a livestock unit of beef , compared to that of sheepmeat .
While beef producers need all the support they are getting , given their present difficulties , it is not in their interest either to have competition generated between dry stock sectors by imbalance in the respective regimes .
The main proposal for a fixed , single annual premium I fully support , at EUR 30 .
I fully support it , in place of the unfair , uncertain and – from a WTO perspective – unacceptable present deficiency payment system .
We support the flexibility amendments to send a message to the Commission that there is room for different treatment in some Member States in relation to this regime , providing that it does not come from the flat rate payment .
We cannot support the identification and traceability amendments because this is a matter for DG V , not because we do not support the principle but because it is for another DG , and for that reason solely .
– ( FR ) Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , I should like , first of all , to welcome the work of Mr Adam , our rapporteur , and to congratulate him on his desire to give some hope to sheep and goat farmers , who are , by and large , at the lower end of the scale of agricultural earnings .
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has used its vote , as you quite rightly pointed out , to confirm the principle of a basic deficiency payment , of a rural premium and of a supplementary flexibility premium based on the criteria of produce quality , the environment or financial management .
It is also the case that the levels set by our committee will have to be readjusted in plenary if Parliament hopes to influence Council and , therefore , maintain credibility .
The Commission recommended a maximum of EUR 28 per head but the Committee on Agriculture raised the amount to EUR 44 , which far exceeds the expectations of rearers and could , furthermore , prove difficult to reconcile with the room for manoeuvre provided by the budget .
On behalf of my group , I have , therefore , retabled two of the rapporteur’s amendments designed respectively to reset the basic premium at EUR 25 per head and the premium for milk herds – ewes or she-goats – at EUR 20 .
In the ‘meat’ sector , the maximum aid per head would therefore , be EUR 39 , which would ensure equal treatment in terms of public premiums per hectare for sheep breeders and milk-cow breeders .
I would say that this is a totally logical approach , because these two types of production often exist side by side in the same regions and areas and even within the same holdings .
In terms of the markets , we now have two situations at variance with one another: a surplus of beef and veal and a deficit of sheepmeat .
If per-hectare premiums are set at an equivalent level , this could restore the balance of production , with the choices made by producers being influenced by market conditions .
Furthermore , I recommend maintaining a difference between the basic premium for the ‘meat’ sector and the premium for the milk sector because to do otherwise would leave the sheep and goat milk sectors with no future , which nobody wants to see .
This is why I hope , ladies and gentlemen , that this evening you will support these amendments , which I think are both realistic and responsible .
– ( NL ) Mr President , on behalf of the liberal group , I can say that we broadly support the Commission's proposals .
We find the new system better than the old system , which was more or less a system of deficiency payments .
We also find the amounts specified by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development excessive .
We will therefore support Mr Garot's and Mr Adam's amendments , which are slightly more modest but which do in fact provide a good negotiating position in respect of the Council .
My group has submitted new amendments which relate to the identification of the animals .
We consider it to be of the utmost importance that when money is being distributed – animal premiums and suchlike – the control system is spick and span and there is very little wrong with it .
The Commission should therefore introduce a new identification system as soon as possible .
Finally , and I am saying this on behalf of the group , I have tabled amendments stating that dikes and salt marshes in Europe will also be regarded as least favoured areas .
– I would first of all like to congratulate the rapporteur on his very hard work on this difficult report .
Farming has taken a blow over the past year in the United Kingdom , and sheep farming , of course , is no exception .
Given the fact that 80% of my own nation – Wales – is designated by the EU as less favoured and that sheep farming is the only available method of farming in many part of Wales , this report has far-reaching implications for Wales and its hill and upland farmers , as indeed it has for their European counterparts .
I therefore welcome additional financial support for farmers situated in less-favoured areas such as Wales and I urge fellow MEPs to support additional payments for these areas .
Now although this premium will not solve overnight the immediate crisis , we need to get the proposal through as quickly as possible to ensure that the sheep annual premium payments will be in place by January 2002 .
The original proposal was disappointing , and a lot of hard work has been put in to get the best deal possible for farmers in this regard .
Of course , I want to see farmers get the fairest and highest possible premium .
However , we have to work within the budget , and this is why I fully support Mr Adam's proposal of EUR 25 and am confident that the Council will consider this proposal as a very viable option given the constraints .
Pitching the figure higher than this would lose money to other sectors including rural development .
I will be voting against Amendment No 21 , as I believe the wording to be too vague , and I would like to see a clause stating that any money put back into the national reserve from a region or country within a Member State should be ring-fenced to ensure the benefit of this fund is maintained for that particular area .
We must protect our sheep-farming industry because to lose more farmers from the industry would have a catastrophic effect on the make-up of rural communities where small family farms play such a vital role .
– Seldom have I seen a greater degree of unanimity on the need for reform of the sheep and goat sector .
The rapporteur , the Commission , Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and farming organisations are all at one on the need for reform .
It is now down to this Parliament and the Council to give meaningful effect to this consensus .
There is , however , one important bridge to be crossed if this desired objective is to be achieved .
Unless we succeed in reaching a fair consensus on the level of financial support for sheep farming , this attempt at reform will fail and the decline of sheep production will lead to a significant imbalance in the European meat sector , thereby putting greater pressure on the beef sector as farmers switch from one enterprise to another .
So , it makes good economic sense to get the balance right now .
There will not be another bite at this cherry .
We talk a lot about the sustainability of European agriculture .
To me it means maintaining a reasonable balance between all sectors , including the profitability of each .
I do not have to remind the House of the relevance of sheep farming in areas not suited to other agricultural enterprises and the importance , from a rural development perspective , of sustaining farm families in those areas .
I do , however , wish to acknowledge the positive aspects of the Commission proposals , including the findings of the Evaluation Committee report , the simplification of procedures and the introduction of a single premium .
Here , however , I differ with the Commission on its method of calculation , based on averaging .
This does not fairly reflect the difficulties experienced by the sector over a longer period .
During the debate , I tabled a number of amendments .
My proposal for a flat rate premium of EUR 32 was not supported ; it was based on a fair and thorough evaluation by agricultural economists of the level of support necessary to restore equity to the sector .
On behalf of my Group , I then supported proposals for EUR 30 – a figure which I believe is the very minimum necessary to close the gap and help restore profitability to the sector .
I ask the House not to deviate from this figure , which can be accommodated within the existing guidelines , and also to support amendments on compensation for extensification , the rural world premium and funding for market developments .
Like all Members of this House , I am conscious of the budgetary implications of reform .
I caution against reform of sheepmeat at the expense of other sectors , particularly beef .
Those who take pleasure in pointing out that agriculture takes up almost 50% of the budget should keep in mind that this general support is as much a subsidy to consumers as it is support for the farming community – the people who are expected to guarantee food supply and quality and at the same time maintain the rural environment .
Those who believe that agriculture is oversubsidised should take note of the continuing decline in the number of farm families and ask themselves why this is happening .
We should note , in my view , with alarm the reluctance of young people to take up farming and ponder the consequences for food security and employment in the agricultural food sector .
In evaluating the relevance of agriculture to the European and world economy , you cannot apply the same economic criteria as we apply to other sectors .
The report by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is an improvement on the Commission proposals but , for all that , it does not make any significant changes in the sheep and goat farming sector .
For example , we agree that it is good idea to increase premiums and special aid , which have not risen since 1993 and have since been eroded by inflation .
We also agree that it is a good idea to make the conditions for payment of supplementary aid more flexible .
However , we do not agree that it is a good idea to maintain the difference between mixed meat and milk production subsidies , which the report justifies on the grounds that mixed production unit holders generate additional income from milk production .
This is not comparing like with like because meat production units , which are mainly located in northern countries , are large operations which afford a satisfactory income and profit to their owners , while mixed production units , which are mainly located in the Mediterranean countries , are family-run holdings in the most barren areas which do not afford their owners a viable income , with the result that they are declining year on year and these areas are being abandoned .
The report accepts the philosophy of quotas and even tries to add to it with management quotas , despite the fact that the European Union's self-sufficiency in sheep- and goatmeat is around 80% , sheep and goat farms are to be found in the poorest areas of the European Union , where no alternative form of farming is generally possible , and sheep and goat farmers are the poorest social group in the European Union .
If we really wanted to provide income support for these regions and for sheep and goat farmers , we would abolish quotas , increase subsidies and provide other additional incentives .
This sort of policy would help to reverse the rate of abandonment of mountain and mainly barren areas and , at the same time , make the European Union self-sufficient in sheep- and goatmeat .
– ( FR ) Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , the crisis besetting livestock farming in Europe is of an unprecedented scale .
If it is not checked it will have terrible consequences for our economies , our societies and for life in our territories .
It is impossible to avoid unintentional contamination during production and transport .
Directive 2001/18 ) recognises that technically unavoidable traces of GMOs will be present in products .
An important source of these traces is commercial production in third countries .
In order to ensure the practicability and feasibility of the Regulation , it is necessary to establish a threshold of 1% with the possibility to establish lower levels by comitology .
The thresholds should be based on the sensitivity of analytical methods , but also on what is practically achievable taking into account production , transport and food processing practices .
The Commission shall establish within six months after the publication of this regulation and in close cooperation with the ( competent authorities of the ) Member States a protocol defining criteria for these appropriate steps to avoid the presence of GMOs and produce thereof .
This Protocol shall be made public .
In order to allow flexibility to define other thresholds in accordance with a case-by-case approach to food crops and other food ingredients .
In the context of rapid and broad development of GM crops outside the EU , food manufacturers are experiencing increased difficulty in avoiding adventitious presence of GMOs approved in third countries in the food chain .
In order to achieve uniformity of requirements within the EU on the demonstration to the Competent Authorities of the Member States that the operator has taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of the GM food and feed and facilitate the movement of goods , appropriate guidelines for ‘identity preserved’ supplies should be defined as soon as possible .
a method for detection , including sampling and identification of the transformation event and , where applicable , for the detection and identification of the transformation event in the feed referred to in Article 16 ( 1 ) ; ( i ) a method for detection , including sampling and identification of the transformation event ;
In view of the large number of feed preparations and the complexity of sampling , extraction and method of determination for such a wide range of products , applicants may confine themselves to providing methods of determination for the actual genetic modification in question .
This Section shall not apply to feed or ingredients derived from GMOs in which neither DNA nor protein resulting from genetic modification is detectable .
The intention is to prevent fraud and make the regulation applicable and enforceable .
This Section shall not apply to feed containing , consisting of or produced from genetically modified organisms in a proportion no higher than the thresholds established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) , provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable .
Paragraphs ( a ) , ( b ) , ( c ) and ( d ) shall not apply to food and feed obtained or derived from GMOs in which DNA or protein deriving from genetic modification is not detected .
In addition , since the products concerned are effectively the same as conventional products , there is no sense in differentiating them from the latter .
Detailed rules for implementing this Section may be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) .
Detailed rules for implementing this Section may be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 36 ( 2 ) .
In particular , the provisions of Article 27 ( 5 ) shall be given effect by measures which specify inter alia: ( a ) the level of varietal purity required for seed planted for the production of the crop in question ; ( b ) the standard distances to be respected between varieties planted ; ( c ) the methods to be applied to cleaning harvesting equipment to eliminate traces of GMO prior to harvesting a crop in respect of which it is to be claimed that it is non-GM ;
 ( d ) the measures to be taken to avoid the presence of DNA segments of GM origin in the non-GM product , in particular insofar as such segments are present in dust ; ( e ) the level to which transport equipment must be cleaned to ensure the absence of GMO traces in the non-GM product
the arrangements to be made at the point of first delivery to ensure the absence of comminglement of the non-GM product , including cleaning of bins and tanks , and of transfer equipment ( augers , conveyor belts , etc . )
the arrangements to be made for certifying by independent surveyors , for sealing onward shipments by road , whether bagged , by container , by bulk in trucks , by rail wagon , or by barge , to the point of further loading , including the preservation of the integrity and identity of the shipment at each point of transfer before an ocean terminal or transfer point is reached ;
the arrangements for sampling and testing at each stage of the transport , having regard to the need to deliver the non-GM product to the final user in a form which respects the level of absence of GM material required by this regulation for the non-GM claim to feature on the labelling of the food or feed product in question .
These measures would ensure the preservation of the identity of a crop and enable operators claiming that a food does not contain GMOs to substantiate that claim .
The Commission shall ensure that the requirements arising from the directives , regulations and administrative provisions concerning the evaluation and authorisation of food and feed and of raw materials intended for their production are no less rigorous for products imported into the European Union , in order to avoid the creation of unequal and unfair conditions of competition .
The register shall include information on the method ( s ) validated by the Community reference laboratory , pursuant to Articles 7 ( 3 ) ( f ) and 20 ( 3 ) ( f ) , and on the methods used by the national reference laboratories .
All the methods used by the reference laboratories in the context of monitoring and implementation by the Member States should be made public .
In particular , where a method has not been validated reliable information must be provided on the different methods used , in order to avoid confusion .
The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee referred to in Article 57 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No . /2001 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law , establishing the European Food Authority , and laying down procedures in matters of food safety .
The regulation on genetically modified food and feed is based on the common position for the regulation establishing the European Food Safety Agency .
However , the numbering of the articles has changed in the new text of that regulation: hence the need to alter the reference .
Directive 2001/18/EC is amended with effect from the date of entry into force of this Regulation as follows: Deleted ‘The following Article 12a is inserted: Article 12a Adventitious presence of GMOs in products Articles 13 to 21 shall not apply to the placing on the market of traces of a GMO or combination of GMOs in products intended for direct use as food or feed , or for processing , in a proportion no higher than 1 % or lower thresholds established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30 ( 2 ) , provided that these traces of GMOs are adventitious or technically unavoidable and that the GMOs have been subject to a scientific risk assessment made by the relevant Scientific Committee ( s ) or the European Food Authority , which concludes that the GMOs do not present a risk for human health or the environment .
In order to establish that traces of GMOs are adventitious or technically unavoidable , operators must be in a position to demonstrate to the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid them’ .
JustificationUnder Article 21 ( 2 ) of Directive 2001/18/E , a maximum threshold may be introduced for ‘products where adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of authorised GMOs cannot be excluded’ .
A5-0313/2001
25 September 2001
Amendments to a legislative text In amendments by Parliament , amended text is highlighted in bold italics .
Highlighting in normal italics is an indication for the relevant departments showing parts of the legislative text for which a correction is proposed , to assist preparation of the final text ( for instance , obvious errors or omissions in a given language version ) .
These suggested corrections are subject to the agreement of the departments concerned .
At the sitting of 15 November 2000 Parliament adopted its position at first reading on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on general product safety .
At the sitting of 14 February 2001 the President of Parliament announced that the common position had been received and referred to the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Policy .
At the sitting of 16 May 2001 Parliament adopted amendments to the common position .
By letter of 30 May 2001 the Council stated that it was unable to approve all Parliament's amendments .
Compromise proposals were considered at delegation and trialogue meetings on 14 and 19 June 2001 .
An agreement was reached at the trialogue meeting , accepted by the delegation and confirmed by the Conciliation Committee as an "A point" at its meeting on 25 June 2001 .
By letter of 5 July 2001 the Parliament informed the Council that it was necessary to extend the deadline for adopting the act , as laid down in Article 251 ( 7 ) of the EC Treaty .
On 14 August 2001 the co-chairmen of the Conciliation Committee established that the joint text had been approved , pursuant to paragraph III .
8 of the Joint declaration on practical arrangements for the new co-decision procedure , ( 1 ) and forwarded it to Parliament and the Council in all the official languages .
The report was tabled on 25 September 2001 .
European Parliament legislative resolution on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a European Parliament and Council directive on general product safety .
 ( Codecision procedure: third reading )The European Parliament ,– having regard to the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee – having regard to its position at first reading .
Approves the joint text and confirms its statement thereon ;2 .
Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article .
Instructs its Secretary-General duly to sign the act and , in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council , to have it published in the Official Journal of the European Communities ; .
Instructs its President to forward this legislative resolution to the Council and Commission .
On 29 March 2000 the Commission presented a proposal for a directive on general product safety .
The purpose of the Directive is to revise and recast the Directive on general product safety 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 and to complete , reinforce and clarify some of its provisions in the light of experience , new and relevant developments and the changes made to the Treaty .
The Directive aims at establishing at Community level a general safety requirement for any product placed on the market , or otherwise supplied or made available to consumers .
2 ) On 15 November 2000 the Parliament adopted 30 amendments at first reading . After that the Commission amended its proposal and the Council subsequently adopted its common position on 12 February 2001 .
On 16 May 2001 , at its second reading , Parliament adopted 7 amendments dealing mainly with the safety of services , the precautionary principle and the exercise of the Commission's implementing powers .
4 ) At that meeting a compromise agreement was reached between the Council and the Parliament and the conciliation on this directive was opened and concluded as an “A point” at the Conciliation Committee of 25 June 2001 .
The main points of the agreement reached can be summarised as follow: -Safety of services: the Commission will identify and report to the Council and the Parliament on the needs , possibilities and priorities for Community action on the safety of services before 1 January 2003 , accompanied by proposals as appropriate ;
Certification: appropriate independent certification is recognised as a facilitating instrument in proving compliance with applicable product safety criteria ;
Comitology: for questions of security in the field of standardisation the regulatory procedure was maintained but the Commission will report every three years to the Parliament and the Council on its programmes for setting the requirements and the mandates for standardisation ;
Precautionary principle: when taking measures on any product , any product that could pose risks in certain conditions , any product that could pose risks for certain persons , and in particular on any product that could be or is dangerous not yet introduced to the market or already in the market , the competent authorities of the Member States shall act in accordance with the Treaty and take due account of the precautionary principle .
ConclusionThe Delegation regards the end result of conciliation as satisfactory for Parliament .
It therefore recommends that the House adopt the attached joint text at third reading .
A5-0359/2002
23 October
2002PROCEDURAL PAGE
By letter of 24 January 2002 , the Commission forwarded to Parliament a communication on Life sciences and biotechnology - A Strategy for Europe .
At the sitting of 10 June 2002 the President of Parliament announced that he had referred the communication to the Committee on Industry , External Trade , Research and Energy as the committee responsible and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market , the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Policy , the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Culture , Youth , Education , the Media and Sport for their opinions .
The Committee on Industry , External Trade , Research and Energy had appointed Elisa Maria Damião rapporteur at its meeting of 19 February 2002 .
It considered the Commission communication and the draft report at its meetings of 9 July , 11 September , 7 and 21 October 2002 .
At the last meeting it adopted the motion for a resolution by 28 votes to 7 , with 3 abstentions .
The opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is attached ; the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Policy decided on 27 March 2002 not to deliver an opinion .
The report was tabled on 23 October 2002 .
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
European Parliament resolution on the Commission communication on Life sciences and biotechnology - A Strategy for Europe .
The European Parliament ,– having regard to the Commission communication having regard to Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions ( 2 ) ,– having regard to its resolution of 15 March 2001 on the Future of the Biotechnology Industry ( 3 ) ,– having regard to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights proclaimed by the European Council on 7 December 2000 .
having regard to its legislative resolutions on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on genetically modified food and feed ( 4 ) and on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability of food and feed derived from genetically modified organisms ( 5 ) , which were adopted at first reading by the European Parliament ,–
having regard to Rule 47 ( 1 ) of the Rules of Procedure ,– having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry , External Trade , Research and Energy and the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development ( A5 ?0359/2002 ) .
whereas the Lisbon European Council set the European Union the new strategic goal of becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world ,B .
whereas biotechnology contributes to healthcare , helps to protect the environment and can be used in industrial production processes , while respecting the preventive and precautionary principles ,C .
whereas the European Union is not merely an economic area , but is also an area of shared fundamental values based on respect for human dignity ,D .
whereas awareness of biotechnology and the principles of genetics is not widely known ,E .
whereas in spite of increasing efforts in the biotech sector in recent years , the EU is lagging behind its global competitors , the situation can be demonstrated by insufficient levels of R&D expenditure , particularly from the private sector , the geographical migration of researchers outside the EU ( brain-drain ) and of companies , mainly to the US , the difficulty of access to investment and venture capital and cumbersome patenting legislation and bureaucracy
whereas the European Union has only limited competencies in the field of education .
whereas , although genetics specialists and professional organisations make efforts to promote quality assessment , genetic testing services are provided under widely varying conditions and regulatory frameworks in the individual Member States
whereas there exists no EU legislation to guarantee a minimum standard of genetic testing and analysis services in conformity with other provisions
Welcomes the European Commission’s Action Plan on Life sciences and Biotechnology and its vision for a long term , competitive and responsible European model for biotechnology with all its benefits and opportunities for our society , while respecting the cultural diversity of each Member State
Welcomes the Commission’s willingness to explore areas where common views on fundamental guidelines are possible , to promote an inter-institutional dialogue , and to ensure that ethical implications are taken into account at the earliest possible stage of EU-supported research
Calls for major responsibility for coordinating the biotechnology strategy to be conferred on one Commissioner in particular and on a directorate-general created to that end so as to ensure greater consistency in Community activities
Considers it important to inform the public that biotechnology offers opportunities in various fields: from health to agriculture , from industry to alternative energy resources ; opposes the view that , in medicine , genetic technology and biotechnology are primarily associated with opportunities , whereas in agriculture they are primarily associated with risks , is much more inclined to believe that in both areas there are major opportunities which should be taken advantage of , but also significant risks which need to be reduced by means of appropriate legislation
Calls on the European Commission to launch a ‘B-Europe’ policy which lays down the specific political agenda for the next few years in the field of biotechnology
Stresses that further basic statistical information is also required on the industry's structure and development in Europe
Recalls that better statistics , e . on epidemiological data or on ongoing research projects , etc .
will help to better focus target R&D projects on real needs of citizens ;Knowledge , Education and Workforce8 .
Calls on the governments of the Member States , as the European Union has only limited competencies in the field of education , to improve basic education in schools , higher education and education for adults in the field of biology with a particular focus on genomics and microbiology , not only to improve the knowledge of the workforce but also to improve the knowledge base on which consumers can take their decisions ;9 .
Calls on the Commission to hasten its review of Regulation 1408/71 and to draft a proposal for a harmonised procedure to transfer pension rights also for supplementary pensions between different Member States to provide an incentive for the mobility of the workforce ;10 .
Calls on the Member States to increase the proportion of women in science , research and development by supporting educational programmes and by changing working conditions and improving the availability and the quality of childcare ;Public information and debate11 .
Observes the need to enhance and enlarge public debate , the access to objective information and the level of scientific knowledge ; emphasises the need for consumers to have the opportunity to address questions to scientists and to receive answers from them ;12 .
Calls for the public authorities and industry to pursue a transparent information policy based on scientific data ; reminds the media of the major role which they play in this field and calls on them to cover the issue impartially and fairly ;13 .
Calls for an increased influence in the nomination of members of the European Group on Ethics in support of the Commission’s proposal to strengthen the EP's role in exploring and informing about European ethical guidelines and stresses that the work of this group must be transparent and that consumers are involved at an early stage ;International cooperation14 .
States that biotechnology alone will not help to overcome hunger in the world and that other methods , for example a better distribution of available food , are currently more important , but underlines that given the ever increasing world population it might also be necessary to use genetically modified crops to produce enough food ;15 .
Recalls that the European Union is the largest development aid partner world-wide , and calls on the Commission and Member States to promote international guidelines towards the co-operation role of biotechnology for the improvement of health , nutrition and environment , respecting human dignity in developing countries ;16 .
Considers that Community rules concerning the welfare and protection of consumers in the field of the life sciences and biotechnology should also be promoted at international level but without creating barriers to commerce and trade since many aspects are related to the world's trading system , which is governed by WTO agreements ;17 .
Emphasises that developing countries themselves must decide if and to what extent they want to use GMOs . Should a developing country want to use biotechnology , the EU and Member States should provide support so that it can strengthen its own capacities ;18 .
Considers that biotechnology can contribute towards finding genuine solutions to environmental problems , sustainable development and food sufficiency , which would help to combat chronic hunger and to improve human health ; considers , therefore , that this technology should be promoted with caution and its applications supported , taking full account of environmental and health safeguards ;19 .
Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote the Johannesburg process for sustainable development and include technology transfer as one of the preconditions for sustainable development in the developing countries , underlines that biotechnology if applied prudently is a contribution to sustainable development because it helps to save energy and raw material and can lead to less pollution ;20 .
Supports the Commission's idea to play a leading role in developing international guidelines but regrets that this action is focused mainly on the food sector ; points out that the establishment of international guidelines for the application of biotechnology are necessary and also further enhances human dignity ;Legislation and enforcement of existing legislation21 .
Emphasises the urgency to complete a harmonised , knowledge-based , predictable and ethical legal framework for biotechnology companies and farmers , which aims to secure consumer safety , competitiveness , the prevention of both a 'brain-drain' in this field and a future dependency on the import of biotech products ;22 .
Calls on the Member States to implement existing legislation ( e .g Clinical Trials Directive , Directive on the legal protection of biological inventions ) in a way that preserves citizens’ interests but which does not jeopardise research activities in Europe at the same time ;23 .
Calls for the introduction of a European patent which meets the requirements of research workers and innovators in both public research institutes and industry ;Consumer Protection24 .
Considers that users of biotechnological developments should bear no risk of liability under the relevant European Union legislation ;25 .
Recalls the need for information based on reliable scientific assessments and studies to enable consumers to make their choice on a sound basis , emphasises that new technologies often have been met with doubt and that some of these doubts are not really rational and that the precautionary principle should be applied in a rational manner so as to provide consumer and environmental protection and not serve as a barrier to political decision-making and technological innovation ;26 .
Stresses that the use of genetically modified products and genetic engineering in production must be accompanied by research , particularly into the long-term effects ;27 .
Stresses the need to ensure that consumers receive reliable information about GMOs , products , and food and animal feed produced from GMOs so that they can choose a product on the basis of prior information and can acquire confidence in GMO products and technology ;28 .
Supports the view that , when new products and production methods are introduced , the potential risks to human health and the environment should be minimised and that , therefore , transparent , knowledge-based risk assessment and risk management procedures must be used , taking account of the precautionary principle ;29 .
Notes that the cautious attitude of consumers towards GMOs and their products recorded in various European surveys ( Eurobarometer , December 2001 , ITPS Report , etc . ) is in large measure attributable to insufficient provision of information about GMO technology ; considers it essential , therefore , that consumers receive reliable and full information ;Research and development , Industry , employment and SMEs30 .
Calls on the European Commission to promote Public and Private networking within the 6th Framework Programme and elsewhere amongst European , national and regional biotech research units , clusters and companies ;31 .
Calls on the European Union to continue research in particular with regard to the development of foodstuffs that are beneficial for consumers , the definition of consumer benefit shall always include the nutritional and toxicological consequences of a product ;32 .
Calls on the European Union to continue research into the improvement of risk assessment , taking into consideration the latest scientific findings ;33 .
Takes the view that policy , together with the industry and research , must produce better information as to risks for consumers , the environment and animals and launch a carefully formulated accompanying programme for growing genetically modified plants ;34 .
Asks the Member States to implement the Directive 98/44/EC ( 6 ) of the European Parliament and the Council of the 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological interventions and to recognise that the decision of the European Patents Office , on the so-called Edinburgh Patent in July 2002 , shows that ethical concerns are respected by the European Patents Office ; regrets on the other hand that the earlier mistake on this patent by the Patents Office was discovered by Greenpeace ( and not by the Patents Office itself )
asks the European Patents Office to review its working methods , so that such mistakes will not be repeated and , refers to its resolution of 30 March 2000 on the 'Decision of the Patents Office on the cloning of Human beings' ( 7 )
Encourages the initiative of the European Commission to identify with appropriate European experts how to overcome the issue of insufficient funding regarding biotech start-ups , asks the European Investment Bank to favourably consider recommendations resulting from that initiative ;36 .
Stresses the importance of giving SME easier access to innovation , training and risk capital in line with the spirit of the European Charter for Small Enterprises ;37 .
Encourages the Commission , Member States , the European Investment Bank and the Committee of the Regions to actively support setting-up bio-clusters , where appropriate support them with finance skills and other means , and encourage networking of bio-clusters throughout Europe to exchange experiences and establish best practices ; calls for the development of bioclusters and other models for technological transfer to be promoted in the European Union and in the applicant countries in order to stimulate investment . Environment , agriculture and food38 .
Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support research concerning biotechnology uses offering clear social or environmental benefits , including the use of genetically modified micro-organisms in water purification and soil restoration , replacing dangerous chemicals currently in use , and developing sustainable and environmentally friendly energy sources ( including biogas , hydrogen and ethanol ) ;39 .
Asks the Commission to support the potential of biotechnology regarding sustainable development and to support the development and selection of adequate assessment techniques allowing a quantitative measurement of sustainability , including all three pillars: environmental , economical and social ;40 .
Calls on the Commission and the Member States to review legislation on fuels , in particular Directive 98/70/EC on the quality of fuels , so as to allow biological energy sources to be economically explored and products to be placed on the market in the short term , e .g blending ethanol with traditional engine fuels , in particular because current limitations are not economically or scientifically justified , they favour pollutant fossil fuels and impair significant environmental improvement through reduction of CO2 ;
Strongly supports the view that the existing de-facto moratorium on GM foods in force since 1998 and due to end in 2003 should cease , in order to increase consumer choice and benefits , and to promote innovation ; the current situation has particularly harmed SMEs that are main originators of innovation ;42 .
Supports the establishment of legal thresholds for the adventitious presence of GM foods and feeds which enable consumer choice , which are set at practically appropriate levels and are based on scientific assessment , provided these products have been established as safe by EU standards ;43 .
Calls for the adoption of practicable thresholds and the immediate implementation of the Directive on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment within the framework of an overall strategy for green genetic engineering in which products containing genetically modified material or produced therefrom must be clearly and unambiguously labelled and traceability ensured in order to give consumer the greatest possible transparency and full freedom of choice ;44 .
Strongly supports the reduction in the use of pesticides and herbicides through biotechnology if it is achieved without risk to the environment or human health ;45 .
Expects that higher consumer confidence in the regulatory process is achievable through centralised scientific review procedures performed by the European Food Safety Authority ; therefore asks the Commission to make a proposal in this direction ;Health and Reproductive Medicine46 .
Calls on the Commission to draft a legislative regulation for the introduction of a standard for genetic tests , since these services lie outside the scope of Council Regulation ( EEC ) N° 2309/93 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and Directive 98/79/EC on in-vitro diagnostic medical devices , which applies only to products to be marketed ;47 .
States that genetic testing and analysis must be conducted under clear rules within the frame of competent , independent and personal counselling which must cover medical , ethical , social , psychological and legal aspects ;48 .
Solemnly reaffirms that the life and dignity of all human beings , whatever their stage of development and state of health , must be respected and is opposed to any form of research or use of life sciences and biotechnology that runs counter to this fundamental principle ;49 .
Notes that genetic testing analysis and diagnosis data must remain confidential and should be used only for the benefit of the person requiring such tests , with the exception of tests undertaken for clearly defined scientific or criminal investigation purposes , therefore such tests should be inadmissible for social or recruitment purposes , and should not jeopardise personal privacy and dignity ;50 .
Calls on the Commission to take the necessary steps for an EU-wide regulation on DNA-testing , choosing , if possible , a legal basis ( e .g Article 152 ( health ) or Article 153 ( consumer protection ) ) which leaves Member States free to introduce more stringent protection measures and asks its competent Committee , subject to prior authorisation by the Conference of Presidents , to consider drafting an own-initiative report on the legal aspects of DNA testing ;51 .
Considers it particularly important to ensure that no woman is compelled to have prenatal diagnosis carried out and that any decision not to resort to such diagnosis is respected and supported ;52 .
Takes the view that determination of sex in connection with prenatal diagnosis should be permitted only - if at all - if there is a risk of serious gender specific hereditary diseases ;53 .
Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission and the parliaments of the Member States .
What is biotechnology and Life Sciences ?The provisional single definition of biotechnology according to the OECD is as follows:“The application of S&T to living organisms as well as parts , products and models thereof , to alter living or non-living materials for the production of knowledge , goods and services .
”No "official" definition of Life sciences has been found and its are often used as a synonym for biotechnology .
The OECD distinguishes between the following five categories: ?DNA ( the coding ): genomics , pharmaco-genetics , gene probes , DNA sequencing/synthesis/amplification , and genetic engineering . ?Proteins and molecules ( the functional blocks ): protein/peptide sequencing/synthesis , lipid/protein engineering , proteomics , hormones , and growth factors , cell receptors/signalling/pheromones .
 ?Cell and tissue culture and engineering: cell/tissue culture , tissue engineering , hybridisation , cellular fusion , vaccine/immune stimulants , embryo manipulation ?Process biotechnology: Bioreactors , fermentation , bioprocessing , bioleaching , bio-pulping , bio-bleaching , biodesulphurization , bioremediation , and biofiltration . ?Sub-cellular organisms: gene therapy , viral vectors .
b ) Categories of biotechnology and life sciencesThree main categories can be distinguished at this time:1 .
white: in industrial processes2 .
green: in agriculture3 .
red: healthcare2 .
Why is biotechnology important ? At the European summit in Lisbon , Heads of State and Government have decided: "The Union has today set itself a new strategic goal for the next decade: to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion .
" Biotechnology has been clearly identified as a component of that knowledge-based economy .
Biotechnology has the potential to contribute to food production sustainability and safety , to maintain biodiversity and to minimise land use and deforestation .
It can be used to protect the environment as an alternative complementary energy and industrial processes .
It can enhance the quality of life of patients , extend life expectancy and deliver medical solutions to some of the world’s rare as well as incurable diseases .
Biotechnology is one of the most promising emerging technologies .
It is predictable to be one of the fastest growing areas within the next decade .
It is of critical importance to allow Europe to evolve its full potential by developing a stable regulatory and economic framework for the biotechnology sector , while promoting confidence of the public and consumers .
What are the concerns associated with Biotechnology ? Why is a public debate so important ?According to 2001 Eurobarometer survey , the European public has become increasingly sceptical as to the benefits of biotech .
The same survey shows , however , that European's knowledge about genetics and biotechnology is poor and only slightly improved since 1993 .
This negative perception must be reversed by a continuous knowledge-based , responsible dialogue and use information vetted by all stakeholders .
The European Commission's report "Innovation and competitiveness in European biotechnology ( Enterprise papers No 7 - 2002 , ISBN 92-894-1805-2 ) states that Europe lags behind the US for various reasons:- late entry- less networking- unattractiveness to researchers- fragmentation- less funding for research- less pluralism in funding .
Funding seems to be the most urgent problem are younger than their US counterparts and most of them are in a phase of development where they are currently extremely vulnerable ; their capital demands far exceeds current supply , furthermore without own resources , they depend largely on outside capital .
With the Basel-II agreement , it has become much more difficult for them to access funding from the banking sector .
The current economic situation also does not make it easy to raise funds .
The above-mentioned Innovation report states that "the availability of venture capital is commonly invoked as a fundamental ingredient of American leadership in biotechnology" .
The report explains that the conventional stereotype that American financial institutions are short-sighted is not true in this case and that venture capitalists can be characterised as having "an extremely strong long run approach .
" Contrary to the situation in Europe , a significant number of biologists with PhDs are working in venture capital firms and can actually evaluate applications for funding .
Regarding green biotechnology in particular , the situation is very complicated in Europe .
There is an illegal de-facto moratorium for product approvals to prevent further GMO crops being placed in the market .
The European Parliament has just tightened a Commission proposal for GMO labelling and tracebility .
This has been welcomed by certain pressure groups , but has been widely criticised by the research and industry community , who believe the amendments forwarded by the EP are not practicable creating administrative burden without enhancing safety .
What is the action plan ?The Action Plan has been drawn up by the Commission as a follow-up of the Lisbon summit - at the request of the Council - and as a consequence of the European Parliament's own initiative report on the future of the biotechnology industry ( 8 ) .
The Action Plan contains 30 actions ( see annex ) that cover all areas of importance in developing the social and economic potential of the industry .
The final goal is to reap its benefits in a shared European vision , achievable , only , by policy coherence between all areas affecting and affected by biotechnology .
Is the Action plan improving the situation ? The action plan is a good initiative and it should be welcomed .
However , two questions remain:
Will it be enough ?
And in the long term , can we afford not to have a European biotechnology ?Societal scrutiny and ethics:Promoting dialogue among stakeholders and organising public debates are necessary to accompany the development of Biotechnology and insure it is in harmony with societal values .
In this respect , the action plan initiates an essential European debate about biotechnology in order not to lose more ground to competitors - if it is lost in the short term , it may be so forever .
Support for the biotechnology community:The biotechnology community urgently needs a predictable and supportive legal and policy framework .
It also needs a better access to venture capital and overall co-ordination ( both public and private ) that unifies research and investment efforts for international and regional mutual benefit , therefore aiming both at competitiveness and quality benchmarking .
According to the European biotechnology industry itself , companies are suffering from massive under-funding since Basel-II .
The Commission urgently needs to examine public financing mechanisms , which might assist the industry during the current economic conditions .
Patenting should be connected with product development and testing ; A EU centralised co-ordination body is needed with public and private support , especially for SME's , to minimise repetition of testing costs and offering conditions for patent holders to develop and test their products in Europe .
Consumer protection:The need for a high level of consumer safety , a rigorous risk assessment and extensive , clear information is paramount for any product under EU's legislation .
Scientists , companies , the European Commission and Member States should be able to provide consumers with an informed choice concerning biotech products , keeping consumers from falling into misinformation and producers from market ostracism .
Protection of personal data should be enforced by the prohibition of genetic testing results for non-therapeutic and non-research uses .
Legislation and enforcement of existing legislation:It is important that a knowledge-based legal framework for biotechnology is created promptly , limiting administrative burdens for researchers and industry , with enforceable requirements .
The Commission should initiate infringement procedures at an earlier stage .
The European Parliament could regularly monitor enforcement of important directives , e .g during its plenary meetings .
The EP itself must discuss biotechnology thoroughly to overcome the schizophrenic situation of half supporting it and half condemning it .
The flight of inventions and researchers implies the need of a supported European patent with minimal bureaucracy , achievable through the harmonisation of National Legislations .
International co-operation:Co-operation with developing countries should always take their needs into consideration and not simply transfer European ideas on foreign ground .
The co-decision of these countries is not underlined in the action plan .
Research and development:The EP has played an important role in adopting legislation for FP6 in due time so that the calls for tender can be made soon and research can be funded from the beginning of 2003 onwards .
Education and workforce:Europe has no power in the drafting of curricula for schools .
The exchange of scientists can be encouraged , but how can young people be encouraged to study biosciences ? How can common knowledge about biotechnology or genomics be improved ? These questions are not answered by the Commission text .
Nor is the question of acceptance solved .
The loss of European biotech researchers ( brain-drain ) and companies is unacceptable .
This is a direct consequence of EU´s inaptitude to decide goals for the sector .
In the long run it will greatly benefit our global competitors rendering EU a dependent importer economy and leave our consumers without freedom of choice .
22 October 2002OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
for the Committee on Industry , External Trade , Research and Energyon the communication from the Commission to the Council , the European Parliament , the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Life sciences and biotechnology - A Strategy for Europe’ ( COM ( 2002 ) 27 – C5 ?0260/02 – 2002/2123 ( COS ) )Draftsman: Emilia Franziska Müller
PROCEDUREThe Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development appointed Emilia Franziska Müller draftsman at its meeting of 19 June 2002 .
The committee considered the draft opinion at its meeting of 10 September 2002 , 2 October 2002 and 21 October 2002 .
At the last meeting it adopted the following conclusions unanimously .
SHORT JUSTIFICATIONIn recent years , the strategy to be adopted by the European Union as regards research and development in the field of biotechnology , and , in particular , the agri-food aspect thereof , has given rise to a large number of debates in Europe .
Public reaction has ranged turn and turn about between a degree of apprehension , based on fears more emotional than scientific about the impact on human health or on biodiversity in the environment , and a desire to remain part of the leading group of countries which know how to use the technologies of the future .
That was shown in particular by the major study carried out by the European Commission in December 2001 ( 9 ) .
The European institutions , and , in particular , the European Parliament , have constantly reaffirmed that a mastery of biotechnology constitutes a priority strategic objective , provided that certain precautions are taken at ethical and technical levels , and that Europe must make up for lost time in this area and catch up with other international operators .
This Commission communication forms part of that nexus and must be supported in the light of our vision of agriculture in Europe and of Europe in the world .
New prospects for European agriculture thanks to biotechnology ( a ) In the countries of the European Union , consumers and the public in general are calling increasingly for agricultural production to involve fewer and fewer chemical fertilisers , pesticides and herbicides with a view to both limiting the amount of residues in the environment and protecting human health .
At the same time , the pressure of international competition is requiring our farmers to maintain , or even increase , yields , while reducing inputs .
Cultivation of pest-resistant plants developed with the use of biotechnology will enable us to satisfy both the expectations of our farmers and those of consumers and the general public ( 10 ) .
 ( b ) What is more , use of this technology will provide European agriculture with new outlets by enabling farmers to produce from plants or animals raw materials which currently have to be produced by chemical synthesis .
Accordingly , the amount of energy and non-renewable raw materials used in the production process may be reduced as they are replaced by renewable resources produced by farmers ( e .g fuels , oils and lubricants , plastic substitutes , washing powders and pharmaceutical products ) .
 ( c ) The general public will become more confident about the use of these techniques the more those techniques are properly regulated as regards research and traceability ( Action 19 ) and backed up by a transparent information policy which will make these products and techniques much less mysterious .
Furthermore , in Action 17 , the Commission gives a commitment that it will take measures to ensure the sustainable co-existence of conventional and organic farming with genetically-modified crops .
Strengthening the EU’s role in the field of life sciences and biotechnology ( a ) Biotechnology offers an opportunity to respond to the challenges which will confront the world in the next few decades: requirements connected with the environment , health and food .
 ( b ) World markets for such products , as estimated in various studies quoted in the Commission communication , will be worth more than EUR 2 000 billion in 2010 .
In 2001 , only 12 000 hectares of GM crops had been planted in Europe out of 53 million hectares world wide ( ISAAA study 2001 ( 11 ) ) .
If Europe decides not to go for those markets , it will have to accept that it will be marginalised in less than 10 years .
 ( c ) Each year , the European Union imports about 40 million tonnes of animal feed , of which 34 million tonnes are soya-based products .
In the USA , more than 70% of the soya harvest comes from genetically-modified seed .
We cannot ignore these facts .
 ( d ) For more than 20 years now , a large amount of research involving tens of thousands of test fields has shown that the use of transgenic plants does not constitute any specific danger to mankind , animals or the environment ( 12 ) .
 ( e ) Europe already possesses the basic knowledge required to excel in this field , but that knowledge is applied in small units , public or private , which are unable to attract either the capital required to finance research or the best brains which they need if they are to be able to compete with the major American companies that dominate the market .
What is therefore required is widespread public support at European level .
CONCLUSIONSThe Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development calls on the Committee on Industry , External Trade , Research and Energy , as the committee responsible , to incorporate the following points in its motion for a resolution on the Commission communication entitled ‘Life sciences and biotechnology - A Strategy for Europe’:1 .
Welcomes the idea of a Commission action plan for life sciences and biotechnology and calls for the responsible use of green genetic engineering in the farming sector with consistent application of the precautionary principle ;2 .
Urges the institutions involved to facilitate the passage of the proposals for regulations on traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and on genetically modified food and feed so that , once these provisions are in force , a balanced assessment can be made of the moratorium on genetically modified organisms in the EU with a view to possibly lifting the moratorium in a way which offers scientific safeguards and does not generate public alarm ;3 .
Refers to the Joint Research Centre’s recent study on coexistence of modified and non-modified crops , from which it emerges that coexistence will involve significant cost increases for non-modified agriculture , partly because of the structural adjustments that would be needed on farms with non-modified production ; calls urgently for this kind of detrimental effect on normal agriculture to be avoided ;4 .
Calls for the public authorities and industry to pursue a transparent information policy based on scientific data ; reminds the media of the major role which they play in this field and calls on them to cover the issue impartially and fairly ;5 .
Calls on the institutions of the European Union , and , in particular , on the Commission , to concentrate their efforts on the areas which fall within their remit , with due account being taken of the principle of subsidiarity ;6 .
Emphasises that the establishment of an effective , predictable and stable legal and regulatory framework constitutes a matter of urgency for biotechnology undertakings , farmers and consumers in the European Union if undertakings and agricultural producers are to enjoy a climate of confidence and be persuaded not to relocate to third countries and if , at the same time , consumer confidence is to be boosted ;7 .
Demands that products containing , consisting of or produced from GMOs are not introduced at the expense of farmers and food manufacturers who do not produce or use such products and stresses that it is therefore primarily the responsibility of the producers and users of such products to ensure that their products are not unintentionally introduced into other , conventional or organic products ;8 .
Calls for the adoption of practicable thresholds and the immediate implementation of the Directive on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment within the framework of an overall strategy for green genetic engineering in which products containing genetically modified material or produced therefrom must be clearly and unambiguously labelled and traceability ensured in order to give consumers the greatest possible transparency and full freedom of choice ;10 .
Calls on the Commission not to set thresholds for the labelling of seeds and propagating material which contain traces of genetically modified organisms , at least as long as no agreement has been reached on such thresholds for food and feed in the context of the proposal for a regulation on genetically modified food and feed ( COM ( 2001 ) 425 ) and the proposal for a regulation on the traceability of food and feed produced from genetically modified organisms ( COM ( 2001 ) 182 ) , as otherwise Parliament's right of codecision would be nullified in respect of those regulations ;11 .
Notes that thresholds for the labelling of seed which exhibits adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of genetically modified organisms may be established , pursuant to Article 21 ( 2 ) of Directive 2001/18/EC , only 'according to the product concerned' and only in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 30 ( 2 ) of that Directive ;12 .
Calls on the European Commission to launch a ‘B-Europe’ policy which lays down the specific political agenda for the next few years in the field of biotechnology ;13 .
Calls for major responsibility for coordinating the biotechnology strategy to be conferred on one Commissioner in particular and on a directorate-general created to that end so as to ensure greater consistency in Community activities ;14 .
Calls for the next framework research programme to give priority to research in the field of biotechnology and for more substantial financial resources to be allocated thereto ;15 .
Takes the view that policy , together with the industry and research , must produce better information as to risks for consumers , the environment and animals and launch a carefully formulated accompanying programme for growing genetically modified plants ;16 .
Calls for the introduction of a European patent which meets the requirements of research workers and innovators in both public research institutes and industry ;17 .
Calls for easier access to risk capital , especially for SMUs active in research into biotechnology and for public funding to become competitive with that allocated to private research ;18 .
Calls for the development of bioclusters and other models for technological transfer to be promoted in the European Union and in the applicant countries in order to stimulate investment .
Considers that users of biotechnological developments should bear no risk of liability under the relevant European Union legislation ;20 .
Calls for a practicable approach to labelling and traceability ;
DebatesThursday 17 May 2001OJ edition
QUESTIONS TO THE COUNCIL
Subject: Is the Swedish Presidency in favour of introducing a tax on international financial transactions ?The Council must be aware of the widespread support for and growing popularity of the proposal to introduce a 'Tobin tax' .
In the light of this statement , is the Presidency prepared to ask the Commission to carry out a feasibility study on the introduction of this tax , initially only at European level ?
Subject: Position of the Swedish Presidency on the creation of a tax on international financial transactionsDuring a debate in Stockholm on Friday 23 March 2001 , organised by ATTAC Sweden , Mrs Lena Hjelm-Wallén , Swedish Deputy Prime Minister , stated that she was in favour of the Tobin tax .
Following this position taken by a member of the Government , does the Council Presidency have any proposals as to how the revenue generated by such a tax might be used ? Does it see access for all to drinking water , basic healthcare , vaccinations and education as priorities in this regard ?
Subject: Swedish Presidency of the Council's initiatives concerning the introduction of a tax on international financial transactionsWhat initiatives has the Presidency of the Union taken , or does it intend to take , in connection with the Spring meeting of the IMF , with regard to the introduction of a tax on international financial transactions on the foreign exchange market ?
Joint answerThe Presidency does not intend to put this issue on the agenda for the forthcoming meetings in the ECOFIN Council .
To date , no proposal has been made for this to be done .
Where this issue is concerned , the Commission has not tabled any proposal or any other initiative that is to be discussed in the Council .
Subject: The EUR 500 noteWith the euro being introduced in just over six months , does the Council share the concern expressed in different quarters that the new EUR 500 note will greatly facilitate the illegal activities of money­launderers world­wide ? If so , does it propose to counter this threat ?
AnswerThe Council is aware of the higher risks of money laundering when the euro is introduced .
The Council has had extensive discussions on the very complex question of money laundering .
At a joint ECOFIN/JHA meeting on 17 October 2000 , the Council drew up an initial review of accomplishments in action against financial crime one year after the Tampere Summit and gave the necessary guidelines for continuing the programme as defined by the European Council .
The Council stressed that significant progress has been made recently in the fight against money-laundering .
The main progress is the following:the adoption , on 30 November 2000 , of a common position with a view to a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 91/308/EEC on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering .
The Directive will constitute a major step in the fight against financial crime .
It will extend the prohibition against money laundering to all forms of serious crime and involve new professions in the mechanism for preventing and detecting money laundering .
The proposal for an amended Directive has recently passed second reading in the European Parliament .
The Council will shortly decide weather it can accept the amendments made by the European Parliament ;the adoption , on 30 November 2000 , of a protocol extending the mandate of Europol to money laundering transactions in general ;the adoption of the Decision facilitating co-operation and information exchange between the financial intelligence units of the Member States ;
the expected adoption , in May 2001 , of a framework Decision on money laundering , the identification , tracing , freezing , seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds from crime ;within the Council there have been discussions on how to reduce the risks of money laundering when introducing the euro .
It is important to examine the risks for money laundering when introducing the euro and determine which common actions that need to be launched in order to prevent and detect money laundering .
The Council expects all these actions to help countering the threat of money laundering when the euro is introduced .
Subject: Kashmir peace talksFollowing the extension by India until the end of May of its unilateral cease-fire in Kashmir and having regard to the recent request made by UN Secretary-General , Kofi Annan , to India and Pakistan to embark on a fresh dialogue to resolve their fifty-four-year-old dispute over Kashmir , what initiatives does the Council - under the Swedish and subsequent Belgian Presidencies - consider it can take to further the peace process ?
AnswerThe Council is preoccupied by persisting tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir .
In the past , the Council has consistently encouraged both Pakistan and India to reduce tensions , to resume dialogue , to exercise restraint and to reach a negotiated solution .
In this context , the Council has also welcomed India's extended offers for a unilateral cease-fire and Pakistan's decision to show restraint along the Line of Control .
The Council will continue to impress on all parties concerned the need for a peaceful solution .
The Council has also offered to facilitate and to assist talks , if all participants so wish .
At his point , however , no specific request has been submitted to the Council in this sense .
Subject: EU-Croatia negotiationsWhat is the current state of EU-Croatia negotiations , when are they likely to be concluded , and what is the further timetable with a view to that country’s being granted the status of a full applicant country for EU membership ?
AnswerThe last official round of negotiations with Croatia for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union took place on 11 May in Zagreb .
The Agreement was worded following the General Affairs Council on 14 May and will be signed and concluded in accordance with the usual procedures .
When it comes to Croatia’s status as a full applicant country for EU membership , the European Council believes that all those countries that are covered by the EU’s Stabilisation and Association process are potential candidates for EU membership .
If and when Croatia applies for EU membership , its application will be handled in accordance with the procedures stated in the Treaty on European Union .
In the meantime , the implementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement will in itself lead Croatia substantially closer to integration into Europe .
Subject: EU-Russia summit , port at PrimorskA summit is to take place between the EU and Russia on 17 May 2001 .
What mandate has the Council given the Commission ? In what way has the Council taken account of the need to follow up the commitments given by Russia at the summit held on 30 October 2000 concerning the plans to develop a port at Björkö/Koivisto/Primorsk in the eastern Gulf of Finland ? Those commitments included environmental conservation measures for Primorsk and the use of tankers with double hulls .
What information has been provided concerning the construction of the oil pipeline ?
AnswerThe Council would refer the honourable Member to the answer given at the March 2001 part-session to the same question ( c .
Subject: Issuing of visas to VIPs from countries or regions in a state of emergency or at warDespite the entry into force of the Schengen Convention several years ago , the procedures for the issuing of visas authorising residence in the countries signatory to that Convention remain complicated and slow .
That circumstance results in a large number of problems for VIPs from countries or regions in a state of emergency or at war who wish to meet eminent persons from the institutions or the Member States of the European Union .
In order to facilitate the political and diplomatic missions undertaken by such VIPs and also to avoid any repetition of frequently humiliating procedures , does not the Council think that a special body should be set up within the Union institutions which would be responsible for facilitating the issuing of visas , residence permits and any other necessary documents as well as for facilitating the diplomatic and political missions undertaken by such VIPs ?
AnswerThe Council would remind you that it is at present the Member States which are responsible for issuing visas , residence permits and other documents and that the Member States examine each individual application .
The Council believes that the practical problems addressed by the honourable Member could be avoided if the European Community’s visa conditions were applied more carefully and were improved .
Subject: Solution of the Moluccas conflict in IndonesiaA violent civil war has been raging on the Moluccas in Indonesia since 1998 , and has hitherto been portrayed as a religious conflict .
However , at the end of March 2001 the main religious leaders , both Muslim and Christian , visited the UN and the EU together to explain to them that Christians and Muslims had lived side by side on the islands for centuries in peace and that this was in reality not a religious but an internal political conflict , in which the lives of thousands of citizens were being unscrupulously put at risk and different population groups set at each other’s throats .
The religious leaders have cooperated in drafting a national reconciliation plan , including a strong economic and social dimension .
To launch this reconciliation programme and put it into practice , external aid is needed , and the delegation of religious leaders from the Moluccas has appealed for such aid to be provided .
What can the EU do to promote a peaceful solution to the conflict in the Moluccas ? Does the EU intend to give its support to the proposed national reconciliation programme ?
AnswerThe Council agrees with the honourable Member that the conflict in the Moluccas is not only of a religious nature .
The tensions there also have ethnic , political , historical , sociological and economic causes .
The honourable Member should be aware that the European Union has actively tried to help create peace in the Moluccas by often raising its fears with the Indonesian Government and by sending an EU delegation to the Moluccas in October 2000 and participating in another one in February 2001 .
In view of the security situation , the European Union has so far concentrated on humanitarian aid but , as the situation is progressively improved , consideration could be given to providing reconstruction aid and aid for reconciliation initiatives .
The proposals made by religious leaders on their visits to the EU might very well be of use in that respect .
Subject: Right to demonstrate as a Member of the European ParliamentWill the Council confirm that Members of the European Parliament have the right to take part in lawful demonstrations without being arrested , as happened to Per Gahrton during the ECOFIN meeting in Malmö ?
AnswerThe Council would point out that it was not the ECOFIN Council that met in Malmö .
The meeting referred to by the honourable Member was wholly informal and organised by the Presidency on its own responsibility .
The rules governing the right to demonstrate and the maintenance of public order fall entirely within the competence of the Member States , and the Council cannot investigate how this competence is exercised in the Member State concerned .
Chapter III of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 contains the provisions which apply to Members of the European Parliament .
It is not for the Council , in this area either , to interpret the Protocol or to monitor its implementation .
The right to demonstrate and/or freedom of assembly in a peaceful manner and in accordance with the applicable rules are established through the common constitutional traditions in the Member States and in many international legal documents , in the first place the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the recently announced Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union .
Subject: The vessel EtirenoOver the last few days the media have alarmed us with reports ( always qualified by the adverb 'allegedly' ) concerning the vessel which is 'alleged' to have ( or to have had ) 250 children on board .
The theories which have been put forward are spine-chilling .
The Etireno , which has been described as 'the vessel of shame' , has appeared in , and disappeared from , seas , countries and the media .
What action has the Council taken ( or is it taking ) in order to clarify the facts of the matter , to protect the children concerned and to prevent such situations from arising anywhere in the world ?
Subject: Trafficking in children in AfricaEuropean public opinion has been shaken by the recent news concerning a vessel flying a Nigerian flag carrying 250 child slaves off the coast of Africa and the shocking findings revealed in this connection by UNICEF concerning the alarming increase in the trade in children from Africa and the arduous work performed by children .
What action does the Council intend to take in view of these phenomena which bring shame on our civilisation ? How does it assess the impact of its policy so far to protect the rights of children in today's world ?Does it intend to ask for more ample and substantive information on the living conditions of children from the African countries with which it cooperates and to which it grants development and humanitarian aid ? What measures does it intend to take in order to protect the rights of children in these countries effectively ?
Trafficking in , and exploitation of , human beings , especially for sexual purposes and , in particular , when children are involved is such an urgent issue for the European Union that the fight against activity of this kind is mentioned specifically in the Treaty of Amsterdam among those measures which facilitate the establishment of an area of freedom , security and justice .
In spite of the fact that the Council has already adopted quite a few measures to combat activity it views as inhumane , it is continuing its efforts to improve the opportunities for combating these crimes with the help of criminal legislation .
The Council is at present discussing both proposals from 22 January 2001 , reproduced in a communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament and concerning , firstly , measures to combat the trade in human beings and , secondly , measures to combat child pornography and the sexual exploitation of children .
 ( 2 ) The explanatory statements in connection with the proposals mention those measures which the Council has already taken in this area .
The vessel EtirenoIllegal immigration into the European Union is one of the main issues being discussed by the Council , as may be seen from the conclusions of the European Council’s meetings in Tampere , Santa Maria da Feira and Nice .
The honourable Member is surely aware that the European Council requested the European Union to intensify cooperation in order to combat the trade in human beings following the tragic occurrence in Dover last year .
Even though the Council strongly condemns occurrences of this kind , it is not , however , the Council’s task to implement such an investigation .
I want to remind the honourable Member of the measures taken in recent months to try to solve the problem of illegal immigration and , especially , to counter those networks involved in trafficking in human beings . These measures began with the seminar on the fight against illegal immigration networks , organised in July of last year during the French Presidency .
France’s initiative concerning penalties for people who facilitate illegal immigration and for transport companies which convey people who do not have the required documents for entry into the EU is at present in the process of being discussed .
It may be noted that the European Parliament was urged to issue an opinion on these initiatives and rejected them on 15 February 2001 ( 3 ) .
I would also remind the honourable Member that , in this spirit , the EU has used the mechanisms in the Lomé Convention to try to solve problems in connection with human rights , democracy and the principle of the rule of law .
The advantages enjoyed under the General Preference System ( GSP ) may , in certain specific cases , be revoked because of the use of unacceptable methods .
These include all forms of slavery or forced labour and export of goods manufactured by prison labour .
This procedure was instituted against Burma/Myanmar with regard to forced labour and led to the General Preference System’s being revoked , a state of affairs that has applied since 1997 .
Subject: Shipments of nuclear waste through the Irish SeaIs the Council aware that before July 2005 some 200 casks of nuclear waste are due to be shipped from Germany to Sellafield , and that such shipments are likely to be made using the Irish Sea route , and does it consider that such shipments can be justified given the objections of the Irish people to such shipments ?
AnswerThe Council is not aware of the shipments mentioned by the MEP .
The Council would point out that shipments of radioactive materials are subject to Directive 92/3/Euratom on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community 1 and that the Commission is responsible for ensuring compliance with this legislation .
Subject: Meeting EU and US commitments in the fight against communicable diseases in AfricaAt the December 2000 EU/US Summit the crucial need to provide better access to affordable pharmaceuticals and commodities to prevent or to treat communicable diseases was recognised .
It was agreed that the EU and the US would seek to assist in setting up effective infrastructures and would take steps to make key medicines and commodities more affordable and available .
There was also a commitment to provide technical assistance .
Will the Council make a statement on its efforts to date to ensure the speedy implementation of the commitments it entered into with the US in relation to this issue ?
AnswerIn December 2000 , at the EU­US Summit , both parties reiterated their commitment to cooperate in the fight against communicable diseases in Africa .
It was also an occasion for the EU and US to take stock of efforts already made since the June 2000 Summit when the commitment was made initially .
The EU and US noted inter alia that both had substantially increased financial resources dedicated to combating HIV/AIDS , malaria and tuberculosis .
Looking at future cooperation , both parties emphasised that addressing the difficult issue of communicable diseases in Africa requires a multi­faceted approach forming part of a wider comprehensive framework of actions to meet the whole range of development and poverty reduction needs .
Thus , efforts aiming at making medicines and commodities more available and affordable represent an important task but should not be seen in isolation .
Indeed , as underlined in the December 2000 statement , joint efforts should also include co­operation between EU and US diplomats in Africa , who are encouraging local governments to set national health care priorities , to re­organise their health care sector , to draw up and implement action plans to strengthen capacity to deliver health services and treatment , to commit new resources and to enhance EU­US cooperation in research and development with the view to benefit African countries .
The EU has since the beginning of this year been engaged in a comprehensive review of its policies and actions aiming at fighting communicable diseases .
The process started with the presentation by the Commission of its Programme for action on HIV/AIDS , malaria and tuberculosis in the context of poverty reduction .
Accordingly , work with developing countries to strengthen pharmaceutical policies will continue , as will efforts to explore and support opportunities for local production of pharmaceuticals and to build capacity to manage health , research and trade­related issues including the implementation of the TRIPS agreement .
Public support for research and development will be reinforced through better co­ordination in Europe , in line with the objectives of the European Research Area , and incentives will be introduced to encourage private investment , and ensure participation of developing countries at all stages of the research process .
Building increased capacity for research in developing countries will also be a particular priority .
With a view to inviting the new US Administration to continue the EU­US cooperation on communicable diseases , which started under President Clinton’s last year in office , Commissioner Patten wrote to the US Secretary of State Colin Powell early March to draw his attention to the Programme for Action and to invite the US to join forces with the EU in implementing concrete measures against the three diseases .
Commissioner Patten indicated inter alia that the EU is particularly interested in working with the US Government to lower the prices for key pharmaceuticals for the developing countries , as this seems to be the most realistic and feasible means to deliver results on a short term basis .
Similarly , Commissioner Lamy has written to USTR ( US Trade Representative ) Zoellick , addressing the issue of tiered pricing .
The Commissioner also considered the recent initiatives taken by pharmaceutical companies to lower prices to be a step in the right direction and expressed the wish that European and US governments should send out the same messages to their pharmaceutical industries .
Tiered pricing can only be sustainable if measures avoiding product diversion and re­importation are implemented .
Legislation and regulation represent a possible option .
The Commission has issued a paper on the subject and has consulted the Member States on the issue .
With Commissioner Lamy’s letter to USTR Zoellick , the discussion has been extended to include the US .
For the time being , the new US Administration has indicated that it is not able yet to support EU suggestions on differential pricing as the White House is reviewing its policy in a wide range of issues , inter alia communicable diseases .
Subject: Reducing regional infrastructural disparitiesWill the Swedish Presidency outline the initiatives it has promoted during its Presidency aimed at reducing regional infrastructural disparities in the Member States and , in particular , in the peripheral island regions ?
AnswerThe Presidency is fully aware of the importance of reducing regional infrastructural disparities in the Member States , including what the honourable Member calls "the peripheral islands regions" .
The Presidency would like to point out that a wide range of policy instruments can be called upon to retain the objective of reducing regional disparities , for example , the Structural Funds , the Cohesion Fund , the investments from the European Investment Bank , and some other financial instruments , including national instruments .
Their action has be redefined and reinforced for the coming years in the context of the Agenda 2000 exercise .
Concerning in particular the initiatives taken by the Swedish Presidency , the Presidency would like to highlight the importance given to the examination of the Commission proposals concerning the outermost regions , most of them remote islands .
The Presidency will do its best to finalise the negotiations during this semester , in particular the structural proposals in favour of the outermost regions .
Furthermore , during the Swedish Presidency , the Ministry of Industry , Employment and Communications is organising a conference on "Depopulation as a challenge for structural policies" .
Some Peripheral Islands across the European Union are facing problems due to depopulation and the conference will give them the opportunity to exchange experience and best practice with other regions facing the same problems .
Mr Konstantinos Hatzidakis , chairman of the Regional and Transport Commission at the European Parliament , has been invited to the opening of that conference .
Subject: Tariffs levied in Kosovo on products from the rest of SerbiaThe decision by the UN KFOR mission to Kosovo to impose tariffs on products from the rest of Serbia constitutes a flagrant violation of international rules .
The KFOR decision is essentially another step towards the secession of Kosovo from Serbia , while it also heightens the already tense situation in the region and threatens to bring further hardship and displacement to the non-Albanian Serbian population .
What steps will the Council take to ensure that this decision is revoked and that no such decision , which undermines the foundations of international law and peace , is ever implemented ?
AnswerThe decision to which the honourable Member refers was made by Mr Haekkerup within the framework of his powers as the UN Secretary-General’s special envoy to Kosovo ( and not by KFOR which is responsible for those aspects affecting security and military issues in connection with the international presence in Kosovo ) .
This decision was made without the European Union’s first being consulted in accordance with what are the normal procedures of UNMIK ( United Nations’ Mission in Kosovo ) when it comes to issues of this type .
The Council understands the concern expressed by the honourable Member but wishes to emphasise that , according to the information to which the Council has access , Mr Haekkerup’s decision does not relate to tariffs ( which can only be imposed at external borders which , in this case , consist of the border with the former Yugoslav republics of Macedonia and Albania ) .
Instead , it relates to taxes , and not tariffs , collected at the administrative borders between Kosovo , Serbia and Montenegro .
It is important to emphasise that these taxes , which are collected on an ad hoc basis , are of crucial importance in guaranteeing the progressively increasing sustainability of Kosovo’s consolidated budget , something which has repeatedly been called for by the international donor community and which is entirely within UNMIK’s powers in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 .
Because cooperation with the Federal authorities is necessary to avoid any risk of the double taxation of goods introduced into the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and intended for Kosovo , Mr Haekkerup has , according to the information to which the Council has access , duly informed the Yugoslavian authorities concerned by letter .
These authorities have said that they understand the logical basis for this decision and have also offered to cooperate in finding a suitable long-term solution to this problem .
Subject: Russia-EU energy dialogueCommissioner Prodi is conducting an energy dialogue with President Putin , to be convened in Moscow on 17 May .
What mandate has the Council given to the European Commission on this dialogue ? Is there any formal text of a mandate ? On which Treaty basis is this dialogue being conducted ?
What is the economic and strategic interest of the European Union in developing new infrastructures for electricity between the EU and Russia knowing that both the environmental standards and the safety standards in Russia are not compatible with the EU standards , and that therefore there is the possibility that electricity would be dumped on the internal market ?
Does the dialogue in question also address EU-Russia cooperation in the construction of a new generation of fast-breeder reactors and other nuclear installations ?Given that the EU is preparing a sustainability summit in Gothenburg , is it not inconsistent that the overwhelming majority of , and the only concrete , measures proposed in the EU-Russia dialogue concern new EU public money commitments for fossil fuels and nuclear energy , while the sustainable energy options like renewables and energy efficiency are or not considered at all or are only dealt with very vaguely ?
AnswerAt the sixth EU/Russia Summit ( Paris , 30 October 2000 ) , it was decided to establish a regular energy dialogue in order to facilitate progress in defining and bringing about an EU/Russia energy partnership with a view to making it easier for the Community’s private sector to invest in Russia’s energy sector in order to modernise the infrastructure , promote energy efficiency and environmentally friendly technology and improve the rational use of energy in Russia .
This will also help promote the energy trade connections between the EU and Russia .
Russia’s planned ratification of the Energy Charter Treaty and the improved climate for investment will be important in this connection .
In view of the EU’s situation when it comes to security of supply , it has been clear for a long time that the dialogue with all the producer countries and regions must continue .
Obviously , Russia’s share of the EU’s oil and gas imports make the planned energy partnership with Russia one of the important dialogues .
Following discussions with the Russian government , the Commission proposed that four topic groups should be set up to clarify the opportunities for a strategic energy partnership within the framework of the partnership and cooperation agreement , namely energy structures and energy balances , investments , infrastructure and technology , and energy efficiency and the environment .
These groups include experts from the Member States , the European energy industry associations , the Commission and the Russian Federation .
The groups have already arranged quite a few meetings and established priorities .
The Presidency’s conclusions from the European Council in Stockholm note , in this regard , that the dialogue in the energy area has begun , and the importance of the northern dimension is acknowledged in this context .
Moreover , it was observed at the fourth meeting of the Cooperation Council between the EU and Russia in Luxembourg on 10 April 2001 that ‘exploratory talks on the structured energy dialogue between the two sides were progressing well’ .
Finally , the Commission will report to the next EU/Russia summit in Moscow on 17 May 2001 , where it will be possible for decisions to be taken on forthcoming stages in the dialogue .
It was made clear right from the beginning that environmental protection and nuclear safety are among the factors and considerations which should form the basis of the continued dialogue with Russia .
The Cooperation Council reiterated the importance of nuclear safety , and the European Union expressed concern about Russia’s plans to extend the life of its oldest and least safe reactors .
It should be emphasised in this connection that one of the four topic groups has expressly addressed issues of nuclear safety , including the necessity for complying with recognised international standards .
Regarding sustainability , Russia is a major consumer of energy , and there are compelling environmental reasons for improving energy efficiency in Russia: according to EBRD statistics , Russia , with less than one per cent of the world’s gross product , accounts for 7% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions .
Both the EU and Russia are well aware of Russia’s huge potential for energy savings , a matter which was on the agenda for two of the topic groups in connection with both energy savings in the proper sense of the word ( for example , the condition of piping and losses of capacity ) and energy efficiency ( for example , in buildings ) .
As has been said , one of the purposes of the dialogue is to facilitate investment for the Community’s private sector , not to lead to ‘public money commitments’ , as the honourable Member puts it in his question .
Moreover , a large number of possibilities are being examined in the dialogue , for example with regard to sustainable energy , and no ‘concrete measures’ have been decided upon , either with regard to conventional energy or other types of energy .
Subject: Religious persecution in ChinaHas the Presidency considered the use of a troika demarche in the case of the arrest of Bishop Shi in Peking on 23 April 2001 ?
AnswerThe restrictions on freedom of religion and belief in China are a recurrent item on the agenda of the EU - China human rights dialogue .
Moreover , the EU raises individual cases of prisoners with the Chinese authorities , either during the sessions of the human rights dialogue or on other occasions .
In order to preserve chances of success , the demarches on individual cases remain confidential .
In the conclusions of the General Affairs Council of January 2001 on the EU - China human rights dialogue , the EU has expressed its concern at "the continuing widespread restrictions on freedom of assembly , expression and association , the violations of freedom of religion and belief" .
The conclusions have also identified specific areas in which the EU will be seeking progress through the dialogue .
These include i ."untrammelled exercise of freedom of religion and belief , both public and private" , "respect for the fundamental rights of all prisoners , including those arrested for membership of ( . ) unofficial religious movements" and "constructive response to individual cases raised by the EU" .
Subject: Treatment of national minorities in LatviaCan the Council state if the problem of national minorities in the State of Latvia has come to its attention and if it considers the treatment of such minorities by the Latvian State as compatible with its aspiration to become a member of the European Union ?
AnswerAs the honourable Member is aware , the Copenhagen European Council in June 1993 laid down the political criteria for accession which stipulate that candidate countries must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy , the rule of law , human rights and respect for and protection of minorities .
Against this background , the Council has closely followed the question of national minorities in Latvia .
This issue has been included amongst the priorities of the Accession Partnership for Latvia , adopted in December 1999 , and has regularly been discussed with the Latvian side in the framework of the Europe Agreement bodies , in particular the Association Council which held its latest meeting in February this year .
The 2000 Regular Report from the Commission on Latvia's progress towards accession concludes that Latvia continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria .
More specifically , this report , which includes a section on "Human rights and the protection of minorities" , states that "several important steps were taken to support the integration of non-citizens into Latvian society , including the adoption of a Language Law and implementing regulations that essentially comply with Latvia's international obligations and the Europe Agreement , as well as a Programme for the Integration of Latvia's Society .
Latvia has thereby advanced in addressing the short-term priorities of the 1999 Accession Partnership" .
The Council therefore observes that as of today significant progress has been achieved regarding the treatment of minorities in Latvia and that OSCE has declared that the Latvian legislation is essentially in conformity with Latvia's international obligations and commitments .
At the same time , and in accordance with the findings in the Regular Report , the Council is of the opinion that the Union will have to continue to monitor the situation carefully , in particular as regards the implementation of the measures that I have just mentioned .
Subject: Future of the Community fleet previously fishing in Moroccan fishing groundsThe Fisheries Council decided on 25 April 2001 to call a halt to the negotiations between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the conclusion of a new fisheries agreement , 17 months after the expiry of the previous agreement under which 477 Community vessels and 4400 fishermen operated in Moroccan waters .
A further 4000 land-based jobs in the ancillary industry were directly linked to the agreement and 30 000 indirectly linked , in addition to 10 000 jobs in the conserving and processing industry , without counting jobs related to marketing and port activities .
What measures will the Council take in relation to the future of the Community fleet affected by the breakdown of negotiations ? What financial resources taken from which headings will it use to tackle the problems of fleet restructuring
Does the Council believe , as claimed by the Spanish government , that 80% of the affected fleet will be able to relocate to the fishing grounds of other countries such as Senegal , Mauritania , Algeria and Tunisia ?
What steps will the Council take with a view to diversification in the regions affected ( Morrazo , Barbanza , Barbate ) , which are heavily dependent on fisheries and all fall under Objective 1 ? What resources will it be able to use , and from which headings ?
At the meeting on 25 April 2001 and in accordance with the conclusions of the European Council in Nice , the Council ( Fisheries ) requested the Commission to submit a special action programme for restructuring the Community fleet as soon as possible , given that the negotiations with Morocco for a new fisheries agreement had broken down .
The Commission is actively working on such a proposal , and I can assure the honourable Member that the Council will discuss this proposal promptly so that appropriate measures can be taken as soon as the European Parliament has expressed its opinion .
On discussing the Commission’s proposal and the European Parliament’s opinion , the Council will devote particular attention to the financial resources to be allocated to the programme , given that the European Council believes that the programme must come within the Budget .
It cannot , at this stage , be established from which Budget headings such a programme is to be financed because it depends upon which practical measures are to be taken .
The Commission is at present in the process of renegotiating an extension to the protocol to the fisheries agreements with Senegal and Mauritania .
The Council is following these negotiations in detail .
As far as possible , efforts will be made to move vessels which previously fished off the coast of Morocco to these countries or to other countries where there is scope for licences for new fishing vessels in similar categories to those which have fished in Moroccan waters .
When it comes to the diversification of economic activity in regions affected by the fact that the fisheries agreement with Morocco is not being renewed , the Council has still not received any proposals from the Commission for changing or augmenting already existing measures within the Community’s structural policy for regions covered by Objective 1 .
I would remind you that a number of interventions by the FDF ( Fisheries Development Fund ) and through other instruments and programmes , especially within the framework of the regional and social structural funds , can contribute to such diversification .
AnswerThe Council has repeatedly expressed its concern with the continuing grave abuses of human rights and breaches of international humanitarian law committed by the paramilitary groups , as well as the guerrilla groups , which include murder and massacres .
The Council is well aware of the complex and difficult situation that exists in Colombia and , in this sense , the problems that need to be surmounted in order to give answers and solutions to the different problems the country faces .
The Council receives continuous information about the situation in Colombia via the Member States embassies in Bogota , through its contacts with the Government , the administration and representatives of all sectors of civil society in Colombia as well through national and international NGO's .
The Council has also followed the reports of the UN Commission for Human Rights .
The Council remains convinced of President Pastrana's commitment to the peace process and to solving the different aspects of the conflict .
The Council is nevertheless aware that President Pastrana cannot come to terms with all these problems on his own and has therefore called on all parties in the conflict and all sectors of civil society to contribute to a peaceful solution for Colombia .
The Council has noted the Colombian government's efforts to combat the paramilitaries and the recent measures taken against army and police support of the paramilitaries .
The Council has called upon the government to take further effective measures to combat and dismantle these groups and take actions against the economic networks that support them .
The Council has also urged the Government to intensify political , administrative , judicial and other appropriate measures with respect to official bodies , members of the armed forces and individuals suspected of supporting paramilitary groups .
The Council has called the population in Colombia to contribute to the Government's efforts towards the dismantling of the paramilitaries in order to build a strong state able to assure the security and prosperity of all Colombian people .
With regard to the applicant countries’ negotiations for accession to the European Union in the region around the Danube and the Carpathian Mountains , the Council attaches the greatest importance to the fact that all the applicant countries should implement the ‘acquis communautaire’ in the area of the environment .
The European Commission’s series of reports for the year 2000 on the applicant countries’ progress on the road to accession contain more detailed information on how much progress the applicant countries have made in this area to date .
The following two legal documents in the ‘acquis communautaire’ are important with regard to political development:1 .
One of the purposes of the directive is to endeavour to achieve fair and sustainable water management by means of bilateral or multilateral cooperation to protect the marine environment , to monitor and prevent pollution in the Danube and to guarantee sustainable use of its water resources .
That applies to the whole of its hydrological river basin district .
The Water Framework Directive ( 5 ) , the aim of which is to conserve and improve the Community’s water environment , that is to say inland surface waters , transitional waters , coastal waters and groundwater .
The objective – to achieve good water status – will be implemented for each river basin district .
For river basins extending beyond the boundaries of the Community , Member States should endeavour to ensure the appropriate coordination with the relevant non-member States .
Both the Danube Convention and the Water Framework Directive specify that the programmes of measures and the management plans for the river basin districts concerned must take account of everything of consequence for the aquatic ecosystem .
Subject: Wool marketHaving regard to the continuing foot-and-mouth crisis and its effect on the market in sheep , will the Commission indicate what are the known consequences are for the European and world wool market ?
AnswerIt is very difficult to predict the consequences of the present outbreak of foot and mouth disease on the European and world wool market .
Although the United Kingdom is the largest producer of wool in the Community it still only accounts for a little over 2% of the world's production .
Notwithstanding this , it is evident that if sheep numbers in the United Kingdom were to fall significantly as a consequence of the foot and mouth disease wool supplies would be affected to some extent , leading to a possible increase in price .
However , it has to be borne in mind that the majority of United Kingdom wool is exported to Belgium for the manufacture of carpets .
Any effect on supplies resulting from the problems in the United Kingdom would therefore probably be limited to this specific market .
Subject: Genetically modified fishGenetically modified fish have the potential to cause irreversible damage to wild fish stocks and to the marine environment if even a small number of genetically modified fish escape .
According to recent news articles , the development of genetically modified fish for human consumption is currently also funded by at least one Member State .
Could the Commission specify the nature of any projects it is funding which involve the development or use of genetically modified fish despite repeated opposition from the aquaculture industry ?
AnswerThe Commission is currently co-funding a research project involving laboratory animals regarding the use of transgenic technology on fish ; the FAIR programme 3482 , drawn up in 1997 ( Fourth Framework Programme on Research ) , started in January 1999 and is scheduled to finish in December 2001 .
The project , in which partners from France , Italy , the United Kingdom , Spain and Norway are also involved , is coordinated by the Julius-Maximilian University of Würzburg .
This project was granted a budget of EUR 924 000 .
The aim of this project is to assess the risks presented by fish which have been genetically modified with the aid of recombinant nucleic acid techniques .
The project is not , then , aimed at breeding transgenic fish with genetically altered characteristics , at genetically engineering commercial types of fish or at releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment .
The Commission is aware that several articles on genetically modified salmon have appeared in the press and that North American companies have shown an interest in this area ; in this connection , the Commission has , indeed , already answered written questions 1489/00 , 1627/00 and 2223/00 .
The Commission is not aware of any current funding by one or more Member State of research into genetically modified fish for the aquaculture industry in the EU .
Applications to release genetically modified fish into the environment are considered within the framework of Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms .
Approvals are only granted if there is no indication that release could endanger human health or the environment .
To date , we have still not received any such applications .
Can the Commission say which specific agriculture and regional policy measures have been planned for this Year of Mountains ? Is a budget earmarked for planned initiatives , and if so , how large is it ?
AnswerFollowing the World Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 and Agenda 21 , Chapter 13 of which relates to the sustainable development of mountains , the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation ( UNO ) declared 2002 ‘International Year of Mountains’ , and commissioned the Food and Agriculture Organisation ( FAO ) to lead it .
The main objective of this International Year of Mountains is to increase awareness of the peculiarities and needs of mountain regions and thereby contribute to their sustainable development .
The Commission intends to contribute to it by organising a seminar on presenting the opportunities offered to mountain regions by means of Community policies and on how to utilise them more effectively .
The seminar will bring together regional and national authorities , non-governmental organisations and representatives of socio-economic fields .
It will lay out the numerous forms of support for mountain regions contained in the rural development policy , the second pillar of the common agricultural policy , and in the structural interventions implemented within the framework of regional policies .
The date and the budget for this seminar have not yet been set .
Subject: Future of the Community fleet previously fishing in Moroccan fishing groundsThe Fisheries Council decided on 25 April 2001 to call a halt to the negotiations between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the conclusion of a new fisheries agreement , 17 months after the expiry of the previous agreement under which 477 Community vessels and 4400 fishermen operated in Moroccan waters .
A further 4000 land-based jobs in the ancillary industry were directly linked to the agreement and 30 000 indirectly linked , in addition to 10 000 jobs in the conserving and processing industry , without counting jobs related to marketing and port activities .
What measures will the Commission take in relation to the future of the Community fleet affected by the breakdown of negotiations ? What financial resources taken from which headings will it use to tackle the problems of fleet restructuring ? Does the Commission believe , as claimed by the Spanish government , that 80% of the affected fleet will be able to relocate to the fishing grounds of other countries such as Senegal , Mauritania , Algeria and Tunisia ?What steps will the Commission take with a view to diversification in the regions affected ( Morrazo , Barbanza , Barbate ) , which are heavily dependent on fisheries and all fall under Objective 1 ? What resources will the Commission be able to use , and from which headings ?
AnswerThe Commission is aware of the situation which has arisen as a result of the failure to conclude a new agreement with Morocco .
Two measures must now above all be swiftly implemented:1 .
The Commission has proposed extending the system of compensation for the affected fishermen and shipowners until 30 June 2001 .
The Commission must wait for Parliament to adopt a position on this matter so that this measure can be decided upon by the Council .
We are concerned here with the plan to restructure the affected fleets in accordance with the conclusion of the Nice European Council .
The Commission is holding detailed discussions with the relevant departments in Spain and Portugal on this subject and also discussed this issue last week with the Spanish Minister for Agriculture , Miguel Arias Canete .
In any case , to implement the plan , the Commission first needs a practical restructuring plan from both Member States concerned .
As soon as the Commission receives these detailed plans from Spain and Portugal , it will immediately submit a formal proposal to the European Parliament and the Council .
The financial resources in the form of Community assistance allocated to fishing fleets and fishermen are usually provided via the fisheries structural programme .
The allocation of additional funds , over and above these , within the framework of the current financial perspective is being looked into on the basis of the conclusions of the Nice European Council .
As regards the possible relocation of fishing activities to waters belonging to other third countries , the Commission cannot for the time being confirm the figure of 80% quoted in the question .
At present , negotiations are underway with two of the countries mentioned , namely Mauritania and Senegal .
The fishing opportunities within the framework of these two agreements will primarily depend on the condition of the stock in Senegalese and Mauritanian waters .
Subject: Aid for rearing , slaughter and transportIn a previous question to the Commission , I inquired about the amount of aid paid for exports of animals for slaughter .
In its answer the Commission stated that the aid amounted to 110 million euro over ten months of the year 2000 .
In the light of that reply , will the Commission say what the amount of aid to the trade in livestock ( slaughter , rearing and transport ) is within the EU ?
AnswerIn the year 2000 , aid allocated by the European Union in the livestock farming sector amounted to EUR 6 724 million , of which EUR 4 547 million was distributed to the cattle industry , EUR 1 737 million to the sheep and goat industry , EUR 354 million to the pigmeat industry and EUR 86 million for poultry meat and eggs .
In the financial year 2000 , the expenditure in the beef and veal sector , with the exception of export refunds , refers solely to aid totalling around EUR 4 billion which was granted to farmers in the form of premiums , as well as within the framework of the special measures adopted as a result of the BSE crisis .
The Commission would like to make it clear that these measures in no way affect aid for the trade in animals within the Community .
As has already been mentioned , the majority of the direct aid is paid to farmers either for animals which are present on farms at that point in time or for slaughtered animals which spent a minimum amount of time on farms .
A small percentage of this expenditure could also relate to the public or private storage of meat .
However this measure too should not influence the intra-Community animal trade .
Subject: Inquiry and decisions by the Commission regarding accusations levelled against the IMEFE ( Madrid Institute for Training and Employment )The Committee of Inquiry set up by Madrid City Council to look into alleged irregularities published in the media in relation to certain courses offered by the Madrid Institute for Training and Employment ( IMEFE ) funded by the European Social Fund recently concluded its work .
In the course of its investigations , additional accusations were levelled .
Also , in its reply of 26 March to my questions P­0303/01 and P-0355/01 , the Commission indicated that , once the Spanish Government had submitted the relevant information , all necessary and appropriate measures would be adopted pursuant to Community and national provisions in force .
At the time , the Commission also indicated that OLAF was aware of the press articles and that it had been in touch with the competent national authorities .
Has the Commission received the information requested from the Spanish Government ? Is it aware of the work of the municipal Committee of Inquiry ? What conclusions has the Commission drawn regarding the IMEFE case ? Does it consider that there have been any irregularities in the way assistance from the European Social Fund has been utilised ? If so , what appropriate measures , including any suitable financial adjustments , has it adopted or does it intend to adopt ? What stage have the actions of OLAF reached in this regard ?
AnswerThis issue from the very beginning .
As it is usual in the case of supposed irregularities the first step the Commission takes , is to ask the national authorities information concerning the verifications carried out by them to identify possible irregularities .
On 20th March , the Commission received from the Ministry of Labour the conclusions concerning the funding of the firm IFOMAR by the IMEFE .
Concerning the year 1998 , the checks identified 22 training courses of IFOMAR ( the training firm , which received funds from the IMEFE to deliver training courses to the Penitentiary Institutions ) programmed and invoice to the IMEFE ( department of the local administration of the city of Madrid in charge of training and employment ) , that have not been executed .
Concerning the ESF , the cost of those training courses where included in the 1998 claim for an ESF amount of 23732 ? .
The Ministry of Labour agreed to deduct this amount from the final claim of the Operational Programme concerned .
This is only a preliminary conclusion , as the ESF control unit of the Ministry of Labour is verifying the other firms co-financed by the IMEFE .
Concerning this case the OLAF opened on 27th of February an inquiry .
The Ministry of Finance informed on 19th of April , the OLAF that they are taking the necessary steps to complete the information concerning this case .
The Commission reserve itself the right to carry out further controls on the spot if it seems necessary .
Subject: Pursuing a career or looking after a familyIs the Commission investigating models whereby mothers or fathers who devote themselves entirely to the education of their children would be paid a salary and hence , if they so wished , be offered a genuine choice between pursuing a career and looking after a family ?
AnswerThe honourable Member is requesting to be informed on whether the Commission is examining models for establishing a salary for those mothers and fathers who are dedicating all their time to the raising/education of their children .
The honourable Member considers that the existence of such a salary would help both mothers and fathers when having to choose between carrying on with their professional work and staying at home .
The issue which the honourable Member is referring to , is a matter of family policy .
The European Commission would like to remind the honourable Member of Parliament that this area of action does not fall within community competencies , but is a matter governed by national legislation .
However , the European Commission would like to refer to the following legislative acts which may be related to the issue in question:Framework Directive on parental leave ( 96/34/EC ) which has already been transposed by all Member States into national legislation and which provides that all workers shall have the right to take at least three months' parental leave on the grounds of birth or adoption of a child until a given age of up to eight years , and Directive 97/81/EC on part-time work which allows for a flexible organisation of working time and thus contributes to a better reconciliation of family and work .
Moreover , within the framework of the Employment Strategy , the issue of reconciliation between work and family has been given high priority ; indeed , the 2001 employment guidelines foresee the adoption of family friendly policies for enabling women and men to reconcile their professional and family responsibilities .
Last but not least , the Commission would like to remind the honourable Member of the various activities that have been undertaken within the framework of the Fourth Action Programme on equal opportunities ( 1996-2000 ) , and to reassure him that these activities will carry on under the new Programme on Gender Equality during the years 2001-2005 .
Subject: Agency and temporary workersIn the light of the recent half in negotiations between the Social Partners , what does the Commission intend to do with regard to agency and temporary workers ?
AnswerThe Commission would like to highlight that the negotiations on temporary agency work which are been conducted by the European social partners have not come to an end yet , as far as it is informed .
The negotiation process is a complex one and it is true that prior to the Stockholm European Council , the European social partners clearly acknowledged the difficulties that they have encountered during the negotiations .
However , the member of the Commission in charge of Employment and social affairs met with the Secretary Generals of CEEP , UNICE and ETUC in Stockholm and then again at the beginning of April and May and they showed their political willingness to explore all the possibilities of finding a workable agreement .
The Commission remains confident that the social partners will be able to conduct this process in a responsible way .
It has however to recognise that today , more efforts have still to be done and that the discussions are very difficult .
In this context , it is looking for their final answers within the next days before proposing the appropriate measures .
Subject: Proposals for projects to further the Commission's research work in the area of social affairsWith reference to the above call for proposals . How many applications were submitted , and from which countries ? How does the Commission assess the quality of the proposals submitted ? What percentage of the applications requires revision ?Why was such a short deadline set for the submission of applications ? ( Publication of the call for proposals in the Official Journal: 10 .3 .2001° Does the Commission intend to extend the deadline ? If not , why not ?
AnswerThe call for proposals concerned ( VP/2001/002 ) is an action resulting from the Work Programme laid down by the Social Agenda .
It aims at deepening the analysis of the social situation in the Community .
Despite this , the audit report still has not been published .
Why has this not yet been done ? When does the Commission expect to publish the audit report ?
AnswerThe disbursement period of this programme expired at the end of June 1998 .
However , the Commission decided to suspend the transfer of funds due to concern over mismanagement .
An audit procedure was launched in December 1999 and ended with the signature of the audit contract on February 2000 .
A first draft report was received by the Commission in autumn 2000 .
However , since a number of questions were still outstanding ( including a definitive position concerning the subcontracts that were concluded by the main contractor with various sub-contractors ) , it was decided that further information needed to be requested from the Bulgarian Ministry of Labour , which was responsible for the management of the project , in order to establish the precise financial position of the programme .
In the meantime , the requested information has been received from the Bulgarian Ministry of Labour and it is hoped that on this basis , the auditors will finalise the audit in the near future .
On the basis of the findings of the audit , a letter will be sent from the Commission to the relevant Project Authorising Officer of the Ministry of Labour .
This letter will communicate the proposals of the Commission for the subsequent closure of the programme .
Subject: Inquiry into the environmental , health and safety problems posed by nuclear reprocessingIn light of the widespread protest against the transport of highly radioactive waste from France to Germany in March 2001 and of the international protests from governments and environmentalists that arose earlier this year over the maritime shipment of nuclear waste and plutonium-based MOX fuel from France to Japan in a ship owned by BNFL , will the Commission consult an inquiry into the environmental , health and safety problems posed to EU citizens by the continued operation of the nuclear reprocessing plants at Sellafield ( UK ) and La Hague ( France ) which were involved in the frequent radioactive waste referred to above .
AnswerA number of States decided that they wished to separate their spent fuel into re-usable uranium and plutonium and a highly active waste .
The latter is then treated and stored in vitrified form ready for its eventual disposal .
There are two facilities in the Community that undertake this reprocessing activity – at Sellafield ( UK ) and La Hague ( F ) .
Once the process has been completed , the products are to be returned to their country of origin .
In some instances , the plutonium and the uranium are returned in the form of mixed-oxide ( MOX ) fuel for re-use in nuclear power plants .
The protests in Germany in March 2001 were against the transport back to Germany of high level radioactive waste that had been separated out of spent nuclear fuel from German nuclear power plants .
Similarly , the earlier shipments to Japan were returning to their country of origin materials for recycling and waste separated out from the spent nuclear fuel from Japanese nuclear power plants .
These countries have a contractual obligation to take back their radioactive materials , in particular the waste , and this practice is clearly endorsed at an international level , including in the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management that will enter into force on 18 June 2001 .
Neither protest appeared to the Commission to be aimed at the processes carried out at Sellafield or La Hague as such .
On this subject , it is the responsibility of the national authorities to ensure that the plants meet the environmental , health and safety regulations in force in their respective countries .
As for all nuclear practices , the operation of the plants must also meet the Basic Safety Standards for the protection of the workers and the public established under the Euratom Treaty .
Subject: Money launderingAt a recent meeting of the OECD , the Prime Minister of Barbados complained publicly that the Caribbean states were being required to adopt rules against money laundering by July 2001 , whereas Luxembourg and Liechtenstein did not have to do so until 2003 .
Was he correct ? If so , why are we adopting double standards ?
AnswerThe subject raised seems to relate to different problems .
Several measures are being taken at an international level , according to different timetables , aimed at creating greater cooperation in the field of financial stability , the fight against money laundering and against unfair tax competition .
In this respect , in June 2000 , the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering ( FATF ) identified a list of 15 non-cooperating countries and territories , which currently include Liechtenstein and certain Caribbean states .
The implementation of defensive measures in relation to non-cooperating countries which refuse to take the necessary measures could be decided in June 2001 .
This list will provide a basis for a list of non-cooperative tax havens which is expected to be published in July 2001 , but countries which in the meantime commit themselves to eliminating their unfair tax practices by 31 December 2005 will not appear on it .
In addition , in June 2000 the OECD also published a list of preferential tax systems in force in its member countries , which includes Luxembourg and other countries .
The members of the OECD intend to eliminate their preferential tax systems by April 2003 .
Finally , within the framework of the work of the ‘Code of Conduct’ ( company tax ) Group , the Member States have committed themselves and their dependent or associated territories to a timetable for eliminating their unfair tax practices which expires on 31 December 2002 , subject to a ‘grandfather clause’ until 31 December 2005 .
In summary , it seems that these specific measures , which are not the direct responsibility of the Commission , but with which it is often associated , may be clearly distinguished and do not appear to give rise to any unfair treatment .
Subject: Compliance by the Netherlands Broadcasting Services Corporation ( NOB ) with European rules on tendering for public contractsIn December 1998 the Commission concluded in its reply to my oral question ( H-1165/98 ( 14 ) ) that the Netherlands Broadcasting Services Corporation ( NOB ) was subject to European rules on tendering for public contracts , since the NOB ought to be regarded as a public body .
Accordingly , the NOB should abide by the provisions of the public contracts directive . So far , however , it has failed to do so .
What action of the kind announced in the answer to my question has been taken in respect of the NOB and what guarantees of compliance with the public contracts directive have been demanded from the Member State concerned ?
AnswerIn response to oral Questions Nos H-0290/98 and H-1165/98 by the honourable Member , the Commission had carried out a enquiry and concluded that the company Nederlandse Omroepproduktie Bedrijf ( the Netherlands broadcasting organisation ) was bound by the European rules on tendering for public contracts .
In fact , the Commission considers that this company should be classed as a ‘contracting entity’ , and more specifically a ‘body governed by public law’ within the meaning of the Community directives on ‘public contracts’ .
During informal contacts with the Commission services , it has been pointed out to the national authorities that the NOB should be classed as a ‘contracting entity’ within the meaning of the public contracts directives and that the NOB is therefore obliged to comply with the regulations in question .
Following these contacts , there was no reason to doubt that the NOB was complying with European regulations .
The Commission has never been alerted by the national authorities of any other Member State or by any plaintiff , to any possible non-compliance by the NOB with the European regulations on public contracts .
In response to the question now being put by the honourable Member , the Commission has carried out research in the databases containing the contract notices , which are published at European level .
The NOB has not in fact published any contract notices in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities during the years 1999 - 2001 .
However , this fact is not in itself sufficient reason to draw the conclusion the NOB has violated the Community rules on tendering for public contracts .
The European rules only oblige a contract notice to be published in the Official Journal in cases of works contracts exceeding EUR 5 million and supply and service contracts exceeding EUR 200 000 .
It should be borne in mind that the NOB carries out very specific and limited activities .
The NOB is responsible for ensuring that programmes prepared for broadcast on television or radio are technically suitable for that broadcast .
Therefore , the NOB is more a supplier of services to other companies than a buyer of services .
Because of the specific nature of these activities , it is unlikely that the NOB has issued public contracts which exceed the threshold contained in the directive in question .
With a view to examining whether , during 1999-2001 , the NOB has issued contracts exceeding the thresholds contained in the directives on public contracts , the Commission will ask the Netherlands authorities to supply it with information concerning the activities of the NOB during the years in question , in particular information about purchases of products or services .
Subject: Export of meat with spinal cordWhen will the Commission take action against those Member States who continually export meat with spinal cord in contravention of EU regulations ? In particular will the Commission consider banning exports of meat from these countries and show the same vigour as it did against the United Kingdom in this regard ?
AnswerThe Commission has been most concerned by the numerous reports of breaches in the rules governing specified risk material ( SRM ) with regard to imports of beef into the United Kingdom .
Removal of SRMs remains the most important measure for public health protection .
Of the thirteen incidents that has come to its attention since 1 January , seven have involved German exports .
In an exchange of letters with Minister Kunast during February and March , the Commission called for swift action against the offending export plants and received assurances that SRM controls had been tightened to prevent further infringements .
The Commission has again been in contact with the German Chief Veterinary Officer about the latest incident discovered on 30 March .
But the issue is more global .
During the April Agricultural Council the Commission re-emphasised to all Member States the importance of efficient SRM removal in the protection of Public Health .
It was referred to the latest Food and veterinary Office ( FVO ) missions on the SRM controls of which preliminary reports indicate that shortcomings prevail .
It should however be taken into consideration that the very reason for the Commission to ban vertebral column was the possibility for its contamination with dorsal root ganglia and remnants of spinal cord .
Therefore , conclusions on the risk for human health can not be drawn solely derived from the outcome of import controls , the Commission should also assess whether the vertebral column is properly removed at the points of sale .
It is of crucial importance to receive the complete picture from the FVO mission reports .
As soon as this is available the Commission will consider what action to take .
But it can assure the honourable Member that it will not take this issue lightly !
Subject: Breach of the Kyoto Agreement by the USAIn addition to having serious environmental consequences , the decision by the US government to abandon the Kyoto agreement will also pose a problem in terms of competition between US enterprises , which will enjoy greater freedom to release gases into the atmosphere and will therefore face lower costs stemming from cleaner technology , and European enterprises which will have to operate in a cleaner and more sustainable production system .
Is the Commission prepared to lodge a complaint with the WTO against the USA for unfair competition ?
AnswerThe United States’ announcement that it was to abandon the Kyoto Protocol was followed by an immediate response from Europe .
A delegation of the Troika , led by the Swedish Environment Minister , K Larsson and the Commissioner for the Environment , immediately visited Washington where it delivered a very clear message .
The European Union is also assured of the support of Canada , Japan , China and Russia .
The impact of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol on the competitiveness of European industries or others in relation to American industries should be highlighted .
It is already clear that the impacts are diverse: there are , potentially , costs but also advantages resulting from being pioneers in the essential new technologies , with or without Kyoto .
It is therefore necessary to examine the aspect of costs and competitiveness more generally , including the environmental , economic and social costs and benefits in the short , medium and long term .
The Commission is examining the costs and benefits of certain specific measures for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases within the context of the European Programme on Climate Change .
European industry is well represented in this programme and will be fully involved in the debate .
It is therefore not yet clear whether the United States’ withdrawal from the Kyoto process will necessarily and automatically be a competitive advantage for American industry .
It should also be pointed out that the field of competition is not a subject currently covered by the World Trade Organisation ( WTO ) .
Subject: Mobilisation of crisis management forceThe European Council has decided to establish by 2003 a ‘rapid reaction force’ for purposes of crisis management .
On the decision of what institution , and under whose orders , does the Commission consider this force will be deployed ? In its opinion , do such decisions need to be taken in the context of the EU’s common structures ?
AnswerThe decision to deploy elements of the rapid reaction force of the Union will be taken by the Council , which will no doubt wish to do so in the fullest possible concert with relevant international organisations and international partners .
Of course the Council and its members will also wish to seek the views of the Parliament and indeed of national parliaments as well , since military forces remain entirely under national authority .
The decision to take military action ( under Article 17 TEU ) does not involve the Commission .
But the normal "cycle" of a crisis make it likely that the Community is or has been involved in the mounting crisis ( e .g . through humanitarian assistance or mediation efforts ) .
In addition , the Commission is represented in the Council's Political and Security Committee and the other Council Working Groups where Common foreign and security policy ( CFSP ) and European security and defence policy ( ESDP ) matters are discussed .
The "rapid reaction force" is not to be confused with the Rapid Reaction Mechanism ( RRM ) adopted by the General Affairs Council on 26February .
The so-called RRM has been created to permit the rapid financing of civil actions .
It could of course play a complementary function to military action , or more broadly action taken under the CFSP "pillar" ( which includes the ESDP ) .
Subject: UN Resolution 520 on the withdrawal of all foreign troops from LebanonIn accordance with UN Resolution 425 , Israel has withdrawn its military units from southern Lebanon .
An estimated 40 000 Syrian troops are still deployed in Lebanon , however , which leaves the second UN resolution on Lebanon – No . 520 – which calls for the withdrawal of all foreign troops in Lebanon , yet to be implemented .
Parliament's resolution of January 2000 on the Middle East highlighted the lack of compliance from the Syrian side . No Syrian troops have been withdrawn even now .
Given that the EU wishes to play a more active and more significant role in resolving the Middle East conflict , will the Commissioner responsible for external relations say what action the EU is taking in the context of the common foreign and security policy , and through the UN , NATO and economic pressure , to enforce the implementation and observance of UN Resolution 520 ?
AnswerThe situation regarding the presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon cannot be compared to that of Israeli forces which until May 2000 had occupied parts of South Lebanon by invasion .
Syrian troops were invited in by Christian factions in 1976 , at the start of the civil war .
The 1989 Ta’if Accord ending the war provided for their initial redeployment in 1992 from Lebanese cities and towns to the Beka’a Valley near the Syrian frontier .
The timetable for a final withdrawal was to be agreed by the governments of Syria and Lebanon .
Lebanon has not yet requested this .
There is an understanding that Syrian forces were needed to counter-balance the presence of Israeli forces , and to keep the peace amongst 18 sectarian and religious groups .
Since Israeli pullback , calls for Syrian withdrawal have become more vocal , led by the Maronite Christians , and including Syria’s former allies , the Druze .
The Commission is watching the situation closely , and believes that this is a bilateral issue to be settled by Beirut and Damascus .
Subject: Threat of desertification and environmental disaster in Thessaly owing to drought and lack of projects for water resource developmentDrought conditions for the second consecutive year and the lack of projects for water resource development in Thessaly mean that there is a serious risk of desertification in the Plain of Thessaly .
The suspension of the project to divert the upper course of the River Acheloos is a severe blow to the population of Thessaly and the Pindus Mountains and will have serious implications for the fauna and flora in those regions , particularly in combination with further severe drought .
This project , which has wide-ranging developmental and environmental features , provides for the transport of water to Thessaly at the rate of 600 million cubic metres a year in order to overcome principally environmental problems ( ecological disaster affecting the River Pinios , complete depletion of groundwater ) , and problems relating to water supply , irrigation , energy and flood prevention .
Resolving these problems is the only way of preventing the desertification of the Plain of Thessaly , and of preserving and improving the ecosystem , the regional economy and social development .
What steps will the Commission take to ensure that this project is continued and completed , and that the above problems are tackled , particularly in the light of Parliament's and the Council's recent adoption of Directive 2000/60/EC ( 15 ) establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy ?
AnswerThe project to divert the River Acheloos , mentioned by the honourable Member , is not part of the Community Support Framework ( CSF ) 2000-2006 for Greece and is not therefore eligible for Structural Funds .
Within the context of the CSF 2000-2006 , no proposal for the co-financing of the diversion of the course of the River Acheloos towards Thessaly has been submitted to the commission
A proposal of this type , submitted in 1994 in the context of the CSF 1994-1999 , has not been followed up by the Greek authorities .
Furthermore , within the framework of the Operational Environment Programme 2000-2006 , the Greek authorities have submitted the large-scale project of the reconstitution of the Karla lake in Thessaly .
This large-scale project should at least partially help to resolve the water problem in Thessaly and restrict the damage caused by the winter flooding of the Pinios river .
However , the Commission considers that the solution to the water problem in Thessaly should be sought less within the framework of large-scale public works , and more by means of the efficient management of the existing water resources .
In this respect , the correct application of Directive 2000/60EC will be of great importance .
This directive , adopted last year , is intended to bring about an improvement in the quality of water , both groundwater and surface water , by 2015 .
The directive is also intended to alleviate the effects of drought as far as possible .
Subject: Incorrect implementation of Directive 92/46/EEC in DenmarkIt has proved impossible in Denmark for producers of food containing raw milk to obtain the necessary authorisation to carry on production .
Those most affected are producers of cheese made from raw milk .
At the same time , however , raw milk products are imported into Denmark from France , for example .
The crux of the problem appears to be that Denmark has not implemented Directive 92/46/EEC ( 16 ) correctly , enabling the Danish veterinary authorities to reject the above producers , contrary to the intent of the directive .
Is the Commission aware that Denmark has not implemented this directive correctly and in full ? In view of the fact that the Commission has the power to enforce the correct implementation of the directive in Denmark , can it explain why it has not done so ?
AnswerCouncil Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk , heat-treated milk and milk-based products1 stipulates , in Article 4 , that Member States must ensure that raw milk intended for direct human consumption is not placed on the market unless it satisfies certain requirements .
The Commission’s interpretation of this provision is that the requirements are only applicable in the event that a Member State has decided to authorise the placing on the market of raw milk or raw milk-based products .
According to the information available to the Commission , Denmark , while meeting its obligation to allow onto its territory raw milk-based products legally produced in another Member State , does not authorise the placing on the market of raw milk .
It is therefore not necessary for Denmark to transpose the provisions mentioned by the honourable Member .
The Commission therefore considers that there is no legal basis for commencing an infringement procedure in accordance with Article 226 of the Treaty against Denmark for incorrect transposition of Article 4 of Directive 92/46/EEC .
Subject: "Everything but arms" agreementWhat are the consequences for Community banana producers and traditional ACP suppliers of the recent "everything but arms" agreement to eliminate tariffs for the least developed countries ?
AnswerThe Everything But Arms agreement ( EBA ) , Council Regulation ( EC ) No 416/20001 , provides duty- and quota-free access to the European Market for Least Developed Countries ( LDCs ) for all goods , excepts the arms trade .
For bananas , the duty for imports from LDCs will be reduced by 20% annually and entirely suspended from 1 January 2006 .
This does not affect the in-quota tariff for African , Caribbean and Pacific ( ACP ) imports of bananas which was at zero prior to the EBA agreement and which remains at zero .
As concerns Community production there is a compensatory aid system which provides compensation to Community producers if prices fall .
AnswerIn answer to the honourable Member’s previous question H-0575/99 , the Commission emphasised its view that the health and safety of the children is crucial and that crèche provision should therefore be beyond reproach .
With that objective in mind there have been several developments in policy: an Internal procedure to be followed where there is a suspicion or complaint about serious child abuse was prepared in June 2000 and after adoption by the COCEPE ( COmité paritaire de gestion du CEntre de la Petite Enfance ) , was sent to all parents in October 2000 .
In order to increase the level of alertness to the problems and symptoms of the abuse of children , childcare staff at the crèches followed training courses given by the Office de la Naissance et de l’Enfance ( ONE ) in 1999 and 2000 .
A neutral , professional and independent system of control and evaluation of the service offered by the Commission crèches has been established and , since July 1998 , there have been regular contacts with the Belgian public bodies responsible for matters related to young children – ONE ( for the French Community ) and Kind [amp] Gezin ( for the Flemish Community ) .
ONE was not able to provide help with the control and evaluation activities but fortunately , Kind [amp] Gezin has been able to act in this capacity .
Since the last reply to the honourable Member , a new contract for the management of Clovis has been concluded ( June 2000 ) , following a call for tender launched in July 1999 .
More generally , in the context of Commission Reform , several approaches to providing high quality childcare provision have been set out in the Commission’s Consultative Document of 28 February 2001 “Facilities and services for Staff of the European Commission”1 .
Consultation with staff and staff representatives is now under way and will continue until July , after which finalised proposals will be adopted by the Commission .
On the question of support given to the alleged victims and their parents , the Commission informs the honourable Member that one of the parents requested the Commission to reimburse the fees of lawyers engaged in connection with the ongoing criminal proceedings .
The Court of First Instance ( Judgement of 27 June 2000 , T-69/99 ) has concluded that the Commission could not assist parents as civil servants under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations , as requested by one of them .
However , the Commission has given financial support under Article 76 of the Staff Regulations .
Finally , the Commission is informed that the case relating to allegations of the sexual abuse of children at the Clovis crèche will be heard by a Belgian criminal Court on 21 , 22 and 23 May 2001 .
The Commission will be a “partie civile” in that case .
Subject: Cadmium in fertiliserThere are no restrictions in the EU on cadmium in fertiliser .
Cadmium is stored in the ground and subsequently ends up in our food .
The consequences - as Swedish researchers have established - are that people suffer kidney damage .
Will the Commission say what its aspirations are in this respect and what stage has been reached in deliberations concerning the introduction of limit values for cadmium in fertiliser ?
AnswerThe Commission is aware that cadmium contained in phosphatic fertilisers can accumulate in agricultural soil , can be absorbed by plants , and that its presence has been established in human kidneys .
Nevertheless it is recognised that the process by which cadmium passes from fertilisers into crops for human consumption is extremely complex and involves numerous factors , such as soil characteristics , some of which are not fully understood yet by the scientific community .
To address this issue the Commission is currently working with the Member States to assess the risks for health and the environment resulting from the presence of cadmium in fertilisers .
The results are expected to become available in a few months .
Depending on the outcome , the Commission will make appropriate proposals for measures at Community level .
Subject: Waste-management strategiesWill the Commission indicate what research , if any , it has carried out with regard to alternative waste­management strategies and , in particular , with regard to composting and bio-massing ?
AnswerThe Commission – in line with the Community Strategy for Waste Management1 as well as the Parliament Resolution2 and the Council Resolution3 on waste management in the Community – considers that “prevention of the generation of waste shall remain the first priority .
Where the generation can not be avoided , it should be reused or recovered for its material or its energy .
Preference should be given , where environmentally sound , to the recovery of materials over energy recovery operations” .
In other words , recycling shall take precedence over incineration .
Insofar as biomass waste is concerned , material recycling may take the form of composting or anaerobic digestion for those “clean” fractions suitable for producing soil improves of good quality .
Research on wastes such as sewage sludge , animal manure and biodegradable waste from households received a great impulse in the 80’s and early ‘90s via the Community funding of a Cooperation Project on Scientific and Technical Research COST 68/6814 .
The Commission published in 1992 a report5 reviewing the outcome of this research , which includes aspects pertaining to composting and anaerobic digestion techniques .
More recently , the Commission organised an International Symposium on issues related to the management of biodegradable waste that constituted an important event in gathering the European and international experience and scientific expertise in the field .
The proceedings6 of the Symposium present the results of research carried out to find out more about , in particular , biological treatments of waste .
Subject: AlgeriaWill the Commission outline its position with regard to the estimated 200 000 murders committed in Algeria over the last ten years and continued reports of at least 200 killings a month . Has it received any response from the Algerian Government on 'specific disappearance cases' which , I understand , was requested at EU level ?
Has it received any response from the Algerian Government on 'specific disappearance cases' which , I understand , was requested at EU level ?
AnswerThe Commission deeply regrets the events in Algeria of the last 10 years , including the continued violence of the last months .
It supports the efforts of the Algerian authorities to end violence and to move towards national reconciliation .
However , national reconciliation is only possible if it is based on justice and the rule of law .
Algeria has to solve the problem of impunity of repentant terrorists .
The Union persistently raises the issues of violence , disappearances and violations of human rights in its political dialogue with the authorities .
At the 57th session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva in March 2001 the Union Presidency urged Algeria to take concrete measures in this regard and to respond to the requests by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions to visit Algeria .
The issue of disappeared persons is a point of special concern for the Commission .
Lists of specific cases have been handed over to the Algerian authorities on several occasions since 1999 .
Preliminary answers to some of those were received in March 2000 .
At the recent Troïka meeting in Algiers on April 24 , 2001 , a consolidated list of 30 old and new cases were submitted .
The Commission will closely follow up on this issue .
Subject: Issuing of visas to VIPs from countries or regions in a state of emergency or at warDespite the entry into force of the Schengen Convention several years ago , the procedures for the issuing of visas authorising residence in the countries signatory to that Convention remain complicated and slow .
That circumstance results in a large number of problems for VIPs from countries or regions in a state of emergency or at war who wish to meet eminent persons from the institutions or the Member States of the European Union .
In order tofacilitate the political and diplomatic missions undertaken by such VIPs and also to avoid any repetition of frequently humiliating procedures , does not the Commission think that a special body should be set up within the Union institutions which would be responsible for facilitating the issuing of visas , residence permits and any other necessary documents as well as for facilitating the diplomatic and political missions undertaken by such VIPs ?
AnswerIndividuals who , as a result of their nationality , are obliged to hold a short stay visa , must make their visa request in their country of residence , in principle at the consulate of the Member State which they intend to visit .
Their request is dealt with in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Schengen common consular regulations , which is now integrated into the Union’s framework .
These procedures require the applicant to present a certain number of supporting documents and , in certain cases , oblige the competent consulate to consult other authorities .
The Commission is aware that , in certain circumstances , such as war or crises , these procedures may make it extremely difficult to obtain a visa , given the living conditions in the regions or countries concerned .
However , the Commission would like to point out that the Schengen legislation contains a certain number of provisions and mechanisms which may contribute to facilitating the issuing of visas to persons originating from these regions or countries:- bona fide persons – for example , well-known personalities – may obtain multiple entry visas valid for one year , or even more in certain exceptional cases ;- owing to the on-site exchange of information , local consular cooperation allows visa applications to be dealt with more efficiently ;- in certain countries , in particular countries in crisis , where no Schengen State has consular services , the visa applicant may approach the consulate of a Member State which is representing one or several other Member States ;- Member States’ border authorities may , in exceptional cases , issue a short stay visa at the border to persons who , for unavoidable reasons , have not been in a position to request a visa in advance .
This possibility may be applied to personalities originating from regions or countries in crisis or at war .
Lastly , it should be noted that personalities are often in possession of diplomatic passports , service passports or passes from international organisations and that in these cases Member States are free , in accordance with the powers conferred on them by Regulation No 539/2001 on visas , to exempt these categories of people from the need to hold a visa .
The Commission does not agree with the honourable Member’s suggestion of creating a specific body within the institutions of the European Union to facilitate the issuing of visas .
The Community’s competence in the field of the procedures and requirements for the issuing of visas , based on Article 62 ( 2 ) ( b ) ( ii ) of the Treaty establishing the European Community , simply means that the legal provisions in these fields have now become Community standards .
The competence to take their own decisions in relation to granting or refusing visas remains in the hands of the consular services of the Member States .
This legally excludes the possibility of imposing on Member States , or associating Member States with , a specific Community body .
Subject: Bill approved by the Government of the Autonomous Community of Extremadura on the taxation of deposits held by credit institutionsThe Government of the Autonomous Community of Extremadura ( Spain ) recently approved a bill designed to tax the savings held by those institutions located in Extremadura which fail to reinvest in lucrative projects for the region .
In practical terms , a new tax of between 0 . 3% and 0 . 6% will be levied on deposits held by credit institutions operating in Extremadura , although the sums reinvested by these institutions in works and services of benefit to the region will be tax-deductible , given the Extremaduran authorities’ intention to penalise savings not reinvested in the region rather than to tax all savings held there .
Does the Commission believe that this new form of taxation may constitute discrimination that distorts competition ? In its view , could this measure be in breach of the code of conduct for business taxation ?Does it see the aforementioned form of taxation as a barrier to the free movement of capital ?
AnswerWith regard to whether the draft law of the Autonomous Community of Extremadura could constitute discrimination between various credit institutions according to whether or not they invest in the region , this law could include some State funding .
However , the Commission is unable to make a firm statement on this issue , given the information to which it has access .
The Code of Conduct for business taxation covers tax measures , providing for a significantly lower effective level of taxation ( including zero taxation ) than those levels which generally apply in the Member State in question , which attractiveness is likely to affect in a significant way the location of business within the Community .
The bill approved by the Government of the Autonomous Community of Extremadura does not seem to fall under these rules .
Finally , as far as the third question is concerned , the Commission takes the view that it may not be excluded that the effects of the tax mentioned by the honourable Member could represent an obstacle to the free movement of capital in virtue of Article 56 of the EC Treaty .
Such a tax could constitute a barrier for investment between the Autonomous Community of Extremadura and the Member States , which according to the Treaty , is prohibited .
However , the Commission considers that at this stage it would be premature to comment further on this matter given that the question refers to a draft law .
Subject: EU cooperation with UNIDCP ( United Nations International Drug Control Programme )A Member State , the Netherlands , recently took an unprecedented decision to cancel its annual USD 4 million contribution to UNIDCP in view of the allegations of serious financial mismanagement which have been the subject of an investigation by the United Nations' Office of Internal Oversight Services .
Furthermore , Carla Rossi , a member of the governing body of the EMCDDA and a lecturer at Tor Vergata University , Rome , has published a study showing that the World Drug Report 2000 contained manipulated and falsified data and graphics taken from other works , including EMCDDA publications .
In view of the foregoing , what is stopping the Commission from suspending all funding for any purpose allocated to the UNIDCP , and to projects under its aegis or with which it is connected ? Does the Commission intend to conduct an in-depth inquiry into the use of funds granted during the period in office of executive director Giuseppe ( 'Pino' ) Arlacchi ?
AnswerThe Commission has been aware of the issue referred to by the honourable Member from its outset .
The criticisms of the management of the UNIDCP have created a situation of malaise , as a result of certain serious allegations which have been made .
An internal United Nations audit is under way .
It would be inappropriate in these circumstances to take a firm position , since the conclusions of that audit are not yet known .
The Commission believes that the facts in question must first be clarified .
The Commission considers that , in this context , and in the absence of the necessary facts , it is preferable to maintain a lucid and flexible position , rather than taking a firm position , with the risk of having to withdraw it later .
The Commission is therefore taking the same position as 14 of the Member States on this issue .
The Commission will not comment on the decision of the 15th Member State ( to suspend all contributions to the UNIDCP ) which the honourable Member has described as ‘unprecedented’ .
This supports the position taken by the Commission .
According to the latest available information , it appears that the United Nations’ audit , the conclusions of which will be published at the end of May , will exonerate Mr Arlacchi .
Subject: Conservation and development of the Ralleios School in PiraeusThe inhabitants of Piraeus are outraged at the decision to build premises for the Ralleios School over archaeological remains which the Department of Pre-Historic and Classical Antiquities has described as so important that it is impossible to accommodate a school on the same site .
A wide range of interested parties in Piraeus have been alerted to the problem and are calling for the protection of the site and our cultural heritage , and for the school to be built elsewhere .
Construction of the school at another , more suitable location would be a very positive move in view of the mauling of our cultural heritage over recent decades through uncontrolled building , the destruction and burial of innumerable antiquities and the simultaneous devastation of the urban environment through the creation of a concrete jungle at saturation point , traffic chaos and so on .
What steps will the Commission take to address the problem associated with the conservation and proper development of this archaeological site , which cannot also accommodate a school ?
AnswerAccording to information from the Hellenic authorities , a project in favour of the school in question was co-funded during the Community support framework ( CSF ) II through the Operational Programme “Education and Initial Training” .
This project was included in action 1 . “Odysseia” and concerned only the procurement and installation of an information workshop ( 10 PC stations , 1 server and 1 printer ) , not the building of the school .
The Hellenic authorities are not presently in a position to inform the Commission on the plans of the school in question regarding its transfer to a new site ( needs for new building etc .
 ) and whether , if such a project exists , it will be co-funded through the CSF III , because the projects and actions of the Operational Programme “Education and Initial Training ” of the CSF III have not yet been selected by its Managing Authority .
If a project concerning a new building of this school on the site mentioned by the honourable Member is proposed , its inclusion in the Operational Programme “ Education and Initial Training” of the CSF III is the exclusive responsibility of the Member State , following the project evaluation procedures as they are defined in the CSF III and the programme itself .
Similarly , all land planning and building permits are the exclusive responsibility of the Member State .
However under Article 151 of the EC Treaty , which aims to support conservation and the safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance , the Commission may encourage the Member State to take into account possible problems arising from the selection of the construction site in question or similar ones , when the selection criteria of the Greek Operational Programmes are defined .
Subject: Ban on shipping German nuclear waste through the Irish SeaThe German Government has stated that it is opposed to the reprocessing of nuclear waste .
Despite this it has been suggested that for the first time since 1998 , spent nuclear fuel is now to be shipped through the Irish Sea from Germany to Sellafield .
Is the Commission aware of the objections of the Irish people to such shipments and will it outline how it intends to defend their interests against this and all future shipments , taking into account that before July 2005 about 200 casks are due to be delivered to Sellafield from Germany ?
AnswerThe Commission considers that the risks associated with the transport of radioactive material are low and incidents/accidents are few and of little consequence .
The Parliament shares this view in its recent resolution on Transport of Radioactive Material1 .
Nevertheless , a number of safeguards are in place to ensure that such transport is effectively controlled .
International transport of radioactive material is governed by international legislation , such as the International Maritime Organisation ( IMO )’ rules in the case of transport by sea , Community legislation and by the legislation and procedures of the sender , receiver and transit countries concerned .
In addition , Council Directive 93/75 EEC , concerning minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving a port in a Member State and carrying dangerous goods , imposes an obligation on the operator of such vessel to notify before departure the competent authority of that Member State about the destination , the intended route and the nature of the dangerous goods transported .
It is up to the National Authorities to ensure compliance with these regulations .
The Commission has no legal power to intervene in the authorisation process of this kind of transport .
The Commission is not aware of any contravention of Community legislation in the case referred to by the honourable Member .
Subject: Innovation and new jobs in peripheral island regionsThe submission of patents in a country can be regarded as an indicator of innovation .
Based on this notion , is the Commission satisfied with the level of innovation in the EU at present ? What does it consider are the constraints and what action at EU level , particularly for island and peripheral regions , is needed to give a major boost to innovation and the creation of new jobs , including in the fishing industry ?
AnswerThe Commission takes the view that move needs to be done to stimulate innovation in the Community , in particular in the less favoured regions in the Community .
The technology gap among regions in Europe has a negative impact on cohesion .
This is precisely one of the reasons why the Commission approved on 31st January this year , a communication inviting each region in the Community to submit a regional programme of innovative actions with technological innovation and Information Society as two priority themes , along with sustainable development .
Among the most important constraints for increasing the innovation level for islands and peripheral regions is the fact that less favoured regions in Europe are under-investing in the field of innovation , research and technological development and the information society .
Moreover , the regional innovation systems in these regions are not only relatively inefficient compared to those of the more advanced regions but also more fragmented .
In this sense , for example , university – enterprise relationships , clusters ( inter-firm networks ) , cooperation links among technology centres and access to finance for businesses are clearly underdeveloped .
Regions will be able to reduce disparities and create stable and quality jobs if they develop their innovative capacity in order to adapt on a permanent basis to a rapidly changing economy .
It is through innovation that they will be able to better compete in the global economy .
One way of giving a major boost to innovation in less favoured regions , including islands and the fishing industry , is through channelling the structural funds to the priorities of technological innovation and the information society , as set out in the Commission’s guidelines for structural funds programmes for the period 2000-2006 .
The Commission has insisted , throughout the negotiations on Objective 1 and 2 programmes , on the need to develop these priorities .
Moreover , the new generation of innovative actions by which the Commission has invited every region in Europe to submit a regional programme is a further opportunity to do so .
Innovative actions are laboratories to test new approaches that allow regions to invest more and , more importantly better , in strategic fields for their economic future .
Subject: EU's information and communication policyWhen President Prodi addressed the European Parliament last January on the Commission’s priorities for 2001 , he stated that the Commission would present a Communication on a renewed EU communication and information policy which would aim to show to the European public that the EU Institutions are doing a useful job and doing it well .
Will the Commission state what progress is being made with a view to an early presentation of this Communication to Parliament , and how does it intend to implement its strategy in partnership with civil society ?
AnswerThe Oral Question basically reiterates the concerns expressed by Parliament in its resolution B5-0174/2001 adopted on 14 March 2001 .
The debate held in Parliament on that date focused on the need to devise and implement an information and communication strategy coordinated between the institutions and targeting issues responding to the expectations of the European population .
In the meantime the interinstitutional working party responsible for coordinating communication and information activities met on 3 April .
At this meeting the President of the Commission informed the working party and , simultaneously , Parliament’s representatives , of the decision taken by the Commission that day concerning the task entrusted to Mr Vitorino – to act as an interlocutor between Parliament and the Commission in the sphere of information and communication vis-à-vis the wider public .
In the context of this task , a meeting of the interinstitutional working party will be held on 15 May to discuss with Parliament’s representatives the cooperation to be put in place .
The ideas emerging from this meeting will be most constructive as far as the Commission’s future communication is concerned .
At the same time , as President Prodi emphasised in his reply to Mrs Fontaine of 19 April 2001 , the restructured Press and Communication Directorate-General is already preparing a communication on information strategy .
The aim is that the Commission should adopt it before summer .
Needless to say , the suggestions made by the President of Parliament in her letter of 22 March 2001 will be taken into account , without prejudicing the final position adopted by the Commission .
As regards the honourable Member’s concern that civil society should be involved in this new strategy , the Commission will continue , as in the past , to involve it in its new policy .
The Commission considers civil society in the broad sense to be an important interlocutor and the ‘White Paper on Governance in the EU’ will devote due attention to it .
The Commission’s aim is facilitate and make this partnership with civil society more effective , not least by means of an appropriate information policy for the benefit of European citizens , taking full account of their new expectations .
In this context the Commission considers , as the honourable Member is aware , that a practical way of making this partnership effective consists in issuing calls for proposals in the framework of general information on the European Union aimed at the various actors in civil society .
Subject: Dire conditions in hospitals in Serb Republic of Bosnia Conditions in hospitals in the Serb Republic of Bosnia are dire . Doctors and hospital staff are working under extremely difficult circumstances as they are without absolutely essential drugs such as insulin for diabetics and standard drugs for the treatment of heart conditions , let alone drugs to fight cancer .
Moreover , the conditions under which the population is living outside the hospitals are no better .
The situation is exacerbated by the inequitable distribution of EU aid .
The Croat-Muslim side ( representing 2/3 of the population of Bosnia ) receives 97 . 5% of that aid , and only 2 . 5% is destined for the Serb side ( representing 1/3 of the population ) .
Are the above figures correct , i .e . is there a provocatively inequitable division of EU aid to Bosnia in favour of the Croats and Muslims ? What measures will the Commission take to ensure that the Serb community's hospitals do not face such enormous problems , which endanger the lives of so many people ?
AnswerRepublika Srpska ( RS ) does not suffer discrimination in the delivery of Community assistance .
Community aid to Bosnia and Herzegovina ( BiH ) in the period 1991 - 2000 amounted to over ?2 . 1 billion and included both humanitarian aid and longer term strategic assistance , now delivered via CARDS .
In line with the overall Community policy of reinforcing BiH as a state , assistance is delivered to BiH as a country .
It is not differentiated by Entity , but directed on the basis of need .
In some sectors , e .g . refugee returns , RS has received less than expected because refugee returns have , regrettably , been obstructed more in RS than in the Federation of BiH .
Moreover , it should be remembered that all assistance projects in BiH are subject to consultation and agreement with the central BiH authorities ; they obtain BiH Council of Ministers agreement and signature before implementation .
RS is represented in these fora .
Since European Community Humanitarian Aid Office ( ECHO ) no longer operates in BiH , Community humanitarian assistance is no longer delivered to hospitals in either Entity .
Nevertheless , CARDS continues to target the reform of the health sector .
Since 1995 nearly ?10 million has been donated , benefiting both Entities .
Moreover , this aid is structural in nature .
By facilitating systemic reform the Entities should be enabled to provide citizens with more effective and efficient health care using national resources .
The Commission believes that CARDS' strategic approach holds out the best prospect of sustaining long-term improvement in the health sector .
There are no grounds to believe that there has been an unequal division of such aid between the Entities .
Subject: Labelling of brown bread productsCould the Commission inform me whether it is contrary to the labelling rules contained in Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC ( 18 ) for an Irish bread manufacturer to mention buttermilk in the list of ingredients despite the fact that the buttermilk concerned is powdered buttermilk to which water is added ?
Is the consumer not being misled and therefore unable to ascertain the difference in quality between similar brown bread products due to the fact that presently in Ireland there is no difference in the labelling of brown bread products made with fresh buttermilk and those made with buttermilk powder to which water is added ?
AnswerEuropean Parliament and the Council Directive 2000/13/EC , relating to the labelling of food , stipulates in Article 6 ( 6 ) that ingredients shall be designated by their specific name .
The Directive does not require that the form in which an ingredient is used , in this case fresh or powdered buttermilk , has to be indicated .
However the general provision of Article 2 ( 1 ) of the Directive , which provides that labelling must not be likely to mislead the consumer as to the characteristics of food , must also be considered .
Thus the consumer should be informed , through labelling , if the form in which an ingredient is used substantially modifies the characteristics of the end product as regards its quality .
Subject: Death of hunger strikers in TurkeyDozens of prisoners in Turkish jails have recently embarked on hunger strikes in protest at the inhuman conditions of being isolated in the new type of cell .
16 hunger-striking prisoners have already died and that figure is expected to rise dramatically .
Meanwhile , the Turkish State Security Court has prohibited any media coverage of the event in the country .
Does the Commission believe , therefore , that this state of affairs is consistent with Turkey's pre-accession commitments , as laid down by the Helsinki European Council ? What steps will the Commission take to save the remaining hunger strikers and safeguard human rights and the right to information in Turkey ?
AnswerThe Commission regrets that already 20 persons have died .
A solution is urgently needed from a humanitarian point of view irrespective of the political motives of the inmates .
The Commission views the intention of the Turkish government to amend the Anti-Terrorist Law as a clear sign of willingness to solve this very critical situation .
It therefore calls upon the Turkish government to implement , after adoption by the Turkish Grand National Assembly , this new policy of ending isolation in prisons truthfully and forcefully .
It also encourages the government to enter into dialogue with representatives of the inmates in order to explain the way it plans to put into practice this new policy .
Moreover , the Commission fully supports the recommendations adopted by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture ( CPT ) as well as its current efforts to halt this state of affairs .
The improvement of detention conditions in Turkish prisons is addressed in the Accession Partnership for Turkey adopted on 8 March 20011 .
In this document , the adjustment of the detention conditions , to bring them in accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of prisoners and other international norms , is considered as a medium-term priority .
Furthermore this issue was dealt with in the Commission’s Regular Report of November 2000 .
Already during the events of December 2000 , the Commission expressed its concerns about the way the operation were conducted by the security forces and on 8 January 2001 , the Commission clearly stated in the Parliament that it shared the Parliament’s concern in this regard .
It asked the Turkish security forces to exercise restraint and said that further investigation should be made into the way the operations were conducted in December 2000 , and into allegations of torture and ill treatment of prisoners .
Moreover , on 21 March 2001 , the Commission released a statement in Ankara together with the Swedish Presidency , regretting that the first death due to hunger strike has occurred .
Irrespective of the motives for the hunger strike , the Commission urged the Turkish authorities to take all appropriate measures to avoid further deaths and it recalled the recommendations of the CPT .
Furthermore , indeed the ban adopted on 14 December 2000 by the Istanbul State Security Court , prohibiting the media to report on the situation in the prisons , has been enforced for a couple of months .
At the present the ban is de jure still in force , but is de facto not applied .
Subject: Peanut content in foodstuffsGiven that at present regulations only require foodstuffs that contain 25% or more nut content in an overall end product to list the presence of such product in their goods , and given the considerable increase in numbers of people suffering an allergic reaction to such nut content and the potential danger of this for consumers who suffer from such allergies , what measures is the Commission prepared to take to ensure that any nut content in end products will be clearly labelled so that consumers are clearly informed of such content , therefore reducing the risk to such consumers ?
AnswerArticle 6 ( 8 ) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council , consolidating Directive 79/112/EEC , stipulates that when a compound ingredient is mentioned under its denomination in the labelling of food , the enumeration of the ingredients of which it is made up is not obligatory , in as far as the composed ingredient comprises less than 25% in the finished product .
While this rule was acceptable at one time , it is less and less justified .
Food composition has become increasingly complex and food allergies affect a higher number of consumers , in particular children .
This is why the Commission envisaged , in Action 16 of the White Paper on food safety , a proposal to amend Directive 2000/13/EC to remove the possibility of not providing labelling for compound ingredients forming less than 25% of the final product , and to lay down a list of allergenic substances .
The proposal in question is being finalised and will be sent to Parliament and to the Council in the coming weeks .
Its objective will be that all the ingredients used in food , whether or not they are allergens , are easily identifiable by the consumers .
Subject: Treatment of national minorities in LatviaIs the Commission aware of allegations of serious discrimination by the Latvian Government against national minorities in its population and has the Commission addressed this problem with the Latvian Government in the context of EU-Latvian cooperation ?
AnswerThe Commission is aware that certain groups within Latvia , as well as actors outside Latvia have , in the past , stated that discrimination against , in particular the non-citizen population , is taking place in Latvia .
In the framework of its monitoring of developments falling within the scope of the Copenhagen Political Criteria , the Commission has addressed and continues to address certain issues related the treatment of minorities with Latvia , including in the framework of the Europe Agreement and the Accession Partnership .
Generally , the Commission’s own assessment , as stated in its Regular Reports on Latvia’s progress towards accession , is that Latvia fulfils the Copenhagen Political Criteria , which include the protection of minorities .
Subject: Regulation on public access to documentsWill the Commission confirm that Sweden , Denmark and other countries with a tradition of openness may continue to keep their national parliaments and public informed , or will all Member States be obliged to keep secret any document not publicly accessible in the EU under the new regulation on access to documents ?
AnswerRecital 15 of the preamble to the future regulation on Council , Parliament and Commission documents has neither the objective nor the effect of modifying national legislation regarding to access to documents .
However , as pointed out in the same recital and explained in Article 5 of the Regulation , on the basis of the obligation for fair cooperation between the Member States and the institutions , as laid down in Article 10 of the Treaty establishing the European Community , the Member States should not take any measure liable to jeopardise the objectives of this regulation , with a view to ensuring it is correctly applied .
It follows that , where there is any doubt on this issue , it falls to the Member State , in the event of a request for access to a document from an institution , to ask for the opinion of that institution before taking a decision in relation to the said request .
Subject: National land registryThe implementation of the national land registry programme being funded under the second Community support framework is known to have prompted a reaction by the Commission which has written to the Greek Government .
Since the matter still remains unresolved , this obviously raises questions regarding approval for this programme under the third Community support framework .
What have been the most recent developments regarding this matter ( land registry under the second Community Support Framework ) and what conditions are being imposed by the Commission for continued EU funding for the programme under the third Community support framework ?
The Commission can only reiterate the answers it gave on those occasions: having noted the difficulties and delays in the implementation of the ‘land registry’ sub-programme of the ‘environment’ programme of the second CSF in Greece , the Commission has questioned the national authorities within the framework of the procedure contained in Article 24 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4253/88 concerning the application provisions of the regulations of the Structural Funds .
The Commission is currently carrying out an in-depth analysis of the Greek authorities’ responses .
It is not possible at this stage to anticipate the results of that analysis .
However , in the event that the analysis concludes that there has been incorrect management , the Community assistance may be reduced or cancelled .
With regard to the co-financing of the land registry in Greece within the framework of the new ‘environment’ programme of the 3rd CSF , the Commission , under the circumstances mentioned above , has agreed with the Greek authorities that this project will not be part of it .
The corresponding sum will be added to the national reserve and will be used at the appropriate time for the co-financing of environmental projects .
Subject: Death of Irish citizen in PragueGiven the tragic and sinister circumstances surrounding the death of a Mr Michael O’ Leary in Prague on Saturday evening , 21 April ; given that it appears that he was the victim of having his drink spiked while out enjoying himself with colleagues from an Irish young farmers' organisation ;
given that his colleague Mr Padraig McNally who was found nearby had traces of rohypnol in his blood toxicology report ; given that the initial autopsy reports say that Mr O’Leary died of a combination of alcohol and some form of medication and had not sustained any physical injuries ; and given that it now appears that the Czech authorities are treating the incident as a case of overindulgence ;Could the Commission through its offices please ensure that the Czech authorities in Prague will continue to investigate in every way they can the events surrounding the tragic death of Mr O’ Leary and to ensure that whatever evidence arises from the toxicology report is acted upon ?
AnswerThe Commission Delegation in Prague will take contact with the Irish Embassy in Prague , which has consular responsibility for its citizens , in order to ascertain what representations may be made to the Czech authorities concerning this tragic incident .
Subject: Use of EU funds for a wide-ranging public debate on the EUFurther to the Commission's decision to allocate 9 . 5 million euro for a wide-ranging public debate on the EU , will the Commission say how it intends to spend those funds
In particular , how will the Commission attempt to bring about a balanced debate , which embraces both the broad public scepticism towards the federalist slant of integration policy , as well as the usual predominance of pro-EU propaganda ?
This relatively low sum is not intended for the organisation of the debate , nor to subsidise it .
It falls to the successive presidencies to encourage the European debate in cooperation with the Commission and with the participation of the European Parliament .
To this end , the Commission proposes the development of an exchange between the national debates and the ability to contribute to a synthesis , on a European scale , of the results of all the debates organised within the Member States and the candidate countries .
These will be pluralist by definition .
It will also be pluralist on a European level .
An existing example of this is the Futurum site ( ) , which was created in collaboration with the European Parliament and the Swedish and Belgian Presidencies .
This site provides a common space where all the contributions to the debate can be gathered and , being translated into all the languages of the Union , made accessible to all the interested parties , including the citizens themselves .
It is therefore the best guarantee of freedom of expression and transparency , which must prevail throughout this debate .
Subject: Reducing import duties on aluminiumThe European aluminium-processing industry has long been calling for a reduction in the present rate of import duties of 6% on primary aluminium .
An official request has been submitted by the United Kingdom for the existing rate to be halved .
The European Union is two-thirds dependent for its supplies on imports from third countries .
At the same time , demand for and use of aluminium in the EU is rising continuously .
An import duty of 6% consequently can no longer be economically justified .
The European processing industry and the consumer are the losers under this provision .
Does the Commission consider that the EU import levy on aluminium can still be justified ? Does the Commission not think that it would be well advised , in the light of the above factors , to take the initiative by itself submitting a proposal for these import duties to be lowered ?
AnswerIn January 2000 the British authorities asked the Commission to open an autonomous tariff quota for 900 ,000 tonnes of raw aluminium with a duty rate of 0% for the year 2001 .
This proposal was discussed in detail with the Member States in the competent Working Group but was not sufficiently supported by the other Member States .
In the first quarter of the 2001 the representatives of several Member States indicated that an autonomous tariff suspension at a reduced duty rate might be acceptable them .
The British authorities have therefore at the beginning of May 2001 transmitted a request to replace their request for an autonomous tariff quota by a request for an autonomous tariff suspension for the same product at a duty rate of 3 % .
The Commission immediately informed the other Member States about the modification of the request .
The Commission will carefully study whether the modified request can be accepted in view of the principles set out in the “Commission communication concerning autonomous tariff suspensions and quotas” .
Should the request be considered acceptable by the Commission an appropriate proposal will be transmitted to the Council in due time .
Subject: The free movement of workers in the context of enlargement to the EastOn 11 April 2001 the Commission submitted a proposal for a common position of the Member States on the free movement of workers in the context of enlargement to the East .
In what way will the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers be involved in any decisions to reduce the transitional period after two years or to extend it after five years ?Is the Commission's proposal of 11 April being referred to the European Parliament for consultation ?
AnswerThe main elements of a Commission’s proposal concerning the free movement of workers are presented in a Communication .
This Communication was discussed at the Commission’s meeting of 11 April 2001 and is available on request .
Discussions are currently taking place in the Enlargement Group of the Council on the Draft Common Position in respect of chapter 2 ( Freedom of movement for persons ) .
The role of the Parliament and the Council will depend on the solution that will finally be adopted in the context to the negotiations on this chapter .
Subject: Checks on long-distance transport of animalsA report by the Commission ( COM ( 2000 )809 ) presented on 6 December 2000 provides a list of infringements of European Directive 91/628/EEC ( 19 ) concerning the protection of animals during transport .
A veterinary report ( XXIV/1448/98 MR ( 23 .10 . 98 ) ) of an investigation in Belgium between 13 and 18 September 1998 portrays a glaring lack of application of , and checks on , this directive .
In recent years the Commission has also carried out spot checks in France , Germany , Ireland , Portugal and Greece , revealing that a lack of effective checks has resulted in very little progress in applying and verifying application of the directive .
Despite all these violations and formal notice being served on a number of Member States , including Belgium , there are to be no more inspectors .
Does the Commission think that four inspectors , responsible for animal welfare throughout the Union , are enough to apply an important directive such as this one ?
AnswerIn the first instance the Commission must recall that the implementation , enforcement and surveillance of Community Animal Welfare rules in national law is the responsibility of the Member States .
The role of the Commission is to verify that the Member States respect their obligations . This is done by the Commission Food [amp] Veterinary Office ( FVO ) .
FVO inspectors evaluate the systems put in place by the competent authorities of the Member States to ensure that Community rules are thoroughly respected .
Currently , the FVO has four inspectors in its animal welfare group , who carry out inspections exclusively in the area of animal welfare .
However , it is important to note that animal welfare is also taken into account in the course of inspections carried out by the FVO in other areas , such as animal and public health .
This adds substantially to the information gathered on the enforcement of animal welfare rules .
During 2000 , the four inspectors of the animal welfare group carried out 12 inspection missions , of which 6 were related to on-farm welfare and 6 to welfare of animals during long distance transport .
These 12 missions represented 5 % of all missions carried out by the FVO .
As a result of the findings of these inspections , it was recommended that two infringement procedures be launched against Member States .
In a further case , it was recommended that an infringement procedure already opened should be continued .
In all three cases , the national enforcement-systems demonstrated severe deficiencies of animal welfare for animals during transport .
For this year , 7 on-farm animal welfare missions and 3 missions related to animal welfare during transport have been planned .
In addition , in co-operation with the Directorate General for Agriculture , joint inspections in the field of export refunds have been carried out .
However due to the current animal health situation in Europe , no transport of live cattle from the Community to third countries is taking place and therefore inspections are not currently taking place .
The Commission has responsibility for carrying out inspections in a wide range of areas falling under the Community food , veterinary and phytosanitary legislation .
In developing its mission programme it must take into account how to achieve the most effective use of its resources while at the same time addressing key priority areas .
Currently these include inspections in the area of bovine spongiform encephalopathy ( BSE ) , foot-and-mouth disease and inspections to enlargement countries .
Taking this into account , the Commission believes that its current arrangement for carrying out animal welfare inspections represents the best use of the limited resources available to it .
Subject: Breach of Community legislationCould the Commission indicate what reply it has received from the Irish authorities in response ( if any ) to its letter of 9 February 2001 ( ref .
SG ( 2001 )D/286083 ) concerning Ireland’s compliance with Directive 85/337/EEC ( 20 ) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC ( 21 ) , the nature of that response , and what course of action the Commission is now planning to take ?
AnswerThe Commission has not to date had a response to this Letter of Formal Notice , other than a letter of 4 April 2001 requesting a further two months to reply .
The Commission has not yet decided the appropriate next step in this case , but it is committed to ensuring that Community requirements related to environmental impact assessment are respected .
DebatesThursday 5 September 2002OJ edition
Recent serious problems concerning food safety in the EUPresident .
– The next item is the Commission statement on the recent serious problems concerning food safety in the European Union .
– Mr President , I welcome this opportunity to report on the recent contamination of the feed and food chain with medroxy-progesterone acetate , or MPA as it is commonly known .
I must stress that the Commission takes this incident very seriously indeed .
It is simply unacceptable that hormones should find their way into the food and feed chains .
So , having found ourselves in this regrettable situation , what action did we take ?
First , my services called an emergency meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 10 July , with further meetings following on 16 and 24 July .
These were in addition to the continuous contacts between the Commission services and their counterparts in the Member States .
These efforts were very successful in reducing the risk to public health to a minimum .
However , this success was achieved at a very high cost .
Very substantial quantities of food and feed had to be traced and destroyed .
The impact has been particularly severe in the Netherlands .
Investigations into the factors which allowed the contamination to take place are , of course , ongoing .
However , two factors in particular already stand out: firstly , the application of Community legislation on the movement and disposal of pharmaceutical waste , and secondly , the carelessness of certain feed producers in their selection of raw material suppliers .
Investigations into the onward distribution of the contaminated glucose syrup revealed that it had been delivered to feed mills and traders and , to a limited extent , to the food industry .
The contaminated feed was produced mostly for pigs , but also , to a much lesser extent , for cattle , poultry , zoo animals and pets .
This contaminated feed could be separated into two groups: a lesser quantity of highly contaminated feed distributed to 57 farms in the Netherlands and larger quantities with a low level of contamination .
In response to the situation , the Standing Committee agreed the following measures .
All animals fed with highly contaminated feed would be kept under strict official control .
Member States would test individual animals fed with the highly contaminated feed and only release them for consumption if results confirmed that MPA could not be detected .
The authorities in the Netherlands chose to destroy pigs fed with the highly contaminated feed , thus removing them entirely from the food chain .
All samples from animals fed with the low contamination feed tested negative for the presence of MPA and the restriction was therefore lifted .
Several hundred samples of glucose syrup , molasses and feed have been analysed and , as a result , thousands of tonnes of contaminated raw materials and feeding stuffs have been recalled , seized and destroyed .
The next meeting of the Standing Committee is planned for 11 September .
At this meeting , the measures taken by the Member States in relation to the MPA contamination will be reviewed .
However , we can already conclude that the measures were successful in limiting the potential risk to the public .
They were also very successful in averting any unilateral restrictions by Member States or third countries on trade , particularly from the Netherlands .
Clearly we have to learn the lessons from the contamination and avoid any repetition .
At the Agriculture Council of 15 July 2002 , I repeated my call for the Member States’ competent authorities for food and feed to exercise stricter control to ensure a high level of consumer health protection .
Feed and food operators need to be more aware of their responsibilities in this area .
We all consider the food law a major step forward for the protection of human health .
In that context , the responsibilities of feed and food operators are clearly established .
Feed operators must ensure that the raw materials they buy are safe .
In the very near future the Commission will be proposing a major reform of the Community’s system of official controls , in order to create a harmonised , coordinated and more effective system of controls on food and feed .
In addition , the Food and Veterinary Office is urgently investigating the operation and control of the animal feed sector .
Its aim will be to pinpoint how recent contamination incidents have been allowed to occur and to identify the action that needs to be taken to prevent similar incidents arising in the future .
Furthermore , in order to complete the legal framework for the entire feed sector , the Commission will present a new proposal on feed hygiene at the earliest opportunity .
We intend to put forward general hygiene rules for the production , distribution and feeding of animals and also to enlarge the scope of the registration system for feed operations .
Under the current arrangements , only establishments dealing with certain feed additives are registered .
Clearly this is not sufficient to ensure traceability of all feed materials .
In this context , a positive list of feed materials is being looked at with a view to increasing consumer protection , as Parliament itself has requested .
I am pleased to say that the feasibility study you requested is nearly complete .
You will receive the report with our analysis before the end of this year .
At the same time , the question arises as to whether Community legislation in relation to the waste sector is sufficiently stringent and properly implemented .
I would remind you that had existing waste legislation been correctly applied in the case of MPA , it would have prevented such an incident .
I alerted my colleague , Mrs Wallström , as soon as it became apparent that the problem involved pharmaceutical waste .
Discussions have taken place with waste experts from the Member States and are continuing .
One lesson we can learn from this incident is the need for closer coordination and cooperation between the authorities responsible for the waste sector and those responsible for feed and food safety .
The authorities of the Member States involved in this affair have been asked to provide all relevant information to enable the case to be assessed from an environmental point of view .
On the basis of that assessment , the Commission will take any further action deemed necessary .
Finally , it goes without saying that incidents such as this only serve to undermine our efforts to restore consumer confidence in our food supply .
We need to redouble our efforts , in terms not just of legislation but also better enforcement and control , to make such incidents a thing of the past .
– Mr President , food safety has been high on our parliamentary menu for the past three years .
We have had scares and scandals in Europe on olive oil , contaminated wine , mineral water , listeria , salmonella , E . coli , BSE , dioxins , sludge and slurry .
They all concerned our constituents and exercised our legislative minds .
Now , once again , there is a problem with hormones .
We discussed and debated the Food Safety White Paper and went on to pass legislation on food and feed and on the establishment of the European Food Safety Authority .
Now , our media have been full of new food scandals .
50 000 Dutch pigs condemned to be slaughtered because they were contaminated by illegal feedstuffs – illegal because of contamination by MPA hormones in feed additives .
The cost to the Netherlands alone is immense , tens of millions of euros .
The problem probably came , as we heard , from waste water from an American-owned pharmaceutical company in Ireland , sent by an Irish waste disposal firm to a Belgian reprocessing plant that is now bankrupt .
That firm supplied glucose syrup or treacle to Dutch feed manufacturers .
All 4 000 pigs were then exported from the Netherlands to Belgium .
The banned hormone has been found in pigfeed in Germany .
300 German farms were banned from selling milk or animals .
But pork was sold , was processed and has been eaten by humans and of course MPA in humans can cause infertility .
Some of the syrup , too , ended up with soft drink manufacturers .
Some of the feed ended up in Denmark , Spain , France and possibly Luxembourg and Britain .
One of the messages the Commissioner has highlighted is that we need coordination , not only between governments but between the directorates of the Commission .
I welcome what he said about talking to Mrs Wallström .
Commissioner , what is the point of our passing laws if they are not enforced ? Where were the checks and the monitoring ? What , incidentally , are the Commission's new proposals on controls ? Was this negligence or was it a criminal attempt to increase the weight of pigs by illegal means ? How often is a blind eye turned to wrongdoing ? A banned carcinogenic herbicide was found in grain fed to organic chickens in Germany in June .
Yet exports of organic chicken or eggs from Germany were not banned .
I have faith in our new food safety measures .
I have faith in our new authority and I wish it could be set up faster .
But it will only be effective if we have proper enforcement throughout the European Union .
– ( DE ) Mr President , over the past few years – since 1996 , I would say – I have told this House at least five times that animal feed should not be a dustbin for cheaply disposing of all kinds of rubbish .
It is surprising to find that such a simple statement never ceases to be topical and is never a source of boredom , given that it remains so topical .
Why should that be ? Because of our agricultural policy , of course .
Since we try to produce everything as cheaply as possible , it makes sense to produce cattle feed as cheaply as possible too .
I once said that the manufacturers and we ourselves should try to picture sitting down in front of a plate of animal feed with a knife and fork on either side – just imagine what that would look like ! Mr Bowis just pointed out that this is not just a matter of carelessness here but of criminal intent .
He is quite right . To describe storing animal feed in a former chemical works as carelessness is to put it mildly .
I do not know what makes people do things like that or allow them to happen .
What are we to think when a waste disposal company produces glucose syrup as a parallel activity ?
Should we not perhaps be somewhat sceptical when we come across an Irish company wanting to dispose of its waste – to which there can be no objections as such – and we see that it wants to do this in Belgium and that the waste reprocessing company also produces glucose syrup ?
The waste that it is processing comes from washing the coating on contraceptive pills , which of course contains sugar .
No one actually noticed this and we all found it quite normal , but when it actually came to light in the course of the monitoring process it caused enormous excitement .
If we do not start to change the system in some way , we will carry on having this debate here at least three times a year .
So what can we change about the system ? I am grateful to Commissioner Byrne for pinpointing some ideas .
Yes , we need tough legislation on feed hygiene .
Yes , we need to separate the production of animal and plant-based feeds .
Yes , we need stricter approval procedures for feed producers , with a registration system for factories producing animal feeds .
And yes , every manufacturer of feedingstuffs must employ a biochemist at his plant full-time and not just source one from somewhere else .
These are all commonplace ideas that we could all suggest , of course .
What is the situation with legislation on waste ? Yes , there is indeed proper waste legislation .
Are there proper controls in the Member States ? Apparently neither the country of origin nor the receiving country carries out controls .
Will the Commission go to the European Court of Justice more quickly ? Will countries which are obviously ignoring their control obligations under the existing legislation be prosecuted more quickly and suffer appropriate penalties ?
What is the position as regards controls in the Member States ? Since the BSE crisis , we have established that the real Bermuda Triangle within the European Union is the system of controls in the Member States .
We should be obliging all Member States to , at last , make the process more transparent and to tell us how many people are carrying out controls on what , when , where and with what result . That can just be one page , nice and transparent , available to anyone , and on the Internet if you like .
Is that too much to ask ? No , it is not too much to ask !We have been saying for years – since 1996 – that we want a positive list of substances and additives in animal feed .
Commissioner Byrne told us that the feasibility study is almost complete , so we should be able to start soon .
I am grateful for that .
However , if we do not all accept that up to now we have been consistently turning a blind eye so that animal feed can be produced cheaply and so that meat can be produced cheaply , then we will still be encouraging firms to dump all kinds of waste , anything that can no longer be recycled in any other way , in animal feed .
That is why we need to have quality requirements for animal feeds .
We need to have other controls on animal protein .
And in our role as consumers , we ourselves also need to consider what we are consuming and how , and what we are willing to pay for products .
– ( NL ) Mr President , food safety will , without a doubt , be high on the agenda in the coming years .
If we consider the recent scandals , the big question is whether the Commission would have been able to prevent them . The Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin has been in existence for a number of years
What kind of inspections does it carry out precisely ? How often are they carried out ? Is there room for improvement ? Would the Commission be able to comment on this ? The imports of food , of meat from other countries , have already been mentioned .
Does the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin have sufficient staff to inspect them ?I should also like to raise the issue of the Food Safety Authority .
Once this is fully up and running , it will need to analyse all the production processes and see whether they can be improved .
This Authority will also need to issue recommendations to the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin about the way in which the inspection procedures can be improved still further .
In fact , cooperation with the Member States will also be required .
However , the most important thing is for the Office to perform its task of implementing existing legislation well .
In the light of increasing liberalisation , we will obviously be facing ever growing imports and , in my view , ever greater risks as a result .
Another issue is production in Europe itself .
The idea that the entire production chain is to be monitored is increasingly taking root in different countries .
This is referred to as ‘integrated production’ .
Why does the Commission not prescribe any standards in this respect ? What exactly is integrated production in a European context ? How can we monitor every link in the production chain ? There is legislation in Europe governing organic production in which this is laid down .
In a slightly different area , there is legislation in Europe which defines precisely what regional products are .
Why , therefore , do we not have legislation which identifies what integrated production is by means of a quality mark ? Then we would be able to trace everything promptly .
Moreover , the European consumer would be able to express a preference for European products from European farmers .
– ( DE ) Mr President , there is no doubt that there are a great many weaknesses in our food controls , and food safety is an unacceptably low priority .
The revision of the directive on food may help to significantly change this situation .
This is particularly necessary given the growing worldwide trend towards producing food by artificial means .
There are at present no universal controls on the value-added chain , and awareness of state food controls needs to be increased .
There will certainly be an improvement in this state of affairs if we can succeed in involving the agricultural industry , the animal feed industry and those engaged in the monitoring of food .
That will not be a simple task as those in positions of responsibility throughout the chain have a very negative attitude .
State controls are necessary , but we need to create better incentives for promoting voluntary self-regulation and self-regulation under civil law .
State controls can then focus on the high-risk companies and farms that will always exist .
It is not acceptable , when products have been placed on the market contrary to health regulations , for this to be declared the result of a production accident and the products withdrawn under covert or open buy-back schemes so that they will simply be forgotten .
As we know from past experience , it tends to be very difficult to clarify the facts of such cases rapidly and rigorously .
Compulsory reporting of what are labelled as serious health risks is clearly not enough .
In Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 320 farms were temporarily closed because of suspected contamination with Nitrofen , but the discovery of this scandal and the attendant publicity were remarkable not so much because of the number of cases as because of the nature of the crisis .
– ( NL ) Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , we have already observed that moments of crisis are , more often than not , moments from which policy-makers should draw lessons .
They are also moments when we learn a great deal about society .
Mrs Roth-Behrendt and Mr Bowis pointed out that , apparently , there are people in the food industry who act irresponsibly and are careless , and for whom only the gross profits , pure financial gain and greed count .
What lessons can I and my group draw from the nitrofen case in Germany and the Whyeth Pharmaceutical/Bioland case in Ireland and Belgium ?First of all , we need to prevent products entering the human and animal food chain which originate from recycled waste , and inspection must also be stepped up , including in respect of the waste flow of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries .
In my own country – and I assume that this is the case in most – we need to work towards better cooperation between the services that monitor the food chain and the services that manage the waste flows .
I am pleased , Commissioner , that you have come to the same conclusion .
Secondly , there is a European Rapid Alert System that also applies to animal feed , and that , I believe , is functioning well at the moment .
Should we not insist that our national and regional counterparts adopt a kind of rapid alert system internally within the Member States too , and certainly in federal Member States such as Germany and Belgium where the powers are spread across different authorities ?Thirdly , we must introduce a system of perfect traceability of raw materials that end up in the food chain .
Fourthly , and this is something which my group has advocated , we ban by law all practices that do not yield any extra nutritional value or any extra advantage to the consumer , or that are superfluous from a technical point of view .
Fifthly , it is clear that the number of inspections needs to be increased .
They must also be diversified , for we can only find something if we look for it .
This was made abundantly clear in Germany's nitrofen case when the organic sector decided to carry out voluntary checks .
Sixthly , I would push for producer liability to play its full part .
The whole debate on environmental liability must be speeded up and we must bring it to a more rapid conclusion .
Finally , Commissioner , I would once again urge the Commission to draw up of a positive list of products allowed in cattle feed .
You have announced that this is to be the subject of a feasibility study .
I would expressly ask you what progress is being made on this matter .
Finally , there are quite a few comic characters in the food industry , and only a well-organised authority with strict inspections can rid the industry of these characters once and for all .
– Mr President , there are many examples of this Parliament and the institutions responding with urgency to matters of public concern and none more so than in the area of food safety and consumer protection .
In this regard I compliment the Commissioner on his response to the most recent scare and share fully his views with regard to what has happened .
While the number of incidents proportionate to the volume of quality food produced is minimal , the negative impact on consumers is considerable .
Restoring confidence in the food chain has been a slow , tedious and indeed expensive process .
Thankfully the measures put in place are proving their effectiveness and there is now an acute awareness on the part of all involved , from producers to processors , from the retail to the catering trade , that any breach of the regulations is unacceptable and will be severely dealt with .
It is important to put on the record that , while EU consumers always had access to quality food , the effectiveness of new controls and greater transparency in the food chain provide the additional safeguards necessary to allay fears resulting from isolated incidents and indeed the unforgivable incident which this House is addressing this morning .
– ( DE ) Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , I believe that you cannot control safety – you have to create it .
Listening to today's debate on food safety , I fear that we have not come very far in recent years .
Producers and consumers have the same objective , we are all in the same boat , so it is not just consumers that are affected but the producers themselves as well .
As I see it , consumers are quite right to be alarmed by the serious problems we have had recently , the string of scandals that have already been mentioned – BSE , dioxin , Nitrofen – it is a very long list .
Ultimately , however , the weakest link in the chain is always the farmer , the producer , who has taken a battering because of the price situation .
That is why the agricultural sector has a particularly great interest in achieving high quality in the upstream market .
I am at present rapporteur on the issue of additives in animal feed .
Commissioner , I am certainly in agreement with you in calling for very stringent measures to be applied to a wide variety of additives .
We are talking here about antibiotics and cocciodiostatic drugs .
I have just been discussing this with some of your colleagues .
As a practical person , I firmly believe that we got things adequately sorted out on paper a long time ago but , in practice , when it comes to implementation and control , I regret to say that we will still have a lot of black sheep to deal with in future .
We will only make progress here if the control system involves tougher sanctions .
As I see it , those who are too slack deserve to be pilloried and should have their quota withdrawn and their production units shut down .
Only if you point the way on this with our support can pressure be exerted to restore a reasonable situation in the European Union , one in which producers and consumers can process or consume food in the knowledge that it is safe and we can maintain the high quality of food that we have in the future as well .
I would like to fully support Mrs Roth-Behrendt's proposals , but we have spent over 20 years talking about people's willingness to spend more money on food ; it is just that the distribution process has totally changed .
We need to be honest about the fact that many people simply cannot afford it .
They want it all .
They want not just to eat and drink , they also want to go on holiday , to travel , and so on and so forth .
That is why we have food that is virtually free .
– Mr President , I am sure that the Commissioner attends these events with a heavy heart , because he is responsible not just for the food chain and the feed chain but also the worst chain of all , the contamination chain .
One of the problems we face in this House is that we often orate about how everything should be perfect without always ourselves being willing to seek the means to go with the ends: the means to allow us to have an effective FVO , which at the moment is overstretched and understaffed ; the means to have a proper process of scrutiny whereby every Member State , great or small , whether its population is a few hundred thousand or many millions , takes equal precautions and provides equal information .
That has not happened in some of the cases here and I appreciate the difficulties that the Commissioner faces as a result .
In regard to the scandal about the presence of nitrofen in grains for organic chickens , we know from information provided between May and July that not all of the Member States were informed with express speed about what had happened .
Our information is that in regard to contaminated pork – to pigs that had been fed with these appalling materials – four Member States had purchased and no doubt their citizens had consumed some of the contaminated pork before the process of control was effectively operating .
The controls are now better and , as a result of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health being set up in February and the evidence it collates , we can now say that we have a rapid-alert system that ought to work .
That is the Commissioner's responsibility , so we commend him on it .
The question is whether the Member States are providing sufficient information .
Can they be trusted to bring their own rogue operators under control ? I do not know .
I should like to hear from the Commissioner whether he believes the resources are there .
Mr Bowis said earlier that all the institutions have been dilatory and slow in setting up EFSA .
It is going to come into operation later than we had hoped .
Is that one of the reasons why we are having to wait longer to get these positive lists of feed materials and the general hygiene rules which follow from the reforms we so enthusiastically greeted last year ? I hope that the Commissioner can tell us that proper investigations are proceeding in all the Member States as to why organisations like Bioland could perpetrate the scandals they did .
– ( DE ) Mr President , Commissioner Byrne , animal feeds are , after all , food , and we need the positive list .
You have been quoted in the German press as saying that there are thousands of substances that need to be tested .
I hope that was a misquote , because if there really are thousands of substances added to animal feeds , that would be a scandal in itself .
The number of additives needs to be limited and that should be implemented on a restrictive basis .
After all , if the industry then comes along and says that it has forgotten a substance and makes the test available straight away , that substance can be added on .
Of course , the positive list does not mean that we have nothing to worry about .
The fact that there are people willing to dispose of toxic materials by putting them in animal feeds because that is cheaper demonstrates a criminal intent which should be punished accordingly .
That also convinces me – and I think we in this House are all agreed on this – that a simple ban is not enough .
We need to consider what substances we are banning and what happens to them next .
Mrs Roth-Behrendt has already pointed out that legislation on waste should be closely linked with controls , just as it should be linked with what we are discussing here , so that there is not any overlap .
We have repeatedly seen cases of substances that really should be destroyed finding their way into animal feeds .
However , we should not throw the baby out with the bath water – please note , Mr President ! We have already seen what can happen in the case of food waste .
We also need to establish reasonable recycling arrangements where it is appropriate to do so .
Yesterday , I visited a cat and dog food factory .
When you see the meticulous controls applied there you realise that it is not a question of controls but rather of the sanctions that can be applied by consumers wielding their purchasing power against industry .
– ( NL ) Mr President , I wish to concur with what has been said by many of the previous speakers .
I should also like to thank the Commissioner for what he has said .
I do notice , however , that , although he is introducing a large number of measures , he fails to mention the best piece of news , namely that it was the farmers who discovered that something was wrong with their pigs , because their sows were not breeding properly .
It is down to the farmers .
This means , then , that there is a very important lesson we should draw from this , and that we should be aware that the inspection system , however effectively it has been set up , has failed thus far .
With all these fine measures that are now being proposed , I have one overriding question , and I believe that Mrs Roth-Behrendt has already mentioned it as well .
How does waste legislation relate to what we do with our cattle feed ? Who monitors this ? Commissioner , if you say that , according to Commissioner Wallström , if waste legislation had been enforced , we would not be facing any problems now , then I think you should ask the Irish authorities why they did not verify that these hormones landed up in a waste processor in an improper manner .
Why did they subsequently not check at the border that these hormones were being exported to a company which should raise question marks , at any rate in Belgium ? This means , therefore , that in this respect , the Irish and the Belgians have dropped major clangers .
Mr President , why – and I am also speaking on behalf of my own country – did we fail to check these companies when we know that , in addition to manure , they also produce their own feed and that they are already shrouded in great suspicion ? What about product liability legislation ? I hope that those who lost out will be receiving compensation from the governments responsible .
– ( DE ) Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , high-quality food is produced nowadays and it has to meet a wide range of requirements .
An enormous variety of food is on offer , including food from widely varying countries outside the European Union .
Our guiding principle should continue to be that our food should be safe and of a high quality , in order to ensure that consumers are protected .
Food is the most basic prerequisite for people's health and quality of life .
Nevertheless , past scandals have unsettled and frightened consumers enormously .
For example , I find it irresponsible that dishonest pharmaceutical companies should dispose of hormone products through animal feed and food , turning consumers into walking rubbish bins .
I find it absolutely horrifying that metroxyprogesteronacetate is present in sugar syrup and soft drinks ! I would like to ask , Commissioner , what legal steps have now been taken to prevent this recurring in the future .
I welcome the new European Food Safety Authority as an early warning system for Europe and as an efficient crisis management system coordinated between the Commission and the Member States .
I am , however , concerned that the EU's controls should work properly .
The network should be extended to provide better information and the reporting obligation for companies should be brought in as quickly as possible so that goods and products are withdrawn from the market if they are harmful .
What has the Commission done in the meantime to implement this , and to ensure greater transparency and traceability ? We need to protect consumers , and that applies to imports as well .
That is why I believe it is a matter of urgent necessity to introduce control systems for food as quickly as possible in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe too , including those cases where food is already produced in accordance with European standards .
However , to allow consumers to decide for themselves what they want , we need to ensure that we have practical and clear labelling both for conventionally produced food and for genetically modified food .
I firmly believe that we need to set the course for this as soon as possible .
– ( DE ) Mr President , for the public , health and healthy food are the top priority .
But how am I as a consumer to know if a particular food is healthy ? Just looking certainly is not enough .
An apple with wormholes in it can be far healthier than a shiny , beautifully round apple .
The agricultural sector – and this does not just apply to Austria – professes to observe the principles of food safety , traceability and hygiene .
For me , this debate is an opportunity to champion the cause of small farms , because it is always in the big , industrialised concerns , which really have very little in common with farms , that scandals occur .
Nevertheless , small farms are still at the mercy of animal feed producers and vets who can prescribe all sorts of hormones and other drugs .
One thing is certain: the controls have not worked .
You can , of course , turn things round however you want and say , yes , we just need even stricter rules .
But if we are not even enforcing the existing rules , how are we going to cope with even stricter ones ? It will not help at all .
Whatever legislation we enact will remain a paper tiger if we do not enforce it .
As I see it , controlling the enforcers should be a job for the Commission .
You cannot just turn your back on this problem .
Cheap food may be good for winning the next election , but it is not good for public health , and I think the public knows that too .
I would like to stress once more that strict rules and regulations and comprehensive documentation of controls are certainly important for big companies .
But it would be pointless to harass small family farms with this .
To be quite specific , very small food-processing companies need more information and motivation and less bureaucracy and documentation .
There is no denying that not only is preventing food crises extremely important for the future of farmers , it is also highly important for the future of public health in the European Union .
I believe , Commissioner , that we have not yet found the right way of achieving this .
– Mr President , a number of speakers have referred to the problem of waste and waste policy .
We will have an opportunity to discuss this issue later this month in Parliament when we adopt the animal by-products regulation .
This hugely important piece of legislation will ensure that one key sector in particular , animal by-products , is better regulated .
The positive list was referred to by a number of people .
I shall say something about that .
The Commission will shortly present the study which has been undertaken on the positive list .
This will be presented to Parliament and our views on the feasibility of such a list will be made available for discussion here in Parliament at that time .
But we should bear in mind that a positive list would not include MPA .
It would not , therefore , have prevented the recent contamination .
MPA should not be on the list ; it will never be approved and therefore the positive list is not the full answer .
However , I recognise that a number of people in this House are anxious for progress to be made on this issue and this will be discussed in Parliament before the end of the year .
A number of people also mentioned the Food Safety Authority .
The work is ongoing there and , as we all know , the board has been established .
Further steps have been taken on the appointment of the executive director .
The board will hold its first meeting very soon on 18 September .
In relation to further progress on the Food Safety Authority , if Parliament would make the appropriations requested by the Commission available to us , this would facilitate our work .
I know that there are reasons why Parliament feels it wants to hold back this money as leverage for something else , but that may or may not be legitimate .
It does nothing to facilitate the establishment of the Food Safety Authority and ensure that it is up and running and carrying out its work .
I would appeal to Parliament to reconsider its position on these appropriations .
Some other points were raised by individual Members and I hope I can pick them all up but if I do not , please forgive me .
Mr Bowis made reference to growth promoters .
We can safely conclude that the contamination we are talking about this morning was not due to illegal use to increase the weight of pigs .
Such use , that is the use of hormones as growth promoters , is illegal .
As I have already said , the Commission will be presenting a major proposal on controls shortly .
This is aimed primarily at improving the implementation of our existing legislation .
I intend in particular to increase the penalties and the cost of non-compliance .
I think we all agree that we must make it painful and costly for Member States and producers if they fail to implement Community legislation .
Mrs Roth-Behrendt made a number of relevant points .
She is 100% right: feed must not serve as the dustbin for waste producers .
Several of the recent major food-safety crises have originated from waste management: dioxin , the recent nitrofen crisis in Germany , sludge and now MPA and BSE .
They are all associated with the feed issue .
As I have already said , we must improve contacts between the Member States on the treatment and disposal of waste – a controversial issue in a number of Member States but , nonetheless , one that has to be addressed with courage and effectiveness .
Mr Mulder referred to the Food and Veterinary Office .
It is doing a very good job in ensuring compliance with Community law .
Its reports continue to highlight the serious shortcomings in the implementation of legislation .
It could do with more resources , but that is an issue for the budgetary authority .
I am unhappy with the follow-up to the FAO's recommendations in a number of areas .
This is why the Commission is coming forward with a new proposal to improve controls .
As I have said repeatedly , we must make it painful and costly not to respect Community law .
Mr Mulder mentioned a quality mark .
This may be valuable but it has its limitations .
Like legislation , quality marks are only effective if the qualifying conditions are respected .
In the Netherlands , for instance , feed producers undertook to use only safe ingredients as part of their quality assurance scheme .
Clearly , they failed to respect this requirement .
So quality marks may be useful but they have their limitations .
Mr Whitehead referred to the rapid alert system at Community level and this has worked very effectively in relation to the recent food-safety crises .
In a number of cases – not just this one but also the nitrofen case – the system worked very effectively .
The problems have occurred at the national level .
As Mr Whitehead suggests , in the recent nitrofen crisis in Germany there were clear failings in the notification of national authorities .
Very often that occurs because of the federal structure that exists in a number of our Member States .
Mr Staes also made the point that those Member States that have a federal structure really need to look at their systems of rapid alert to ensure that they match what we have at Community level .
For instance , the Commission immediately notified Member States when it learned of this particular contamination .
Mrs Oomen-Ruijten then referred to a number of points that I would like to take up .
Commissioner Wallström and I have written to the Irish authorities requesting a full and comprehensive reply to the question marks as to their compliance with the relevant Community legislation .
This legislation requires formal notification of the movement of pharmaceutical waste , which does not appear to have happened in this instance .
In the light of the reply I expect to have from the Irish authorities later this month we will then be in a position to return to this issue .
When that reply comes in it will be examined closely and any further action that needs to be taken will be addressed at that time .
DebatesThursday 22 July 1999OJ edition
– The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the contamination by dioxins of certain products intended for human or animal consumption .
– ( FI ) Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , first , I would like to congratulate you all on the election results and wish the European Parliament every success in its legislative work .
I eagerly look forward to working in co-operation with you in my role of chairman of the Agriculture Council during the Finnish presidential term .
I have no doubt that co-operation between us during this time will be fruitful and will serve the interests of European producers , manufacturers and consumers well .
Obviously , I might have wished that our first meeting under the Finnish Presidency had taken place in other circumstances which would have permitted me to present the actual priorities of our programme .
These include , in particular , legislation projects which aim to guarantee food safety for the consumer and promote the health and welfare of animals .
Unfortunately , owing to circumstances , we were obliged to give consideration to a chain of events we would never have wished for .
Recent events concerning the contamination by dioxins of certain foodstuffs in Belgium have resulted in a very serious situation , not only with regard to the risks to people"s health , but also because they have weakened confidence in the animal feed and food production chain and in the ability of the authorities to monitor the situation properly .
Quite understandably , there has been a very strong reaction on the part of the public to this crisis , which erupted just as we were starting to think that the BSE crisis was an exceptional , isolated case which we were already getting over .
I fully understand why consumers expect us to take speedy , comprehensive and effective action , appropriate in terms of the gravity of the matter , to give them the necessary guarantees that the crisis will be resolved in both the short and the long-term .
At the same time , we have to bear in mind that an undesirable occurrence such as this has very costly economic consequences .
For that reason , we are under an obligation to do all we can to protect consumers" health and offer them guarantees regarding the safety of food that are as comprehensive as possible .
It is in our own interest to take all necessary action to prevent incidents such as this from recurring .
In connection with all this , I shall be working in co-operation with Ms Biaudet , who is chairman of the Council of Health Ministers , to restore consumer confidence .
We have to take into account the fact that legislation on issues of veterinary medicine and animal feed in the European Union is amongst the most stringent in the world .
You are well aware of the criticisms made by certain third countries that measures meant for the protection of consumers within the Union are too restrictive .
I can mention , by way of example , the recent decision by the World Trade Organisation to allow the USA and Canada to impose penalty tariffs on our exports , owing to the importation ban on hormone-treated meat .
The understandable financial and social worries of producers notwithstanding , the Council has always worked , and will continue to work , with two principles in mind .
First , the most important objective is the protection of people"s health , and second , all action must be based on the best possible scientific evidence .
The recent decisions of the Council are indications of this style of approach .
I would refer to the decision forbidding the use of some antibiotics in feed as a boost to growth , and the decision approved by the Council last Monday to tighten up the rules on the treatment of animal waste as a way of protecting against infectious TSE diseases .
In speaking of dioxin contamination , we have to say that the investigations carried out by the Belgian authorities and the inspections made by the Commission show contamination was due to the introduction during the manufacturing process of a raw material that should never have been used for this purpose .
We must also admit that the dioxin contamination of the feed shows that current legislation and protective measures are not fully sufficient to prevent the feed becoming contaminated by hazardous substances such as dioxin .
For that reason , there is no doubt that Community legislation should be amended to ensure that the quality of animal produce is to be relied upon fully .
We must act now to see that the ‘prevention rather than cure" principle is fully applied in the future .
Before I move on to the question of the approach agreed upon in the Council , I would like to remind everyone of the timely and effective work instigated by the Commission and given the support of the Member States" Standing Veterinary Committee to implement vital crisis measures imposed by the precautionary principle .
This action led to the identification , withdrawal from the market and destruction of all produce that was contaminated or suspected of being so .
In addition , the Commission imposed conditions on certified produce coming onto the market and on the continuance of trade in produce in national markets as well as the entire Community market .
The Commission has already sent out all the details regarding the work it has begun , so I will not repeat them here .
For my own part , and on behalf of the Council , I would like to say we appreciate the Commission"s work .
Turning to the action the Council has taken , I would like to remind everyone that the Ministers of Agriculture and Health have followed the dioxin crisis closely , and that they discussed the situation at the first available opportunity in meetings held in June .
The aim was to provide a springboard and political direction for further vital action to be taken .
The Council adopted a set of conclusions on how this issue should be approached .
The Council particularly stressed that a swift , thorough and independently drafted report should be produced and , if required , that there should be changes to current legislation .
The Council also made a point of asking Member States to ensure , through a comprehensive programme of checks , that EU legislation to guarantee health protection was being complied with .
The Council reminded everyone that , with the threat of a risk looming , the Member States should use the early warning systems currently in place fully and in good time .
Furthermore , the Council asked the Commission to monitor the effective and uniform implementation of these EU early warning systems and , if it was appropriate , to make recommendations regarding how they might be improved , and give consideration to how much the existing monitoring systems should be extended to cover all situations .
In addition , the Council asked the Commission to produce a report by the end of the year on the progress made in the establishment of a Food Veterinary Office and its overall viability .
On the basis of this report , we should also look at the need for a general improvement in food monitoring , including the possibility of food monitoring bodies .
The Council urged the Commission to speed up the work already begun by its Standing Committee on Feedingstuffs , which re-examines the legislation on animal feed and proposes , if deemed necessary , additions and amendments for tighter harmonisation .
The Council also urged the Commission to take a critical look at EU legislation regarding the disposal of meat meal , animal waste and feed .
Moreover , the Council emphasised that the manufacturers of animal feed were responsible for the safety of their products .
Anxious about the situation , the Agriculture Council in their meeting on Monday this week returned to the issue to monitor developments .
At the end of a new full debate on the issue , the Council reaffirmed the conclusions drawn in June , and drew attention to the importance of unanimous political will on the part of the Member States and the Commission to act on these conclusions fully and immediately .
The Council considered the Commission"s proposal for an exhaustive programme of legislation to be welcome in principle , a programme of which you are aware and whose purpose is to accommodate legislation on animal nutrition and measures relating to animal waste .
The Council made all the relevant decisions relating to procedure to ensure the speedy examination of the Commission"s proposals , bearing in mind the aim the Council has to finish the job , if at all possible , before the end of the year .
I will take this opportunity to remind everyone that the co-decision procedure applies to debates on future Commission proposals , and I would therefore ask the European Parliament for their co-operation in honouring this very ambitious timetable .
I can assure you that Finland , as the country to hold the Presidency , will , for its part , do everything within its power to ensure that work in the Council is expedited in order for us to achieve a positive end result as speedily as possible during the Finnish presidential term .
Before I end , I would like to say that the dioxin crisis has clearly shown that the effects of this type of occurrence are not restricted to the regions , or even countries , in which it began .
The effects spread to every region of the Community and extend also to our trading relations with third countries .
This crisis has had an adverse effect on our exports , and the actions of some of our trading partners have in many respects exceeded justifiable limits as regards not only severity but also scope of application .
We therefore have to rebuild consumer confidence both within the Community and the world over and , at the same time , develop appropriate action to restore viable commercial relations .
When it is a matter of people"s health , simply the best way to reassure the European people and the consumers who live outside Europe is to act with transparency , clarity and a sense of accountability .
Aside from the programme of legislation , now available , as it is , to all , we are grateful to the Commission for the consistent way in which it kept third countries and the World Trade Organisation informed and for its reports on Community action to solve the dioxin crisis .
It was an attempt to show that certified EU exports are safe .
Some positive results have been achieved , but the situation remains unsatisfactory in some cases , which means that the Commission will have to continue with its efforts .
In order to be successful these efforts need , and should receive , the support , not just of the Council , but the European Parliament also .
Sincere thanks for affording me the opportunity to be able to inform you of the measures taken in relation to the recent dioxin crisis in Belgium .
I would also like to take this opportunity , however , to outline , in a somewhat broader context , some plans and projects which will help , firstly , to put this event in context and secondly , to provide us with the opportunity to give consideration as to where we must , and should , make improvements in the law concerning animal feed and foodstuffs .
Now to the reason itself .
Unfortunately , the Commission was only informed of the problem by the Belgian authorities on 27 May , but we immediately implemented a whole range of measures with a view to safeguarding the health of humans and animals .
With the consent of the representatives of the constituent Member States on the Standing Veterinary Committee , firstly , emergency measures were laid down for the poultry industry as well as for poultry products of Belgian origin .
These were followed , several days later , by measures relating to the cattle , pig and milk sectors and products derived therefrom .
In the meantime , however , it was possible , on the recommendation of the Scientific Committee , and following consultation with the Standing Veterinary Committee , to lift the bans on milk and milk products .
As far as the question of the source of the contamination is concerned , and I should point out that inquiries are still continuing in this regard , it can be assumed , based on the latest findings by the Public Prosecutor's Office in Gent , that the cause of the crisis was a serious product contamination which took place in January of this year .
I should also point out that Community officials arrived at the same conclusion during their inspections which were carried out on site between 8 and 11 June .
Looking ahead , one can assume that all products which are manufactured or marketed in the Community today , be they of Belgian origin or otherwise , will not be contaminated by this source .
Naturally , our work is continuing , and we will verify , as soon as the Belgian authorities have provided us with the necessary information , whether the PCB certificate can also be applied to pork and beef . This would then allow us to make certain changes to the precautionary measures already taken .
In order to limit the economic damage caused by the dioxin crisis , the Commission has also introduced a number of measures .
A Regulation was passed on 16 June with the aim of maintaining exports at an acceptable level in spite of the more difficult conditions .
Pig breeders can also profit from having to keep their animals for extended periods .
With regard to the poultry sector , a Regulation was passed on 13 June allowing export grants for destination countries in addition to the Middle East .
As regards the milk sector , on 15 July , the management committee for milk decided to extend the period of use of butter and butter concentrates in bread , cakes , pastries and ice cream .
A Commission resolution for eight different state subsidies , which were announced and notified by the Belgian authorities , was passed the day before yesterday .
Apart from the emergency measures which have already been adopted , the Commission is , however , now working , and this is where the general context comes in , on proposals to improve and define Community provisions relating to foodstuffs and animal feed more closely .
These projects far exceed what is required .
In connection with this , I would now like to cover certain issues which have already been discussed in Parliament and which will continue to be discussed .
Firstly , I shall come to the question of foodstuffs legislation .
Here , we have already long since set about consolidating the texts of all hygiene-related regulations in the area of foodstuffs .
This project is about to draw to a conclusion .
On this point , we should also look to simplify matters from a legal viewpoint , which should serve to make the regulations relating to hygiene more transparent and ensure that they are applied better .
In this regard , we have come to a definitive ruling on an issue which we have already discussed previously here in Parliament , namely to what extent the decontamination process , modified and carried out under strictly controlled conditions , should apply to slaughtered hens and chickens as well as to red meat .
Another key issue is the traceability of animal products from the shop counter to the manufacturer .
In the pig sector , of course , we have come a long way in this regard but the question still has to be asked regarding the extent to which this system should be applied to other sectors .
Throughout the Community , four research laboratories are at our disposal for the testing and inspection of foodstuffs and the development of different research methods in connection with said testing and inspection . One of these , the laboratory in Rome , has been specially commissioned to develop , where necessary , new and improved research methods .
In addition , this laboratory offers a further education programme which is particularly concerned with the consideration of environmental contaminants .
In the last Council , which the President-in-Office of the Council has already talked about , political agreement was reached on different measures and , even prior to this in June , at the meeting of Agricultural Ministers , an agreement was reached on a Regulation concerning biological farming and its expansion to include animal products .
This is also one of the Commission"s initiatives which should assist in improving production conditions and , above all , transparency for the consumer .
Another ambitious programme , which was last discussed on Monday at the meeting of Agricultural Ministers , concerns substantial changes to current foodstuffs legislation .
The Commission is trying to deal with this matter as quickly as possible but , in this regard , we also need the support of the Member States and , above all , of this Parliament .
We wish to concentrate on three different types of measures .
In the first instance , we want to expand the list of animal feed raw materials which should not be used in mixed animal feed .
Secondly , we wish to establish maximum dioxin values for oils and fats as well as mixed animal feed products to which oils and fats are added .
Thirdly , we want to change the definition of animal feed raw materials , in particular with regard to oils and fats and animal products .
In order to achieve this , we have a catalogue full of concrete proposals which have already been discussed by the committee responsible for animal feed products .
I have forwarded this catalogue to the Committee Secretariat since it would simply take too long to go into all of these points here and now .
Therefore , I would like to mention a few points briefly .
A legal basis must be created as regards the application of a safeguard clause in the event of emergencies which may occur in the European Union in connection with animal feed products and which may pose a serious risk to the health of humans or animals and the environment .
Secondly , it is a question of making it incumbent upon the Member States to implement a Union-wide monitoring programme for contaminants in animal feed products .
Thirdly , we also wish to introduce an early-warning system for animal feed products , along the lines of the one already in place for foodstuffs .
I would like to point out that the time frame for this has been altered and that it will now be in place as of September 1999 .
From this time , there will be a ban on the intermixing of contaminated animal feed raw materials and the exemption regulation for the regional use of animal feed products that have been contaminated due to local conditions will also cease to apply .
Finally , we want to inspect current provisions relating to the information concerning raw materials , in particular provisions concerning the labelling found on mixed animal feed products in the sense that , in future , a clear statement of quantity on all the raw materials used should be possible which will obviate the need for information on raw materials by categories .
We then want to approve , in general terms , all mixed animal feed manufacturers as well as drafting an exhaustive positive list for approved animal feed raw materials .
I would also like to point out that not all of the measures contained in this list , which I have forwarded to the Committee Secretariat , are completely new .
This is the case , for example , as regards the approval of mixed animal feed manufacturers .
We have already made a proposal along these lines in the past , but at that time the Council did not accept the Commission"s view and the proposal was therefore dropped .
I would now like to talk about some trade issues with third countries .
It was extremely important to inform these countries on the ensuing situation and of the precautionary measures taken by the Commission and to keep them updated on an on-going basis .
To this end , the competent services of the Commission have been in regular contact with third countries and we used the WTO/SPS plenary session which took place on 7 and 8 July to report in detail on the current situation and the relevant legal documents .
During this session , we also made it clear that the dioxin problems are not only a Community issue .
No country is free from dioxins and we can cite a whole number of examples of dioxin contamination which have made the headlines in many different parts of the world .
It is to be hoped , therefore , that all countries , not only Europe , can take some lessons from this .
The majority of committee members at this session welcomed this report and thanked the Commission and the sovereign authorities for the on-going and reliable exchange of information .
A final word on the tests .
The Foodstuffs and Veterinary Office of DG XXIV has introduced a range of measures on site .
Even in the case of the first visit to Belgium , it became clear that the crisis , unfortunately , had been poorly handled by the Belgian authorities .
This state of affairs could be attributed primarily to the lack of co-ordination between the various competent administrative authorities and the responsibilities of these authorities which were fragmented and unclear .
In addition , it was revealed that Community decisions concerning the withdrawal from the market of potentially contaminated products had been inadequately enforced by the Belgian authorities .
Tests carried out in the Netherlands , France , Germany and Spain also demonstrated certain loopholes in the procedures relating to the inspection of animal feed products .
Unfortunately , certain Member States used the crisis in Belgium as an excuse to erect trade barriers against non-contaminated Belgian products , thereby infringing the principle of the free movement of goods .
It has also transpired that other Member States have also been supplied with reconditioned used oil which is Belgian in origin .
With regard to the infringement procedures , I can report to you that the Commission has introduced , on the basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty , summary infringement proceedings against Belgium , since it failed in its obligation to inform the Commission and Member States immediately regarding the dioxin cases and did not fully transpose Decision 1999/389 .
Other issues concern the import barriers imposed by certain Member States with regard to Belgian products in general .
The Commission"s services met with the competent authorities to discuss in detail the uncertain legal and administrative provisions .
These talks have led , in the meantime , to specific health protection measures being implemented and the lifting of temporary import barriers for a range of products .
Other problems persist of course , but the Commission"s services are endeavouring to co-operate closely with those parties responsible at a national level , and we want to resolve the issues outstanding as quickly as possible .
In conclusion , I would like to assure you that the Commission will continue to do everything in its power to alleviate the consequences of this crisis as quickly as possible .
– ( DE ) Mr President , Mr Commissioner , Mr President-in-Office of the Council , if you will allow me , I would like to address my speech to you directly , Mr President-in-Office of the Council , because I believe that the European Council in recent years has become far too an insignificant factor at the heart of European discussions and has also held back somewhat when it has come down to stepping in and taking charge .
In this instance , following our unpleasant experiences with BSE , the Commission is largely blameless and the Member States have once again played their games under the guise of subsidiarity and have not been brave enough , for example , in drafting a framework Directive on foodstuffs which could be something concrete to which the Member States can adhere .
I do not want to go so far as to say that the last five years have seen an upswing in renationalisation but certainly , in that time , the Council has not become any more audacious when it has come down to , for example , in view of the obvious conclusions to be drawn from the BSE crisis , proposing real European goals which could then also be safeguarded and sanctioned .
This is very regrettable and I fear the only thing that will get the Council moving on this question will be the agreement that we have just concluded with the Americans whereby they may verify whether Europe itself is observing the same standards of hygiene as we expect from the Americans .
Only then will the Council start to act .
The days of Member States playing their games must stop ; instead , they have to play a European game with European goals and , of course , proceed along individual paths in order to achieve this goal .
As a farmer , let me now come onto another issue which I am finding somewhat disconcerting .
Worldwide competition in the foodstuffs industry is causing ruin .
The Americans are squeezing the European market and the profits of processing industries are lower than ever before .
Competition is passing this onto the consumer and , in this instance , onto producers in particular .
As a result , this is clearly creating the environment for criminal dealings .
Minister , you have said that the dioxin admixture was a mixture of unsuitable raw materials .
Perhaps this is a translation problem .
As far as I am concerned , it is a criminal act which is driving farmers in my constituency to ruin .
Therefore , let"s talk in clear and plain language for the benefit of consumers and farmers alike , and for the benefit of Europe as well .
– ( DE ) Mr President , let me begin by giving Mr Prodi a sound piece of advice , both him and all the other nominees who wish to be confirmed in their positions by this House here in September .
One of the questions which all of the committees certainly wish to ask is this: What is your attitude towards honouring decisions made by the European Parliament ? If Mr Prodi or one of the other nominees replies , ‘Well , I couldn"t care less’ , then these nominees will have a problem .
Yesterday , in his third speech to this House , Mr Prodi used the words ‘consumer protection’ and ‘health policy’ for the first time .
That is a fair few .
In this regard , he also said that he would make provision for , and I quote , ‘an independent European Food and Drugs Agency’ .
This House decided , after long discussions in connection with the BSE crisis , that this is something which we simply do not want .
We are not after an independent Agency but an authority which is subordinate to the Commission and which is accountable to this House , the European Parliament .
I hope that this piece of information reaches Mr Prodi so that he knows in future to be very careful about what he says .
I have already asked Mr Fischler yesterday whether this was his suggestion .
He assured me that it was not .
Mr Fischler , I believe this to be the case and , after your speech here today , which I thought was excellent , I am even more convinced .
I would now like to say something to the President-in-Office of the Council . He said at certain points that the Council was concerned that the dioxin crisis has shown that its effects concern the Union as a whole and that the Council wants to act decisively and responsibly .
You would then be able to count a complete novelty amongst the successes of your Presidency .
Up to now , the Council has routinely covered things up , dithered , and swept things under the carpet .
Everyone in the Council knows that individual countries all handle things in a similar manner .
What has happened in Belgium , and it is a disgrace that it took the government six weeks to inform the Commission , could have happened anywhere else .
It was just bad luck that it happened in Belgium .
We all know that it could have occurred in Italy , Germany or Austria .
Have you , for example , done anything to help ensure tighter inspections and controls ? You have left untouched a proposal from the European Parliament on this matter for more than six months .
As far as the details of this crisis are concerned , I would like to expressly commend the Commission .
We have certainly frequently maintained , in connection with BSE , that the Commission was not quite on the ball .
But at the same time , however , there is nothing , nothing at all , as regards the behaviour of the Commission for which it can be criticised .
Everything the Commission did , and the way in which it was done , was excellent .
The same certainly cannot be said of everybody else .
So what lessons can be drawn from this ? Mr Fischler mentioned some of these .
He made reference to legislation which is necessary .
This is definitely the case . There is no question that other legislation for animal feed products is required .
We have to avoid a situation where , for example , waste products enter into animal feed .
We talk of foodstuffs and animals which have been fed on these foodstuffs .
Waste products have no part here .
Mr Fischler , of course there should not be dioxin limit values .
The limit value has to be zero for both dioxins and PCB .
In this regard , something else is worthy of mention .
Let"s have the courage to also declare dioxin to be a worldwide problem .
Will there be a dioxin register in the European Union and worldwide ? Will it be investigated where emissions accumulate from incineration plants , where other dioxin emissions can be found which are present in the soil and in the grass which is eaten by animals ? We know for sure that they are not only found in animal feed but also in our natural environment .
So please let"s have a dioxin register .
This is something that is definitely needed .
I would now like to briefly outline some proposals relating to the checks .
If we do not ensure that the tests are better carried out in Member States , if the Commission is not able to carry out inspections unannounced , but first has to wait for permission from a Member country such as Belgium or another Member State , we can forget it .
We must modify the inspection process and agricultural policy as a whole .
If we believe that we can make high profits by means of waste products which are as cheap as possible , and that is something which we want , such cases will always crop up .
We have to change this within the European Union as well as with our partners outside the Union .
– ( NL ) Mr President , it is a shame that in my maiden speech as a new MEP , I should have to speak of serious mistakes that have been made in my country , firstly by companies that supply raw materials for cattle feed , and secondly by the control agencies whose responsibility it is to ensure that when a mistake is made , it is discovered immediately and the consequences limited .
Particular mention should also be made of the government then in office which wasted weeks and caused us a great deal of harm by not giving the European Commission and the Member States adequate warning that something was wrong .
These mistakes have resulted in an extremely serious situation , firstly as regards public health , and secondly , they have caused economic disaster in agriculture and throughout the food sector .
People"s trust has been damaged and it will , of course , be a long time before it is restored again .
These mistakes were duly punished in the political arena at last month"s elections .
There is now a new government in Belgium which is trying to limit the damage , pick up the pieces and also repair the damage , as quickly as possible and using all the means at its disposal .
I hope that Belgium will also be able to count on the Union"s support in this , for it is clear that whether a crisis such as this is caused by a disease or an accident , or even a crime , that is of no consequence to a consumer , a farmer or a company that falls victim to the crisis .
They are victims and they suffer .
Fortunately , Mr Commissioner , at the beginning of the week , the Commission opened the door for the Belgian authorities to come to the assistance of companies in need .
I hope that will not prove to be the last step .
In the long-term , there is also a task for us here in the European Parliament .
Mr Commissioner , you have said that you will soon be presenting proposals .
I assume , Mr President-in-Office of the Council , that we and the Council will be able to discuss the texts very shortly and will be able to turn them into the legislation we need .
We must have European regulations .
Speaking as a liberal , Mr Commissioner , I am very pleased that you have said that these regulations must be simple and user-friendly .
Of course , they must also be strict , so that people know what is meant by healthy food , and they must apply to the whole food chain .
But it is clearly absurd that at the height of the crisis , the Commission and its technical services should be wasting time on discussions with the Belgian authorities and their technical services because there are no standards , because people do not know what the permitted level of dioxins is for different products .
Clear and unambiguous regulations must be drawn up for all matters of this kind which are clear , simple and strict .
And , of course , you must monitor them as well .
We must ensure that consumers are able to tell from a quality label when something is healthy , and they must also be made fully aware when something has the European seal of approval .
I think it is a good thing that Romano Prodi said yesterday that there is to be a European agency for food .
Of course , it goes without saying that such an agency must discharge its responsibility in a democratic manner and must be embedded , if I can put it this way , in the European institutions .
If we , as European Parliament , European Commission and European Council , fail to ensure that regulations and effective controls are introduced very rapidly , then yet another item will be added to the long list of disasters already in existence .
My colleague said things of this kind can happen in any country .
We have seen a number of examples .
I think that we should spare no efforts in ensuring that the list of examples does not grow ever longer .
– ( ES ) Mr President , may I remind Parliament that our group has two components , the Green component and the European Free Alliance component , of countries with no State .
I have been noticing , yesterday and today , that , on the screens and elsewhere in general , the real name of our group , Greens/European Free Alliance , does not appear .
I therefore ask the President to provide all the relevant information , in order that the true name of our group be re-established .
– ( NL ) Mr Chairman , ladies and gentlemen , you are what you eat .
This popular maxim demonstrates why the issue of ‘food safety’ is a matter of such sensitivity as far as public opinion and our electorate are concerned .
I learnt at primary school that cows eat grass and are ruminants .
And it is owing to pursuit of profit that we now feed our cows cattle feed fortified with animal bonemeal .
We are turning our cows into cannibals .
But that is not all .
Our Belgian pigs are so susceptible to stress that they are given tranquillizers and betablockers just before they are transported to the slaughterhouse .
Mafia-type organisations give our cattle hormones , antibiotics , corticosteroids , betablockers , and beta-agonists .
We have also known for a few days now that there are dioxin chickens .
In my country , Flanders , it used to be a tradition to eat chicken and chips on a Sunday .
We now know that we can dispense with the chips as well because our chickens are fed discarded frying oil .
This brings us to the heart of the problem .
Ladies and gentlemen , the dioxin chicken scandal is far more than a mere setback .
What happened in Belgium could just as well have taken place in Germany , France , the Netherlands , Spain or Italy .
It is the result of a defective system , an erroneous Common Agricultural Policy that plunges farmers into a vicious circle of producing ever-increasing amounts ever more cheaply , investing ever more heavily , having ever larger scales of operation which must be farmed ever more intensively .
Quantity takes precedence over quality .
We must change tack .
From now on , quality must take precedence over quantity .
There is a common resolution which has been put forward by several groups , of which my own group , the Greens/European Free Alliance is one .
I want to stress that there is a definite need for an efficient system whereby people are warned in good time about any kind of unsafe food .
A far-reaching proposal must be produced which will reinforce the precautionary principle in food production and trade at European level .
Let"s be honest , there is going to have to be a debate on the recycling industry .
Can it be acceptable for the waste from water purification plants , which contain cadmium and heavy metals , to be incorporated into cattle feed and thus end up in the food chain .
A clear distinction must be drawn between what is waste and should be treated as such , and what can still be used in our food production .
On a final note , this crisis is a disaster for the producers .
Tens if not hundreds of companies will go bankrupt .
I have here the report by the Court of Auditors on the Community aid given to those farmers affected by the BSE crisis .
I have today heard the Commissioner listing a whole range of measures which are to be taken or which have already been taken .
I am pleased about this , but still I cannot help but feel that this is still too little .
Billions have been spent on the victims of the BSE crisis and something must also be done for the victims of this crisis .
Why are Flemish farmers denied what is given to English farmers ? I fully concur with the view expressed by my colleague Sterckx that what the Commission has now done is just a first step , and that the Commission and the Council and this Parliament will have to go much further .
– To return to the comment made a minute ago , the competent services confirm that there is indeed a problem with the computer programme , and that the names will be corrected , I hope , by the next part-session in September .
- ( EL ) Mr President , the crises are mounting , we have the dioxin crisis in Belgium and the soft drinks crisis with Coca-Cola amongst others . We have the continuing crisis of mad cow disease , Mr Fischler . And the crisis is not yet over .
A reliable British magazine has reported that towards the end of 1998 , the number of young people dying from the new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease quadrupled and yet we have no information on this matter .
We do not know what is happening with mad cow disease in Portugal , yet we are hearing a great deal about hormone-treated meat from the United States and the intolerable pressures imposed on us with regard to its free movement .
There was not even any fundamental and serious debate on genetically-modified foods prior to their becoming a part of our daily diet .
As I read in a recent study , we do not ultimately know what we are eating . In fact , even our farmers and cattle breeders do not know what they are farming or how to feed their animals .
It is all very disturbing and worrying , Mr President .
The Parliament owes it to its citizens to do more than make accusations of criminal offences like the one committed by Belgium . It should also be noted , Mr Commissioner , that it hasn"t yet made known those companies which used dioxin-contaminated cattle feed .
This time , however , the Commission , having learned its lesson from mad cow disease , took Belgium to the European Court of Justice .
However , we have still not discussed things fully and have not taken decisions on how to make controls tighter and more efficient , leaving them instead to the good will of the Member States .
Although we are mindful of the fact that we are lacking infrastructure , veterinarians and inspectorates , we are well aware of the bribes and attempted bribes , the threats and the murders which have taken place in certain countries with regard to these issues – yet , I do not see anybody taking it seriously .
We are also well aware that there have been strong reactions from the European Union itself to the establishment of a proper organisation to carry out spot-checks , along the lines of , for example , the American Food [amp] Drug Administration , instead of having non-specialised research bodies .
What we need here is both transparency and public access to information .
Therefore , Mr President , I strongly endorse our group"s proposal for the Parliament to set up a temporary committee which will fully deal with all issues of food safety and public health and not just certain aspects of it .
– ( FR ) Mr President , Mr President-in-Office of the Council , Mr Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , the dioxin crisis , BSE and the pressure put on us by the Americans to ensure that we accept hormone-treated meat are just a few examples of the very serious threats overhanging the safety of our citizens" food today .
If these threats are not dealt with forcefully and adequately , irrationality will prevail at the expense of our farmers .
The President-elect of the Commission recognised yesterday the huge importance of this matter , but he has remained completely silent about how he proposes to deal with it .
Instead of these ideological tirades from days gone by , calling for a return of the old supranational connivance between Parliament and the Commission against the Council , we would have preferred to hear from Mr Prodi , how exactly he intends , within his jurisdiction , to repair the damage done by previous Commissions at the Uruguay Round .
By accepting rules which act against our interests and measures such as the one covering sufficient scientific proof , which prevents us in practice from applying the precautionary principle , previous Commissions did a great deal of damage to our companies and to our economies .
They offered up our exports as hostages to those countries who want to impose their methods of production on us with all the effects that these may entail , on health , the environment and society .
In years to come , our citizens" food safety will depend almost entirely on the way in which the new Commission is able , at the forthcoming Millennium round of negotiations , to defend the complete acceptability of a model for a separate European zone of high agricultural quality .
Member States must give or renew a clear and firm mandate to the Commission in order to make it the stimulus for a new , enlightened renegotiation of the GATT regulations which today are an obstacle to setting in action the precautionary principle in the areas of health and food safety .
The Commission must also put a stop to the CAP"s very serious drift towards collapse as a Community-wide policy , as European prices are higher than those anywhere else in the world .
Those who are pushing for complete integration to the world market in order to satisfy American demands should be aware of the heavy responsibility that they bear .
They are leaving many of our farmers no other option but to launch themselves ill-advisedly and prematurely into introducing new and untried methods of crop cultivation and animal-rearing , which have not been properly tested and which , therefore , may put public health at risk .
Ensuring the safety of our citizens" food is one of our prime duties .
So , ladies and gentlemen , let us not allow European farming to go mad .
– ( NL ) Mr President , as the people in my country already know , the dioxin crisis has , I am sorry to say , propelled tens of thousands of companies into extreme difficulties .
It is my belief that when an economic and environmental disaster occurs on such a scale , people should have the courage to seek out and point to the causes , and , where appropriate , the culprits , not out of some misplaced form of vengeance , but in order to prevent problems of this kind from occurring in the future .
We must be honest .
It is , above all , the former Belgian government that made one blunder too many in this area .
At first , the government didn"t know what was going on and was completely indifferent , then it wanted to sweep everything under the carpet until after the elections , and ultimately it was responsible for a panic reaction which was out of all proportion and which led to the entire world boycotting so-called Belgian products , although it was my country , Flanders that suffered most from this , since the lion"s share of so-called ‘Belgian’ exports are , of course , Flemish exports .
But sadly enough , the problem is not just one of incompetence , nepotism in the administration , political appointments and lack of monitoring in Belgium alone .
Perhaps we , as MEPs , must now just face the fact that years of European agricultural policy have , in fact , almost destroyed the high-quality agriculture that can invariably almost be described as small-scale , and have led to the omnipotence of industrial European agriculture and to the omnipotence of a number of agro-industrial groups which are only out to make a profit and which thumb their noses at public health and quality standards .
If , for example , the man in the street were to hear that all manner of waste was being recycled for animal feed , that years after mad cow disease , herbivores are still being fed with animal bonemeal and what is more , that products of obscure provenance which have undergone no checks whatsoever , are being mixed into animal feed bases , then he may well ask himself if decades of European agricultural policy should not , in all honesty , be classified as a total failure .
I shall remind you again that half of the European budget is spent on this agricultural policy .
I believe we must now have the courage , and we must now ask the Council and the Commission to have the courage , firstly , to learn from past mistakes and to discontinue the kind of agricultural policy we have been pursuing to date , and to opt , at last , for high-quality agriculture in Europe , which is the sensible , sober and necessary choice .
– ( NL ) Mr President , yesterday we were alarmed yet again , this time by news of increased dioxin-content in German cattle feed .
The contamination , though less serious than in Belgium , is another appeal to producers and governments to act responsibly .
I consider the European Commission"s strict measures in the recent crisis to be quite justified .
It is right that irresponsible , indeed criminal behaviour , should be punished .
However , punishment alone will not suffice .
We must avoid such incidents in the future .
The question is how ?I do not think there is any point in setting up a new bureau after every food crisis .
More bureaucracy does not automatically lead to increased food safety .
Neither do I think that we should ban an ever-increasing number of cattle feed ingredients .
If cattle feed factories are no longer permitted to collect waste fat from catering establishments , then who will ?
The environmental problems should not be underestimated .
Well-integrated management of the food chain would be far more likely to prevent incidents of this kind from arising .
It is very important to be able to trace the waste derived from cattle feed .
This would also guard against one incident throwing the entire cattle feed sector into disrepute .
It is , above all , the Member States that have an important role to play in terms of food chain management .
If they are not prepared to take action for food safety , then the European Commission is powerless .
Finally , I should also like to draw the Commission"s attention to the fact that Belgium"s ban on vegetable fats for cattle feed encourages fraud , owing to the limited availability of animal fats .
Therefore , for this reason too , I support the call within the resolution to change to vegetable fats .
– Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure , I have received five motions for resolutions .
– ( FR ) Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , Europe has had , over the last few years , a succession of food-related scandals . We have had mad cow disease , we are questioning GMOs and their labelling ; we are now aware of the problem of the dioxin content in animal bone meal ; we are seeing well-known soft drinks withdrawn from sale because they have been causing problems .
we are all wondering what the next scandal will be: which one will be uncovered tomorrow .
We must certainly not give in to a mood of panic , but it is quite reasonable for us to be asking ourselves about the quality of the products which we consume .
Concern about food safety is unfortunately far too recent a development in Europe , emerging as it did at the time of the BSE crisis .
This concerns all of us , consumers , small producers , industrial-scale producers and farmers .
We are all concerned because we care about public health , and this drives us .
But at the same time , we also feel very worried for farmers who are directly involved and who have been singled out for blame , and for the whole food-processing industry .
All parties are still suffering .
These scandals have done them an injustice because there are some producers and farmers , very honest people , who do their best to ensure that their processes are faultless .
We should not punish the whole profession because of a few people within its ranks who are less than honest .
What can be done ? We must recreate the right conditions for winning back consumer confidence in Europe .
We must therefore strengthen Europe-wide rapid alert mechanisms .
Member States must be willing to accept health inspections .
Member States must not be made to feel that they are being singled out for blame if we ask them to make these inspections .
We must all play the game .
It is in everyone"s interest as we have this huge single market .
This condition must be met if the market is to work successfully .
If it is not , consumers will boycott products and we will find ourselves once again in an economic situation which most people will find extremely difficult .
Member States and the Council must therefore both show greater transparency .
Quality producers who respect the environment must be offered support .
We must , in effect , be brave enough to bring about a fundamental reform of agricultural policy if our consumers are going to want to consume our products again .
We must guarantee vigilance and consistency in traceability and labelling .
We must , quite simply , put an end to unacceptable practices .
– ( NL ) Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , I am certainly very reassured by the fact that no one in this House , nor in the European Commission or the Council , has considered the Belgian dioxin crisis to be a purely Belgian problem .
It is indeed the case that enormous problems have arisen in Belgium and , of course , the European Commission was right to state that serious mistakes have been made as regards the Belgian situation . However , those of my colleagues who have got to know a little bit about the case in the meantime , are aware that the Belgian government has taken very drastic measures and can now give guarantees to all consumers throughout the European Union .
Indeed the Belgian dioxin problem also points to a European problem and as such , of course , it has to do with the European internal market , with competition policy and with flawed agricultural policy .
I must say , Mr Commissioner and Mr President , that I welcomed the measures just announced by you both , but I would like to remind you that a number of those measures were placed on the table by the European Parliament some time ago . In fact , they have been there since the Committee of Enquiry into mad cow disease finished its work .
First and foremost , Commissioner Fischler , I do indeed think that the European legislative framework needs to be improved .
You are quite right in saying that we need new quality standards .
I should be pleased if a positive list was indeed to be produced and we were to stop undermining the legislation on account of pressure and lobbying from the agro-industry .
Or are there really people out there who can make out a good case for recycled products and waste entering our food chain ?
Secondly , I wish to say something about the organisation of the European administration .
My colleague Dagmar Roth-Behrendt has already said that we are of the opinion that food safety should remain under the control of the European Commission , and consequently also under that of the European Parliament .
Mr Commissioner , I was particularly taken with your announcement regarding the legal foundation for a community initiative on food safety .
It would indeed appear to me to be of benefit for action to be taken to prevent contamination of the food chain and to avoid public health disasters , without the bona fide farmers being the ones to suffer in the process .
But to conclude , Mr Commissioner , Mr President , I should still like to emphasise , just as my colleagues have done , that we shall never be able to solve this food safety problem unless we undertake a radical and complete rethink of our agriculture and of our food production .
We should not continue to give preferential treatment to large-scale agro-industry alone .
In particular , we must support small-scale agriculture and healthy food production .
As a matter of fact , I must say that I find it totally unacceptable that the Belgian farmers" union is refusing to co-operate on agricultural reform during this dioxin crisis , and on reducing the quantity of livestock in Belgium .
Lastly , ladies and gentlemen , there are perhaps quite a number of arguments in support of setting up a European Committee of Enquiry as part of this European approach .
I should just like to say that we must give serious thought to the matter before we come to a decision , and we must think carefully as to whether it would not be better to use the respective committees to continue our work .
– ( NL ) Mr President , the last speaker can rest assured that I do not intend to talk exclusively about the mistakes made in Belgium either .
I believe that a dioxin scandal or a BSE crisis , or whatever it may be , can occur anywhere in Europe .
I therefore feel it is high time that the European Commission , together with the European Council , which I understand has given its full support , should develop initiatives as rapidly as possible for bringing about a food policy at European level .
Of course , it goes without saying that it is all about public health .
Providing guarantees for public health must be the first priority .
On the same theme , I should just like to refer to the resolution adopted in October last year , when the European Parliament gave unanimous support to producing a European quality assurance policy for foodstuffs .
All foods which are to enter the marketplace and receive a European label of quality will have to have been monitored throughout the food chain .
Who will be able to do this ? We already know of a number of inspection bureaus that are offshoots of the biological production industry .
If people do not want to buy such food , they want to have food in a different way , but so that we know exactly how it has been produced , then in my opinion that should be possible .
The customer is king and the same inspection bureau that monitors biological food will also be able to monitor food subject to different standards .
I think it is particularly important for this to happen in Europe .
For if it happens in Europe , then we will be the first large trading block in the world to provide consumers with guarantees of food quality in this way .
At the end of the day , that is what it is all about .
It has already been pointed out from various quarters that our first priority is to guarantee fair competition , that if we demand something of the European producers , we can also demand the same standards of producers outside Europe .
What would be the best way of bringing this about at the moment ? We are already aware that there are , at present , integrated production systems in various European countries .
Germany , Austria , the Netherlands , to name a few countries at random , all have standards for integrated production .
I should also like to talk about what Mr Prodi said yesterday on the subject of a European food bureau .
I am not yet absolutely convinced of the need for one .
The American Food and Drug Administration has some five to six thousand officials .
Can the Commission afford to set up something of this kind ? I very much doubt it .
I should therefore like to ask if it could send something to the European Parliament so that a comparison can be made .
How does the American Food and Drugs Administration operate ? How would it be if a particular department were to be added to our office in Dublin , the Veterinary and Phytosanitary Bureau .
They could perhaps fulfil the very same function considerably cheaper .
That seems to me to be something that this Parliament should consent to .
Finally , I wish Finland every success .
We shall take stock at the end of this year .
– ( FR ) Mr President , Mr Commissioner , I would like to have been able to address the Commissioner for the Environment and other Commissioners too , because we know very well the harmful effects of dioxins on human health , and this is not merely an agricultural matter . It goes far beyond that .
Along with many scientists , we estimate that the spreading of carcinogenic dioxins into the human food chain will undoubtably be the scourge of the next century .
I really would like the Commissioner to hear what I have to say , because it is our job as well as his , within the framework of the policies which he will be putting into place , to find a way of integrating this problem into these different policies .
We also believe that it is criminal to allow dangerous dioxins to spread into the human food chain .
Recent studies have shown that mother"s milk throughout the world is contaminated by dioxin , and that nobody is immune .
We also know that the main causes , the things spitting out most dioxins , are incinerators .
In this matter though , given the considerable financial cost of analysing it , we do not yet know how many people on continental Europe are currently contaminated by dioxins , imagining that they are eating foodstuffs grown in a nice clean field , which are actually being grown near old incinerators still in use .
The European Union is responsible for conserving human health and the environment .
This is why we are demanding first of all , a totally efficient warning system .
It appears that we do not currently have one , given that France did not immediately interpret the announcement of contamination published by Belgium as a health alert .
We are also asking for a parliamentary enquiry .
We know that when the announcement was made about the chicken ‘with dioxin in it’ , consumers rushed out to buy fish , even though we know that fish are fed with the same food .
What will be next on the list ? We very much hope that the Commission will be able to tell us .
– ( ES ) Mr President , although the BSE crisis was of an epidemiological nature and the dioxin crisis of a toxic nature , they share worryingly similar characteristics .
Both crises were caused by the addition to animal feedingstuffs of raw materials derived from recycling and both caused serious problems for consumer health .
These practices inevitably lead to the concentration and accumulation of elements which are either infectious or toxic .
The dioxin crisis has also coincided with the scandal of the use of sewage sludge in the manufacture of feedingstuffs .
In this case , the risk arises from the accumulation of heavy metals .
But although we cannot go into a schematic analysis here , I must make a comment in this context: the Common Agricultural Policy and the World Trade Organisation are increasingly promoting the search for aggressive competitiveness as a fundamental principle , which worries me greatly because this type of official approval of competitiveness , above all else , will surely lead to practices presenting risks , such as the use of hormones or antibiotics for example , amongst the raw materials used in animal feedingstuffs .
For the European Union , the precautionary principle in defence of consumer health should take precedence in these cases .
One serious problem in this area concerns the insufficient regulations on the manufacture of feedingstuffs and the lack of a food policy in the European Union .
Let me remind you of the fact that Community institutions have not taken heed of the recommendations and demands of the Parliament , which requested the prohibition of meat and bone meal in animal feedingstuffs .
Nevertheless , the most serious problem arises from the fact that any ingredient which has not been expressly prohibited in the manufacture of feedingstuffs is implicitly authorised .
Therefore , the Commission must draw up and formulate proposals for the creation of a positive list of raw materials authorised for use in animal feedingstuffs , together with a study of the incidence of production costs for cattle feedingstuffs in order to prevent incompatibilities with the CAP .
Lastly , Mr President , I would like to remind the Commission that it must immediately formulate a food policy , in implementation of the Green Paper which was produced two years ago , and I would like to express my agreement with the comments of Mrs Roth-Behrendt with regard to the independent Food Agency .
– Mr President , given the history of the United Kingdom in relation to the BSE crisis , some delegates may consider that the UK is disqualified from giving an objective view .
However , such a view would be wrong .
It must be remembered that this was not our only crisis .
We also had salmonella in eggs and listeria , giving us unparalleled experience in dealing with food safety crises .
On the matter of listeria , this crisis came to a head in 1989 when over 200 babies and young children had been killed in preceding years , far more than died of new variant CJD .
What fellow Members may not know is that the main source of the disease was contaminated paté sold from three Belgian plants .
Only when UK health officials intervened was the problem finally resolved .
What this says is that it is not just the UK that has food safety problems .
But what we have learned from our incidents is that precipitate reaction can often do more damage than the initial crises .
Action needs to be carefully considered and based on good science .
In response to the dioxin incident , we see the Commission launching once again into frenzied legislative action .
This is damaging British interests , in particular a company called Spalding Nutrition which is threatened by an entirely unnecessary ban .
Thus , we would say: by all means have an enquiry , but first let us have a wide-ranging review of all Member States' systems for dealing with food and health scares , starting with an evaluation of the British system .
– ( DE ) Mr President , once again , we are faced with unbelievable sloppiness and criminal behaviour and , in this respect , there are definite parallels with past events , with one difference however: the Commission has taken the lessons on board and has acted more rapidly than in the past .
Some Member States , in this particular instance Belgium , are still taking preventative consumer protection far too lightly .
Mr President-in-Office of the Council , after listening to your speech this morning , I hope that there will be jump forward in terms of quality in the Council and I also hope that this will become evident through actions and decisions over the coming months .
The Commission has now submitted a number of good recommendations , in part , recommendations which have already been called for in relation to BSE .
Therefore , Mr Fischler , you will be able to rely on this Parliament for its full co-operation and support as regards the questions of open declaration , the safeguard clause and also the positive list .
But I should also say that I find it absurd if Member States which , in the past , have not observed European safety standards for example , now wish to prohibit the use of meat and bone meal in general or , if the Commission , as regards the question of the use of oils and fats , at the same time makes a general issue in a working document of the recycling of leftovers .
In this event , we are heading from recycling systems which are in working order towards unresolved waste problems .
One last point: I am opposed to the inflammatory ideas expressed by news agencies who say that the Commission is no longer required .
Here in Parliament , we will make sure that , in the case of co-decision making , matters are dealt with smoothly , quickly and in a proper manner and do not descend into chaos .
– The dioxin story is very familiar to those of us in the United Kingdom who have lived through BSE .
Many of the ingredients are exactly the same – disagreeable and even disgusting practices in the preparation of some animal foodstuffs in a world of intensive agriculture and panic and deceit in some of the Member States concerned when the source of contamination is first discovered .
We must remember this was discovered in January 1999 and the Commission was only able to take action after a period of months and a good deal of obfuscation .
What we have now seen is the same set of arguments that perhaps they were trying to avoid: a consumer panic and protection of a market – a market which is actually now much more imperilled by the way in which the crisis has unfolded .
I think there are dangers of overreaction and some Members have referred to that .
What I would say is that we must learn lessons from this crisis .
Firstly , a vigorous and properly funded inspectorate must be established to take a preventative role in this matter .
We are now talking about significant changes in the law , long lists of further regulations of substances which may be banned .
I certainly do not know , because I do not have the technical expertise , whether the range of recovered vegetable oils which are now seen to be a source of risk should be subject to an outright ban , or whether it should simply be limited to some section of kitchen waste which should never have been in any form of animal foodstuff in the first instance .
What I do know is that the inspectorate which we have fought for – we had to fight to get an effective budget for it , to set up the veterinary office in Brussels and to make sure that we had the principle of general inspections throughout the Community – that inspectorate finds itself threatened and bullied .
We have had examples in my country and in Belgium of people being physically threatened , of being blackmailed and in some instances even murdered ! Now when that is the situation , how can we say that the proposal , welcome as it is , to look at a Europe-wide Food and Drugs Agency and all these grand gestures can work when no individual inspector can penetrate into the world of crime and fraud which characterises sections of this industry .
So , in my opinion , we have to put our own House in order in this matter . We have to be able to say , as the motion of the Socialist Group does , that the rule of law must apply , that we are a Community of law , and unless we have a universal application , which never happened in the wake of BSE , of the regulations , the situation cannot improve .
Simply to bring forward new lists to imperil the producers and not to safeguard the consumer in the actions involved is the wrong way forward .
You have talked about product contamination being the starting point of this crisis , but there is still no apparent mishap to which blame can be attributed .
Clearly , this contamination can also take place systematically and therefore the full force of the law must be brought to bear .
The criminal elements who exploit people by using them as human waste disposal units must be punished .
Many demands which they have made are still under discussion by the BSE investigation committee .
I hope that they can now be transposed quickly .
Above all else Mr Fischler , the question of maximum values must be tied in with a ban on mixing or else this systematic disposal will continue .
One more thought on waste: if we are talking about toxic substances , it is not .
 ( The President cut the speaker off ) Thyssen ( PPE ) .
– ( NL ) Mr President , in an internal market , the attention given to producing safe and healthy food must , of course , be organised on a cross-border basis .
We appear to all be in agreement on this , but we still haven"t managed to bring it about , either in terms of prescriptive legislation or in terms of monitoring and control .
However , the dioxin crisis is not the first crisis to occur in European food policy and neither will it be the last .
Let us hope that we shall be able to manage future crises more effectively .
Of course the Member States must exercise more control , but there is also a need for control at the European level .
That has already been made clear here this morning .
It goes without saying that this must be brought about in a democratic manner , but what I ask myself is when is something at last to be done ?
Commissioner Bonino told us the week after the parliamentary elections that she didn"t think an agency would work out .
Mr Mulder has already spoken here of the 5 , 000 officials that would be needed to staff it .
The new President of the Commission , Mr Prodi , told us yesterday that he is in fact considering such an agency .
I should very much like to know which course of action the Commission actually intends to pursue , what actual steps have been taken , and whether the Commission intends to take account of the wishes expressed by the Parliament , both in the BSE reports and in the Green Paper on food , the resolution that we drew up on the subject .
However effective the control , we can never rule out human error .
We have learnt that the consequences of problems can escalate to an unexpectedly high level .
This raises the question as to the purpose of Community solidarity .
Should this really continue to be restricted to natural disasters and veterinary illness , or should it also come into play when human error has serious economic consequences , for many entirely blameless SMEs , among others .
Hence my second question to the Commission .
Has consideration already been given to creating a legal foundation for Community financial aid given to innocent victims ?
– ( FR ) Mr President , Mr President-in-Office of the Council , Mr Commissioner , we owe it to the people of Europe to tell them the whole truth about this dioxin business .
In addition to this , we must finally obtain world-wide figures for this sinister matter .
That is why I am asking for a Temporary Parliamentary Committee of Enquiry to be established , with the responsibility of ensuring that the whole range of problems is brought to the table , and that all the lessons to be learned from it are looked at .
I can see at least three .
The first would be to amend European legislation which has shown obvious shortcomings .
There are some products which need to be banned , and some mechanisms which need improving .
The second is the question of the notification procedure which did not work and which must be clarified , toughened up and improved .
And here we come to the vital matter of inspection .
This Europe of ours will not work , and there will be no confidence that Europe does work , if we are not able to move from this type of co-ordination of inspection towards a genuine Community-wide approach to at least some aspects of food inspection .
From this point of view , Mr Prodi"s proposal for an authority or agency seems attractive .
There is a need for an authority with specific responsibility for food safety , but it would have to remain independent , because we need both the Commission and Parliament to uphold the public interest in this matter .
I would like to insist finally on the banning of animal bone meal .
How many more times must we have the kind of accident that results from this practice before we put an end to this absurd system which leaves land fallow and farmers , who should be working in order to keep the heritage and the countryside of this Europe of ours alive , unable to work because we favour the use of recycled waste , particularly animal waste .
This is an absurd and dangerous system which we should really bring to an end .
I would like to end with the idea that behind this question , which is asked so often , lies the fundamental issue of the direction that farming is taking in Europe and around the world .
We shall be reopening the WTO negotiations , and like everyone else in this Parliament , I expect you , the Commission to ensure that standards for health , the environment and society are set to limit and restrict this theory , which is becoming more and more dangerous , of a free market whose prime motive is profit .
Europeans expect something better than this .
Mr Commissioner , I would like to know if you are intending to propose a ban on animal bone meal and within what framework you think this measure might be possible .
– ( ES ) Mr President , Mr President-in-Office of the Council , Mr Commissioner , in recent years , Europe has been plunged into two significant health crises caused by food ; firstly , BSE in the United Kingdom and , subsequently , the dioxin case in Belgium .
This should give us cause for reflection . But rather than just reflecting , we should take urgent and effective steps .
The effects of these crises have been collective panic amongst consumers , some unfortunate cases of people affected , and irreparable and significant financial losses in the agricultural and food industries .
Furthermore , they have caused distrust amongst consumers , damaged the reputation of the European agricultural and food industries amongst third countries and caused headaches for the governments of the Member countries . I can confirm this as a former head of food policy in Spain .
I want to highlight the fact that this serious health crisis is being fought with instruments which were designed for other purposes connected to the Common Agricultural Policy , such as the Standing Veterinary Committee which was intended to monitor animal health .
Europe should have a professional Scientific Committee which guarantees food safety , including animal feedingstuffs which are another link in the food chain .
It should have control mechanisms which allow for prevention rather than a posteriori stop-gap solutions and must have in place mechanisms to penalise Member countries which put public health at risk by deliberately obscuring causes of risk for a certain length of time .
Let us bear in mind that the necessary liberalisation of the markets and the opening up to third countries is exposing agriculture and cattle farming to difficult levels of competition and if effective preventative measures are not taken , the race to lower production costs will sooner or later bring about another similar case .
Legislation is important as well as ecologically friendly agriculture , but it is not enough .
We must act through effective mechanisms .
Finally , I would like to draw attention to the Commission"s chaotic information policy .
In the case of dioxin , 15 days passed between the communication of the Standing Veterinary Committee and the official alert , while Commissioner Bonino simply announced that she did not drink Belgian milk .
All of this was conveniently manipulated by the media .
– Mr President , I want to focus on one particular issue which I feel has not been fully explored .
Dioxin , and in this case its source chemical PCB , is one of the number of non-biodegradable bio-accumulative chemicals that we know are contaminating the food chain around the world .
There are rules and regulations already in existence for the correct and proper disposal of these substances .
Indeed , I was Parliament's rapporteur on the Council and Commission proposal for the elimination of PCBs and PCDs we dealt with in the last Parliament .
We have to ask if these existing European rules and regulations are being properly followed .
Are the responsible authorities given the duty to dispose of these chemicals in a correct and safe way , following the rules , or are they deliberately avoiding them and disposing of these chemicals in the wrong way ? This incident appears to indicate that is the case .
Unlike bacterial or some other form of organic or biological contamination of the food chain , we have here a finite quantity of substance that could easily be eliminated .
Would the Commission please look into why the regulations on the proper disposal of PCBs and PCDs are not being correctly followed ? Will they please investigate where the substances came from that caused this incident ?
– ( NL ) Mr President , the dioxin crisis has demonstrated that consumers want safe food .
Farmers produce it , but things sometimes go wrong through no fault of their own .
At such times , it falls to the authorities to do something .
As far as that is concerned , we should note that although this crisis originated in Belgium , it affects countries throughout the EU . I should like to propose , therefore , that we quickly get to work on setting up a food safety bureau , and that more money is devoted to this .
I should like in particular to lend my support to the proposals put forward by MEP Böge on this point .
Let the Commission advise the Council of Ministers on what is necessary in terms of money and manpower , with a view to dealing with this more quickly .
For citizens and farmers are entitled to expect the authorities to respond effectively to a crisis of this kind and although it may not be appropriate to term a natural disaster , it comes very close to one when you see what the effects are .
I would thus advocate quickly getting down to work and setting up a food safety bureau under the direction of Commissioner Fischler .
My second point is that there should be improved harmonisation of national legislation as regards criminal law , with a view to dealing rapidly with those who infringe the laws on this point , which is , in fact , a criminal matter .
I should like to draw attention to two matters: firstly , the side effects .
It is Belgian farmers and Belgian consumers who have been the ones to suffer .
In fact , it is a natural disaster of sorts and we actually ought to be able to say: this is a matter for the European institutions .
I should like to support MEP Thyssen"s call for the Commission to be more generous in that respect and to enter into discussion with the Parliament on how matters of this kind should be dealt with in future .
Secondly , what is the Commission doing about the fact that the minute such a crisis arises , the next thing to happen is that Belgian pigs are transported to other countries , are slaughtered and labelled there , and are therefore using a different label ? This has repercussions for the market .
What does the Commissioner hope to do at this juncture and in terms of creating effective policy ? As a representative of the European People"s Party , I should particularly like to point out that whilst we cannot prevent disasters , as administrators , as parliamentarians , we must take the opportunity to deal with matters in a completely effective way .
That is why I wish to make you fully aware of these two points in particular .
– ( DE ) Mr President , this House is expected to produce at last one clear statement in relation to the dioxin crisis .
I would sum this up by saying that on the question of health , we do not want to enter into a compromise , nor do we want to compromise on the issue of industrial crimes .
This crisis , just like the BSE crisis , is throwing up questions which we must answer , both in concrete terms and also very quickly .
Are the resources which we have allocated to carry out checks sufficient at the end of the day ? And are they efficient ? To what extent are crises of this sort also an opportunity for certain Member States , as the Commissioner has just mentioned , to set up additional trade barriers over and above the measures imposed ? What resources shall we place at our disposal , together with the Commission and especially with the Council , so that definite checks and early warning systems can be introduced ?I am raising these issues because I am of the opinion that we do not have to answer these questions in tedious or prolonged committees of enquiry .
Nor am I convinced that a government Commissioner responsible for dealing with a crisis in a country will concern himself with efficiency and credibility .
Let us simply show , at our level and at a national level , that we possess the political will to act rather than simply to analyse .
The consumer expects a swift and efficient response , not contradictory statements by experts who engender more mistrust than trust with consumers .
Quick , efficient action is also expected by farmers since , in our country , in Belgium , well over 90 ?% of farmers are victims of this crisis .
We should not punish these farmers who have invested many years in the quality and also the clarity of their controls .
I therefore ask you not to give a de facto refusal to provide financial assistance within the framework of the European Union .
We know , in the meantime , how crises originate ; now we must finally provide ourselves with the means of avoiding them .
– ( DE ) Mr President , Mr Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , first of all it was cattle and BSE , now the fuss is all about poultry and dioxin .
I do not want to know what will be next .
Therefore , I cannot repeat often enough the importance of maintaining animals in proper conditions and having a food processing industry which is conscious of its responsibilities .
The chain begins with the farmers , but then leads via the foodstuffs industry to our dinner plates .
As far as I am concerned , the most important thing is a healthy diet , and this is something which concerns us all .
Therefore , we all have a responsibility .
I do not want to insinuate anything , yet clearly precautionary measures and careful inspections in an area as sensitive as the human food chain were disregarded .
Extra special care is necessary when we are talking about highly toxic substances such as dioxins .
All of us here know that dioxin was used in the Vietnam war and I would also today like to remember Seveso .
The image of all Austrian foodstuffs is being damaged by such incidents .
European agriculture will be an important topic for discussion at the next WTO round and the world market will pose immense problems for us over the next few years .
One possibility for our continuing survival is quality production in the EU .
Our foods must be safe and healthy . This must be our trademark and represent an opportunity for our farmers .
We must do everything we can to allay consumer fears .
Quality must take precedence but quality also has its price , ladies and gentlemen .
In this regard , I welcome the establishment of an independent European Food Agency .
In the long run , we will all benefit from it .
– ( FI ) Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , I agree in many respects with what has been said here today .
The safety of consumers is vital , not just for the consumers themselves , obviously , but for the whole food chain from the field to the dining table .
In fact , consumer safety is an absolutely essential aspect of an idea which has become familiar in connection with Agenda 2000 , that of the European agricultural model .
That model includes the notion that the farmer must be able to trust in the quality of the production foods he or she purchases , such as animal feed .
The dioxin crisis is also proof of this as its result is that tens of thousands of innocent farmers will suffer heavy financial losses .
I agree , in this regard , with the comments of Mrs Grossetête and Mr Souchet on the European agricultural model .
I would like to return to two particular comments .
Mr Florenz raised the issue of the position of the Council in this crisis .
This theme was taken up by Mr Böge , among others .
I would like to stress the fact that the Council embarked on a series of measures as soon as the problem arose .
The Agriculture and Health Ministers began work on the matter in co-operation with the Commission immediately .
As far as the Agriculture Ministers are concerned , the conclusions were adopted at political level in the Council in June , and now , again in terms of practical action , in the Council last Monday .
Mrs Roth-Behrendt mentioned the independent European Food Agency .
Regarding this , I would like to state very clearly that food monitoring is the responsibility of the Member States , of the regions and the local authorities .
At Community level we need effective control , but the office responsible for overseeing the work of the Member States is sufficient for that .
I would like to give my strongest assurance to Mrs Roth-Behrendt that Finland will act with complete transparency in this matter .
Mr President , I shall convey the messages I have heard here to my colleagues in the Council .
– ( DE ) Mr President , Mr President-in-Office of the Council , ladies and gentlemen , thank you for conducting a very constructive and healthy debate on this difficult question .
I would like to briefly add to certain points that have been raised .
Firstly , the question of the applicability of the PCB tests for pork is still open .
The problem , and this particularly applies to the Belgian Members of Parliament who have asked to speak on this issue , that we are still faced with is that as a prerequisite for using this test , parallel tests on dioxin and PCB content must be available so that a correlation can be established .
In order to do this however , a minimum number of samples is required .
Thus far , we have received a total of eight such samples from the Belgian authorities . This is far too few .
As soon as we obtain the necessary results from the Belgian government , we are ready to implement the required measures immediately .
A second issue which has been raised by many is the question of the use of Community funds to aid farmers who have been victims of this crisis .
In my introductory remarks on this issue , I pointed out that in the area of market regulations , we have put in place a whole range of measures to alleviate the difficult situation in different areas .
I also pointed out that we have thus far authorised eight national subsidies after notifications .
However , as far as a direct Community subsidy for Belgian products is concerned , I have to make it clear that there is no basis in Community law for doing so .
Ladies and gentlemen , I agree with those of you who have asserted here that the mixing together of substances which are highly contaminated with dioxins , and which is suspected here , is still a criminal act and not an animal illness .
We can only pay compensation or subsidies where animal illnesses are concerned .
 ( Applause ) Mention should also be made of the fact that recently , there has allegedly been increased dioxin values in Germany .
I do not want to leave this matter hanging as that would be unfair .
What is the issue here ? Several clay minerals were tested which are also partly used as binding agents in the production of animal feedingstuffs .
In some of these clay minerals , increased dioxin values were actually found .
This dioxin , ladies and gentlemen , is several million years old , and is therefore nothing new .
So we must take care that these substances have also been tested where they are used in the manufacture of animal feedingstuffs .
At the same time , this also demonstrates that it is not possible to have a zero dioxin value .
Dioxin these days is an ubiquitous substance that can be found anywhere in the world and which also occurs , unfortunately , in our countryside .
What we have to prevent , therefore , is the mixing together of dioxin-containing substances or at least ensure that such substances do not enter the animal feed chain via another route in spite of sufficient controls .
In this regard , I am also of the opinion , Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf , that it is irresponsible that we do this by means of the dilution factor .
That cannot be the plan .
On the other hand , however , we must discuss further how we should deal with animal waste products in general . Things are actually not as simple as Mr Böge suggests .
It is also illogical , for example , that it is permissible to cook soup for human consumption from cattle marrowbone , or that the cattle marrow is even served in restaurants as a delicacy , while its use is prohibited in the animal feed industry .
Therefore , I am very much in favour of ruminants not obtaining their feed from materials which are animal in origin . Such a black and white policy in this area is not possible , however , if we do not want to run the risk of finding ourselves with enormous difficulties in terms of waste disposal .
Ladies and gentlemen , a couple of small points to finish with which I consider to be important . Firstly , repeated mention has been made of the issue of safety and quality requirements and an appropriate label .
Let me be quite clear on this point . We are not saying that if we have a quality label , we can , so to speak , permit a two-tier system as regards safety requirements .
The safety requirements must be satisfied for every foodstuff ; there can be no compromise on this .
Of course , however , there have to be other possibilities for designating particular quality accordingly .
In this regard , we have the resolution from Autumn ‘98 , which I commented on at the time . My stance remains the same today .
Last point: Hormone meat .
On this issue I would like , ladies and gentlemen , to draw your attention to the fact that , the day before yesterday , the USA announced that they are abandoning , at least temporarily , the supply of hormone-free meat to Europe since they are not currently in a position to observe the guarantees required by us .
As you know , however , we have made considerable changes to our regulations so that not only are spot checks carried out on imports but that every import is scrutinised .
DebatesThursday 25 October 2001OJ edition
COM in sheepmeat and goatmeatPresident .
– The next item is the report ( A5-0340/2001 ) by Mr Adam , on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the proposal for a Council regulation on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat
– Mr President , the present organisation is manifestly unsatisfactory to all the parties involved , particularly the sheep and goat farmers , but also to Member States and the Commission .
It has allowed the income of sheep farmers to fall behind the general levels of income of other sections of the farming community .
This widening gap is a serious matter when considering that large areas of the Community are highly dependent on sheep and goat farming .
The method of calculation of the premium is complicated and statistically suspect .
The figures on which the eventual sheep premium is agreed cannot be justified in a satisfactory manner because it requires detailed information of what is happening in the market and that cannot readily be obtained nor easily substantiated .
Another drawback is that the premium is based on deficiency payments .
This is not acceptable to the WTO and is therefore a barrier to negotiations in agricultural issues generally .
For farmers there is uncertainty over a 12-month period as to what annual premium will be paid eventually .
Because of this uncertainty the premium does not allow effective management planning .
All these drawbacks were recognised by the Commission and are largely reinforced by a study that was carried out prior to the preparation of the proposals which we are now debating .
The Commission proposal , in essence , is simpler , less bureaucratic and will be easier to understand .
The fundamental difference is that it is based on a fixed annual payment .
This is less objectionable to the WTO and therefore will help with the overall agricultural negotiations in which the Commission is involved .
More importantly , from the farmers' viewpoint , the premium will be known in advance and this will make farm business decisions easier .
My discussions in contact with the sheep and goat farmers of the Community confirm that the proposals are broadly acceptable to them .
In the beef and veal sector , despite the mollifying proposals that Commissioner Fischler has put to us – he would have us believe that the crisis is now behind us – we are still in a slump .
In my own country , for example , producers can no longer find takers for their animals even at tragically low prices , which no longer cover production costs .
Despair is gaining ground .
Every day , livestock breeders are being forced out of business in the most tragic way .
Waiting patiently for our remaining producers to go out of business would be a suicidal policy .
I repeat , there is a considerable deficit in the European Union’s sheepmeat sector and looking at the average age of livestock breeders , which is increasing , it is not hard to predict that this deficit will increase in coming years .
Sheep-farmers’ incomes are amongst the lowest in agriculture , as the Commission itself acknowledges .
In the current economic climate , we also see many producers in desperate situations and who are forced to stop farming because their income is insufficient .
Apart from the human and social tragedy that this represents , it is also an ecological tragedy because sheep breeding and goat breeding are often the last defence against desertification in regions where farming is difficult .
This is why your Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development felt that it was crucial to make some slight improvements to the Commission’s proposal for a regulation , in order to simplify , to be able to forecast and to increase aid to a sector that is suffering harshly , whose economic , social and ecological impact is so important and which gives cattle farmers the opportunity to convert , if it is increased sufficiently .
The very coherent proposals that have been presented attempt to bring the system of aid for the sheepmeat sector into line with aid for milk-cows , whilst complying with budgetary constraints , because the COM in the sheepmeat sector is relatively cheap due to the number of customers for each producer .
These proposals also comply with our international commitments , since the proposed reform aims to separate aid and an income insurance system , which could act as a safety net .
The sheepmeat sector today needs to be stabilised and supported , otherwise it will disappear from many regions .
It requires a reform which is both generous and responsible , and this is what Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture has proposed .
I hope that the House will support us and that the Council will listen .
– ( PT ) Mr President , the Commission proposal to create a single annual premium is to be welcomed because it will simplify farmer’s incomes and provide stability .
Nevertheless , it contains various loopholes and shortcomings .
The first is the unsatisfactory level of the proposed premium of EUR 21 , which continues to reflect the discrimination against the small ruminants sector in favour of large ruminants .
The proposal of EUR 30 that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development approved will , therefore , resolve this discrimination .
Nevertheless , if this proposal does not have the support of the majority of this House , I will , of course , support any other level that contributes to this objective .
The second shortcoming lies in the continuing discrimination between sheep bred for meat on the one hand and ewes and she-goats on the other , with the latter receiving only 80% of the premium given to meat sheep .
The proposals approved by the Committee on Agriculture will also remedy this unfairness , by making all premiums the same .
The third shortcoming concerns the non-inclusion of flexibility mechanisms that would enable the Member States to make adjustments to national and regional situations .
In this sense , the Committee on Agriculture’s amendments , which are intended to create an additional premium in certain situations , will be of enormous benefit to the implementation of the COM and will make the scheme more realistic and more feasible .
As the Commission itself acknowledges in the explanatory statement , sheep and goat breeders have the lowest incomes of all meat producers with the additional disadvantage that 80% of the animals eligible for premiums are located in parts of the European Union that are both remote and poor .
For this reason , and also because there is a deficit in this sector , which can only meet 80% of domestic consumption , it is becoming very important to make the changes I have just outlined and to increase the supplementary premium for Objective 1 regions .
I therefore hope , that the House approves the Commission proposal and that when the Ministers for Agriculture meet in Council , they do their job properly , and accept the positions of this House .
Lastly , I wish to pay tribute to Mr Adam , who has been an excellent rapporteur , who has put in a great deal of hard work and whom I thank for his generous support .
– ( ES ) Mr President , in addition to congratulating the rapporteur , Mr Adam , on his magnificent report , I would like to tell the Commission that some of the terminology in their proposal needs to be amended in order to take account of gender differences .
That is to say , that it constantly forgets that there are female producers and stockbreeders .
I would ask the Commissioner to make these terminological amendments to this proposal and , Commissioner , you can also do this for all of your other proposals , and please inform your staff that this must be done .
Behind this seemingly formal request is my firm determination that , from now on , we recognise female farmers for the important role they play .
Secondly , Commissioner , your proposal contains a renationalisation , which is the cause of a great deal of suspicion , because , to a certain extent , it sets a precedent in this field .
To avoid these suspicions escalating into protests , you should compensate for this shortcoming in your proposal by increasing premiums .
We ask for this unanimously ; I hope that Parliament’s proposals will not fall on deaf ears .
Lastly , I have to say that we all recognise that this ‘safety net’ initiative to compensate the fall in income suffered by farmers and producers of both sexes in times of crisis is a great success .
– ( FI ) Mr President , Commissioner , I also wish to thank the rapporteur on his work for a new organisation of the market .
There are two basic factors here supporting all those speeches which express the desire to raise the status and underline the importance of these professions .
The first one is that this is especially important for the regions – absolutely vital for large regions . The other is that we can produce a lot more – as we have heard here – because there is underproduction in this area .
For that reason , all attempts to help and revive these products and this production trend , and highlight their importance , is work done for the common good – the cheapest and most economical of regional policies – and this is an area where agricultural sector has quite obvious shortcomings .
Here , if anywhere , a certain sort of Robin Hood policy will be especially good and useful .
I hope that when it comes to the vote , those of the opinion that we should start to move these matters forward , through greater investment , will win .
– ( PT ) Mr President , the Commission proposal dwells on the strategy of separating production aid and prices with the argument that this will simplify the current Organisation of the Market .
The problem is that the level of the per head premium is clearly low , given that the basic price base has not increased since 1993 .
Furthermore , although the current system does need to be simplified , we must also take account , as the rapporteur stated , of the fact that sheep and goat breeding is of particular importance to the Community’s least-favoured areas , in which they are concentrated . The prime objective of any reform of this COM must , therefore , be to improve the income of sheep and goat farmers .
Furthermore , we must consider the fact that , in recent years , the relative position of sheep and goat farmers has seen a decline .
We therefore welcome the per head aid increases to EUR 30 and the additional aid of EUR 9 for the least-favoured regions , because this is a sector whose production is concentrated in poor areas , in which the viability of farms is more precarious , despite the fact that they play a major role in preserving the rural fabric of these regions and , in certain cases , are even the only economically possible activity .
Also to be welcomed is the removal of the distinction between sheep bred to produce milk and those bred for their meat and that the same increase is to be applied to goats .
I am also happy to support the new aid of EUR 5 , given the difficulties that this sector is experiencing , although we must bear in mind the danger of renationalisation that the creation of national packages entails .
I hope , therefore , that the House – and especially the Commission – will respond positively to this report and that some of the main demands of sheep and goat farmers will be met .
– Mr President , there is unanimity in the House about the importance of this reform , about how simplification is a good thing and how vitally important the sheep industry is .
In all those things Mr Adam has done a good job .
But I have to take issue with him in one contentious area which is: what is to be the level of support for sheep farmers ?I am deeply disappointed that the socialists , the liberals and the nationalists are telling the House that they all intend to vote to cut the recommendation of the Committee on Agriculture by EUR 5 at least in relation to each animal .
They put that forward on the basis of the budget , but in the part of the UK that I represent , Wales – just like Mr Wyn who is sadly no longer in his place – we have seen a huge amount of stock slaughtered because of the foot-and-mouth epidemic .
We see a crippled industry .
We see a situation in which there is no confidence at all in the farming industry today and , as has rightly been said , if you look to an area like Wales , it is no good talking about diversification .
It is no good talking about putting money into Community schemes and improving public transport in rural areas .
We must ensure greater financial support for sheep farmers who have no economic alternative .
Today there are sheep farmers in my constituency who are raising questions about whether they should even restock after foot-and-mouth .
I say to Mr Adam this his government is not helping them by indicating that the compensation scheme that was previously in place is one that they do not intend to continue with , whilst , at the same time , not saying what they intend to put in its place .
That adds to the existing desperation in the countryside .
So , yet again , we hear warm words about the industry , but farmers want deeds , and this means supporting the recommendation made by the agricultural industry for the maximum amount of support for our hard-pressed sheep farmers .
– ( ES ) Mr President , the Commission proposal is satisfactory because it clearly attempts to simplify matters by replacing the variable premium with a single premium , meaning that the sector will now know in advance the amount it is to receive and will no longer have to suffer from the uncertainty it has had to endure up until now .
We naturally support the idea that the premium should guarantee an income that is acceptable to the producer and my personal opinion is that this income should be the same for producers of both heavy and light lambs , as approved in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development .
The market in sheep’s milk is not regulated in the same way as the market in cow’s milk and income from milk is balanced by a lower level of income from meat production , especially in Mediterranean countries where mixed farms that produce wool , milk and meat slaughter these animals at lower weights , once again , largely in accordance with eating habits .
With regard to the supplementary premium that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development proposed and approved , I have to say that the Commission should be very vigilant that this supplementary premium should in no case be used to reduce the linear premium , the headage premium or the premium for rural development .
The Commission should understand that Parliament’s Committee wants to see an increase in the premium , comprised of three parts: a headage premium , a premium for rural development and a supplementary premium , in order to be able to help States implement the principle of flexibility .
However , I would strongly urge that this introduction is not , at the end of the day , used to achieve a reduction in the headage premium or in the premium for rural development .
Finally , I would like to say , and the Commissioner is well aware of this , that this sector makes an important contribution to land-use planning and to all the environmental services that we say we are going to defend in this new future common agricultural policy .
– ( ES ) Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , firstly , I would like to congratulate the Commission on the proposal it has put forward , mainly because it will simplify the COM and will give security and stability to the sector , and also the rapporteur , because he has been able to reconcile the various political sensitivities in this House , sparing no effort to achieve this .
I would ask the Commission to listen to the political message from this Parliament , which is asking for an increase in the premium .
This premium is much needed , because it has remained unaltered since 1994 ; in fact , it has stagnated .
This is the reason why this is one of the sectors that receives the least aid and is the most discriminated against within the COM at the present time .
I think that the proposal from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is reasonable .
However , we will not give our support to amendments put forward a posteriori , because we think that some , such as those put forward by Mr Mulder , should be dealt with in another context , although , it must be said , we are not against what he is saying .
Others run counter to what has already been discussed and on which consensus has been reached in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and would , consequently , blur the political message of this Parliament .
I would ask the Commission , in its debate with Council , to make the necessary effort to give the sector what it needs .
Given that it has already made such an effort when putting forward the proposal , by simplifying the premiums , on the subject of the single premium , and on the possibilities of the Member States managing these premiums , it should make a reasonable budgetary effort – which the Committee on Budgets is not against – so that the objective the sector considers necessary can be achieved .
– ( DE ) Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , I should like to expressly welcome the Commission’s proposal for reforming the market organisation for sheep and goat meat .
The previous speakers have already given all the reasons why we so much welcome this proposal .
I would also like to thank our rapporteur most sincerely for his work .
I believe the revision of the premiums is one of the most important points .
The introduction of a fixed rate premium is a major step forward .
But I would like to stress that the figure proposed by the Commission is much too small .
This premium must also be an incentive for sheep and goat farmers and that means EUR 30 and no less .
The premium must also be the same for farmers regardless of whether they produce ewes or milking ewes .
A distinction between the two cannot really be justified .
I also believe that the EUR 9 supplementary premium for ewes and she-goats is particularly justified under the more difficult conditions in the less-favoured areas .
Beef and veal and sheep meat prices generally follow the same trends , which means there is no justification for treating the two sectors differently as regards the premium .
On the contrary , there is a deficit in sheep meat in Austria and in many other countries of Europe .
If we fail to create reasonable conditions and security for this sector , we shall drive sheep and goat farmers into other areas , such as beef and veal , or they will go out of production altogether .
Such a policy would be ill-advised .
Finally , I would like to say that sheep and goat farming should not be supported only in areas that have no alternative , but also in those where sheep and goat farming is traditional .
I therefore hope , Mr President , that the Commission and Council will follow these sensible proposals from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development .
It is perhaps long overdue , but certainly welcome .
I also take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report on this very important subject .
Sheep production is important especially in hill areas , not only because of the environment there and the role it plays in keeping the social fabric of society together , but because it has proven through the centuries to be one of the most important aspects of production in the agricultural sector .
In the United Kingdom because of foot-and-mouth , sheep farmers have suffered greatly .
I recognise that in Northern Ireland we have had a distinct advantage over our colleagues in the mainland UK , including the prices we have been receiving recently .
Our producers have been very lucky .
Over recent years , farmers have been getting less for their sheep than they were 15 years ago and they are receiving less support .
Is it any wonder that young farmers and sheep farmers are actually leaving the industry ? We have to ask ourselves how best we can support them .
I want to make it very clear: I will support the EUR 30 in the amendment in the vote in this House this afternoon .
I hope all of you will be here to vote in favour of this amendment because we must give the political leadership this requires .
For far too long , the sheep sector has been the poor relation .
It has been the poor relation with respect to the milk , beef , tobacco and wine sectors .
It has been the poor relation because it has been deemed to lack a strong voice in Europe .
I would like to congratulate the Commission in coming forward with this proposal because it will be fairer than the present system .
Yes , there will be some budgetary problems but we can get over them .
I ask this House for its support .
– ( DE ) Mr President , honourable Members , ladies and gentlemen , I would like to begin by sincerely thanking you , Mr Adam , for producing the report and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their contributions to the discussions in committee and also for today’s debate .
I am also very grateful because it is important that we press ahead with this proposal quickly and take a vote on it soon so that it can then hopefully be adopted by the Council as quickly as possible and this reformed market organisation for sheep and goat meat can come into force on 1 January next year and the premiums can then also be paid under this new regime next year .
As many of you have also emphasised , the most important point of the proposed reform is the replacement of the variable deficiency payments by a fixed-rate form of aid .
That has a number of important advantages .
This new aid is stable .
It can also be calculated in advance .
This means that farmers can also plan with certainty .
Above all , it is also a lot less bureaucratic because none of the expensive market intelligence on which the deficiency payments are currently based and all the complex calculations involved will any longer be necessary .
Moreover , it is also of course much , much easier for sheep and goat farmers to understand .
It allows producers to respond correctly to the needs of the respective markets because the support is not affected by changing prices .
The Commission proposal also guarantees budget stability and in particular is also more consistent with WTO objectives over all .
I believe there is broad agreement about these principles , as the debate has shown .
Let me turn briefly to the most important amendments .
Some are concerned with improving the text and are extremely welcome .
I would , for example , be very pleased to accept Amendment No 11 because a more precise definition of the terms “producer” and “holding” will help to make the regulation much easier to understand .
I can also support Amendment No 16 , which proposes that premiums be paid not later than 31 March instead of 30 June .
That will mean that producers will get their premiums even earlier .
I also welcome the proposal to change the definition of producer in less-favoured areas , but I think the term could be simplified even more here .
The wording of the amendment therefore needs to be made even more precise in this respect .
On the other hand , I do not think it is necessary , as proposed in Amendment No 44 , to specify the supplementary premium for dykes and salt marshes .
They ought to be covered by the rule for less-favoured areas .
So I do not really think this amendment is necessary .
I also consider Amendments Nos 1 , 6 , 9 , 22 , 36 and 37 superfluous or pointless in the context of the regulation .
Other amendments are concerned with the need for a degree of flexibility that would enable Member States to provide additional support for the sector or , more especially , to manage the various Member States’ individual quotas better and more actively .
The questions that were raised in the discussions in this connection are concerned with a number of aspects and possibilities , ranging from extensification and environmental concerns to the development of quality products , improvement of marketing structures and the creation of producer groups .
I would like to say to you in this connection that while I cannot accept the proposed amendments directly , I do understand very clearly the message they are intended to convey .
I would therefore like to pursue further the concern that lies behind them in order to find solutions that will take better account of the different requirements of the sector in the individual Member States .
But they must be simple solutions .
I do not think we should be creating a new bureaucracy .
The same also applies for Amendments Nos 25 to 30 concerning the national financial frameworks , which should also be placed in the context of the proposals for greater flexibility .
We must ensure that these framework provisions are also practicable and consistent with the objectives stated in the amendments in question .
Amendments Nos 12 , 13 and 15 are in fact the ones with the greatest direct effects .
They are concerned with the question , discussed here , of increasing the premium to EUR 30 for all producers and increasing the supplementary premium for producers in less-favoured regions to EUR 9 .
Even the more moderate amendments , as you termed them , Nos 45 and 46 , would still entail additional expenditure amounting to EUR 385 million .
We based our proposal on the financial framework agreed in Berlin , and I regret that I cannot therefore go along with your suggestions , especially in view of the fact that at virtually every summit the Heads of Government stress the importance and immutability of that financial framework .
I must also reject the suggestion that producers of sheep’s milk and goat’s milk be paid the same aid as farmers who only produce meat .
On the other hand , I was interested to note Amendments Nos 31 and 35 proposing additional premiums in the event of a price crisis .
But the draft regulation does already provide for a kind of safety net to come into effect if falls in prices disrupt the market .
I cannot therefore agree to those amendments .
The proposal in Amendment No 20 that the first 15 sheep livestock units should be disregarded for calculating the stocking density for the beef and veal arrangements refers to a problem that actually belongs not in the context of this regulation but in the context of the market organisation for cattle , and I must therefore reject this proposal in this connection .
But I would willingly agree to return to this point in the Midterm Review when we shall be discussing the question of the beef and veal arrangements and how they work .
Amendments Nos 5 , 7 and 33 are concerned with imports from third countries .
Unfortunately , these amendments run counter to our international obligations and cannot therefore be accepted for that reason .
Traceability is another important aspect .
Amendment No 8 proposes that the report on the environmental effects of sheep and goat farming to be prepared by 31 December 2005 should also look into this question .
I understand that and fully share your concerns , but I believe that this problem really needs to be solved sooner and that we cannot wait until 31 December 2005 .
The first step towards better origin safeguards requires the creation of a reliable marking and registration system .
Since such a proposal requires a different basis in law , the proposed amendments are simply outside the scope of this regulation because under this regulation the relevant legal basis would be lacking .
But I do think that part of Amendment No 42 , which links the granting of premiums to compliance with the marking and registration rules , seems a sensible approach .
I shall at any rate put such a proposal before the Council .
Amendment No 19 is concerned with allowing Member States to show greater flexibility when setting application periods .
This question will be settled in the implementing provisions .
A Council decision is not therefore required here ; it falls within the competence of the Commission .
To avoid cases of fraud , however , an efficient marking and registration system ought to be operative for that reason , too .
Finally , I would like to thank you again for the report and the amendments .
In some areas there is a consensus , in some I shall pass your concerns on to the Council even though I cannot formally accept the amendments in their present form , and unfortunately there are also amendments which I am unable to accept because I do not have the authority to approve the funding .
CRE Debates Thursday 1 February 2001OJ edition
Progress of EU and Member State measures to combat BSEPresident .
–The next item is the Commission statement on the progress of anti-BSE measures taken by the EU and Member States .
– I am pleased to have the opportunity to update Parliament on the most recent events in relation to BSE .
Many of you were present when I spoke to the Agriculture Committee last week .
Nonetheless , let me very briefly summarise the main events of recent weeks .
Important new measures came into effect on 1 January .
These included the ban on meat and bone meal and the testing of all animals over 30 months destined for the food chain .
The Commission wrote to Ministers for Agriculture on 4 January and asked for replies to an extensive questionnaire on the implementation of BSE-related measures .
A working document summarising the responses was circulated to the Agriculture Council on Monday last .
The opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee on a number of BSE-related questions from the Commission was published on 17 January .
This set the agenda for the Agriculture Council on Monday .
Following the usual , very lengthy discussions , Member States agreed on the following main orientations . A ban on mechanically recovered meat . The heat treatment of ruminant fats for inclusion in animal feed and the removal of the vertebral column , the backbone , from cattle .
All three of these orientations follow directly from the previous discussions in the Council on the measures necessary to restore consumer confidence .
They are also based on the opinion of the Scientific Committee .
I intend to present proposals within the next several days on all these issues to the Standing Veterinary Committee .
They will , of course , result in further controls and potentially very significant costs .
However Member States are prepared to accept virtually any measure to ensure that beef is now safe .
It is surely a matter of very great regret that this determination to tackle BSE has taken so long to emerge .
Only seven months ago , the Commission failed to obtain a qualified majority to ban brain and spinal cord from food for human consumption and from animal feed .
Equally , not all Member States implemented a ban on the feeding of meat and bone meal to ruminants in a satisfactory manner .
I would like now to turn to the proposals which the Commission will put to the Standing Veterinary Committee .
Firstly , the one relating to mechanically recovered meat .
The Commission will shortly consider a proposal to ban the use of mechanically recovered meat from all bones of ruminants of all ages .
There is a case that material from bones other than the skull and vertebral column or from bones of young animals is safe .
However , this involves important control problems and in the circumstances it is believed a total ban is necessary .
I might add that the use of mechanically recovered meat is increasingly repugnant to consumers .
The processed meat industry has also called for this ban .
The proposed measure should therefore be very welcome to both industry and consumers .
On the question of rendered fat , the Commission will propose that ruminant fats to be included in ruminant feed should be pressure cooked in addition to the current requirement that they be ultrafiltrated .
The Commission will equally act on the opinion that such ruminant fats should only be sourced from discrete adipose tissues when fed as milk replacers to calves .
We also need to reflect however if these changes can be properly enforced .
For example , might there be control problems in distinguishing between different fats .
If so , is there a need for a need for an outright ban on the use of ruminant fats in ruminant feed ?
If so , how do we ensure that the replacement fats are safe ?
One final point on the issue of ruminant fats: it is surely incredible to the public that there should be higher standards relating to the use of ruminant fats in animal feed than applies to their use in food for human consumption .
However that is the current situation and I intend to put this right .
On the vertebral column , the Commission intention is to require the removal of the vertebral column where there are doubts over the effectiveness of the ban on meat and bone meal or whenever it cannot be demonstrated that animals are highly unlikely to be incubating BSE .
This is in keeping with the opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee .
Again , however there are important issues which need to be addressed .
Where should the vertebral column be removed .
If it is done at the abattoir , the most easily controlled location , there are implications for the storage and transport of beef carcasses .
There are also risks of microbiological handling due to the increased handling involved .
If instead removal is required at the butcher or retail outlet , there will be control problems in the recovery and the destruction of the bones .
Similarly we need to be aware of the impact on consumers .
A strict implementation of the Scientific Committee recommendations would require removal of vertebral column in animals aged over twelve months , as is currently the case in France .
This will entail a ban on certain cuts of meat which are very popular – T-bone steaks and bistecca fiorentina for example .
Finally , which Member States should be exempt from the requirement ? Should for example Member States like Austria , Sweden and Finland which continue to be BSE-free be exempt ? These are all issues which the Commission is urgently considering and will address in its proposal .
I hope that these observations help to highlight the very complex issues which arise for what might appear at first sight to be a relatively simple measure .
I am aware that the issue of controls is a concern .
In this respect , the replies of Ministers to my letter of 4 January is reassuring .
All Member States now insist that they are giving top priority to the secure implementation of BSE-related measures .
The Food and Veterinary Office will continue its programme of inspections in this regard .
Finally , as a further incentive to improve compliance , I am considering a proposal in the very near future to require Member States to present monthly reports on their implementation of BSE control measures .
The UK and Portugal are already required to provide such a report under the restriction measures on their exports of beef .
I believe it has been invaluable in ensuring that controls are actively implemented .
It should therefore , I believe , be replicated at Community level .
– ( DE ) Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , I know , Commissioner Byrne , that serious action is being taken in a bid to make preventive consumer protection a permanent feature of EU policy .
I know that many of these very far-reaching decisions are needed because past mistakes are still catching up with us .
May I state clearly for the record here that BSE owes a great deal to government failings , to gross negligence in the United Kingdom and to multiple acts of negligence on the part of the Commission up to 1996 – I can honestly say that I know of no-one who got it right in the fight against BSE .
Government failings are the main issue ; errors were noticed too late , decisions were taken too late and when decisions or bans were introduced , there were not properly controlled .
That is still dogging us .
That is why the measures which you have presented , Commissioner , are without question right and proper and we call on the Member States to do their very best to implement them as quickly as possible .
However , may I also state for the record that Parliament called back in November for all animals over 18 months old to be tested and , Commissioner , I see a danger here .
If , with the removal programme today , the thrust of the resolution is test or remove in the sense of preventive consumer protection and several Member States test all their animals , while others test or remove , then by the end of the year the statistics will be meaningless and we must avoid that at all costs .
We would therefore welcome your comments on this .
I should also like to ask you to clarify the problem of third countries as quickly as possible , because here too there is a huge risk from infectious materials brought in over past years .
Here too , the question of uniform consumer protection arises .
Then we also take account of the financial aspects .
We risk destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs in Europe , which is why the Commission must also see if , as in France for example , we can spread the financial burden equally and fairly between everyone in the form of a surcharge , a meat tax or by charging value added tax on agricultural products , so that a reasonable solution can be found to the problem of disposal .
We must do everything , including under the financial programmes in the agricultural budget , in order to make it 20% or 30% cheaper to get animals to market , for example through sectoral agreements , otherwise we shall simply never get a grip on the situation .
– ( DE ) Mr President , we are in exactly the same situation as we were six years ago .
I believe that Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf is due to speak after me ; that means that all of us who have basically concentrated on little else in our work over the last six years except BSE are back again .
The European Parliament has been calling for much of what the agricultural ministers have now decided – half willingly , half unwillingly – for over six years now .
What was done then about removing risk material ? All the Member States tried to obstruct and block for as long as possible .
If , Mr Byrne , as you now say , the question of removing the vertebral column is a problem , then they are again dragging their feet .
What is the matter with them ? For the moment we must consider the vertebral column to be risk material , in all Member States .
It must be removed , it must be removed in the abattoir and it must be treated as risk material .
And there is an end to it . Not here a little loophole , there a little loophole !I have learned in my eleven years in the European Parliament that progress here moves at a snail's pace .
It is a fact of life .
We have moved forward at a snail's pace .
That is fine as long as we move forward .
I have nothing against that , but I would like to move a wee bit faster here , because now is our chance: we are surrounded in the Member States by jittery meat markets and , as a result , we have got jittery agricultural ministers , jittery finance ministers – everyone has got the jitters .
Unfortunately , it is also affecting farmers and the meat processing industry and the feedingstuffs industry , which I always mention in the same breath as everyone who did not exactly go out of their way to do anything about improving quality in the past .
So if we look at these compliant meat markets and see that here is our chance , the chance to push measures forward , then we must decide exactly what sort of measures we need .
They obviously include , as you have just said Mr Byrne , extending the definition of risk material , so that we can , at long last , ban all mechanically recovered meat .
Of course , we could have done this years ago , but it must all be banned , not just a bit from the skull and a bit from the vertebral column like last time .
We must get rid of it all ; we no longer need it in an affluent society like ours , that is obvious .
What else do we need to do ?
We need to do the same with animal fats .
We cannot differentiate between animal fats or gelatine on the basis , for example , of whether or not they reach the human food chain or whether or not they are used in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals .
That is out of the question .
Fats must be sterilised by pressure cooking .c End of story !
No other method should be allowed now .
We must minimise the risks , that is obvious . You said something quite wonderful , Mr Byrne and I should like to pick up on it .
How do we handle derogations in the Member States for the vertebral column , fats and so on ?
What do we do about the Member States which are BSE-free ? That is when I lean back in my chair and think to myself: here we go again .
I have heard it all before in recent years .
Exactly which Member State is BSE-free ? And may I ask: how do they know ?
Do they look inside the animals' head ? And if they can do that , perhaps they can tell us exactly what is going on . We too want to do likewise .
Until such time as the Member States introduce comprehensive testing , and we know how slipshod testing can be , until such time as everything is tested comprehensively , including – and I agree with Mr Böge here – the animals taken from the market , then we shall never have a complete picture ; until such time as there is comprehensive testing , we shall not know if Finland , Germany , Austria or Italy are BSE-free .
And until we have that information , we shall treat all Member States the same , end of story .
Then we shall see which Member States block everything again and we shall publicise the fact .
I wonder just which Member States think they can hold out now .
There is no time left to address all the points , but I must , nonetheless , touch on what has been my favourite subject for a long time: we can pass the best legislation here in the European Union , but what use is it if it is not controlled in the Member States ?
I believe that there are too few veterinarians in all the Member States , too few food inspectors , too few on-site inspections .
Which is why I call on you , Mr Byrne , to force the Member States to report to you on how many veterinarians they have , how many food inspectors they have , when and what they control and what they have done in the past .
I welcome and thank you for your monthly reports !
– ( FI ) Mr President , first I would like to state quite briefly that we are now dealing with such a colossal issue that nobody can afford to blame anyone in any event .
We must no longer blame anyone else .
Finland , Sweden and Austria did not blame anyone for BSE .
We implemented certain action as long as ten or fifteen years ago , and , probably as a result of that , any risk that we might have BSE is perhaps diminished .
We are not claiming that there is none , but we have implemented the action that everyone should now finally be implementing .
Firstly , we should specifically ensure that each Member State genuinely complies with the decisions that have now been taken , for they are not being complied with in every Member State .
For this reason , it is an excellent move on the part of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development to propose setting up a subcommittee to monitor food safety and , for example , the situation regarding BSE and other such problems , so that the dangers and risks that exist might be prevented in the future , especially when we take the matter of enlargement into consideration as that will involve some very large countries with livestock joining this Community .
– ( FR ) Mr President , Commissioner , speaking on behalf of the Greens at the time of the parliamentary resolution on the BSE crisis , I told you that the European countries which claimed to have no cases of mad-cow disease were the countries that were not looking for it .
Alas , you will see that subsequent events have proved me right , as they often prove us right when we give timely warnings of the risks to which the earth and mankind are exposed by unbridled liberal economics , but our warnings are not heeded until the predicted disaster has come to pass .
Today I can say that the BSE crisis has been underestimated by the Commission and , more especially , by the Member States .
Under pressure from which lobby ? Everyone in this Chamber knows that Europe's main mission since 1993 has been to operate as a large market without frontiers , a market where anything can be bought and sold , even infected meat and bone meal .
Has this self-centred policy now been abandoned ? I have returned from Porto Alegre , and I can tell you that the Brazilians and Argentinians whom I met there admit that they have been doing the same thing in various places , namely feeding animal carcasses to cattle .
I very much fear that , if they started looking , they too would find cases of BSE .
Be that as it may , fifteen years after the first case of mad-cow disease , Community decisions are still lagging several steps behind the disease .
The last meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers was no exception to this rule .
Instead of purely and simply banning the use of animal fat in certain forms , as the Scientific Veterinary Committee had tacitly suggested , the Council preferred to take a half-measure by prescribing heat treatment of fats .
The update you have just presented to us , Commissioner Byrne , is disturbing on several counts .
We have learned , for instance , that one Member State allows the inclusion of untreated specified-risk materials in feed mixes , that others are not managing to remove the spinal column at the abattoir and that some of the approved tests have turned out to be rather ineffective in the field .
Lastly , I must ask some questions about the number of tests conducted by Member States , because some of the figures pose problems , such as those from Portugal , Greece and the United Kingdom , the country at the source of the epidemic , which conducts only 600 tests per day , as against 37 000 in Germany and 150 000 in Ireland , for example .
What do you intend to do , Commissioner , to harmonise these campaigns properly , to ensure that the same level of protection against this epidemic is finally guaranteed throughout Europe and that the consumer does not have to bear the whole cost alone ?
Reorientation is necessary and must be governed by two objectives: to transform the common agricultural policy into a system of safe food production and to extend such reforms beyond cattle farming and the current crisis by addressing the issue of battery rearing in general , rather than clearing up one mistake to go on to cause another .
After beating your breast about the BSE crisis today , Commissioner , do not now go on to promote genetically modified organisms .
– ( ES ) Mr President , the case we are now considering deserves to feature in a guide to what not to do in politics in terms of managing public affairs .
First of all , the delay in implementing these measures – measures for eradicating BSE – is deplorable . These measures are always adopted reluctantly , in the wake of panic in society and this prolongs the public’s exposure to risk .
It is now more than four years since this Parliament drafted recommendations that would have enabled us to prevent this disease .
Secondly , the lack of resources with which to implement the measures that have been proposed and to manage the crisis itself is also deplorable .
These shortcomings betray a degree of blindness and , at times , genuine breaches in European construction .
Although differences exist between Member States , it is surprising that , over time , the logistical resources for analysing and eliminating meat meal or risk-containing material have not been found .
The financial shortcomings , on the other hand , are clear , both at Community and national level .
Both the Community Treaties and national constitutions impose the obligation of protecting citizens’ health .
It is therefore absurd to try to fund this crisis by taxing meat consumption or through the income of cattle farmers , which is causing small farms to go under .
At times we appear to be our own prisoners .
Within the World Trade Organisation , we have accepted limits on our production by ceding a part of our vegetable protein market to the United States .
So what are we going to do now ? Are we going to replace animal meal with genetically modified soya , imported from the United States ? Agenda 2000 laid down a reduction in aid to livestock farmers .
We were aware of the consequences of this .
How did we think that we would survive in the face of increasing costs and a drastic reduction in prices ? On the other hand , however , Agenda 2000 does not implement measures for the development of large-scale livestock breeding either .
Finally , the almost religious respect for the Financial Perspective laid down in Berlin will prevent us from being able to cope with exceptional situations .
Ladies and gentlemen , let us be realistic: this crisis requires a change in the European Union’s position towards the WTO , a review of the Berlin Financial Perspective and a review of the common agricultural policy to correct its imbalances and its general orientation .
– Mr President , it is with some regret that I find myself participating again in a Parliament debate on BSE I regret that the initial steps taken by Commissioners Byrne and Fischler have not achieved their objective of controlling BSE and restoring consumer confidence in beef .
It is to say the least disappointing , that some Member States were prepared to conceal the real incidence of BSE in their national herds and equally unwilling to implement the control measures proposed by the Commission and agreed by this Parliament .
Their action or lack of action has led to an understandable but justified consumer resistance with beef consumption at one point dropping by 27% .
Our now costly emergency plan to restore consumption and consumer confidence calls for 100% participation by each Member State .
There is no place for dissidence at this critical time and those found in breach of the regulations should , in my view , be severely censured .
There were occasions in the past when farmers were found to be in breach of food regulations and deservedly condemned .
On this occasion , however , they are by and large innocent victims of a situation beyond their control .
They are the victims of animal-feed manufacturers who use meat and bone meal in bovine feed and there is some evidence , regrettably , to suggest that unscrupulous manufacturers have continued to use the product since the new regulations were introduced .
In my view we are now prepared to resort to extreme measures and I accept Commissioner Byrne’s view that in the present situation they are the minimum necessary .
Be that as it may , the harsh reality is that farmers who are guarantors of food supply and quality are devastated , their incomes eliminated and the ethos of farming desecrated through the destruction of a prime food product .
– ( IT ) Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , I feel that the BSE crisis is affecting me both politically and personally . The institutions – in this case the national governments – appear only to react to crises , and never take preventative action , as if history has taught us nothing .
For example , Commissioner , you have had a mandate from the Agriculture Council to apply the measures described to us .
I wish you luck because I can already imagine the merry dance you will be led when you propose these measures: some Member States will request exemption , others will request an extension , for example for the spinal cord from 12 to 20 months , and others will claim to offer consumers safe meat .
So this is all déjà vu to some extent and I can only hope that you have the strength and nerve to stay on course , in the sure knowledge that this will not be easy .
What has come to the fore in recent months is a by now familiar subject , namely the monitoring by Member States of the application of Community measures .
I feel that this is the real point that should be raised with the Council because the measures to be applied are established but then the Member States either do not apply the measures – hence there are many infringement procedures , but they always take a long time – or are not in a position to implement checks .
The result is that , in the end , measures which appear severe have to be taken because the checks do not ensure guarantees or safety in any way .
This is something which gives rise to further difficulties because Member States tend to either conduct few checks or , when they do carry out checks , do not communicate the data available to other institutions .
Therefore , Commissioner , Parliament will constantly be urging you to action , but you can also count on our support in this uphill task .
If I may make an observation: it is a fact that whenever you try to solve a problem , other problems arise .
For example , what are we to do with the animal meal ? We are to burn it .
Of course , it is clear that , even today , we do not have the incineration capacity , and so it is stored .
It is also clear that there have been no studies carried out on the environmental impact of the incineration of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of animal meal .
A further question is what we should feed to cattle as a protein supplement .
– ( FR ) Mr President , by failing to take the necessary action in good time , the European Union is largely responsible for the extent of the BSE crisis .
The evidence is overwhelming: an average 27% drop in consumption and an ever-increasing number of export embargoes .
In France alone , the beef and dairy industries account for 400 000 jobs .
Victims of falling exchange rates and dwindling consumption , cattle farmers are in a desperate plight and face the threat of bankruptcy .
They can no longer afford to keep livestock on their farms .
Milk producers are exceeding their quotas .
Consumers , worried and disorientated , no longer know what to buy .
Abattoirs , condemned to inactivity , cannot stock carcasses pending the results of tests , because the results are taking too long to come through , since staff are not trained to deal with this new situation and laboratories still await official registration as test centres .
Today there are only post mortem examinations .
What has happened to the research into blood tests ? According to Commissioner Byrne , a patent application is pending .
Are we doing all we can to support research , especially public research ? The systematic slaughter of herds is expensive and ruins farmers’ selective breeding programmes .
Now that screening tests are compulsory , is it necessary to go on destroying healthy animals or healthy parts of animals ?
This systematic destruction also disposes of healthy carriers of the disease .
Would it not be wise to keep part of this stock – in total isolation , of course – for research purposes ?
As for fighting bulls , which are considered to be at risk and are therefore subject to compulsory destruction like all other cattle that die outside abattoirs , even though there is a market for their meat , it cannot withstand being frozen for the time it takes to obtain the result of the tests and therefore ceases to be fit for consumption .
The ban on meat and bone meal was ultimately dictated by the fact that it was impossible to trace the sources of the meat and bone input .
How should the meal be stored , burned and replaced ?
Sites are selected by order of the public authorities without any consultation of the local populations , environmental-impact studies or risk assessments .
In order to comply with public health requirements , burning must be carried out in special facilities , and there are not yet enough of these .
In spite of a protein deficit , the Member States dependent on imports of oil-protein crops cannot give assurances that the protein in their feed does not come from genetically modified crops .
Yet Europe continues to take farmland out of production under the set-aside scheme .
For this reason , it is becoming a matter of urgency to reopen talks within the WTO and to rethink the Blair House agreements .
Europe must not reduce its support for livestock farmers , as it seems intent upon doing , by abolishing the premium for suckling cows or reducing cattle quotas , etc .
Even though farmers are prepared to make strenuous efforts in order to guarantee traceability and high-quality produce , Europe must not demand even greater sacrifices of them , as the Agriculture Council did at its last meeting . On the contrary , Europe must support its farmers , even if it means paying direct grant aid .
An exceptional situation calls for exceptional measures .
The price of public health is well beyond the means of the agricultural budget alone .
Part of the cost of guaranteeing food safety and restoring consumer confidence should therefore be charged to the general budget .
– ( DE ) Mr President , Commissioner , the measures proposed by the Commission so far in order to deal with the BSE crisis are mostly too little , too late and unilateral at that .
The Commission does not act , it reacts .
It is not pro-active enough to get a real grip on the situation .
Many of the questions which bother the people affected have yet to be answered .
How do we explain the different prices for BSE tests in Europe ? What will we do to address distortions of competition ? Why is there no effective help for the innocent victims ? I refer in particular to farmers in countries which are still BSE-free and to meat product companies , abattoirs etc . , all of which are struggling or fear for their existence .
We are helping the wrong people .
The incineration campaign in particular is blurring the data , sweeping the problem under the carpet and , most importantly , doing nothing to help the innocent victims .
In countries which cannot incinerate , cattle are left standing in their stalls .
The people affected cannot reasonably be expected to shoulder the burden .
Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget has been earmarked for this alone .
Why are BSE tests on live animals not being promoted or imposed ? You must realise that , if we lose our farmers , then we also lose the very basis of our existence , because it is mainly the farmers , especially in our regions , and I refer here to the Alpine regions , who take care of the countryside .
If we lose the farmers , we lose our very existence .
– ( FR ) Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , here we are gathered once again to talk about BSE .
May I remind you that , only a few months ago in the Chamber in Strasbourg , I denounced the excessive cautiousness of the decisions proposed by the Commission .
So we have good reason to be surprised today at this furore , at this outbreak of panic in some countries which long believed that they would escape this scourge but which have nevertheless had time to observe the measures being taken in neighbouring countries .
We must not let ourselves be engulfed in this wave of panic , because we bear political responsibility .
Today the Commission is proposing a number of measures and , when I listen to my fellow Members , it strikes me how important it is that these measures should be harmonised .
As I said , we bear political responsibility .
That is why , as I have been doing for years , we must expose the shortcomings of the common agricultural policy , which has tended to favour large-scale farmers while overlooking the real world of the small farmers who are the lifeblood of our countryside .
We shall need a great deal of courage if we are to establish a sustainable form of agriculture in which the healthiness and safety of farm produce and of the rural environment are the paramount considerations .
We shall need not only courage but also determination to explain the new measures for the redistribution of agricultural premiums and , above all , to stand up to the Council in order to ensure that the reform process goes beyond declarations of intent .
We are living through a veritable Europe-wide tragedy .
We must grasp this opportunity to redefine a European agricultural policy , without playing to the galleries in the manner of José Bové , but by developing a policy that fulfils the expectations of consumers and our farmers , to whom we are bound by a strong sense of solidarity .
There is no point in taking authoritarian , technocratic or restrictive decisions on the future of cattle farming .
The establishment of extensive farming practices will automatically regulate production .
Higher quality but smaller quantities , more stringent controls and the implementation of emergency measures are the order of the day .
Let us demonstrate the resolve to take these steps without delay in the general interests of the people of Europe .
This is what they rightly expect of us .
– ( FR ) Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , within the space of a few weeks the BSE phenomenon has developed dramatically and is now a virtually universal problem in Europe .
The situation has become alarming , given the fall in consumption and exports and the prospect of having to administer huge stocks of beef and veal .
It is an extremely critical situation , since it has driven cattle breeders to the brink of ruin , while the amount allocated to the EU agricultural budget is almost bound to prove insufficient .
In this context , Commissioner , the first imperative is that Member States show discipline and solidarity in implementing the adopted Community measures so as not to increase the size of the collective bill .
Even though we shall have to await the February meeting of the Council , and probably other major European gatherings too , before all the consequences can be assessed , we can already highlight a few key issues .
To that end , let me point out the primacy of food safety and consumer protection , and the consequent need for tighter controls to lend credibility to the decisions that are taken as well as the need for a European food agency to be set up quickly .
Let me also emphasise the need to establish greater solidarity between the various sectors within the CAP in each Member State , particularly by applying the cross-sector rules enshrined in Agenda 2000 .
I might also mention Europe’s duty to comply with international provisions and to support the development of the production of vegetable proteins to replace meat and bone meal in animal feed .
Finally , may I stress the need to take on board all the lessons we have learned from the development of agriculture which has resulted from our successive common agricultural policies and from our international commitments .
Has not our past development , rooted in a quest for maximum competitiveness and a larger share of the global market , gone too far in the direction of industrialisation and profit-seeking ? For my part , I believe it has reached its limits and that we shall have to rethink it , particularly in the context of the WTO talks and the framing of a new CAP .
Be that as it may , how could agriculture be given the promise of a new dawn if BSE were to bring about the demise of its producers ?This , Commissioner , is precisely why I also plead for genuine , serious consideration of the expectations of livestock breeders and all the other players in the agricultural production process , who must receive help to ride out this crisis .
– ( SV ) Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , without for one moment minimising the problems with BSE , I want to point out that , in the prevailing climate of panic , we must not forget all the other problems and risks , and also opportunities , which exist in our food industry .
Let me give an example .
If ruminant fat is guaranteed free from proteins , it is also free from dioxins , cinolons etc .
At present , distrust of the European food industry , of agriculture and of our countryside and farmers is spreading like wildfire .
This is very dangerous not only for employment in Europe and for the countryside , but also for our environment and our cultural heritage .
But just think if we could seize this opportunity . A wise old man once said that chaos is a neighbour of God .
Let us use the present chaos creatively , for today we have our electorate’s support for opening up and transforming the entire food sector .
– ( DE ) Mr President , BSE is still a danger .
The danger has not been averted .
And if there is less of a chance of catching BSE now than there was a short time ago , then it is thanks to our work here in Parliament and , I freely admit Mr Byrne , it is also thanks to the work which you have done .
The new Commission and you personally are consistent in your approach , but I must nonetheless criticise certain aspects of the proposals .
One chink in the Commission’s armour at European level was that of milk replacer and the fat contaminated with protein residue .
Unfortunately it was closed too late .
What is being done now is a step in the right direction .
But fat is still being added , albeit heat-treated fat .
And , Mr Byrne , the question is , where does the mechanically recovered meat go , if not into the food chain ? Is it used for bonemeal , is it used for fat and will brain residue left behind when the skull is sucked out end up in it ? Is it sterilised enough at 133 degrees ? As we know , these prions are clearly proving to be resistant to heat treatment .
It would be better here if we said that the only fat in milk replacer must come from the milk itself .
If you really must have fat , then put the butter which has been removed back in or feed the milk straight to the animals .
The second problem is the brain .
We still have a situation in which the brain from animals under 12 months old can be used .
We can also use pigs' brains .
The proof of the sausage cannot be in the eating .
So what we need to do is to remove both cows' and pigs' brains from the whole sausage , from the whole food chain .
The third aspect is testing .
Mr Böge said earlier that we want to test after 18 months .
I must correct him here: Parliament's resolution states that all animals which enter the food chain must be tested , starting at 18 months .
This too must be guaranteed and we must not let up in our pursuit of this objective .
Mr Byrne , we must not allow animals which are not being tested now to be slaughtered , because we urgently need these results for diagnostic reasons – as Mr Böge has already said – in order to evaluate the overall threat of BSE in Europe .
– ( EL ) Commissioner , albeit somewhat belatedly , we are taking stricter and stricter measures .
However , what you have said begs the most important questions about which neither you nor the Council have said anything .
I refer to coordination and control .
You have indirectly identified the shortcomings ; we know that there are serious shortcomings but where are the proposals
 ? Legislation on inspections , for example , is making no headway whatsoever at European level .
My second point concerns alternative solutions .
Other Members have raised the same point .
What is to be done with the meat and bone meal which has to be destroyed ? What is to be done with the dangerous substances which we remove from the food chain ? I know from my own country that this is a problem .
But what I do not know is how they can be reliably destroyed or , more to the point , how the costs can be covered .
That brings me to my last point: how are the costs to be covered , even at European Union level ?
As far as I know , we have about EUR 1 . 5 billion in our coffers .
Your lowest estimates put the cost at EUR 3 . 5 billion and many are saying that it might be as high as 7 or 8 .
Proposals for covering the cost as the budget now stands and with the financial perspectives which you support there are none .
What are we going to do ? We want more credible answers .
– ( IT ) Mr President , I would certainly like to emphasise the fact that there is a need – and this has been repeated on several occasions – to restore consumer confidence with regard to operators in the sector .
In order to do this , I call upon the Commission , as I have done on countless occasions , to provide clarification , that is to make all data available to allow correct information to contribute to reducing this collective psychosis of which , it appears , even we have been victims in part .
I would like to stir things up by saying that if we limit ourselves to the facts , to the current state of affairs , one is much more likely to be struck by lightning than infected by BSE .
By this I do not mean that we should not adopt all necessary precautions to prevent even a single human life being put at risk , but we should take care , because the media are causing such damage and are paralysing the sector , often without any objective information to provide accurate news .
The provision of accurate information is thus an indispensable requirement if the problem is to be addressed in the proper manner and if we are to prevent psychosis being encouraged in an unjustified – I repeat – often unjustified manner .
It is important to let consumers know what they are eating: in this respect the move towards compulsory labelling to provide consumers with accurate information on the animal's characteristics , from birth to slaughter , should be speeded up .
With regard to interventions , the need to allow operators in the sector to overcome this moment of crisis should be not be forgotten .
Thus , direct economic intervention should be used: it should be remembered that many breeders have thousands of head of cattle and they don't know what to do faced with the reduction in demand for their product .
We need to create stockpiles through public intervention . This direct intervention must ensure that companies in financial crisis receive the direct State support .
– ( FR ) Mr President , before taking part in this debate , I reread a very interesting document , the text of a complaint lodged with the Court of Justice in 1996 by the French farmers’ association Syndicat agricole français de la coordination rurale and by Philippe de Villiers against the Commission , which the plaintiffs accused of mismanaging the BSE crisis , putting the principle of the free movement of goods before public health and failing to apply the precautionary principle .
While we are on the subject of complaints , what has become of the one that the Commission lodged against France , alleging that my country was refusing to ensure the free movement of meat ? I did not hear Commissioner Byrne update us on that point in the statement he just made .
The lessons to be learned with regard to the present situation are that public health must be the prime consideration , that every potential risk must be anticipated , even if the cost is high , and that we must respect the right of a Member State to apply more stringent safeguards than its partners .
In particular , we demand measures designed to ensure maximum safety , even if they are a heavy burden on the Community budget .
The only way of avoiding this type of problem in the future will be to impose draconian rules enshrining caution and respect for nature .
such rules will clearly entail extra costs , which in themselves will handicap European agriculture in the global marketplace .
To compensate for this handicap , it will be necessary , in the context of the forthcoming WTO talks , to secure acceptance for the idea that each region of the world should be free to choose its own agricultural model , and it will likewise be necessary to undertake a radical review of the Uruguay Round model , which tends to expose agriculture to global competition without allowing for any protective or compensatory mechanisms .
– ( IT ) Commissioner , I speak to you not as a neutral referee but as a representative of the executive institution of the European Union .
I am concerned , and this morning's speeches confirm this feeling of unease because the BSE problem , despite your explanations and the interventions you have mentioned – which are obviously a response to an economic crisis – represents a structural crisis to which we have yet to provide a response .
BSE is a moral problem: over the decades agricultural policy has been constructed around agriculture , but now a veil of distrust is coming down over the sector that we , as institutions , cannot afford to allow .
The agricultural sector is a sector comprised of working people , families who work the land and people who , occupied with everyday commitments , are paying a price which is not theirs to pay .
It is absolutely essential that we rewrite the rules but we cannot ask working people to pay a price – which amounts to bankruptcy in many European countries – which is not theirs to pay .
The response to an earthquake is not “We'll see what we can do” ; the response to an earthquake is appropriate and , above all , immediate intervention .
European agriculture is currently experiencing one of the most critical times in its history: our dealings with the agricultural sector are not without repercussion and ultimately not only farmers will be affected but Europe itself because , in the end , the farmers and people of Europe look to us , to Europe , to the institutions , as the entity that must meet their demands .
– Commissioner , you have the melancholy satisfaction of being proved right and that never makes one popular or even happy .
The very people and the very Member States who were shrugging off your warnings two years ago , who were denying you a qualified majority , as you said just a few months ago , are now clamouring for compensation and support as the beef market collapses and we face the prospect of millions of animals in store , unsellable , undisposable of over the next two years .
In the United Kingdom we see this with some sympathy .
People will say to me: Well , yes , you were first .
We were first in the whole cycle from complacency to despair and back again .
And if today the beef market is sound in Britain and beef consumption is rising , it is only because people have seen how draconian the measures need to be .
Every question I now want to ask the Commission comes from that experience .
Firstly , the extent of BSE .
What are the tests showing ? What do the Member States themselves say ? We see reports that some countries which claimed a year ago to be BSE-free , now anticipate up 500 cases in the course of the next year .
If Europe has fallen into line with the principle of culling animals over 30 months , is that in itself enough ? What do the tests and the research findings say about the incidence of the disease in animals younger than 30 months .
Thirdly , what capacity do the Member States have for destroying the materials that are now being removed ? .
Which Member States have the incineration capacity ? Are some still saying that they will put this material into landfill ?These are all serious questions , which we know you will try to answer
We think you should go further and I would just like to echo what my friend Mr Garot said which is that Europe most of all owes you its solidarity .
– Mr President , I welcome the proposals to ban the production of mechanically recovered meat from all ruminant bones of all ages .
In the UK at the moment , we have a ban on MRM from beef and also we do not have any animal going to the food chain over 30 months , but the problem is MRM beef coming in from other EU countries .
As far as I know , there is no adequate test to make sure that they are BSE-free .
So I welcome the ban .
With regard to the removal of the vertebral column , you have brought up the question: where should it take place , abattoir or at the point of sale ? But is it really necessary ?
We must take into account the Scientific Steering Committee’s review , but surely if the spinal cord is removed adequately that should be enough .
Whatever happens , all these safeguards must be monitored carefully .
I am pleased that there is going to be a monthly report from other EU countries as happens in the UK at the moment , but please bring in these measures quickly .
Make sure they are properly in force and please learn from the UK’s past mistakes .
– ( ES ) Mr President , Commissioner , the BSE crisis has simply highlighted and revealed to public opinion in Europe the fragility and lack of rigour in the way Member States’ comply with and observe European rules on potentially dangerous materials used in the manufacture of animal feedingstuffs .
Despite all the debates held on the crisis itself , we still allow some potentially dangerous substances to enter the food chain , since , for example , there is still no ban on animal fat for animal consumption .
Our citizens , who are powerless in the face of political decisions taken by politicians whose criteria are above all economic , demand greater rigour and responsibility .
What responsibilities will the Member States , the Commission and Parliament itself adopt with regard to the people affected by the human form of BSE ? There is still no uniformity in the measures adopted by the Council , which means that the precautionary principle will lose its effectiveness .
Further research is required to discover the nature and the transmission mechanisms of this disease in all its forms and , lastly , we must have greater controls for plants producing animal feedingstuffs , which are a major factor in the transmission of the disease .
If codecision in agriculture truly existed , this crisis would have taken a very different direction .
– ( PT ) Mr President , the current situation in which cases of BSE in the European Union are multiplying makes it clear that it is not enough to make declarations of intent with regard to the reform of the CAP . We need to get to the root of the problem and move rapidly towards a genuine reform of the current common agricultural policy .
Budgetary and Community constraints cannot be used as an excuse for not adopting the necessary measures to solve the problem , and , at the same time , we must support livestock breeders .
The aim of the CAP reform that we need to implement must not be to make budgetary savings but to achieve balance in the distribution of assistance amongst producing countries and productions , taking account of specific regional requirements and the situation of each Member State .
New resources must be found for new requirements and so it is becoming necessary to conduct a review of the current financial framework that was decided on in Berlin .
Finally , I wish to mention Portugal , in order to ask the Commissioner to explain the unfairness of maintaining this particular ban on exports in an area in which there has been a significant reduction in cases , whilst in other countries , they are continually increasing .
– Commissioner Byrne , I am not noted usually for complimenting you on your good performance but on this occasion I wish to be fair .
It is totally wrong for Member States now to blame the Commission when you were pointing out as long as a couple of years ago the problems that were going to occur .
What Member States have done by trying to make out which beef is the safest in Europe , is to destroy European beef .
There is no doubt about that .
We need to take action now across Europe .
I am a farmer who farmed through the BSE crisis in the UK .
I saw the value of my cattle drop to virtually nothing .
It is very painful for the farming industry to see this happen and it is happening now throughout the whole of Europe , so action needs to be taken .
I do not think we want to re-invent the wheel so we should look to the measures that have been taken in Britain and have restored consumer confidence .
I would urge , and I know Commissioner Byrne agrees with this , to have one policy throughout Europe .
If we do not , the European press will take each Member State in turn , they will look at the safety measures that are in those states and they will compare and then people’s confidence in beef in general will collapse .
There is no doubt that the older cattle , however painful it is , have to be taken out of the food chain .
They must be destroyed .
Not only is there incineration but there is now a sodium hydrolysis method of dissolving cattle .
I am sure you are looking at that , because that could be a better and possibly a cheaper method of disposing of these cattle .
We need also to look at imports of cattle from outside the European Union , because not only do we need to get our act together , I believe there is a lot of complacency about this in the rest of the world .
At the end of the day , we must get beef consumption up , we must convince the consumer that it is safe and let them eat European beef .
– ( ES ) Mr President , bearing in mind how much this is going to cost all Europeans , the fact that our aim is to restore confidence and that the issue is no longer the regulations in force but the implementation and observance of these regulations , should we not be thinking about how we can restore this confidence ?
Can we expect the irresponsible Minister , who insulted those who rightly warned us of this risk by calling them irresponsible , to restore this confidence ?
Or the Minister for Health , who demonstrated a lazy incompetence in this matter ?
Commissioner , given that these people are so discredited , will they be able to restore confidence , they , who are responsible for the current confusion , for the lack of control of banned feedingstuffs , for the environmental messes that are occurring , with illegal burials of hundreds of cows ?
Are these people , as discredited as they are , going to be able to restore the confidence that we need ?
Commissioner , unless we demand that these people are held responsible for their actions , we are the ones who will be held responsible .
I can assure you of that .
– ( NL ) Mr President , I should first of all like to draw your attention to the financial implications of the BSE crisis .
Firstly , the Commission eventually adopted the Agriculture Committee’s proposal to use the scope that was left in the agricultural budget of EUR 970 million after all .
I should add straight away that this scope appeared to be a little bigger than it actually is now , given also the present state of the euro , which has already absorbed 250 million of that amount .
The second point is that the funding is therefore not complete .
It merely constitutes a beginning .
I would urge the Commission to look into other funding options , especially in the face of this crisis , with regard to a proposal for a consumer levy .
We might consider a temporary levy on meat , as a result of which we would at least be able effectively to cover the cost of far-reaching measures this year .
It is in itself nothing new that we are guaranteeing safety in this way , also with regard to other products .
Just consider the environmental levy on certain products which is applied in certain EU countries .
The third point which is of significance in my opinion , is the question of how we deal with Member States which have knowingly flouted EU rules .
Let us be honest , last year , Germany’s red/green coalition claimed time and again that it did not have any problems ; the problem subsequently arose and was shifted elsewhere .
How do the Commission and the Council deal with this ? I have to say that in this connection , the Commission has been far more consistent over the past few years than the Council , just to quote an example .
The final point is to look for a solution .
At the end of the day , the only solution is sound chain control , sound inspections and tough measures at times .
In this connection , I believe it would be politically inappropriate to claim at this moment in time that a change in the European agricultural policy vis-à-vis small holdings or organic agriculture will solve the problem .
That is not the issue .
It is about food safety .
The politicians in Europe had better be careful about using this crisis for their own political ends .
– ( ES ) Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , this is basically an animal health problem that has assumed the proportions of a huge crisis because it has affected food safety , even though medical specialists say that it is not highly infectious .
It is a problem that emerged in the United Kingdom more than a decade ago and which , since then , has spread to the whole of continental Europe .
At the time , the Commission probably underestimated the problem and did not adopt the necessary measures to prevent the disease spreading .
We must acknowledge that it was a mistake to wait until 27 March 1996 to adopt emergency measures , starting with the ban on animals and meat meal from the United Kingdom and to give in to pressure by then derogating this decision two years later , on 16 March 1998 .
It is time that we learnt from our mistakes and adopted effective and appropriate measures , which can be complied with without trying to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut .
Most importantly , these measures must be uniform , because what is causing the greatest confusion , lack of direction and distrust is the lack of clear and concrete criteria .
You have told us what the Scientific Steering Committee thinks and what the Council intends to do , but what action is the Commission prepared to take , when is it going to act and how will it do so ?Furthermore , we must ensure that all of these rules are complied with , because controls have proved to be our greatest shortcoming .
I have always said the same thing: it is crucial that the Commission coordinates and harmonises controls and , most importantly , that it controls the controller .
Clear and practical rules are essential because there are fifteen countries , each with its own problems and in some countries – in my own , to be precise – in which responsibilities for control in this field lie with the seventeen autonomous governments .
Lastly , I would suggest to the Commission that it should make an effort to communicate risks , because the profusion of news and comment in the media is contributing to the confusion and alarm in society .
In addition to all of this , Commissioner , we need to think about the future of the CAP , because the root of this problem lies in the competitiveness that has been forced on the agricultural sector .
– ( DE ) Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , Commissioner , I should like to thank the Commission for the information which it has given us on the fight against BSE and to tell Commissioner Byrne that my impression is that he has the situation in hand and that his proposals are clear and decisive .
I think this is what we need because , apart from BSE , we also have hysteria and panic to deal with in several areas .
This initial information which we have been given is without doubt most comprehensive .
But I must say , Commissioner , that I would have liked to have seen the information on the countries which you so nicely listed compared with the results of controls carried out by food and veterinary health inspectors .
I must say , in all honesty , that I only have to think of the ignorance and squirming with which the Agriculture Council has reacted to proposals over recent months , including Parliament's proposals , to lose all confidence in information provided by Member States and ministers .
Of course , there is always some cause for objection with most measures .
But we all know that the measures being decided now are the result of a failure to act , including over recent years , and we cannot afford to lower our sights .
A few speakers have already referred to tests .
The point is: if we do not test all animals , then the results are meaningless .
I have heard that the abattoirs are simply refusing to slaughter animals .
What is being done ? They are being clubbed without being tested .
That is just not on . We must intervene here , we must sort this out throughout Europe .
Mrs Roth-Behrendt said we need more and better controls and indeed we do . But we also need clear-cut , comprehensible laws in Europe .
We shall be dealing with hygiene regulations shortly .
I say to you , in all honesty that , from what I hear from the Member States at the moment , I have no cause for optimism whatsoever .
We are back on the same old merry-go-round , it is just not on . We need to stand together and give Europe clear-cut laws .
That is the only way to get a grip on the problem .
– ( IT ) Mr President , I will be very brief .
All I want to say is that we are in danger , as has been emphasised , of repeating the same things .
We will be repeating the same things in ten years' time because there have been considerable delays in conducting scientific research into prions .
We have known about prions for 15 years Commissioner Byrne , but after 15 years we do not know which molecular mechanisms are responsible for neurodegeneration , we do not know if they pass through the placenta barrier , we do not know if they pass into milk , we do not have rapid tests .
– Mr Nisticò , your question is not a point of order .
I know that I need to be flexible , but please do not try to take advantage of this .
– Mr President , may I first of all thank all the Members who made such valuable contributions to this debate , all of which have been very carefully noted .
I would like to say by way of a preliminary reply to what has been said , that those who spoke on the question of consumer confidence are putting their finger on an issue that is of particular importance , in addition to the issues that we are addressing today relating to public health .
May I draw your attention to one particular aspect of public confidence that a number of you , in particular Mr Whitehead , referred to .
Sometimes it depends to a very large extent on where Member States are in the cycle of BSE as to the effect on public confidence .
Public health issues are crucially important but I want to address the consumer confidence aspect for a moment before I go on to the public health aspects .
Mr Whitehead rightly observed that in the UK the level of consumer confidence is high .
The consumption of beef in the UK is higher than it was before 1996 .
Why is that the case ? What lessons can we draw for consumer confidence from that ? I believe it is because people see that the incidence of BSE in the UK is falling despite the fact that the number of cases is still the highest in the European Union by some considerable distance .
So why are consumers relaxed about it to the extent that they are now consuming beef more than they were before 1996 ?
I believe it is because they realise that the scientific advice had been correct ; that the lawmakers have responded correctly and put safety measures in place and that the public authorities in the UK properly implemented that legislation and the consequence is that we have a falling incidence of BSE .
So consumers have concluded from that: somebody is in charge , they are doing something about it , they appear to know what they are doing because the incidence is falling .
Therefore their confidence rises and they consume beef .
That feeling has to be achieved in the rest of Europe , but it will take time because consumers do not have that sequence of events in their minds in the rest of the European Union and we all know why: because a number of Member States who declared themselves to be free of BSE within a very short space of time after making the declaration had to then admit that there was BSE in that Member State .
That quite obviously provoked an immediate reaction in consumer confidence because it says to consumers: the people in charge do not know what they are talking about and are not protecting me .
We do not want to make microbiologists out of consumers , but they must have the feeling that there is someone in charge , who knows what they are doing and that what they are doing is effective in ensuring the protection of the consumer .
Let me now deal with some of the issues that you raised surrounding public health and the procedures that are needed .
A number of you mentioned the question of testing .
This was discussed in the Council last Monday .
Testing at 30 months remains the norm , but will be kept under review .
A huge number of tests under way will provide invaluable information within a very short period of time .
We do not yet have enough tests and have not had them long enough to draw the appropriate conclusions .
The statistical sample is not big enough , but when it is we will draw those conclusions .
This will put us in a much better position to decide if further needs to be done .
In relation third countries , I can say that the SRM decision that we made some time ago applies to third countries and to imports from third countries from 1 April next .
I have written to all third countries , alerted them to the Community measures and also advised them of the dangers of meat and bone meal .
And my services will hold a conference shortly with third countries to press this point home further .
On the question of the vertebral column , of course the spinal cord must be removed and destroyed .
Somebody mentioned earlier: Is this not enough – why do we have to remove the entire vertebral column if the danger resides in the spinal cord ?
Well , of course , that fails to take into account the need to address the question of the dangers that may be posed by the dorsal root ganglia and the removal of the vertebral column is specifically directed to that particular point .
The removal of the vertebral column has been a requirement from 1 October .
The question is how and where .
As I explained there are complications and risks depending on where it is done , at the abattoir or in the butcher’s shop .
We do not have enough time to go into detail in relation to this but I repeat what I said earlier that this is an issue that we will have to give very careful consideration to .
In respect of derogations , all Member States are currently carrying out tests on fallen and at-risk animals .
This has been done on the basis of a random survey and this will help to revise the extent of the disease and give us more information .
Then appropriate decisions can be made in the light of that situation .
The specific issue of the number of inspections will be addressed in the report that I am requesting Member States to furnish me with .
You will remember that I wrote to Member States on 4 January including an annex asking for detailed information .
We have a lot of that information now in response to that letter and we will obviously be in contact with Members States all the time seeking further information and making sure that everything is kept under review .
References were made to the reform of the CAP .
This is largely a matter for my colleague Franz Fischler , but Member States are not yet fully availing of the opportunities to provide for what might loosely described as a greener CAP .
In this context I should say that Franz Fischler and I have established a joint committee with our services to look into this very issue and to see to what extent adjustments need to be made so that we can achieve a situation whereby food is produced by more natural methods .
That is not to say that we are going to abandon the idea of the industrial production of food .
We cannot do that .
 ( Applause from the right )That is a knee-jerk reaction that does not respond to the needs of the consumer .
We must produce a lot of food to feed people and that must be properly addressed as well .
But there is a desire from consumers that we should address the question of the natural production of food .
I am not fully convinced that has been fully addressed in the past and after my discussions with Franz Fischler we are now going to look at this more carefully .
Somebody made reference to the fact of the CAP supports being more focussed on large farmers than on small farmers .
I am not necessarily convinced that is the case , but there does seem to be some evidence to that effect and that is another issue that will obviously have to be addressed as well .
My distinguished predecessor Ms Bonino had something to say on the subject of enforcement .
Of course , enforcement of measures is a key issue .
The Food and Veterinary Office has a key role to play .
Reports of the implementation measures will also oblige Member States to be very careful .
You made very relevant comments on fats also .
It is not just a question of banning them .
Animals have to have fat in their diet .
The issue is where is this fat going to come from and are these fat sources safe .
The opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee might need clarification on this particular aspect .
There was considerable discussion in the Council last Monday on this issue .
The conclusions refer to the fact that ruminant fat will have to be pressure cooked in the manner that we are all familiar with , but in addition a view was expressed that perhaps the time had come for the removal of animal fats from ruminant feed and that is an issue that is going to be considered .
In considering that issue , you must ask what are the alternatives: vegetable fats , soyas , someone mentioned genetically modified substances .
There are many complex issues which have to be addressed but I do not want to delay bringing forward the appropriate proposal for the pressure cooking of ruminant fat in the meantime .
I should say in the context of the Blair House Agreement , my colleague , Franz Fischler is well aware of the demands of farmers to renegotiate the Blair House Agreement .
A number of you made reference to budgetary considerations and I must say that the Berlin ceilings have been reached .
Any increase in budget must now be agreed unanimously by all Member States .
Someone also made reference to the fact that some Member States are increasing their own taxation , increasing VAT to pay for this .
That is a matter for each individual Member States .
The Commission has no competence to levy VAT at the point of sale of any products , and that includes agricultural products .
Reference is also made to distortions of competition and we are faced with a crisis here .
We do not have the luxury to harmonise all national measures before putting in place essential health protection measures .
We must proceed with that and at the same time if the measures that we are putting in place require adjustment or fine-tuning to eliminate competition distortions then we must do that .
Others made reference to the need to ensure that we have harmonised measures throughout the European Union and I fully agree with that .
I have said that on a number of occasions .
I do believe that consumer confidence is undermined if consumers see different responses in different Member States to the same perceived risk .
That undermines consumer confidence .
I have said that on a number of occasions and that message has got through .
I detected a mood in the Council last Monday that ministers accepted the proposition that we have to abandon unilateral measures in individual Member States and go forward with the measures that address the problem on a Europe-wide basis .
I should have also mentioned earlier when I addressed the question of testing that live tests are not available yet .
But we are carrying out a considerable amount of research in relation to this and a considerable amount of money is being spent on this .
There is some is hope on the horizon in respect of live tests but nothing is absolutely clear as yet and I would not like to raise expectations or hopes in that regard .
Mrs Grossetête made reference to the operation of the CAP and I do not disagree with anything she said about its operation and how it affects large farmers , small farmers and so on .
Can we continue for example with the situation where 45% of aids are paid for arable crops , a sector which is very intensive and which employs far fewer people than other principal sectors ? This is an issue which must also be addressed .
Mr Posselt referred to fats and dioxin and the question of dioxin is under active consideration by my services and by myself at the moment as a result of the publication of the report of the Scientific Steering Committee within the last couple of weeks on this very issue .
They are found in fat .
It is practically impossible to filter out dioxins .
They have to be tackled in other ways and we are working on this at the moment .
Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf then asked me to address the question of a total ban of ruminant fats in animal feed .
As I said earlier in this response , this is something that is being considered , was addressed by the Council last Monday and is being addressed in the context of further advice .
There are control problems which make it difficult to ensure that segregation can be effective I will be happy to keep you informed of this issue as the discussion evolves .
Someone asked the question as to how mechanically recovered meat is going to be dealt with .
Well I have say that it is going to be included in the definition of an SRM
So we extend the definition of SRM to include mechanically recovered meat which then has to be disposed of in the way that the law requires .
That will be done in a manner consistent with the legislation as it currently stands .
– ( DE ) Mr President , allow me to make a comment to Mr Byrne .
On the subject of animal fats , I would again propose that we leave the fat in the milk , i .e . that we use the butter .
It is perfect for the calves .
It is what nature intended: the fat is easily digested and there is no risk of infection .
– You have made what is , I am sure , an interesting scientific point , but I do not think it is a point of order .
The debate on the statement by the Commission is closed .
DebatesThursday 14 June 2001OJ edition
Classical swine feverPresident .
– The next item is the report ( A5-0143/2001 ) by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez , on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development , on the proposal for a Council directive on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever ( COM ( 2000 ) 462 – C5-0493/2000 – 2000/0214 ( CNS ) ) .
– ( ES ) Mr President , Commissioner , ladies and gentlemen , the report unanimously approved in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on 25 April on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever proposes an early diagnosis system and maintenance of the Community method for controlling the disease and slaughter , since not enough progress has yet been made on marker vaccines .
The reason for applying a policy of non-vaccination is based on the fact that in the event of infection vaccinated pigs may become carriers of the virus , especially pregnant sows , which may not show signs of the disease but may transmit it horizontally to the other pigs on the farm and vertically to their progeny , which may include persistently infected piglets .
In addition , as regards the differentiation of animals that have been vaccinated or have had the disease and generated antibodies , this differentiation between vaccinated and infected animals is not yet reliable .
Research will have to continue into this until these marker vaccines are effectively reliable and we are able to use differential methods that indicate whether the animals have been vaccinated or have had the disease .
This legislation improves certain prophylactic rules , clarifies definitions and proposes the inclusion of the ‘Diagnostic Manual’ as an annex to the Directive .
In addition , the amendments introduced refer to animal welfare standards on the farm and during transport , and emergency solutions are proposed for cases of serious health crises which prevent animal movements for long periods , such as buying-in schemes , which the Commission has certainly never done before .
It is also proposed that this health legislation should extend to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and that they should be included in the plans to control classical swine fever .
Several amendments to this document have been tabled which your rapporteur feels deserve some comment .
There is one amendment , No 34 , tabled by Mr Mulder on behalf of the ELDR Group , which seems logical , but given that the health control authorities are national , trying to divide up the European Union into regions that belong to different countries and do not coincide with national borders seems unfeasible .
I would ask Mr Mulder , who is present , whether the Dutch will be able to control German farms or whether the Germans will control Dutch farms .
I do not think either side will agree to this .
Amendment No 35 , tabled by Mr Mulder , goes against both my feelings and the spirit of the report .
If the animal is not eliminated , vaccination will not eliminate the virus and the marketing of meat from vaccinated animals in the European Union would mean less safety for our consumers than for those of third countries .
We would in principle be unable to export , and anyway this news in the press would ruin the industry .
Fresh meat from vaccinated animals carries the virus and may infect healthy animals that feed on swill containing it .
I therefore cannot accept Amendment No 35 .
As for Amendment No 36 , also tabled by Mr Mulder , we again come up against the subject of co-financing , and I am also against it .
There are two other amendments: Nos 33 , tabled by Mr Böge on behalf of the PPE-DE Group , and 37 , tabled by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group .
These two amendments go a little beyond what I could have imagined , since in my country the use of swill has been banned for more than twenty years .
Nevertheless , in this very House , Amendment No 102 in the Paulsen report , reviewed in this very part-session , was approved and I do not want to go against the feelings of this House .
I therefore understand that both Amendment No 33 and Amendment No 37 are acceptable because they may lead us to a more realistic solution to the animal feed control problem .
– Mr President , this is a comprehensive report and I congratulate Mrs Redondo for the great deal of work that she has put into it .
The House might be interested to know that Mrs Redondo very kindly accepted my invitation to come to London during the formulation of this report to take evidence from representatives of the UK pig industry and senior officials from the National Farmers Union and the Ministry of Agriculture .
We happened to be in one of those meetings on Tuesday 20 February this year , the very day the first outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the UK was reported .
As you can well imagine , this brought our meeting to an abrupt halt .
Indeed , it is partly because of foot-and-mouth disease that I wish to direct my remarks to the question of feeding catering waste or pigswill to pigs .
I know that my colleagues from Germany and Austria have serious reservations about the proposal to ban such material from being fed to pigs throughout the EU .
As Mrs Redondo has just said , Amendment No 33 seeks to permit controlled swill feeding , subject to stringent exceptional arrangements , if it can be guaranteed that the pathogens which cause epizootic diseases have been destroyed by treatment .
Amendment No 37 seeks to achieve a similar objective .
I would ask the House to reject both these amendments this evening .
In the UK we had stringent controls of swill feeding in place .
We ensured that pig farmers only used the most appropriate and up-to-date equipment for boiling catering waste to the correct temperature to destroy all pathogens and we ensured that regular inspections of the farms using such equipment were carried out .
Of course you cannot legislate for human behaviour , however .
It now seems almost certain that infected catering waste was delivered to a farm in the north-east of England , which for whatever reason , was not properly treated , or perhaps was not treated at all .
This simple error , whether deliberate or just a mistake , has led to the destruction of over six million animals in the United Kingdom and tens of thousands of animals in Ireland , the Netherlands and France .
We have now banned swill in the UK entirely .
I urge the House to do the same across the whole of the EU .
– ( DE ) Mr President , on behalf of the Group of the Party of European Socialists , I should like to thank the rapporteur , Mrs Redondo , for her work , which is unexpectedly topical following the most recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth .
The parallels between swine fever and foot-and-mouth are obvious ; in the case both of foot-and-mouth and swine fever , the Community decided in the past to pursue a policy of non-vaccination .
However , the scale of the foot-and-mouth crisis has demonstrated that an unreserved policy of non-vaccination belongs on the test bench .
I do not mean that we should resort to blanket vaccination in future .
Killing infected stock , stamping out , must continue to be the mainstay of the strategy to combat these diseases .
However , greater importance should be attached to vaccination .
We should not , in my view , stand still on the question of vaccination ; instead we should develop a strategy of comprehensive zoonosis prevention mainly for use during disease-free periods .
This could include stricter controls on third country imports , controls at airports and quarantining new additions to livestock .
Another important point is the principle of regionalisation .
The Commission must act very quickly here and negotiate with EU trading partners in order to implement this principle .
We cannot expect all the Member States of the EU to put up with import restrictions in third countries every time a disease breaks out in one or a few Member States .
The European Union already applies this principle to third country imports .
Now third countries must return the favour .
Marker vaccines are very important here , as the rapporteur has clearly highlighted .
More must be invested in these vaccines and in developing discriminatory diagnostic techniques , so that it will soon be possible to distinguish between vaccinated and infected animals and then make economic use of vaccinated animals .
I should also like to comment on one more very specific issue , namely swill feeding , that is , using leftovers from canteens etc .
These leftovers have been used as animal fodder for years and we must still be able to use them in future .
As with meat and bonemeal , I support a conditional ban here , as formulated in Amendment No 37 by the Group of the Greens , that is , it should only be possible to use leftovers if a suitable sterilisation process is used .
I think that if proper controls are carried out then , as we have seen in the past in numerous Member States , we will still be able to use this valuable source of protein .
We should support the proposed amendment by the Greens which still allows leftovers to be used but subject to stricter conditions .
– ( NL ) Mr President , I should like to thank the rapporteur , because I learned something from her report , which is always very pleasant .
In addition the report points out the necessary modification of the guidelines .
Of course we must bring swine fever under control , but extermination methods that require mass slaughter are no longer really accepted by public opinion .
That is a problem .
I myself come from Flanders .
It is a densely populated region and there are even more pigs than people .
That means that we ourselves are dramatically confronted with that problem .
Therefore I agree that the combating of swine fever is important but should like at the same time to point out that this animal disease , unlike others , presents no danger to human beings .
I would say that culling because of the disease is one thing , but it is difficult to distinguish from culling for economic reasons , for example because sties become overfull or because animals become too heavy for sale .
That is why it is always rather hypocritical when mass slaughter is being considered , since it is not very clear whether the culling is taking place to prevent disease or for economic reasons .
I must honestly admit that in that respect I do not trust the industry .
The report has nevertheless convinced me that there has been a remarkable development in marker vaccine .
Therefore in my view it can easily be declared ready for use so that it could be used on a much wider scale than solely in emergencies .
If it is not reliable , for example because the disease can still be transmitted via the placenta , then it would seem sensible to me that it cannot be used with sows but that it can still be of use in other cases .
If it transpires , as is argued in the report , that the diagnostic method is still not reliable , then I believe that we must do our utmost to develop good diagnostic methods , so that a distinction can be made between vaccinated animals on the one hand and animals that have developed antibodies because they have had the disease or have had contact with the disease in some other way .
This is why I believe that culling must be rejected as a method of combating this animal disease and that we must concentrate our attention on the development not only of marker vaccine , since that already exists – but of good diagnostic methods and the refinement of the vaccine so that it can also be used for sows .
In any case the guidelines should provide regulation that makes mass culls unnecessary .
I agree with the conclusions of the Commission , namely that mass culls cast a slur on the agricultural policy and the health policy that we wish to pursue as a European Community .
– ( NL ) Mr President , Commissioner , a lot of attention is being paid to pigs this week .
Unfortunately the discussion of the Redondo Jiménez report is ending in an anticlimax .
On Monday the Swedish Minister spoke on animal welfare , including tightening welfare regulations for animal transport .
This morning we voted on the Busk report , in which we are trying to improve the living conditions of pigs in great detail .
We now have a report before us in which we are supposed to simply agree to the destruction of thousands of healthy pigs if there is an outbreak of swine fever .
This Parliament speaks with two voices ! One for the consumer and his feeling for animal welfare and one for the economy and trade , which must not be allowed to suffer from the outbreak of a disease .
I have requested a roll-call vote on this report and on Mr Mulder’s amendment , so that the public can see from Members’ voting behaviour the double tongue of this Parliament on animal welfare .
It is astonishing that Mrs Redondo Jiménez has learned nothing from the combating of foot-and-mouth disease as it has developed in recent months , particularly in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands .
As part of the preparation of this report I should have like to see Mrs Redondo driving around the Oene region , the foot-and-mouth triangle in the Netherlands .
It would have struck her that almost every field carries a poster reading: ‘EU , vaccinate now !’
I have argued more than once in this Parliament that animals are more than production units .
They are creatures made by God , for whom we have responsibility .
Norms and values apply not only in church but in the sty too .
Until 1980 , vaccination was commonplace in the European Union .
In order to meet the trade , the non-vaccination policy was implemented .
In the 1997 outbreak of swine fever in the Netherlands , thousands of healthy pigs had to be destroyed and then too there was a call for vaccination .
When will this Parliament start listening to its citizens ? There is a vaccine available that makes it possible to distinguish vaccination from infection .
There are still some drawbacks associated with those vaccines , but are there none associated with the mass destruction of animals ? No one less than the International Bureau for Infectious Livestock Diseases ( Office international des épizooties ) recommends that in serious outbreaks of swine fever , countries that previously did not vaccinate should consider emergency use of a marker vaccine .
Infectious animal diseases , like swine fever , show the weaknesses of current agricultural policy .
It is wrong that organic farming and extensive animal husbandry should be proposed as the solution .
These forms of agriculture are not less susceptible to livestock disease , on the contrary .
Because of the high level of enclosure in intensive livestock farming , these businesses are precisely less susceptible to infection .
That is not to say that organic farming does not have desirable aspects – its small-scale nature has many advantages .
A combination of the small-scale structure of organic farming and the enclosure of intensive livestock keeping is a key for the future .
For production we must abandon large-scale mobility and switch to more enclosed operations , no longer with international , but with regional circuits .
– Mr President , may I add my congratulations to the rapporteur for a very welcome report .
Swine fever , like foot-and-mouth , does re-emerge from time to time in different Member States throughout the European Union .
Unfortunately , the only way of controlling it , at the moment , is by large-scale slaughter of animals , many of which are free from disease .
To date , we have not been able , as has already been said , to develop a marker vaccine capable of controlling the disease .
I find it very hard in this modern day and age to understand why we have not made greater progress .
You need only look at everything we have at our disposal , and at the costs incurred in this senseless slaughter of thousands of innocent animals .
We heard this week that in the United Kingdom for every one proven case of foot-and-mouth , animals have been slaughtered on five or six farms around that case .
The cost , not only to the Exchequer and to the European Union , but the real cost of the loss of these animals , is enormous .
The agriculture industry certainly does not need anymore bad publicity and I support Mr Stevenson's position on the amendments put forward by Mr Mulder .
It is all very well to speak of stringent controls , but you cannot guard against human failure .
You cannot prevent a failure by a single individual and it only takes one person not to follow those controls and the feeding of swill creates a real problem as seems to have been the case in the United Kingdom with foot-and-mouth .
I understand that it will be very difficult and take time to secure agreement between all the parties involved – our trade partners and everyone else .
But we must begin and we must put down a marker now .
We must never again go through what we have just witnessed , be it with swine fever or with foot-and-mouth .
There has to be a better way .
The people of the European Union are demanding this .
Many farmers demand that there has to be a better method of control .
It is incumbent upon us to find a better way rather than witness the senseless slaughter we have recently seen .
No one can convince me that we have got it right at present .
I do not believe we have .
We have made mistakes and we should recognise those mistakes and put those mistakes right sooner , rather than later .
I wish to thank the rapporteur , Mrs Redondo Jiménez and the Agriculture Committee for the report on the proposal for a Council directive on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever .
The main purpose of the Commission proposal is to update the existing control provisions on swine fever , so as to take into account the most recent knowledge and experience acquired in controlling its agent .
The proposal also takes account of the development of new diagnostic tools and vaccines , and of the opinions given by the Scientific Committee on these issues .
This House is well aware that in 1997/1998 , a major outbreak of classical swine fever occurred in several Member States .
This crisis led the Commission to review Community legislation on this issue and to look at the possibility of introducing provisions on the use of the so-called marker vaccines as an additional tool against the disease in case of emergency .
The urgency for this review has been added to by the worrying outbreak in the United Kingdom last year , and today there is confirmation of an outbreak in the region of Lérida in Catalonia , Spain .
The Commission has immediately taken a decision , in full consultation with the Spanish authorities , to impose restrictions on exports from this region .
This decision will be reviewed at a meeting of the Standing Veterinary Committee , scheduled for this week .
The decision taken today has immediate effect until 30 June and will be reviewed in the meantime .
Before standing up in this debate , I had a brief telephone conversation on this matter with the Spanish Minister for Agriculture .
A single farm is concerned , and I am happy to say that he informed me that all of the animals moved from that farm before confirmation had been slaughtered .
However , we must remain particularly vigilant in relation to this issue .
The situation will need to be followed up very closely , and I will be happy to keep Parliament informed of developments .
Returning to the current proposal , and marker vaccination in particular , the Commission financed specific trials and research projects .
By means of this research very valuable information was obtained .
It has been essential for the Commission in drawing up its proposal and cautiously paving the way for the potential use of these vaccines .
Clearly , their use can only be envisaged in an emergency situation and once laboratory tests are available to discriminate between vaccinated and infected animals .
Here I must emphasise the importance of the efficacy of the tests , as distinct from the marker vaccinations themselves .
Encouragingly , Parliament's Agriculture Committee , the Economic and Social Committee , the Committee of the Regions and the Member States , largely support the Commission's approach to this sensitive issue .
This contrasts with the situation a few years ago , when quite different opinions were expressed by the experts themselves .
This reminds us of the importance of scientific investigation , so that informed answers can be given to technically complex matters such as this .
Indeed , I am aware that in preparing her report , Mrs Redondo organised an interesting and important hearing in the Agricultural Committee attended by swine fever experts from different Member States to better understand the progress made on this issue after the outbreak from 1997/1998 .
The report of Madame Redondo largely supports the main aspects of the Commission proposal and of course , I am obviously very pleased about this .
However , allow me to address in detail the amendments , which have been proposed .
I will begin with the amendments the Commission cannot accept .
The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 2 to 5 , 26 , 28 and 30 , as they go beyond the scope of this directive .
I understand that the recent FMD crisis has prompted Parliament to raise some horizontal problems related to animal health , which certainly need to be addressed .
The report deals for example with the implementation of controls on imports of live animals and products , traceability , financing of costs related to animal diseases and future animal health problems , which may emerge in relation to enlargement .
I share the concern of the Parliament .
But these complex issues cannot be addressed in this directive .
I have already informed this Assembly that the Commission will address those issues before the end of the year in a separate legal framework .
The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 6 to 8 , 12 , 16 to 18 , 22 , 24 , 25 and 29 , which contain certain technical details of relatively minor importance , for which the Commission considers the text of its proposal more suitable .
Amendment No 15 concerns the establishment of Community financed market support measures , in case of prolonged standstill of pigs in holdings kept under movement restrictions due to an outbreak of swine fever .
The Commission cannot accept this amendment , as such decisions must be taken on a case-by-case basis .
The legal basis for doing so already exists in the framework of the common market organisation for pig meat .
This mechanism demonstrated its efficiency and there is no need for further legal provisions in this regard .
Amendments Nos 20 and 21 concern the role of different authorities in the control of classical swine fever in wild boar .
The Commission cannot accept these amendments , as it is for the Member States to ensure that all authorities potentially involved in the control of the disease are given a proper role .
Their co-ordination must be guaranteed to ensure proper eradication .
Amendment No 23 concerns the introduction of an article on the potential use of marker vaccines .
As I have already said , the Commission and Parliament agree on this important issue .
The Commission however cannot accept this amendment , as its proposal already includes comprehensive provisions on marker vaccines .
However , we will take into account Parliament's remarks in a new recital .
Amendments Nos 20 and 29 concern the legal status of the classical swine fever diagnostic manual , which the Commission intends to adopt .
After the adoption of this directive , following the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee , the report suggests including this manual as part of the directive itself .
The Commission feels that this could create confusion from a legal point of view and thus cannot accept these amendments .
However , some modifications will be introduced in the text to reinforce the concept but the manual must be an essential part of Community legislation on swine fever .
Amendments Nos 24 and 25 note the need for some transitional provisions on contingency plans , which are indeed already in Article 28 of the proposal .
While the Commission shares the views of the Parliament , it cannot accept these amendments .
On the other hand , the Commission can accept entirely or partially , a number of amendments .
In these cases , drafting changes are also needed .
These concern not only some technical aspects of the directive , like disinfection of holdings , or other contaminated materials and sampling of suspected pigs , but also some more substantial and sensitive issues , like marker vaccination and the introduction of a ban on feeding pigs with catering waste .
On this last issue , I can only add to what I have already said in this Chamber last Tuesday , during the debate on the regulation of animal by-products , that the Commission is committed to ensure consistency between this directive and that regulation .
In summary , the Commission can accept the following amendments in full or in part and subject to necessary drafting changes: Amendments Nos 1 , 9-11 , 14 , 19 , 27 , 31 and 32 .
The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 2-8 , 12 , 13 , 15-18 , 20-26 , 28-30 and 33-37 .
To conclude , ladies and gentlemen , I wish once again to thank Madam Redondo and the Agriculture Committee for the excellent report and their support .
European Parliament Fact Sheets - 4 .
Public health European Parliament Fact Sheets
Public health
LEGAL BASIS AND OBJECTIVES
Historically , EU health policy originated from health and safety provisions , and later developed as a result of free movement of people and goods in the internal market which required coordination in public health
In harmonising measures to create the internal market , a high level of protection formed the basis for proposals in the field of health and safety
Various factors , including the BSE crisis towards the end of the century put health and consumer protection high on the political agenda .
As a result , DGXXIV ( renamed SANCO ) was considerably reinforced .
The ECT , whilst not introducing an EU health policy , nonetheless takes a number of steps in that direction .
Art . 152 stipulates that: "a high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Community policies and activities" and includes: "by way of derogation from art . 37" ( CAP ) "measures in the veterinary and phytosanitary fields which have as their direct objective the protection of human health
" These measures , plus measures concerned with human blood and organ quality and incentive measures designed to protect and improve human health , are subject to qualified majority voting in the Council .
ACHIEVEMENTS
Early development
Despite the absence of a clear legal basis , public health policy had developed in several areas prior to the current Treaty .
These included: medicines .
Legislation introduced since 1965 has sought: high standards in medicine research and manufacturing ; harmonisation of national drug licensing procedures ; rules on advertising , labelling and distribution ; research .
Medical and public health research programmes date back to 1978 , on subjects such as age , environment and life-style related health problems , radiation risks , and human genome analysis , with special focus on major diseases ; mutual assistance . In case of disaster , and extremely serious illness .
The emergence of drug addiction , cancer , and AIDS ( among others ) as major health issues , coupled with the increasingly free movement of patients and health professionals within the EU , pushed public health ever further onto the EU agenda .
Major initiatives launched included the 1987 'Europe against Cancer' and the 1991 'Europe against AIDS' programmes .
In addition , several key resolutions were adopted by the Council's health ministers on health policy , health and the environment , and monitoring and surveillance of communicable diseases .
Developments after the Maastricht Treaty
In November 1993 , the Commission published its 'Communication on the framework for action in the field of public health' which identified eight areas for action .
The programme of Community action focused on promoting healthy lifestyles and behaviour , particularly in the areas of nutrition , alcohol consumption , tobacco and drugs , medicines and medication .
Health monitoring
This programme based on cooperation is less than that proposed by Parliament , which wanted a specific budget and much tighter specifications for an EU , as opposed to member-state programme , including a centre for data collection .
New areas of activity include epidemiological studies to measure the impact of cancer on the population , and research collaboration and dissemination .
In recognition of the strong link between cancer and lifestyles , a special part of the plan is dedicated to alcohol consumption , diet , and most importantly , tobacco smoking , both active and passive .
This runs in conjunction with existing EU legislation on tobacco , which includes: Council Resolution on banning of smoking in public places ( 1989 ) ;
two Directives on labelling of tobacco products , with obligatory health warnings as well as tar and nicotine yields , and also banning oral tobacco products ( 1989 , 1992 ) and the Directive on the maximum tar yield of cigarettes ( 1990 ) .
agreement was reached by the Council and Parliament on the text of a new directive to replace 98/43 ( which was the object of a successful legal challenge ) on the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products .

Together with the directive on television advertising of tobacco products , this directive will ban the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products in the EU .
The EU set up the European Committee to Combat Drugs ( CELAD ) in 1990 , and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction ( based in Lisbon ) in 1995 .
The EU has also signed the UN Convention against illicit traffic in narcotics , as well as developing bilateral contacts with producer countries .
AIDS and communicable diseases
The current programme comprises information , education and preventive measures to combat AIDS and other related communicable diseases .
Emphasis is also placed on collaborative research , international cooperation , and information pooling .
The Commission has also proposed the creation of a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of AIDS and other communicable diseases such as Creutefeld –Jakob .
Injury prevention
The programme focuses on home and leisure accidents and targets children , adolescents and older people .
Activities are complementary to those pursued in other fields such as consumer protection , transport civil protection and the Ehlass programme .
Pollution-related diseases
Many of the provisions of the fifth environmental action plan - on energy , transport , and agriculture - will have a significant indirect health impact .
The pollution-related diseases programme concentrates on the improvement of data and risk perception as well as disease-specific actions for respiratory conditions and allergies .
Rare diseases
This programme targets those diseases with a prevalence rate of less than five people per 10 000 EU population .
It is intended to create an EU database and information exchange to improve early detection and to identify possible "clusters" as well as encouraging the setting up of support groups .
Other Activities
Activities outside the eight programmes included tobacco control , surveillance and control of communicable diseases , safety of blood and blood products and various reports and studies .
Recent developments
Evaluation of the current programmes
The eight programmes carried out between 1996 and 2002 were evaluated during 2003 .
During their lifetime the overall design of the programmes was criticised as limited in effectiveness because of the dilution caused by its disease-by-disease approach .
Calls were made for a more horizontal , inter-disciplinary approach concentrating on areas where EU action could produce "added value" .
In May 2000 the Commission put forward its proposal for a new programme to replace the existing 8 programmes by a single integrated horizontal scheme .
The long co-decision procedure for the proposal ended successfully and the final Decision was published in October 2002 to come into effect on 1 January 2003 and to run for six years with a budget of €312m .
The new programme will focus on key priorities where a real difference can be made .
It focuses on three strands of action: Mutual exchange of informationKnowledge about people's health , health interventions and health system functioning .
The inclusion of health system comparisons is a new element here , since this was always considered as a purely national matter .
In terms of organisation it still is , but systems have much to learn from each other and Court of Justice decisions regarding the ability of citizens to seek medical help in other Member States have increased the importance of this aspect as has the fact that EU Member States face the same kinds of problems with respect to provision of health services to an increasingly aged population .
Strengthening rapid response capacityThe rapid response capacity in the EU for coordinated reactions to major threats to health is now seen as essential , especially in the light of bio-terrorist threat and worldwide epidemics easily transmissible in these days of rapid worldwide transport .
Targeting actions to promote health and disease preventionThis is to be undertaken by tackling the key underlying causes of ill-health relating to personal lifestyles and economic and environmental factors .
This will entail in particular closely working with other EU policy areas such as environment , transport agriculture and economic development .
In addition it will mean closer consultation with all interested parties and greater openness and transparency in decision-making .
A key initiative in this is the setting up of an EU Health Forum as a consultative mechanism .
Provisions have been made for structural arrangements , establishing a new programme committee and strengthening the Commission's coordinating and technical capabilities by the externalising of some functions , possibly by the creation of an Executive Agency for certain functions , once a Regulation for the establishment of such agencies is adopted .
In addition to projects to projects on specific areas of the three policy strands there will be cross-cutting projects involving elements of all three .
Projects will be much more clearly linked to policy development needs and will be larger than in the past to ensure added value at EU level and a measurable and sustainable contribution to public health .
Some projects will involve all member states including accession countries , whose inclusion in the programme from an early stage is regarded as essential .
Parliament has consistently promoted the establishment of a coherent public health policy .
It has also actively sought to strengthen and promote health policy through numerous opinions and own-initiative reports on issues including
radiation protection for patients undergoing medical treatment or diagnosis
respect for life and care of the terminally ill
a European charter for children in hospital ; research in biotechnology including organ transplants and surrogate motherhood ; safety and self-sufficiency in the EU's supply of blood for transfusion and other medical purposes ; hormones ; drugs ; tobacco and smoking ; breast cancer and women's health in particular ; ionising radiation ;
EU health card: a European health card incorporating a microchip containing essential medical data which could be read by any doctor ; BSE and its aftermath and food safety and health risks ; biotechnology and its medical implications ; the rights of patients to seek medical assistance and care in other Member States .
Debates Thursday 22 April 2004OJ edition
Answer ( EN ) As the Honourable Member is aware , the identification document was established for both registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production to address public health , animal health and animal welfare concerns relating to individual animals .
I would like to point out that it is for the Commission to ensure , pursuant to article 211 first indent of the Treaty , that the relevant provisions are correctly applied .
Subject: Taking forward the Commission Communication on Health and Poverty Reduction in Developing Countries In September 2003 , the European Parliament adopted a motion for a resolution on the Commission Communication setting the political framework for public health aid in developing countries
 ) in which it stressed the need to extend the focus of EU policy from the three poverty diseases referred to in the Communication ( HIV/AIDS , tuberculosis and malaria ) to other areas of healthcare .
Moreover , in May 2002 , the EU Council of Ministers adopted a Resolution in which it endorsed the intention of the European Commission to strengthen cooperative arrangements with the Member States , international organisations and public-private partnerships .
Can the Commission indicate how it intends to contribute to sustained support for the health and poverty-reduction programme in developing countries beyond HIV/AIDS , TB and malaria ?
The Commission’s Communication on Health and Poverty Reduction in developing countries sets out a comprehensive set of policies and strategies for improving the health outcomes of poor people in developing countries and hence achieving the Millennium Development Goals that relate to health .
It aims specifically to help developing countries to develop dynamic , responsive and sustainable health systems that are capable of responding effectively to the myriad of health and health-related challenges that they face .
In order to achieve its aims the Commission is working to make the delivery of EC’s aid as effective as possible .
To this end it is cooperating closely with the Member States and other donors to strengthen the harmonisation of policies and aid modalities for better health outcomes , with a particular focus on the development of sector wide approaches in health .
The Commission chose to highlight certain poverty-related diseases – notably HIV/AIDS , malaria and tuberculosis – as being of high priority to us , because of the particular severity of the threat they pose to global health and the potential added value of certain Community actions in the fight against them .
It does not intend to develop further specific initiatives related to the fight against particular diseases or conditions , except in certain very special cases such as the global campaign to eradicate polio .
In general , it believes that better health in developing countries will be best achieved and sustained through the provision of general or sector budget support linked to strong policy dialogue with the country concerned .
This will be aimed both at providing flexible support for strong and responsive health systems , and at ensuring adequate investment in other sectors which impact on health , such as water and sanitation , education , and so on .
Funding for poverty diseases other than HIV , malaria and tuberculosis in the 2005 and 2006 EU budgetsIn the last two years , the European Parliament has voted in favour of appropriations intended to finance pilot projects to combat poverty-related diseases other than HIV/AIDS , malaria and tuberculosis
In spite of the commitment made by the international community in 2000 to reduce by two thirds the mortality rate among children under five by 2015 ( Millennium Development Goal number 4 ) , UNICEF report that in 2003 a quarter of the world’s children still had no protection from vaccine-preventable diseases .
At a time when epidemics spread faster and further than before , health interdependence between different regions of the world has deepened , and immunisation in one country can be the key to reduction of disease in others .
In light of this worrying situation , does the European Commission intend to renew and expand these appropriations in the preliminary draft budget for 2005 and beyond ?
Answer ( EN ) The Commission has provided €4 million to the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunisation ( GAVI ) through grants made under the provisions of the special budget line for poverty diseases other than HIV/AIDS , malaria and tuberculosis .
The funding was provided as a pilot project in 2003 and 2004 .
There is no legal basis for this budget line and the budgetary rules do not allow for provision of any further funding in 2005 or 2006 .
The Commission is , however , currently negotiating with relevant parties a package of support for a number of African , Caribbean and Pacific ( ACP ) countries for the global polio eradication initiative .
This is a special situation where the global community is aiming to eradicate a specific disease , and achievement of high immunisation rates in all countries at the same time is particularly important .
In the long term the Commission believes that the only way to ensure continued high rates of protection against vaccine-preventable diseases will be through the development of sustainable programmes for childhood immunisation by developing countries themselves , as an element of a comprehensive package of interventions for the prevention and treatment of childhood illness .
In this context , the aim is to move to providing support for the health sector as a whole rather than for specific health projects .
Where such a sector wide approach is in place the Commission highlights the importance of immunisation in its dialogue with national authorities .
In those ACP countries where the Commission is providing general budget support , immunisation coverage rates are frequently selected as one of the performance indicators in the health sector for determining the size of the variable tranche .
Positive results are being seen from this approach .
For example , in Mozambique , where the Commission is providing both general budget support and sector support , a national household survey last year found that immunisation coverage improved significantly for all childhood vaccines compared to 1997 .
Infant mortality fell from 149 to 101 per 1000 live births over the same period , which is a truly remarkable achievement .
The Commission is providing support for collaborative North-South research on a large number of neglected diseases linked to poverty as well as on major childhood diseases under its Research and Technological Development 6th Framework Programme .
French ban on 'clubbers drink'In its press release of 5 February 2004 the Court of Justice states with regard to its judgment on Case C-24/00 on the marketing of foodstuffs for human consumption enriched with nutrients
‘as regards energy drinks whose caffeine content exceeds a certain limit’ ( citing a specific product as an example ) ‘and those to which taurine and glucurunolactone have been added , French scientists have stated in an opinion that caffeine poses real risks to public health if consumed to excess and the Scientific Committee on Human Nutrition gave an adverse opinion on drinks containing those two additives .
The Court considers those opinions to be relevant since the Commission did not adduce any evidence sufficient to call into question the French authorities’ analysis as regards the dangers which those drinks pose to public health .
’What is the Commission's response to this part of the judgment in the case it brought against France , and does it consider that the EC labelling directive will need to be further amended and , finally , what is the Commission's response to the new US ban on the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids which the FDA considers present an unreasonable risk of illness or injury ?
With regard to the judgement of the Court of Justice on case C-24/00 , the Commission concluded that the Court did not take a position on the maximum level of caffeine contained in “energy drinks” or the presence in these drinks of taurine and glucoronolactone , but rather the Commission had not provided evidences at this stage to call into question the French policy based on the scientific opinions mentioned by the Honourable Member .
In accordance with current Community legislation on the labelling of foodstuffs the above substances , if used as ingredients , must be indicated in the list of ingredients .
In addition , in order to take into account the opinion of the Scientific Committee for Food ( SCF ) , Directive 2002/67/EC of 18 July 2002 , on the labelling of foodstuffs containing quinine and of foodstuffs containing caffeine , imposes a warning and the indication of the caffeine content for beverages containing more than 150mg/l of caffeine .
The Member States have to prohibit trade in products which do not comply with this Directive as of 1 July 2004 .
Consequently , the Commission does not consider that further labelling requirements are necessary .
However , the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has proposed a of the Parliament and of the Council on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods ( 11 ) .
The proposed Regulation aims to harmonise divergent national rules concerning the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection and the free circulation of goods within the Community .
This text establishes a positive list of vitamins and minerals that may be added to food and lays out a procedure that would allow the regulation or , imposition of conditions on , or prohibition of , the use in foods of certain substances , such as those mentioned by the Honourable Member , following consultations with the European Food Safety Authority .
Regarding the presence of certain ingredients in food supplements , the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that Directive 2002/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements lays down specific rules for the use of vitamins and minerals as ingredients in food supplements .
Specific rules to harmonise the use of other ingredients in food supplements such as ephedrine alkaloids may be proposed at a later stage .
Until then , the use of these substances is subject to national rules , without prejudice to the provisions of the Treaty .
The Commission intends to raise the United States ban on food supplements containing ephedrine with the Member States in the near future .
*** Subject: Evaluation of the active substances 'imidacloprid' and 'fipronil' under Directive 91/414/EECIn 1999 , I asked the Commission ( 27 ) about the need to speed up the evaluation of imidacloprid given its potential implication in the high mortality rate among bees in France next to sunflower fields treated with ‘Gaucho’ .
Souchet ( 28 ) on the potential toxicity of fipronil and imidacloprid for bees: ‘The Commission has not so far received any scientific information on similar problems in other Member States .
’ In the meantime , the situation has worsened .
In Belgium , there has been a decline in the bee population near ‘Gaucho’ maize crops and near rape crops planted in fields where ‘Gaucho’ beetroot or cereal crops had been grown previously .
According to the information available to me , serious reductions in bee numbers have also been recorded in other Member States ( in particular , Germany , Sweden and Northern Ireland ) .
The disappearance of bees clearly represents a serious threat to biodiversity .
Faced with this alarming state of affairs , what prevents the Commission from calling for the evaluation of imidacloprid and fipronil during the first stage of evaluation of existing active substances under Directive 91/414/EEC ( 29 ) ? What steps has the Commission itself taken to help determine the cause of the increased mortality rate ?
The Commission is fully aware of reports about an increased mortality of honeybees in certain regions of France .
Beekeepers allege that two phytopharmaceutical substances , fipronil and imidacloprid are the principal cause of the mortality .
Other circles voice that this causal link is far from being certain and claim that a large variety of possibly interacting factors might be at the source of this phenomenon .
This was also recognised by this Parliament in its recent resolution on the problems faced by the beekeeping sector .
At this stage , the Commission awaits the outcome of a number of investigations that are being currently undertaken in France as well as the Community evaluations of the two substances .
It also has forwarded the relevant information to the European Food Safety Authority ( EFSA ) which is responsible for performing the risk assessment for both substances .
As to the measures taken by the French authorities , the marketing conditions of these substances , pending a Community Decision on them , are subject to a transitional derogation during which national rules continue to apply .
This transitional regime is explicitly authorised by Article 8 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 on the placing of plant protection products on the market ( 30 ) .
As the safety evaluation is not yet finalised and no Community harmonisation has taken place , the Commission is not in a position to propose measures at this time .
Should it become clear that the substances pose an unacceptable direct or indirect risk to non-target species , a category which expressly includes honeybees and their larvae , or fail to meet any other requirements necessary for ensuring a safe use , the Commission would then formally propose the non-inclusion of the substances in Annex I ( "Active substances for incorporation in plant protection products" ) of the above Directive .
The practical consequences of such non-inclusion are the banning of the substances from the EU market .
The Commission understands that the Honourable Member makes a plea for a priority assessment for both substances and to shift them to the first stage of evaluation .
However , this is not possible for different reasons .
The review programme of existing active substances is organised in four stages , providing clear legal deadlines for industry , Member States and the Commission and modifying them would lead to situations of legal uncertainties .
One should not forget that the first stage was already established in 1993 .
Also , from a pure management point of view , the scarce scientific resources had to be used in the most efficient manner and the preparation of the technical dossier by the applicant and the evaluation exercise itself are processes that can take up to ten years .
In practical terms , re-scheduling to phase one would not have accelerated the evaluations , both of which are now ongoing .
The evaluation of fipronil is already at EFSA level while for imidacloprid Germany , as Rapporteur Member State , is preparing the draft assessment report .
In both cases , important input is expected from the different studies that are being carried out on the subject .
Also , it is fully recognised that the situation is of serious concern , not only from an ecological but also from a social point of view , considering the dramatic consequences on the welfare of the beekeepers and their families .
Therefore the Commission notes with great satisfaction the progress made during this very session of the Parliament on the enlarged specific supporting measures that in the future will become possible through the adoption of the new Council Regulation on actions in the field of beekeeping .

 ? ?

 ? ?

 ? ?

 ? ?




1