WRITTEN QUESTION P-2853/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. BSE in Germany.
Date: 2000-09-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, consumer protection, disease prevention, precautionary principle, public health, veterinary inspection

C 136 E/112

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

The Commission cannot impose any constraints on the freedom of states to lay down the conditions under
which they wish to regulate research. Its role consists of promoting a debate on ethics while maintaining
the diversity of our cultures and our sensitivities in Europe. It is thus one of the aims of the European
research area.

The Commission has in its possession no information on any pressure on the UK authorities.

(2001/C 136 E/128)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2853/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 September 2000)

Subject: BSE in Germany

In July the Scientific Steering Committee designated Germany a risk country in regard to BSE. Germany
classifies itself as BSE-free. So far there has been no scientific evidence to support this claim.

1.

Is the Commission aware that there is no scientific evidence that Germany is free of BSE?

(a) What action will the Commission take against Germany(cid:146)s obviously false declaration?

(b) What action does the Commission have in mind, particularly in view of the findings of the Scientific

Committee, to correct this false and misleading claim?

Is the Commission aware that with the exception of the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, virtually

2.
no BSE checks are carried out in Germany?

Is the Commission aware that some L(cid:228)nder, for example, Bavaria, have deliberately been applying the

3.
test on a selective basis?

4.
Does the Commission agree that the deliberate failure to apply the test, in order not to publicise any
instances of BSE, is an infringement of the precautionary principle and it is unacceptable that consumers
are at considerable risk as a result?

5. What action will the Commission take against the lack of checks and the deliberate endangering of
consumers?

Does the Commission intend to support the introduction of BSE tests in German slaughterhouses,

6.
despite the high-handed behaviour of bureaucrats? If not, why not?

7. What guarantees are there that BSE-infected meat is not available in butchers(cid:146) shops and cafØs and
restaurants?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2000)

The Commission is not aware of any evidence supporting the allegations of
false declarations and
deliberate endangering of consumers by the German authorities. The epidemiological situation in
Germany, with respect to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), must be viewed in the light of the
opinion of the scientific steering committee (SSC) of 6 July 2000. Following an analysis of the available
information on the key risk factors, the SSC came to the conclusion that the presence of BSE could not be
excluded in any Member State. It also concluded that in Germany, Italy and Spain the presence of BSE in
the national cattle herds is likely, even if hitherto no domestic cases had been identified. This opinion and

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/113

the supporting country reports expanding in detail on the reasons behind the evaluation have since been
published on internet. It must be understood that this opinion of the SSC, being independent scientific
advice,
is not a formal legal act. Accordingly it is not opportune to consider action against countries
having a different perception of their geographic BSE risk.

The Commission, for its part, adopted as a precautionary measure Decision 2000/418/EC regulating the
use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending
Decision 94/474/EC (1). It did so in view of BSE cases continuing to occur in the Community, even in
Member States that have not identified native cases in the past, and the repeated statements of the SSC
recommending the exclusion of specified risk materials (SRMs) from food and feed chains. This decision
applies also to Germany and will require, from 1 October 2000, a range of specified risk materials.

Community legislation on surveillance for the presence of BSE, has been in place since the summer of
1998. In addition, the obligation to test a considerable random number of dead-on-farm and emergency
slaughtered cattle was adopted by the Commission on 5 June 2000 by Decision 2000/374/EC amending
Decision 98/272/EC on epidemio-surveillance for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (2). An
important objective of this Decision is to screen a statistically significant number of cattle that are most
likely to harbour detectable levels of BSE. This will allow for a better assessment of the epidemiological
situation in the Member States. This obligation enters into force from 1 January 2001 and applies also to
Germany. The results, which will be closely followed by the Commission, will provide valuable informa-
tion on the extent of BSE in the Member States. The German authorities have now informed the
Commission that they intend to carry out a much higher number of tests than required under the
Commission decision.

level, the Food and veterinary office (FVO) of the Commission carries out regular
On a more general
missions assessing the application of BSE controls on-the-spot
in all Member States. The evidence
produced in the course of these missions formed an integral part of the scientific SSC evaluation
mentioned above. In the framework of a round of missions assessing the BSE epidemio-surveillance system
in all Member States the FVO will conduct a mission in September 2000 visiting several German L(cid:228)nder.
A report on this inspection will be made available to the Parliament and published on the internet.

The Commission does agree that selective non-application of BSE tests in order not to detect BSE-cases, to
which the Honourable Member refers, would indeed raise serious concern, should it happen. It would hide
a serious consumer health risk and be a breach of Community legislation. However, the Commission has
no information indicating that this unacceptable behaviour has taken place in Germany.

(1) OJ L 158, 29.7.2000, p. 76.
(2) OJ L 135, 8.6.2000, p. 27.

(2001/C 136 E/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2860/00

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) and Ioannis Mar(cid:237)nos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Manipulation and government intervention on the Athens Stock Exchange (cid:129) squandering of

public funds

Reports in the Greek press, to which there has been no response, and a complaint by a leading member of
the opposition, which was investigated on the orders of the Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of
Greece, strongly suggest that the public company dealing in transferable securities (DEKA) and various
government-controlled credit institutions intervened on the Athens Stock Exchange before the elections on
9 April with the aim of influencing the outcome of those elections. More specifically, the government
bodies concerned bought shares in government companies over a number of days to support prices
artificially prior to the elections while subsequently selling them on at very low prices, making huge losses
for taxpayers and shareholders alike.