ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0653/97 by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Commission (6 March 1997)

Subject: Health and mobile telephones

What facts have prompted the Commission to draw up a plan with a view to intensifying research into the ways in which health may be affected by mobile telephones?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1997)

There has been public debate about the possible health effects of using mobile phones. From time to time, this debate is fed by media attention, in particular in the United States of America but increasingly in Europe as well, and by the publication of results of research work which is often fragmented. The green paper on a common approach in the field of mobile and personal telecommunications ((COM(94) 145. )) therefore proposed further research into the possible health effects related to the use of mobile phones. This need for further research was confirmed during the consultation on the green paper.

Hence, the Commission decided on 5 October 1995 to request a multi-disciplinary group of independent experts to investigate whether the use of mobile phones may cause any health risk and to make any appropriate proposals for further research in this area. In September 1996, the group reported that the available studies and existing literature give no evidence of any increased health risk. However, the group also concluded that data are sparse and insufficient to draw firm conclusions and confirmed that further research is necessary in particular into the a-thermal effects. The group recommended a framework for a research programme that would run over five years.

The Commission is currently considering details of a future research programme in this field.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0903/97 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission (5 March 1997)

Subject: Environmental and health impact of animal waste

What action is the Commission taking to assess the potential environmental and health impact of the incineration and landfill of animal waste?

Is the Commission funding any research into this issue?

What action is the Commission taking to coordinate the research efforts in the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (11 April 1997)

Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (environmental impact assessment (EIA) Directive ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. ))) provides for a mandatory environmental assessment of activities listed in its annex I. Waste-disposal installations for the incineration, chemical treatment or land fill of toxic and dangerous wastes are part of annex I and must, as a consequence, be the subject of an EIA in every case. Directive 97/11/EC ((OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. )), amending Directive 85/337/EEC extends the mandatory EIA activities of annex I considerably and provides additionally to the existing Directive for an EIA of waste disposal installations for the incineration or chemical treatment of non-hazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day.

Under Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC ((OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. )), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC ((OJ L 78, 26.3.1991. )), on waste, Member States have to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and in particular without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals; without causing nuisance through noise or odours; and without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.

The law applicable to animal waste containing pathogens is Directive 90/667/EEC ((OJ L 363, 27.12.1990. )) laying down the veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste, for its placing on the market and for the prevention of pathogens in foodstuffs of animal or fish origin and amending Directive 90/425/EEC ((OJ L 224, 18.8.1990. )).

As far as research in this field is concerned, some related projects have been funded within the framework of the agriculture and agro-industry programme (AIR) programme and the ongoing specific programme for research, technological and development and demonstration in the field of agriculture (FAIR) programme. These research projects deal with treatment of farm slurries and and agro-industrial wastes to reduce the environmental impact and improve the valorisation of such wastes.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1990/97 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (30 May 1997)

Subject: Information on the amount of EC aid granted to the Country of Wiltshire since June 1994

Can the Commission state the total amount of Community aid granted to the County of Wiltshire, in the UK, since June 1994, under:

1. the European Social Fund;

2. the Fourth Research Framework Programme;

3. Community programmes in the environment and energy fields;

4. the EAGGF, Guidance and Guarantee sections;

5. other Community Programmes?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (27 June 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1456/97 by Giovanni Burtone (PPE) to the Commission (23 April 1997)

Subject: Compatibility of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 with Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92

When Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 ((OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 96.)) came into force, a farmer who had already benefitted from the premiums provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 ((OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 85.)) submitted an afforestation project which included two plots (wheat and grassland) already covered by Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92.

Would the Commission state whether:

1. there is any conflict between these two regulations and whether the farmer is eligible for aid under both?

2. the provisions laid down in the last subparagraph of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 746/96 avert any possibility of conflict between the two regulations referred to above?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission 28 May 1997

It is stipulated in the first indent of Article 10(1). The provision in the last indent of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) 746/96 does not refer to the compatibility of the two Regulations concerned but governs the conditions for a change of an undertaking under Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 to an undertaking for afforestation under Regulation (EEC)No 2080/92. Where such transformations occur, the recipient is not obliged to reimburse the aid received for the undertaking under Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92.

In the light of the above it is evident that additionality between the two Regulations is not explicitly prevented, but that it must take account of the general and specific conditions on the combination of aids set out in Regulation (EC) No 746/96.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1109/97 by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission (24 March 1997)

Subject: Animals 'tortured' in order to produce the basic ingredient for pharmaceutical products

In connection with shocking documentation published by 'Impronte', the official journal of the Italian Anti-Vivisection League (LAV), can the Commission say whether it is acquainted with the 'techniques' used at the Wieth-Ayerst laboratory in the United States, where a multinational produces 'Premarin' and exports it all over the world? This pharmaceutical product - according to the October 1996 edition of 'Impronte' - is produced from approximately 75 000 mares in special 'farms' in the United States and Canada. The animals are forced to 'perform' under conditions of torture, because the system for collecting their urine 'injures their flesh' and their supply of water is even rationed in order to obtain urine with a higher concentration of oestrogens (22 litres of water per day instead of the 40-50 litres they need). It should also be noted that at a certain point the horses which survive are sent to special fattening centres and the meat eventually reaches Europe.

In view of all this, is the Commission able and willing to take some action against Wieth-Ayerst, at least in the context of its 'activities' in European Union countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 May 1997)

As the Commission does not have any information to confirm that there are farms within the Community where urine is collected from pregnant mares to produce the pharmaceutical product mentioned by the Honourable Member, it is not possible to take any action.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2077/97 by Riccardo Garosci (UPE) to the Commission (11 June 1997)

Subject: Labelling of packaged foodstuffs

Given that, according to the findings of scientific studies available from Commission DG XII, over one million Italian consumers suffer from disorders caused by allergies to various types of food, while in the European Union as a whole there are estimated to be more than seven million such sufferers (2% of the population), a new Regulation on the labelling of packaged foodstuffs should be introduced with a view to protecting the health of European consumers.

Under the current EU Regulation ingredients comprising less than 25% of a given product are not subject to labelling requirements.

Can the Commission amend the EU Regulation on the labelling of both products packaged within the EU and foodstuffs imported from third countries, so as to enable allergy sufferers to determine the exact proportions of all the ingredients present in packaged foodstuffs?

The Commission should note that, according to reliable scientific evidence, even very small quantities (less than 1%) are sufficient to produce a serious reaction in anyone allergic to a given foodstuff.

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (2 July 1997)

The Commission is currently studying the need to amend Directive 79/112/EEC on the labelling of foodstuffs ((OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, as last amended by Directive 97/4/EC - OJ L 43, 14.2.1997. )) so as to provide better information for persons suffering from a food allergy or intolerance.

Eighteen months ago, at the Commission's request, the Scientific Committee for Food finalised a report on scientific knowledge in this area. As the Honourable Member points out, a more general study in this field - 'Study of nutritional factors in food allergies and food intolerances' ((EUR/16893 (AIR1 - 93 - 8012-IT). )) - was published at the beginning of this year at the Commission's initiative. This work is to be supplemented, within the framework of scientific cooperation between the Member States and the Commission, by a review of available epidemiological data (effect, intake, geographical variations, frequency and degree of hypersensitivity). This is a necessary step in defining the criteria for drawing up a list of ingredients recognised to be a source of allergy or intolerance and which, when used in a foodstuff, should have to appear in the list of ingredients indicated on the label.

On the basis of the results of this epidemiological survey, due at the end of this year, the Commission might be in a position to adopt a proposal to amend Directive 79/112/EEC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1762/97 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: Imports of flowers from Latin American countries

On 29 April I received the Commission's answer to my question E-0901/97 ((OJ C 373, 9.12.1997.)) of 24 April 1997. The Commission states that it does not yet have the results of a large-scale survey of the functioning of the SGP scheme with the countries of the Andean Pact, the Central American Common Market and Panama. The special arrangements with Colombia have been in force since 13 November 1990.

My supplementary questions are as follows:

1. Why is it that in late April 1997 the Commission had still not evaluated the scheme involving Colombia which has been in force since 13 November 1990, particularly as the United States appear to have the requisite information to enable them to evaluate the arrangements and to draw far-reaching conclusions?

2. When does the Commission think it will be able to evaluate these arrangements, and in particular inform Parliament of whether the trading concessions satisfy the original objectives?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (20 June 1997)

1. The Commission keeps a close watch on trends in exports to the Community from the Andean and Central American countries accorded special arrangements under the scheme of generalised tariff preferences. Studies of the impact of those arrangements on Andean trade were carried out prior to the scheme's extension to include Venezuela from 1 January 1995. Via monitoring arrangements set up jointly with the countries concerned, the Commission also keeps abreast of their efforts to combat drug trafficking and progress made in terms of improved legislation, reductions in the area cultivated to produce drugs, and law enforcement.

On the basis of the data available to it, the Commission judged the impact of the special arrangements to be satisfactory, and said so in its report to the Generalised Preferences Committee in December 1995, pursuant to Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3281/94 of 19 December 1994 ((OJ L 348, 31.12.1994. )). Nonetheless, the Commission felt that a more detailed examination of the impact of the special arrangements, including their long-term socio-economic effects, was needed. It was to that comprehensive, up-to-date study that the Commission referred in its answer to the Honourable Member's written question E-0901/97. It is not aware that the US has the information needed to evaluate the effects of the special arrangements granted by the Community.

2. The Commission expects to receive the preliminary conclusions of the study in question in July and to present its final report to the Generalised Preferences Committee when it reconvenes in October.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1492/97 by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) to the Commission (30 April 1997)

Subject: Dealing with changing economic circumstances under EMU

Against the current background of high unemployment in many countries, strict compliance with the convergence criteria for EMU can easily reduce virtually to zero the scope for national measures to boost the economy. The single currency will make exchange rate policies a thing of the past, interest rate policies will be laid down by the joint central bank: these, and many other things, will be facts of life once the third stage of EMU has come into force. The rules laying down the maximum percentages for the budget deficit and public debt and the fines which will be imposed should they be exceeded will make an active budget policy to deal with exceptional national circumstances or requirements impossible.

What measures do the Commission and, at the latter's suggestion, the Council intend to take to ensure that budget deficits and public debts are considered in the light of all the prevailing circumstances and not just on the basis of the situation at a given moment, since only in this way can the Member States be guaranteed at least some scope to deal with changing economic circumstances and, in particular, fight unemployment? Only budget policy measures will be possible.

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1997)

The Commission is aware of the importance of taking into account all relevant information, including the phase of the business cycle, when assessing a Member State's budgetary performance. For this reason, the Treaty and the stability and growth pact allow a public deficit of 3% of gross domestic product or, in case of exceptional and temporary circumstances such as a severe recession, an even higher deficit. Provided that in normal circumstances a Member State aims at balanced public finances, this will provide an ample buffer for recession and allow for countercyclical budgetary policies. Hence, the Commission sees no conflict between active budgetary policies and the Treaty's requirement of sound public finances.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1806/97 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission (28 May 1997)

Subject: EU quotas on electrical goods

Would the Commission give a detailed outlay of any restrictions on the import of electrical wiring accessories (plugs, switches, sockets), into the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (18 July 1997)

Electrical wiring accessories, like switches, plugs and sockets, are not subject to Community quotas on imports. Some restrictions are applied to such products imported from Iraq or Libya ((The electrical apparatus for switching or protecting electrical circuits or for making connections to or in electrical circuits (switches, fuses lightning arresters, voltage limiters, surge suppresors, plugs, junction boxes and the like), for a voltage exceeding 1,000 volts, of CN heading 8535 and the same types of apparatus, for a voltage not exceeding 1,000 volts, of heading 8536 intended strictly for essential civilian needs or for medical purposes are excluded from the ban applying to products originating in Iraq, but require a preliminary import authorisation, pursuant to paragraph 23 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687/1991, to be delivered by the committee established under Security Council Resolution 661/1990, before their import into the Community can be approved. Import into the Community of all components for use in certain types of aircraft within the two mentioned headings originating in Libya is banned, pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) 3274/93 - OJ L 295, 30.11.1993. )).

No particular restriction based on technical rules and standards exists for imported electrical equipment subject to Community harmonisation.

In fact, as far as conditions applicable to placing on the Community market are concerned, electrical equipment, including wiring accessories, is subject to Directive 73/23/EEC, as modified by Directive 93/68/EEC, on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (the low voltage Directive) ((OJ L 220, 30.8.1997. )).

Products imported from third countries into the Community must comply with exactly the same Community rules which apply to domestically produced electrical equipment. The low voltage Directive sets the essential safety requirements applicable. A declaration of conformity by the manufacturer or his authorised representative is required and must be kept at the disposal of market surveillance authorities. No third party certification is required.

For plugs and sockets for domestic use excluded from the scope of that Directive, national provisions and standards are in force.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1786/97 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: Recognition of a European qualification in psychotherapy

Is the Commission aware that the UK Council for Psychotherapy and psychotherapy organizations in other Member States would like recognition for a European Certificate in Psychotherapy so that qualified psychotherapists are recognized and can practise throughout the EU?

This qualification should be open to health practitioners such as doctors and nursing staff and social workers as well as those qualified in psychology or psychiatry.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1997)

The Commission is aware of the European Association of Psychotherapy (EAP)'s initiative to introduce a European Certificate of Psychotherapy (ECP). According to the information available to the Commission, the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy is a member of the EAP, which brings together a large number of national associations representing the profession.

The Commission considers - as it has stated on several occasions, including in its answers to written questions Nos E-3429/93 by Mr Rovsing ((OJ C 268, 26.9.1994. )) and E-4094/93 by Mr Chiabrando and Mr Pisoni ((OJ C 332, 28.11.1994. )) - that initiatives taken by European professional associations such as the EAP can play an important role in Member States' implementation of the 'general system' Directives 89/48/EEC ((OJ L 19, 24.1.1989. )) and 92/51/EEC ((OJ L 209, 24.7.1992. )). In particular, the establishment of joint training standards - more commonly known as joint platforms - such as the ECP can facilitate freedom of establishment by reducing or completely removing any substantial differences between training (differences which would otherwise entail the migrant having to complete an adaptation period or take an aptitude test as provided for by the Directives referred to above).

However, in line with the approach followed by the 'general system' Directives, matters relating to the regulation of professions (requirements governing training and professional practice, competent authorities) fall under the Member States' jurisdiction. Consequently, it is not for the Commission to accept or reject joint platforms established by European professional associations. In other words, the Commission does not formally recognize such joint platforms - even though it is aware of their benefit in promoting free movement of professionals within the single market.

Joint platforms remain private initiatives, and thus cannot replace national regulation. Nevertheless, a certificate such as the ECP submitted by a migrant would provide the host Member State's authorities with certain guarantees as regards the training undergone. Thus the success of initiatives such as that taken by the EAP largely depends on the national authorities' acceptance of each joint platform as a yardstick. The fact that training leading to the award of the ECP is also open to members of other professions is an additional advantage in this regard.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1536/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: Phosphate ester poisoning due to the use of Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen

The flea-repellant Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen can be administered in different forms. Tiguvon 10 is intended for cats over 2 kg in weight. The use of Tiguvon 20 is recommended for dogs weighing between 3 and 10 kg, while dogs with a body weight of more than 10 kg should be treated with Tiguvon 20 G. People who have repeatedly treated their pets with Tiguvon (Fenthion) have suffered serious phosphate ester poisoning. As it was unable to answer my Question E-1470/96 ((OJ C 345, 15.11.1996, p. 76. )) on the same subject, I would ask the Commission to answer the following questions as a matter of urgency:

Is the use of neurotoxins on animals or living organisms permissible? Is the Commission aware that repeated application may lead to organic lesions? Can the possibility of mental changes in animals due to chronic damage be ruled out?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1997)

Veterinary medicinal products can be used on animals, if they are authorised according to Council Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products ((OJ 317, 6.11.1981, as amended by Council Directives 90/676/EEC OJ 373, 31.12.1990, and 93/40/EEC OJ 214, 24.8.1993. )) and Council Directive 81/852/EEC on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to analytical,

pharmatoxicological and clinical standards and protocols in respect of the testing of veterinary medicinal products (1). A product used for ectoparasitic control may have potential neurotoxic properties at certain concentrations and elevated doses. Products which may exhibit neurotoxic effects may be authorised and such effects may lead to organic lesions with subsequent behavioural changes if the product is abused. The safety of the recommended dose is to be considered in the assessment of the safety file submitted to the competent authority to support the application for market authorisation ((Provision concerned. )).

If no such effects are seen at the recommended dose and if the product is used as indicated on the label there should be no cause of concern. The absence of reports on serious adverse reactions indicates that this is currently the case.