ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3353/98

by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Subject: Cross-fertilisation of transgenic crops with related non-transgenic food crops

Is the Commission aware of the possibility that field experiments can be conducted with transgenic crops in which use is made of gene constructs that might well represent a potential danger to human health if consumed?

Is the Commission aware of the possibility that such gene constructs could accidentally find their way into related non-transgenic food crops by way of cross-fertilisation?

Will the Commission propose measures as part of the review of Directive 90/220(1) that will prevent cross-fertilization at the stage of field experiments for as long as any uncertainty remains concerning the food-safety of the relevant gene construct and the expression products in different varieties?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 1999)

Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) lays down the provisions for undertaking a deliberate release of GMOs for research and development purposes (field experiments). Under the Directive the Member States have a duty to ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to avoid adverse effects to human health and the environment which might arise from the deliberate release of GMOs.

Deliberate releases for research and development purposes of genetically modified organisms are only authorised following a thorough risk assessment. In accordance with the Directive the risk assessment takes into account all the issues mentioned by the Honourable Member. Consents for the release of GMOs are only granted if there is no reason to believe that there will be any adverse effects on human health and the environment. If it is deemed necessary from the risk assessment to require measures to minimise gene transfer, such as an isolation distance, these are made a condition of the consent.

Since 1986 the Commission has spent ECU 31 million on biosafety research, which has addressed the potential risks for human health and the environment with regard to GMOs. The results from this research indicate that the technology of genetic modification is not inherently dangerous. Any risks arising from the application of the technology depend upon the characteristics introduced into the plant. The data from that research will contribute to the scientific basis required for a full and sufficient risk assessment of GMOs.

Article 4 (3) requires the authorities to organise inspections and other control measures to ensure compliance with the Directive and consents issued under the Directive.

The Commission proposal for amending Directive 90/220/EEC(2) aims to maintain the high standards for a complete risk assessment for deliberate releases in order to ensure safety for the environment and human health. It also aims to harmonise the risk assessment and increase efficiency and transparency in order to build up long term confidence in the regulatory system with the public.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.

(2) COM(98) 85 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3104/98

by Sirkka-Liisa Anttila (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Eliminating the EU's surplus of pork for export arising from the Asian and Russian crises

Within the European Union, the BSE crisis made it possible to sell more pork between 1996 and 1998. The rise in consumer demand encouraged farmers to produce more pork than previously. Consequently, production rose by more than 30 % within the EU - a figure equivalent to the EU's annual exports of pork to Russia. Now the Russian market has collapsed. The rise in consumption occasioned by the BSE crisis has also ceased. Thus the problem of overproduction in the sector is serious, as it could be tackled with the aid of exports only by finding new export markets capable of absorbing a volume equivalent to total previous annual exports to third countries.

The management committee for the industry has recommended introducing subsidies for private storage. This by itself will not be sufficient: more effective measures are needed to overcome the problem of overproduction. The option which ought to be pursued is using environmental subsidies to reduce production in those areas where the greatest environmental risks exist. Salmonella is a problem in many producing countries. One objective of reducing production in such cases should be to ensure the production of high-quality meat and to reduce production affected by salmonella.

Producer prices for pork are already so low that they cover only part of production costs. There are serious problems in the pork market, therefore. We must not allow this situation to continue, because it will result in widespread bankruptcies in the industry.

What will the Commission do to eliminate overproduction in the pork sector and the consequent serious market problems, and what is its timetable for this?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 1998)

It is true that pig meat production in Community is increasing from the 1997 level, probably by around 6 %. The serious market disturbance is created by this oversupply of meat and naturally the difficulties in export markets have made it more serious.

The Community exported in 1997 a total of 1,06 million tonnes of pigmeat to third countries, of which exports to Russia were 32 %. After the Russian crisis began in August, Community exports rapidly decreased, but a recovery is already under way, since some Member States now export to Russia. Developments in recent weeks show that exports to the Far East are improving and that also new market outlets have been found.

As long as prospects for export were poor it was not considered effective to raise export refunds. Now as export prospects seem to be improving again, the export refunds for pig carcasses and cuts have been raised with effect from 15 October 1998. The export refunds and the aid for private storage are the only market support measures provided under the pigmeat market organisation. They both are now in effective use.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3749/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Independence of the Faroe Islands

What arrangements and treaties would have to be renegotiated between the Faroe Islands and the EU if Denmark were to grant the Islands independence? How long would this take?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 1999)

Relationships between the Community and the Faroe Islands are, at present, set out in two basic agreements; one on fisheries (Council Regulation (EEC) 2211/80 of 27 June 1980 on the conclusion of the Agreement on fisheries between the European Economic Community and the Government of Denmark and the Home Government of the Faroe Islands(1)), the other on trade (Council Decision of 6 December 1996 concerning the conclusion of an agreement between the Community, of the one part, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Government of the Faroe Islands, of the other part(2)). The issues involved in any renegotiation of these agreements would need to be adressed if and when the question of independence for the Faroe Islands came to the fore.

(1) OJ L 226, 29.8.1980.

(2) OJ L 53, 22.2.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3931/98

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Territorial pacts for employment

On 8, 9 and 10 October this year the Commission held the first forum for the exchange of ideas on rural development and employment in Turku, Finland.

During the forum the Commission announced that it was considering the possibility of granting additional funding to promote the transfer of "good practice" in order to establish a link with the next programming period for the Structural Funds.

Can the Commission say what conclusions it has reached on this subject?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 1999)

The forum to which the Honourable Member refers was organised for the 89 territorial pacts for employment and enabled over 700 bilateral meetings to be held.

On that occasion the Commission representatives referred to the principle of stepping up Community technical assistance for the territorial pacts for employment so they could prepare to gear their action plans to the new Structural Fund programming for 2000-2006.

The practical details of how this will be done are still being studied, within a ceiling of EUR 100 000 per pact. In any case this additional funding will be dependent on the provision of a satisfactory account of how the technical assistance already granted was used and on the preparation of a work programme covering the period after 1999 and centred on the adaptation at local level of good practice useful in the context of the pacts' action plans, such as that presented at the Turku forum.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2312/98

by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Directive 93/42/EEC

On the 15 June 1998 Directive 93/42/EEC(1) concerning medical devices came into force. The Italian government's interpretation of this legislation as regards its application to opticians is as follows: "the legislation in question does not apply to those carrying out the auxiliary profession of optician" (ministry of health circular of 12.6.98), which completely contradicts the ministry's earlier interpretation. The auxiliary medical profession of optician is perfectly compatible with the above directive because opticians entirely match the description of "manufacturer" in that they are professional technicians who produce only tailor-made devices with a view to their being placed on the market under their own name. All countries except for Belgium have interpreted Directive 93/42/EEC as covering opticians by virtue of their manufacturing or assembly activities.

Does the Commission consider it necessary to take steps in order to press for the Italian government to adopt an interpretation of Directive 93/42/EEC that is more in accordance with its content?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 1998)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform him of its findings.

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3933/98

by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: European Union aid for the conservation of Mediterranean forests

Mediterranean forests are less profitable than the forests of Northern Europe, but their conservation is essential to maintaining the ecosystem. This view was expressed by those taking part in the International Conference on Mediterranean Forests held recently in the Spanish town of Benalmádena (Málaga).

The aim of the meeting was to devise common policies among the countries bordering on the Mediterranean and to ensure the support of national and EU authorities for the forests in southern Europe.

Can the Commission explain its position on the support advocated for the conservation of Mediterranean forests and what possible Community programme might be used to ensure that the ecosystem of the Mediterranean region is more effectively protected against the growing process of desertification afflicting it?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 1999)

The Commission is well aware of the specific characteristics of Mediterranean forests and the need to ensure their conservation.

There is already a range of Community measures under which aid can be granted for Mediterranean forests: Council Regulation (EEC) 2080/92 of 30 June 1992 instituting a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture(1) (afforestation of agricultural land, improvement of wooded areas), Council Regulation (EEC) 2158/92 of 23 July 1992 on protection of the Community's forests against fire(2), and the regional programmes of the Structural Funds (EAGGF Guidance, Cohesion Fund).

Within the Agenda 2000(3) framework the Commission has drawn up a proposal for a Regulation on support for rural development from the EAGGF(4) that includes a forestry chapter covering inter alia "preserving and improving the ecological stability of forests or restoring damaged forests in areas with serious natural handicaps, where the protective and ecological role of these forests are in the general interest and where this role cannot be solely assured by income from sylviculture" (Article 30). The provisions of this new Regulation together with the fire protection provisions of the existing Regulations should enable regional authorities to continue and reinforce from the year 2000 their action to conserve Mediterranean forests.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 217, 31.7.1992.

(3) COM(97) 2000 final.

(4) OJ C 170, 4.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3920/98

by Armelle Guinebertière (UPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Extension of European Union regulations on organic production of agricultural products to livestock production without consultation of the European Parliament on the new proposal

The European Parliament delivered an opinion in May 1997 on the Commission's proposal for a European regulation on organic livestock production. A new proposal is to be submitted to the Council on 14 December of this year, but it has still not been placed on the European Parliament's agenda, although it includes measures which are contested by the relevant professional associations at European level.

Under these circumstances can the Commission prevent the Council from taking too rapid a decision, which would be made without the European Parliament having given its opinion on the new proposal?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 1999)

In response to Parliament's opinion of 14 May 1997 on the Commission's proposal(1) bringing livestock production within the scope of Council Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs(2), the Commission prepared a new proposal(3) incorporating the amendments proposed by Parliament that it agreed to.

This proposal was submitted to the Council, which is continuing to examine it under Article 43 of the EC Treaty, this being the legal basis for it.

(1) OJ C 293, 5.10.1996.

(2) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991.

(3) COM(97) 747 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3904/98

by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Checks on olive residue

The Regulation on the application of production aid for olive oil lays down that, where olive residue is sent to an extraction establishment, quantities must be determined batch by batch, indicating the consignee, whereas "in other cases" they must merely be determined on a flat-rate basis, indicating the consignee.

In the latter case the consignee may act as an intermediary, since that person is named only as the consignee for the total amount, and there are no subsequent checks.

Is it not inconsistent that it should be possible to circumvent checks through the interposition of an intermediary?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4078/98

by James Nicholson (PPE) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: Publication "The Raspberry Ice Cream War"

Will the Commission advise what it plans to do with the copies of its publication, The Raspberry Ice Cream War, stockpiled in a warehouse in Oxfordshire, England and advise of the costs of (a) translating and producing the publication in English, (b) shipping the English language copies to England, and (c) storing the copies in the Oxfordshire warehouse?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 1999)

There are no copies stored in Oxfordshire. All were sent back to Luxembourg following the decision not to distribute in the United Kingdom. They have been used to satisfy requests for copies in English outside the United Kingdom.

Total production costs in the eleven official languages were 181 970 euro. Handling and sending costs to and from the United Kingdom were 7 885 euro. There are no storage costs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3700/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(7 December 1998)

Subject: Studies on transitional periods

In the run-up to the Pörtschach summit Austria's Federal Chancellor referred to a study which had been commissioned from research institutes in agreement with the heads of government of the candidate countries and "is to contain the data needed for the calculation of the transitional periods".

1. Is the Commission aware of this?

2. Does it have any information on whether and where these studies have been commissioned?

3. Have tenders been invited, or are they being invited, for these studies throughout the Union, or is this a purely Austrian initiative?

4. Is the Commission cooperating in these studies with the material at its disposal, especially its experience and data in connection with the southward enlargement?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 1999)

The Commission is not aware of the specific study mentioned by the Honourable Member. On the issues related to the accession negotiations many studies are produced. The transitional periods will be decided in the framework of the accession negotiations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4073/98

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: Commission research on Agenda 2000 for "Salzburger Nachrichten"

The Austrian newspaper "Salzburger Nachrichten" regularly publishes series and reports on Agenda 2000. In its issue of 26 November 1998 it expressly mentions that its research into Agenda 2000 has been supported by the Commission.

Can the Commission answer the following:

- What Commission staff member or department is responsible for PR/media contact?

- Was financial support also given for the research? If so, how much? If not, what is meant by 'support'?

- How are the subjects and data selected for channelling to the editors of "Salzburger Nachrichten"?

- Did "Salzburger Nachrichten" have the unrestricted use of the information obtained?

- Was this information available to other media?

- Who is responsible for selecting media eligible for support?

- What is the Commission's aim in providing this support?

- Has the Commission given support to "Salzburger Nachrichten" or other Austrian newspapers in the past? If so, on what subjects (euro, eastward enlargement, Agenda 2000, etc.) and what amounts of support were involved?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 1999)

In addition to the Spokesman's service, the Directorate-general for information, communication, culture, audiovisual media and information networks is responsible for relations with the media.

In 1998 the representation of the Commission in Austria supported the "Salzburger Nachrichten" twice in spring with an amount of 7 267 euros (including taxes) for an information supplement on the euro, and in summer with an amount of 10 832 euros (including taxes) for an advertisement on the IGC.

The "Salzburger Nachrichten" made its own selection of the data, provided by the Commission, the subject being the priority information actions. The newspaper was able to use the information it received without restriction. The same material is available to other media.

The Commission head of representation in Austria is in the first instance responsible for selecting the media, under the authority of the centre in Brussels. The aim of this activity is to inform Austrian citizens about the Community.

Other newspapers have received financial contributions, for basically the same purposes, to a total amount of 40 320 euros.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3646/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Additives in animal feedstuffs

In relation to the "proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs and Directive 95/69/EC laying down the conditions and the arrangements for approving and registering certain establishments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector and amending Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 79/373/EEC and 82/471/EEC" (COM(98) 216 final - 98/0131 CNS)(1), it is necessary to identify methods and instruments that reduce to a minimum the risk of possible distortions of competition resulting from differences between the fees charged by the Member States.

To that end, it would be advisable to provide for a transitional period during which the countries would continue to be free to set the levels of the fees. Subsequently, harmonised amounts applicable in all the countries would be fixed.

Does the Commission intend to amend its proposal along these lines and also to change the dates indicated to reflect this?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

The Commission considers that adopting rules for calculation of fees, as specified in the proposal for a Council Directive amending the two Directives in question, is the better course of action, being one that takes into account experience in other sectors of activity but at the same time will reduce the risk of distortion of competition. The proposal for a Council Decision concerning a Community system of fees in the animal feed sector(2) does however provide that the rules of calculation will be reviewed in the light of reports from the Member States and if appropriate adjusted.

(1) OJ C 155, 20.5.1998, p. 29.

(2) COM(98) 225 final.