WRITTEN QUESTION E-0285/02

by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 February 2002)

Subject: The Scientific Committee's report on the welfare of animals kept for fur production

On 12-13 December 2001 the Commission's Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare approved a report on the welfare of animals kept for fur production.

It is stated at the end of the report that it is based substantially on the work of the working party of scientists set up by the committee and chaired by Dr Robert Danzer. The members of the working party are also listed.

Six of these eight members have now written to the Scientific Committee itemising a number of essential points on which the final report departs from the working party's unanimous conclusions. The letter lists a large number of direct factual errors in the final report. Furthermore, the working party's most important conclusion, i.e. that the welfare of fur animals is fully comparable with that of other animals kept for production purposes, is totally absent.

The upshot is that these six scientists are demanding that the report be corrected in line with the final document of the scientific working party. However, if the Scientific Committee maintains the final report as it stands, the six scientists who signed the latter will quit the working party and ask that their names be deleted from the final report.

Is it customary for scientific committees to distort the opinions of scientists?

Is it customary for the final reports of such committees to contain assertions about the opinions and research findings of named persons that differ from what these persons have themselves presented and from which these persons therefore need to dissociate themselves?

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the work of scientific committees is placed on a scientifically sound footing and the ethical and legal standards governing scientific work are respected?

What action does it intend to take to guarantee the scientific quality of the report in question?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0285/02 and E-0367/02given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, as one of the eight scientific committees established by Commission Decision 97/579/EC of 23 July 1997 setting up Scientific Committees in the

field of consumer health and food safety(1), provides independent scientific advice as part of the risk assessment exercise on potential risks to public health, animal health, animal welfare etc. It is the Commission's policy not to interfere in this process in order to ensure that public trust in the transparency and independence of the risk assessment exercise remains intact.

The Committee's sub-committee on animal welfare established a working group with a mandate to prepare a report on the welfare of animals kept for fur production, for submission to the sub-committee. It was made clear to the working group, as is provided for in the Commission Decision, that it would be the responsibility of the sub-committee to prepare and adopt a draft opinion with a final adoption of the opinion by the Committee after review and possible amendment. This procedure was followed. After an in depth examination of the working group's report, the sub-committee adopted a draft opinion on 26 November 2001, with final adoption by the Committee on 12-13 December 2001. The Commission is satisfied that the provisions of its Decision establishing the Scientific Committees and governing their operation were followed.

Following the adoption of the opinion, a member of the Working Group, on behalf of six of the eight members, sent a letter to the Commission and to the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. The views expressed in the letter were discussed at the meeting of sub-committee on Animal Welfare on 21 of January 2002 and in the meeting of the Scientific Committee on 5 February 2002. The Committee decided to reply to the members of the working group and to publish on the Internet an erratum(2) containing the modifications accepted by the Committee.

The Commission reserves the right to take the final decision on the appropriate follow-up action. This is in accordance with the approach that whilst scientific risk assessment must be carried out independently and transparently by Scientific Committees, risk management is a matter for the Commission and the other Community institutions. In the case of fur farming, the Commission will therefore decide whether follow-up action, if any, is required and will submit any legislative proposals to the Member States and/or the Parliament. The opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare will be taken into account in this process.

(1) OJ L 237, 28.8.1997.

(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scah/outcome_en.html

opinions.