WRITTEN QUESTION E-1534/99 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Council. Application of Regulation 258/97 (novel foods and novel food ingredients).
Date: 1999-09-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: biotechnology, food inspection, foodstuffs legislation, human nutrition, marketing

C 170 E/32

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2000

As regards the limit values for dioxins in food, the Commission began an in-depth study of food
contamination levels ascertained in several Member States in June 1998. This study belongs in the
framework of the scientific cooperation programme between the Member States (SCOOP). The preliminary
results of this study, which should be available very shortly, as well as the results of work done at the Joint
Research Centre and the Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM) should help assess the
risk and will therefore be the basis for further reflection.

Pending the availability of information allowing it to pronounce on the limit values for dioxins in food, the
Commission is relying on the scientific assessment made by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which
recommends a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 1 to 4 picograms per kilogram body weight for dioxins. In
laying down this level the WHO wanted to safeguard human health as much as possible while acknowl-
edging the existence of a (cid:145)background level(cid:146) of dioxins in all
industrialised countries. Until 1999 the
surveillance plans put in place in these countries, and notably the Member States, were focused on keeping
contaminated milk and milk products off the shelves. The Commission will propose to the Member States
to test all meat, fish and derived products for dioxins and PCBs as from 2000.

(2000/C 170 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1534/99

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Council

(8 September 1999)

Subject: Application of Regulation 258/97 (novel foods and novel food ingredients)

As the Council will be aware, a number of products (including margarine, halvarine and cheese) to which
stanols have been added to reduce cholesterol levels have recently been marketed in the United Kingdom
under the trade name (cid:145)Benecol(cid:146). The manufacturer of these new products refers to the authorisation
previously granted and the marketing in Finland of a margarine product also with added stanols, as a result
of which, it claims, Regulation 258/97 (1) (novel foods and novel food ingredients) does not apply.

Does the Council consider that the Commission,

1.
in assessing products previously marketed and
which are covered by Regulation 258/97, should be aware of the content and scope of the authorisation
granted in the Member State in question? Is there a difference depending on whether the authorisation
relates to a product or to an ingredient?

Can the Council

investigate whether the Commission,

2.
in assessing whether Regulation 258/97
applies to the original Benecol margarine product or the cholesterol-reducing ingredient, had the
authorisation at its disposal? What information did the authorisation contain concerning the difference
between product and ingredient?

3. What quantitative criteria is the marketing of a given product required to meet in order for
Regulation 258/97 not to apply because the product or ingredient has been used for human consumption
(cid:145)to a significant degree(cid:146) within the Community?

4. What qualitative criteria is a product required to meet if, on the basis of the previous marketing of a
product, Regulation 258/97 does not apply to it? Is this product required to have the same composition as
the product which has been marketed (cid:145)to a significant degree(cid:146) or may the composition be modified, and if
so, to what extent? May the ingredient occurring in the original product be included in other products
without Regulation 258/97 applying? What criteria should be used to answer these questions?

5.
Does the Council consider that the Commission can investigate to what extent the margarine,
halvarine and cheese products currently being marketed in the UK differ from the original margarine
product? If not, under what obligation is the Commission to investigate?

6.
Can the Council indicate whether the Commission has been asked (cid:129) formally or informally (cid:129) for an
opinion on whether Regulation 258/97 does not apply to the new Benecol products? If so, what was this
opinion and on what was it based?

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1.

20.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 170 E/33

Reply

(2 December 1999)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the Treaty of Amsterdam confirmed that
consumer policy is an area to which the European Community can and must bring added value.
Article 153(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community defines the Community(cid:146)s objectives in
that connection, in particular having regard to its links with health policy and with promoting the right of
consumers to information.

In that context, and more particularly with respect to the questions raised, the Council would inform the
Honourable Member that Regulation No 258/97 applies to foods and food ingredients placed on the
market before it entered into force only if they (cid:145)have not hitherto been used for human consumption to a
significant degree within the Community(cid:146)
In such cases, the initial
assessment procedure laid down in Article 6 applies.

(Article 1(2) of the Regulation).

It is for the Commission, and more particularly the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs (cf. Article 1(3) of
the Regulation), to determine by committee procedure whether a type of food or food ingredient falls
within the scope of the Regulation, and to lay down (in principle on a case-by-case basis) the qualitative
criteria attached to each such type of food or food ingredient in order to determine whether it is covered
by the Regulation.

It should also be emphasised that Article 1 of Regulation No 258/97 makes no distinction between foods
and food ingredients, and this applies in particular when it comes to identifying the content and scope of
approval in the Member State concerned.

Finally, the Council would suggest that the Honourable Member contact the Commission directly regarding
those questions which have not been answered, as they are within its field of competence.

(2000/C 170 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1537/99

by Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Compliance with Regulation (EC) 1239/98 outlawing fishing with driftnets

Regulation (EC) 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 (1) amending Regulation (EC) 0894/97 laying down certain
technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources outlaws the use of driftnets by Community
vessels, as of 1 January 2002. Nonetheless, the Regulation authorises the phasing-out of driftnets as of
1998: Article 1(3) states that in 1998 the maximum number of vessels which may be authorised by a
Member State to carry on board or fish with one or more driftnets shall not exceed 60 % of the number of
vessels which used one or more driftnets over the period 1995-1997. The second fishing season for the
longfinned tuna (Thunnus alalunga) since the Regulation came into force has already started.

In view of this, does the Commission consider the situation to be satisfactory as regards the two fishing
seasons thus far? What is the Commission(cid:146)s evaluation of the degree of compliance with the Regulation by
the fleets concerned?

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998, p. 1.

(2000/C 170 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1561/99

by Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: List of vessels that have stopped using drift-nets in compliance with Regulation (EC) 1239/98

Council Regulation (EC) 1239/98 (1) of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) 0894/97 laying down
fishery resources, bans the use of drift-nets by
certain technical measures for the conservation of