WRITTEN QUESTION E-1480/00 by Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Scope of checks made hitherto on compliance with foodstuffs and animal-feed legislation.
Date: 2000-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agro-industry, animal nutrition, food safety, human nutrition, manufactured feedingstuffs, national implementing measure

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/3

4. Does the Commission see any possibility of introducing a Union-wide compulsory EU pesticides
passport on which the producer would note the use of different pesticides on the crops, thereby
facilitating effective food checks (since false declarations would render the producer liable to
prosecution)?

If not, what are the obstacles to a EU pesticides passport?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2000)

The Commission has not been notified of excessive residues of Methiocarb. However, the Commission was
made aware through the rapid alert system for foodstuffs, that Spanish peppers containing excess residues
of methamidophos, of acephate and endosulfan were circulating in the Community at the end of 1999 and
early 2000. All information received was immediately transmitted to the official contact points in the
Member States for appropriate action.

In the white paper on food safety (1), the Commission reaffirmed its intention to apply full transparency in
all matters relating to food safety, in particular by extending the level of transparency already achieved by
making public scientific opinions, inspection reports, monitoring reports and similar documentation.

The Commission agrees that the functioning of the current system can be improved in line with the
proposals outlined in the white paper on food safety. The increased number of rapid alerts being issued is
linked to the increasing number of pesticides being set at the lower limit of analytical determination (zero)
rather than a lack of data on residues and the introduction of residue limits for products which were
previously unregulated. All plant protection products that are currently used in the Community are subject
to the stringent safety requirements of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991, concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (2). Its provisions also include the need to have an
appropriate analytical method to detect residues before authorisations can be granted by Member States.
Increasingly these methods are multi-residue methods permitting the detection of a wide range of
pesticides. Given the availability, applicability and actual use of both multi-residue and specific analytical
methods by the regulatory authorities in the Member States, as well as the results of national and
Community-coordinated monitoring programmes for pesticides residues in cereals, fruit and vegetables,
the Commission does not agree that
the search for plant protection product residues has proved
ineffective. The lack of detection of residues is more likely to be an indication that residues are not
present rather than a failure of the methods. Consistent with its view of the need for transparency in food
safety, the results of the annual targeted Community-coordinated monitoring programmes for pesticides
residues in cereals, fruit and vegetables are published each year on the Internet by the Commission, as are
the reports of monitoring inspections made by its Food and Veterinary office.

The Commission has no plans at present to propose a Community-wide compulsory pesticide food
labelling passport. At present only two Member States have obligatory schemes providing for the recording
of pesticide use on the farm.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.
(2) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(2001/C 136 E/004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1480/00

by Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Scope of checks made hitherto on compliance with foodstuffs and animal-feed legislation

The EU Commission has, in connection with the White Paper on Food Safety, submitted a preoposal for a
directive that would require the percentages of all the components of compound-feed ingredients to be
declared.

C 136 E/4

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

Would it not be appropriate, having regard to the legislative problems associated with this proposal
(know-how protection,
for the Commission to begin by
providing itself with a reliable assessment of the stage reached in implementing directives already adopted
in Member States as a means of establishing the extent to which checks are in fact being carried out on
compliance with foodstuffs and animal-feed legislation?

inadequate monitoring opportunities, etc.)

In this connection, how many farms have already been monitored, how many samples have been taken,
how many analyses of ingredients, additives and undesirable substances have been conducted, and in what
forms have sanctions been imposed hitherto for infringements against legislation applicable to animal feed
and foodstuffs respectively?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to the initiatives of the Commission on the declaration of the percentages
of components of compound feed ingredients currently under discussion in the Council and the
Parliament. The Commission(cid:146)s proposal for a directive requiring full transparency on the composition of
compound feedingstuff (1) was included in a package of measures presented to the Agriculture Council
meeting of June 1999 and to the Parliament in September 1999 following the dioxin crisis. In both cases
there was wide support for the Commission proposal. The measure is an element for ensuring a high level
of food safety, as mentioned in the white paper on food safety (2).

The Commission shares the views of the Honourable Member on the need to monitor the enforcement of
the relevant Community legislation in the food and feed sector. A number of instruments allowing the
Commission to assess the level of implementation of Community legislation already exist.

Member States must inform the Commission about controls and sampling carried out. This is in particular
the case for Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official controls of foodstuffs (3),
obliging Member States to send the Commission all the necessary information on the implementation of
the national and Community co-ordinated control programmes. This involves details of statistics on
controls carried out, the number and types of samples taken, and infringements.

Information is also requested under Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor
certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products (4). This imposes sampling for
the detection of residues in accordance with a programme established by the Member States and approved
by the Commission. A yearly report on the results of the programme must be established and commu-
nicated to the Commission by the Member States.

As for the feed sector, Article 22 of Council Directive 95/53/EC of 25 October 1995 fixing the principles
governing the organization of official inspections in the field of animal nutrition (5) requires Member States
inspection activities in order to set co-ordinated control
to provide information on the results of
programmes at Community level for the following year.

With respect to the assessment by the Commission of the transposition of Community directives it must
the Commission systematically starts infringement proceedings under Article 226
be stressed that
(ex Article 169) EC Treaty against Member States which fail to notify transposition measures by the
dates foreseen in the directives. More detailed information on this subject can be found in the annual
report on monitoring of the application of Community law published in the Official journal.

The state of implementation of the Community legislation, and whether this legislation is uniformly
implemented, is also controlled by the Commission(cid:146)s food and veterinary office (FVO) in Dublin. The
reports of these controls and the recommendations are published on the internet. They are carefully
examined by the Commission, and when infringements are reported, proceedings opened. This has
happened on a number of occasions.

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/5

Sanctions for infringements by feed and food operators are dealt with by the Member States. These can
include, apart from legal pursuit, detention for additional testing, possible destruction of batches suspected
of being contaminated or even the closing of food premises.

As explained in the white paper on food safety, the Commission believes that gathering information,
including the results of official controls, is an essential element of any food safety system. It is for that
reason that under action 8 in the annex to the white paper,
it is the intention to propose a global
instrument to allow the Commission to collect and exploit information on inspection results for all feed
and food at all stages of the food chain.

The Commission regrets that it does not have at present systematic, detailed information of the kind
requested on the number of inspections carried out by the Member States and samples taken by them.

(1) COM(1999) 744 final.
(2) COM(1999) 719 final.
(3) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989.
(4) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.
(5) OJ L 265, 8.11.1995.

(2001/C 136 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1618/00

by Gianfranco Dell(cid:146)Alba (TDI) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Speculation and Malpensa 2000

The new international airport at Malpensa was deemed by the Essen European Council to be of strategic
importance for the development of European infrastructure and worthy of substantial Community funding.
For over three years now, an interminable struggle has been going on between the Italian Government and
the Commission over issues that are increasingly vague and confused. These continual arguments and the
consequent delays are costing northern Italy dear and jeopardising its development prospects.

Despite the bitter arguments between the company running Milan(cid:146)s airports and British Airways, an
English company has been given the task of drawing up an opinion on the functioning of Malpensa 2000,
as well as the relevant environmental impact study.

In addition, the former head of the private office of Commissioner Neil Kinnock, who was responsible for
transport in the previous Commission, has ill-advisedly moved to a managerial position at British Airways
and it is no coincidence that the latter company is one of the fiercest opponents of Malpensa 2000.

The German airline Lufthansa has stubbornly opposed the full operational functioning of the new hub in
the north of Italy, or what could be called south central Europe, to the point where it has sought to
concentrate all its traffic on the old Milanese airport of Linate.

Does the Commission not think it necessary to clarify once and for all the terms of the agreements entered
into with the Italian state and ensure that they are carried out?

Does it not consider that any further vagueness and uncertainty on the part of Community bodies will
foster a poisonous climate of suspicion concerning the existence of an Anglo-German conspiracy bent on
sabotaging the Malpensa 2000 project, with the ramifications this will have in Brussels?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2000)

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that it has contributed to the financing of
the Milan airport of Malpensa. Therefore, the Commission is interested in seeing Malpensa established as
intended and with a proper possibility for further development. The rules laid down by the Italian
authorities in relation to such establishment must however conform with Community law and it was for
this reason that by decision 1998/710/EC of 16 September 1998 (1) the Commission disapproved the