WRITTEN QUESTION E-1868/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Typical products and food policy.
Date: 2000-06-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common commercial policy, designation of origin, hard cheese

C 89 E/102

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

The tip therefore infringes Article 1(3) and (4) of EC Directive 156/1991 on waste, of 18 March 1991 (1).
It also infringes Directive 97/11/EC.

What does the Commission intend to do to make sure that the Community directives in question are
complied with?

(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2000)

The Commission had not been aware of the situation referred to by the Honourable Member.

It should be borne in mind that, at the moment, waste treatment is governed by Council Directive 75/442/
EEC (1) of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC (2). Article 4 thereof
stipulates that Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is disposed of without
endangering human health and without harming the environment, and in particular without risk to water,
air, soil and plants and animals, without causing a nuisance through noise or odours and without adversely
affecting the countryside or places of special interest.

Under Article 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC all installations and undertakings treating waste must obtain a
permit; since we are here discussing a possible infringement of Council Directive 1999/31/EC (3) of
26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, it should be noted that, so far, that Directive has not laid down
any mandatory rule for the Member States since, according to Article 18, the deadline for its transposition
is 16 July 2001.

It should be noted that Article 3, paragraph 2 of Council Directive 97/11/EC (4) of 3 March 1997,
amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on
the environment states that
for authorisation was submitted before 14 July 1999 the
provisions of the version of Directive 85/337/EEC preceding its amendment shall apply.

if a request

In any case, in its capacity as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission shall take any action needed in
order to ensure that Community law is complied with in this instance.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
(3) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.
(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2001/C 89 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1868/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Typical products and food policy

The introduction of a (cid:145)European(cid:146) food policy presupposes action to protect high-quality typical products
and ensure they have the special features associated with local specialities. Such products guarantee a high
level of health and consumer protection. This certainly does not apply to the 6 million quintals of grated
cheese sold under the (cid:145)Parmesan(cid:146) label despite the fact that it has no connection with Parma, as it is
produced in areas which have none of the characteristics of the region where Parmiggiano Reggiano
cheese originated and by methods other than those that have always been used there.

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/103

In view of the forthcoming implementation of a food safety programme:

1. Will the Commission continue to allow the (cid:145)Parmesan(cid:146) name to be used for a product that can be
made from almost any kind of milk and contains up to 30 additives, including whitening agents,
antioxidants and a variety of preservatives?

2. Will the Commission guarantee, on the other hand, that the cheese known as (cid:145)Parmiggiano Reggiano(cid:146)
is made from milk from the valleys which give it its name and according to the traditional methods
that have been used for hundreds of years?

3. Will the Commission defend typical European products from the threat of standardisation along the

lines decreed by the big distributors?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

The Commission considers that the term (cid:145)Parmesan(cid:146) is a translation, originally among French-speakers, for
the protected name (cid:145)Parmigiano-Reggiano(cid:146). In this light, it is clear that at the end of the transition period
expressly provided for in Article 13(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
protection of geographical
indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and food-
stuffs (1), i.e. 21 June 2001 in this instance, any use of the term (cid:145)Parmesan(cid:146) for products not in conformity
with the specifications registered under the above Regulation and corresponding to the protected
designation of origin (cid:145)Parmigiano-Reggiano(cid:146) will be prohibited. This will bring the legal position and the
commercial situation into line with the Community system for protecting geographical indications and
designations of origin.

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.

(2001/C 89 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1872/00

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Rail network and Structural Funds 2000-2006 in Sardinia

(9 June 2000)

Sardinia(cid:146)s rail network (which comprises some 1 000 km of track, of which only 435 km is standard-
gauge) is in an extremely bad state. Despite this, Sardinia is not eligible for aid to improve its rail services
under the national operational plan for transport
for 2000-2006 (Programma Operativo Nazionale
Trasporti, or PONT), as aid is available only in connection with the trans-European networks. The national
operational plan for transport for 1994-1999 also allocated Sardinia only ITL 50 billion (out of a national
total of ITL 3 800 billion), for one line which has not yet been completed (Campeda-Bonorva). The
planning agreement concluded in April 1999 between the Italian State, the region and the FS (national
railway) goes only some way towards making up the shortfall left by the previous thirty years of under-
investment: the relevant framework programme agreement (APQ 5) provides for funding only for the
Cagliari-Oristano and Sassari-Porto Torres routes (1), and the sums allocated,
though substantial, are
certainly not enough to address the needs of a network on which 80 % of the traffic travels at commercial
speeds of less than 70 or 75 kph. The agreement concluded between the State and the region explicitly
notes the limited nature of the funding provided and the need to draw up a second framework programme
agreement (APG 5a) for the provision of aid to improve the network as a whole, goods transport and
privately operated rail services. The Commission is currently in negotiations with the Italian State over
PONT 2000-2006 and with the Sardinia region over the regional operational programme for 2000-2006
(POR). Neither document provides for significant investment in Sardinia(cid:146)s rail sector, concentrating solely
on the development of the island(cid:146)s road system and ports.

Could the Commission do its best to ensure that the objectives of PONT 2000-2006 include action to
modernise and improve the speed of traffic on the FS network in central and northern Sardinia? Would it
be possible for the measures already planned under the State/region/FS agreement to be included in PONT
2000-2006, thus making the Sardinian rail network eligible for a corresponding injection of Community
funds? Could the Commission take steps to ensure that the measures included in the regional operational