WRITTEN QUESTION E-1462/00 by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Effects on health of calcium sulphate.
Date: 2000-05-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, chemical product, dangerous substance

20.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 53 E/147

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

1.
The Commission can confirm that it has decided to stop the JOP (Joint Venture Programme (cid:129)
PHARE/TACIS) and ECIP (European Community Investment Partners) programmes. This decision was
taken in view of the new guidelines for PHARE (1) in the context of accession to the EU (cid:129) i.e. the
decentralisation of management (cid:129) and the rising and excessive administrative cost of the Commission(cid:146)s
direct management of individual projects.

2.
The financial intermediaries had been notified of the decision to stop the JOP programme at the
meeting of the network in Luxembourg on 20 October 1999. In order to ensure the best possible
conditions for closing the JOP programme, the Commission had authorised the submission of new
applications for funding up until 6 March 2000. However, current projects for which additional funding
under the programme(cid:146)s (cid:145)Facility 3(cid:146) is envisaged will be taken into consideration until 30 September 2000.
A new budget will therefore be provided to ensure that all these final projects are completed.

With regard to the ECIP programme, Council Regulation (EC) No 213/96 of 29 January 1996 (2), which
formed the legal basis allowing the Commission to manage the ECIP financial instrument, expired on
31 December 1999. On 22 December 1999, the Commission decided not to propose to the Council and
the Parliament that the validity of this Regulation be extended and therefore that the ECIP programme
would not continue beyond 31 December 1999. Despite the success of this programme throughout the
years, the rationalisation of certain Commission policies and the reform and simplification of adminis-
trative tasks made it necessary to take this decision.

The financial
intermediaries were notified on 14 January 2000 that the ECIP programme would be
stopped. In order to ensure that this happened under the best possible conditions, on 31 January 2000 (3)
the Commission made a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
regarding the closure and liquidation of projects adopted by the Commission under Council Regulation
(EC) No 213/96.

The Commission does not intend to renew the Joint European Venture (JEV) programme when the

3.
current programme expires.

(1) PHARE: Action plan for coordinated aid to Poland and Hungary (cid:129) aid for restructuring the economy.
(2) The Regulation on the implementation of the (cid:145)EC Investment Partners(cid:146) financial instrument for the countries of

Latin America, Asia, the Mediterranean region and South Africa (OJ L 28, 6.2.1996).

(3) COM(1999) 726 final.

(2001/C 53 E/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1462/00

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Effects on health of calcium sulphate

What information does the Commission have on the long term effects of exposure to calcium sulphate on
human health and what measures if any have been taken to minimise the risks of exposure?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

Calcium sulphate is a chemical compound which is used in many different areas. It is mainly used in the
production of cement and as a building material. The substance has an irritating effect on air passages and
eyes. Little is known of the long-term harmful effects. The exposure of workers to dangerous chemicals is
covered by Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998, on the protection of the health and safety of
workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (1) which provides for specific prevention
measures based on risk assessment.

C 53 E/148

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

Calcium sulphate is authorised for use as a food additive (EC number E 516). Based on the opinion of the
scientific committee for food, it has not been assigned a specified acceptable daily intake (ADI). This means
that it is not necessary to set a maximum level to ensure safety of the use of this substance in food.
Therefore in this area of use, no further measure is needed.

It is also used as an implant, such as in bone substitutes, and is in that case covered by Council Directive
93/42/CEE of 14 June 1993, on medical devices (2). Impurities may cause problems in the use of calcium
sulphate, but
there are well known procedures for cleaning the materials and well-accepted USP
(US Pharmacopoeia) and NF (National Formulary) guidelines in place (Pharmacology standards). Long
term adverse effects of use in bone substitutes are not known.

(1) OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.
(2) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993.

(2001/C 53 E/189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1465/00

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: International trade in dog and cat fur

Given the increasing body of evidence indicating that an international trade in domestic cat and dog fur
now exists in the EU and that this trade supposedly emanates from outside the EU (cid:129) reportedly Asia (cid:129)
can the Commission inform Parliament which steps it can take to prohibit and eliminate this trade inside
the EU? Furthermore, what pressure can be brought to bear to end the slaughter of domestic animals in
the countries of origin where they are turned into coats or (cid:145)life-like statuettes(cid:146)?

(2001/C 53 E/190)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1558/00

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Global trade in cat and dog fur

Would the Commission inform me what steps it is prepared to take to introduce a ban on imports into the
European Union of items which are made from cat and dog fur?

Investigations by the Humane Society International have revealed that millions of dogs and cats are
slaughtered annually for their pelts, often being killed in the most inhumane ways. This fur is frequently
imported into the EU in the form of trimming on boots and coats.

European Union consumers may not be aware of the fact that the items they are purchasing are made
from these animals or of the appalling way in which the animals are killed, as the labelling is, at best,
misleading and, at worst, dishonest.

Surely EU consumers deserve to be told the real origin of the materials used in their purchases? As a first
step, is the Commission prepared to ensure that tighter controls are imposed on the labelling of such
products?