WRITTEN QUESTION E-1727/99 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. General increase in dioxin limit values.
Date: 1999-09-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Decision, European Commission, amendment of a law, food safety, food standard

C 203 E/32

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

(2000/C 203 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1727/99

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: General increase in dioxin limit values

The dioxin scandal which became public in Belgium after much delay has given rise to considerable
disquiet among wide sections of Europe(cid:146)s population. It is a known fact that Belgian, French and Dutch
manufacturers of feedstuff mixes have processed fat contaminated by dioxins.

In view of the absence hitherto of any dioxin limit values in many EU countries and of the Commission(cid:146)s
efforts to set uniform limit values in this area:

1.

does it make sense to align the lower limit values in many countries (e.g. until now 100 nanogrammes
in Italy) with the higher values in other Member States?

2. would it not be more consumer-friendly in the light of the recent crisis and for the benefit of us all to

set the limit values in all 15 countries at the lower value?

3. must it not seem totally incomprehensible in these circumstances to implement a general increase as

described above in the first subparagraph?

4.

is the Commission not planning therefore to reverse this decision?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1999)

As regards dioxins and polychlorobiphenyls (PCBs), there is no recognised international standard laying
down limits by type of foodstuff. The studies on the subject are inconclusive. Certain Member States have
already adopted limits for certain foods, in the light of national scientific opinions, but these limits are not
always identical.

However, adopting a standard which can maximise protection of public health is closely linked to the
technical means available to verify compliance with this level. The techniques used to determine a PCB
level of 100 nanograms per gram (ng/g) of
fat require material and trained personnel which few
laboratories in the Member States currently possess. Adopting such a standard would considerably reduce
the (cid:129) already meagre (cid:129) analysis capacity available in Europe.

The PCB level of 200 ng/g fat in meat and derived products laid down in Decisions 1999/449/EC (1) and
1999/551/EC (2) of 9 July 1999 and 6 August 1999 concern the particular case of contamination resulting
from fats supplied by the Belgian firms Verkest/Fogra. In this case, seven identified PCB congeners make it
possible to define the products contaminated as a result of this incident. The standard of 200 ng/g fat was
adopted at Community level in the decisions on the Belgian crisis in order to certify, on the basis of
analyses, Belgian meat intended for exportation or for intra-Community trade.

The Scientific Committee on Food held that the values selected were appropriate for managing this crisis.
The national scientific opinions on the basis of which the Member States adopted their standards have
been taken into account by the European scientific committees.

Besides, the adoption of PCB limits in food and feedingstuffs is closely linked to the adoption of dioxin
limits for these products. As regards the adoption of limit values for dioxins in food, the Commission
in June 1998 launched an in-depth study of food contamination levels ascertained in several Member
States. 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, should cast
light on the public health risk and will be one of the factors in the ongoing deliberations with a view to
laying down Community limits at a later stage.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/33

Besides, a research project on analysis of the dioxin risk is currently being negotiated in the context of the
programme (cid:145)Quality of life and management of living resources(cid:146) under the Fifth R and D Framework
Programme; the aim is to define better methodologies for evaluating the health effects of dioxins.

It is quite possible that in implementing harmonised limits at Community level the Commission may adopt
different levels than those applied in the case of the Belgian crisis, if this is in the interest of public health
protection. This will be done taking into account all the available scientific data.

(1) OJ L 175, 10.7.1999.
(2) OJ L 209, 7.8.1999.

(2000/C 203 E/040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1729/99

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Compulsory health insurance for German students having their primary residence in Germany and

studying in France

Is the Commission aware that, under Section 5(1)(9) of Volume V of Germany(cid:146)s Social Security Code,
students at foreign universities are not included in the category of persons covered by the compulsory
sickness insurance scheme for students (KVdS) and that, as a result, students at foreign universities are
required to pay a higher voluntary sickness insurance contribution and are hence placed at a disadvantage?
Is this provision compatible with EU law?

In the case before me, a German student from Freiburg has enrolled with a technical university in Belfort,
France, some 70 km away. He still has his residence in Germany and commutes to Belfort. The sickness
insurance fund has invoked the above provision in the Social Security Code to deny him access to the
cheaper sickness insurance scheme for students. Instead, he must take out voluntary insurance (higher
contributions) (cid:129) even although he is domiciled and ordinarily resident in the territory covered by the
Social Security Code (Federal Republic of Germany) (cid:129) on the grounds that he is enrolled with a foreign
university. Under the provisions of
the Social Security Code, matriculation at a foreign university
automatically means that membership of the cheaper sickness insurance scheme for students is denied.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 1999)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of
8 February 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons,
their families moving within the
Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 with a view to extending them to cover students (1), which extended the personal scope
of Regulation (EEC No 1408/71 as updated and amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
2 December 1996 (2) to include students, entered into force on 1 May 1999.

to self-employed persons and to members of

Nevertheless, the specific case of German legislation not affiliating students at non-German universities
who reside in Germany to the compulsory German sickness insurance scheme for students does not fall
under the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. As the Regulation does not harmonise the social
security systems of Member States, Member States are free to determine the details of their own social
security systems, e.g. the right or duty to be insured with a social security scheme. The determination of
conditions to be fulfilled in order to be affiliated to a certain social security system therefore falls within
the sole competence of Member States.