WRITTEN QUESTION E-1529/00 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission. Rat poison Ratin and salmonella.
Date: 2000-05-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, application of EU law, food poisoning, plant health product

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/51

Does the Commission think that cockle fishing is, or may be, in breach of the Wild Birds and Habitats
directives?

(1)

J. Van de Kam, B. Ens, T. Piersma and L. Zwarts (1999), Ecologische atlas van de Nederlandse wadvogels (Ecological
Atlas of Dutch waders), Schuyt en Co, Haarlem. A. Koolhaas, T. Piersma and J. M. van den Broeck (1998), Kokkel-
en mosselvisserij beschadigen het wadleven, (Cockle and mussel fishing damage life on the mudflats) De levende
Natuur 99, 254-260. T. Piersma, A. Dekinga and A. Koolhaas (1993), Een kwetsbare keten: modder, nonnetjes en
kanoeten bij Griend, (A vulnerable chain: mud, smew and knots on mudbanks) Waddenbulletin 28: 144-149.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

Cockle fishing is not covered by the common fisheries policy and it is very unlikely that it will become so
in the foreseeable future. Cockles exist as localised stocks of interest to one Member State and thus it
appears more appropriate that the Member State concerned manages the fishery.

The Wadden Sea has been designated as a special protection area (SPA) within the meaning of Council
Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) and has been proposed as an
area of special Community interest (SCI) within the meaning of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (2) as well.

Pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC, Articles 6(2), 6(3) and 6(4) of that Directive apply to a SPA.

According to Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC the Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid
in a SPA the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the
species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in
relation to the objectives of the Directive.

This provision applies to existing activities in a SPA that may have an impact on the conservation status of
the bird populations. Its application may imply that such activities must be changed or ended.

New plans or projects that may have implications for the conservation status of the bird populations are
covered by Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC. On the basis of the information available to it,
the Commission is not able to judge whether those provisions also apply to the new shellfish fisheries in
the Wadden Sea.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 89 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1529/00

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Rat poison Ratin and salmonella

According to its manufacturers, Rentokil of London (1), salmonella cultures were used in the rat poison
Ratin. The manufacturer has revealed to the newspaper Politiken that the poison was exported from
England to the Spanish and Italian markets right up until 1992.

The product was removed from the Danish market as early as 1961 amid fears of the spread of salmonella.

In the light of this situation, will the Commission say:

(cid:129) whether it was lawful to produce, export and use Ratin right up to 1992,

C 89 E/52

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

(cid:129) whether it is certain that salmonella has not spread from Italy and Spain to other EU Member States as

a result of the use of Ratin, and

(cid:129) whether there is a link between the use of Ratin and the spread of salmonella infections in the EU?

(1) Politiken 10.4.2000: Salmonella poison sold in the 90s.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The possible approval or prohibition of the use of Ratin was based on national
legislation until the
adoption of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection
products on the market. Under the Directive, the Commission organises a review programme for all active
substances of plant protection products that were on the market at that time. No Member State informed
the Commission about Ratin being used as a plant protection product in the Community. Directive 1998/
8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal
products on the market (1) currently forms the framework for the approval of biocidal products, including
rodenticides, which are not covered by the above-mentioned Directive. Were a compound like Ratin to be
placed on the market, it would require an authorisation either according to Directive 91/414/EEC or 1998/
8/EC or both, depending on its intended use. At the moment the use of Ratin is not authorised.

The evaluation of the actual risk of environmental contamination due to the use of Ratin is highly
It has been assessed in the scientific literature that the product consisted of bacterium
problematic.
salmonella enteritidis phagetype 6a. Salmonella enteritidis is mainly linked to poultry products,
in
particular to table eggs. The increase of
the number of enteritidis contaminated eggs and human
salmonellosis cases due to the bacterium, including other serotypes than 6a, started in the late 1980s,
thus about 30 years after the use of Ratin ceased in most of the Member States. It should also be noted
that the increasing prevalence of salmonella enteritidis has been recorded world-wide, in particular, in the
United States. To conclude,
it may be stated that a number of factors contribute to the spread of
salmonella enteritidis.

The Commission would stress that pathogenic bacteria should not be deliberately released into the
environment. During the last decade a coherent set of Community legislation, as referred to above, has
been created on the subject.

(1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998.

(2001/C 89 E/050)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1550/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Purchasing power parity (PPP) and its current use

In its reply to written question E-2218/99 (1) the Commission acknowledged that there is no legal basis in
Community law for the use of PPPs, and in its reply to written question E-0273/00 (2) it proved unable to
(cid:145)quote a single reference from economic theory which supports the practice of using PPP in order to
compare the GDP prices of countries which use the same currency(cid:146).

Nevertheless, in its reply to written question E-0272/00 (3) the Commission defended the use of PPPs on
the grounds of their widespread use by international
institutions, public administrations, universities,
research bodies, public and private undertakings, banking institutions, the media and individuals them-
selves.

In my written question E-0276/00 (4), I gave an example of the use of PPPs by a national administration,
and I could have quoted countless others such as the Economist(cid:146)s Big Mac, the Executive Quality Living
Reports produced by the Corporate Resources Group, the Bayerische Landesbank surveys and a number of
other academic or commercial studies.