WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1834/98 by Caroline JACKSON to the Commission. Use of non-purpose-bred animals in Belgian research
Date: 1998-06-12
Institutions: European Parliament, JACKSON CAROLINE
Subjects: Belgium, animal experimentation, animal health, animal welfare, application of EU law, domestic animal, protection of animals

C 50/102

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.2.1999

assessment of the exposure of the general population to dioxin via the food chain in France. The monitoring
programme for 1998 covers various foods (milk, farmed and freshwater fish, eggs, beef and veal and lettuce).
Work in this connection is progressing.

In addition, milk monitoring has been stepped up around the principal industrial sources of of dioxin emission
which have been identified.

The Commission has no information on the levels of dioxin detected in milk and meat imported into Greece nor
for that matter on dioxin levels in milk and meat of Greek origin.

(1) TEQ: weighed unit of toxicity of the 17 toxic dioxin molecules.

(1999/C 50/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1834/98

by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission

(12 June 1998)

Subject: Use of non-purpose-bred animals in Belgian research

Can the Commission answer the following questions regarding the implementation of the provisions of Directive
86/609/EEC (1) in Belgium.

1.

It would appear that the use of non-purpose-bred animals for research is common practice in Belgium.
Directive 86/609/EEC (Articles 19(4) and 21) makes it clear that such use should be the exception rather than
the rule. Does the Commission believe that the Directive is being correctly implemented in Belgium?

2. Has Belgium informed the Commission of the source of dogs and cats now used for research in Belgium?

3. According to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, Belgian laboratories are keeping animals in
very poor conditions. Has the Belgian Government furnished evidence to the European Commission that
conditions have now been improved and meet the requirements of the Directive?

4. Although the Commission has now investigated Complaint Number 97/3479, little action seems to have
taken against the Belgian laboratories, the subject of the complaint. Does the Commission feel that the action
taken was sufficient?

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.

(1999/C 50/149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1865/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(16 June 1998)

Subject: Complaint No 97/4397 › Alleged use of stray cats and dogs for research in Belgium

In the past few months, the Commission has made public the results of its investigation into this matter. Despite
the Commission(cid:146)s investigation, however, there remains serious cause for concern about this situation in
Belgium.

Is the Commission satisfied with remedial action taken by the Belgian laboratories that were the subject of

1.
the above complaint?

2.
According to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), it appears that the use of non-
purpose-bred animals is common practice in Belgium. While European law does not prohibit the use of non-
purpose-bred animals, Directive 86/609/EEC (1) does make it clear that such use should be the exception and not
the rule. Does the Commission believe that this Directive is being applied correctly in Belgium?

Has the Belgian Government provided the Commission with evidence that the conditions in which animals

3.
are kept in research laboratories comply with the requirements of this Directive?

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.