WRITTEN QUESTION E-1871/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Body piercing: risks and information.
Date: 2000-06-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, health control, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, national law

C 72 E/138

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

which prisoners are being held and the activities of the judicial police. Outdated buildings, unacceptable
and insanitary conditions, overcrowding (with an occupancy rate of 120 % of the number of places
available) and prison staff shortages are only some of the more glaring defects of the prison system. In
such circumstances, violent incidents of all kinds are the order of the day and the possibility of ensuring
respect for human rights can seem remote.

In view of the prospect of cooperation in (cid:145)third pillar(cid:146) matters:

1. Why does the Commission not carry out a comparative study of the situation in the Union countries(cid:146)

prisons to assess prison conditions and propose the standards that should be maintained?

2. What differences are there between the respective legal status of members of the judicial police in the

various Member States?

3.

Is it conceivable that they might eventually be harmonised?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

The situation of prisons in the European Union referred to by the Honourable Member is first and
foremost a matter for the Member States.

1.
A comparative study of prison conditions would theoretically be feasible under the Grotius financing
programme, which has been adopted in the justice and home affairs field. To date, however, this matter
has not been included in the programmes setting annual priorities and no request for a study along the
lines of that proposed by the Honourable Member has been received.

The status of members of the judicial police differs between Member States, depending on the

2.
relevant national legislation.

3.
In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, harmonisation of status is currently not one of the
priority objectives in the justice and home affairs field. However, a range of training, information and
communication initiatives for members of the police have been launched at European level, in line with
the priorities identified by the Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999 for the creation of
a European area of freedom, security and justice.

(2001/C 72 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1871/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Body piercing: risks and information

The current obsession with (cid:145)body awareness(cid:146)
is reflected in the potentially harmful fashion for body
piercing among young people. In some EU countries the practice is regulated to ensure that health and
safety standards are observed. Unless certain rules are followed concerning the materials used and the way
in which the piercing of various parts of the body is carried out, followers of this fashion run serious risks,
the most common of which are infection and hepatitis.

1.

2.

Can the Commission list the Union countries in which this practice is subject to regulation?

Could the Commission call on those countries which do not have such provisions to introduce them?

3.
Does the Commission agree that it would be good idea to propose information campaigns in schools
to highlight the dangers of body piercing and discourage young people from allowing such piercing to be
carried out by unqualified people?

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/139

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

At the moment there are no Community regulations covering the practice of body piercing as such.
However, European Parliament and Council Directive 94/27/EEC of 30 June 1994 amending for the
twelfth time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous
substances and preparations (1), which recently entered into force, prohibits the use of nickel for body
piercing. This is important, as 15 % of women in the Community are now sensitised to nickel, and this is
partly attributed to its use in body piercing.

The Commission does not know of any specific regulations applied by Member States in this field. It will
carry out a survey on this subject among the Member States in order to establish whether Community
inform the
initiatives in this field are justified and necessary, and what form they could take. It will
Honourable Member of the results of this survey.

(1) OJ L 188, 22.7.1994.

(2001/C 72 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1874/00

by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2000)

Subject: European food aid to Russia

Has the Commission taken note of the report entitled (cid:145)Russians blame EU for pigs(cid:146) deaths(cid:146) in NRC

1.
Handelsblad on 27 May 2000?

2.
The report asserts that earlier this year, because French and German meat was being stored in the
slaughterhouse at Jaroslavl, there was no storage capacity for pigs from local pig farmers, causing the
deaths of thousands of Russian pigs. Is that assertion correct?

3.
Does the Commission agree with its acting delegate in Moscow that the European aid package, worth
US$ 500 million, has not disrupted the Russian market? If so, does it have figures to back up that
proposition?

On what information is the acting delegate(cid:146)s statement that EU food aid to Russia (cid:145)has saved

4.
thousands of babushkas(cid:146) lives(cid:146) based?

Does the Commission agree with a Dutch meat trader in Russia that EU food aid is putting pressure

5.
on prices in Russia and that the European Union and the US are rumoured to be dumping surpluses?

Is the Commission prepared to open an investigation into the impact of EU food aid on the pig

6.
market in Russia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The Commission does not accept the criticism reported in the NRC Handelsblad to which the Honourable
Member refers.

The food delivery programme was adopted by the Council
in December 1998, after considering the
request of the Russian government for assistance. Because of the poor harvest and financial crisis of 1998,
the Russian government feared that there would be food shortages and speculative price rises in many
Russian regions through the winter of 1998 and spring of 1999. To avoid this it was necessary to import
a substantial quantity of food.