WRITTEN QUESTION E-3329/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Chlorine and fluoride in drinking water.
Date: 2000-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: World Health Organisation, chlorine, drinking water, fluorine, food standard, precautionary principle, public health, water treatment

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/89

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2000)

The Commission is aware of Sardinia(cid:146)s underdevelopment as regards managing water resources.

For the 2000-2006 programming period, the Community support framework (CSF) for the Italian regions
eligible under Objective 1 has set priorities for the sector which cover two aspects:
infrastructure
improvement and management system administration. As regards the first, assistance will have to be
concentrated on converting water conveyancing and purification facilities, adapting supply and distribution
monitoring systems, and building new facilities for reusing purified water. As regards the second, effective
management systems will have to be developed in order to make a clearer distinction between controlling
and managing resources and to bridge the gap between assistance planning and financial responsibility.

The regional operational programme (ROP) for Sardinia lists these points under measure 1.1 of the natural
resources priority. The detailed criteria set by the CSF will apply in order to ensure that the projects
selected are consistent with the sectoral law in force in Italy (Legge Galli).

The financial allocation set aside for that priority is the Sardinia ROP(cid:146)s second largest, with Structural Funds
assistance accounting for € 520 628 million out of an investment cost totalling € 1 072,51 million.

As it explained to Parliament on 25 October (1) with regard to financial help for affected areas and
reinstating the budget heading for emergency aid in the event of natural disasters, the Commission
considers that (cid:129) since other possibilities for Community support exist and in view of the financial and
human resources available (cid:129) other initiatives should be accorded higher priority at this stage.

(1) Plenary session debate of 25 October 2000.

(2001/C 163 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3329/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Chlorine and fluoride in drinking water

Bearing in mind:

(cid:129) the wide range of research carried out on the fluoride issue, which has led almost all EU Member

States to remove the substance from drinking water,

(cid:129) the fact that Ireland has not yet removed fluoride from drinking water,

(cid:129) recent research by the National Institute of Public Health in Norway which provides new evidence to
show that drinking water treated with chlorine is associated with higher levels of birth defects, in
particular spina bifida (as published in the American journal Epidemiology),

(cid:129) that effective and non-toxic alternatives to chlorine are available.

Would the Commission give its views on the health implications of adding chlorine and fluoride to
drinking water, comment on whether it feels more research is required on the implications of adding these
substances to drinking water and whether Member States in the meantime should proceed on the basis of
the precautionary principle, and state whether it feels there is scope for legislative changes to mitigate any
possible effects on health?

C 163 E/90

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

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

(18 December 2000)

The Honourable Member raises the addition of chlorine and fluoride to drinking water.

Concerning chlorination, both drinking water directives, the original Council Directive 80/778/EEC of
15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (1) and the new Council
Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 (2), which has to be implemented before the end of 2003, set out
the addition of chlorine in order to avoid
requirements which oblige Member States to control
unacceptable risks for human health.

The current level of knowledge indicates controlled use of chlorine has far more positive effects than
potential negative effects. The main problem with other disinfection practices is that they are effective in
the water treatment plant but cannot guarantee effectiveness in the distribution system. Very often the
problem lies there, especially when the distribution pipelines are not in good condition. It is important that
water is safe at the consumer(cid:146)s tap.

Concerning fluoridation, there is a standard in both directives (1,5 miligramm per litre (mg/l)) which is in
accordance with the recommendations of the World health organization (WHO). At this level, according to
WHO, there is a good balance between the positive and negative effects of fluoride. Regardless of its
origin, either naturally or artificially present,
if the Community standard on fluoride is respected, the
Commission cannot intervene as the matter lies within the responsibility of Member States.

Finally, WHO in June 2000 held a five-day meeting in order to launch the revision of its drinking water
quality guidelines, which will be completed by 2002-2003. The Commission representative raised both
matters during this meeting and the above views were confirmed. Naturally, whenever there is new reliable
evidence which requires action, the Commission will act upon it.

(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.
(2) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

(2001/C 163 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3332/00

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Award of UTMS frequencies

The allocation of mobile telephone frequencies to firms in the sector has taken place on different criteria in
different countries. In some countries they are auctioned off, in others they are allocated virtually free of
charge. Does the Commission consider that the free allocation of frequencies could be interpreted as
a covert state aid, which would be prohibited under Article 87 of the EC Treaty, and if so, what measures
does the Commission propose to take in this matter?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2000)

First of all, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the choice of the procedure for
the allocation of third-generation mobile telephony licences is a matter for the Member States, provided
that the procedure selected complies with the principles enshrined in Community law, including the rules
on state aid.

In principle, the two procedures for the sale of licences (cid:129) beauty contests and auctions (cid:129) comply with the
rules on state aid provided that they are transparent, objective and non-discriminatory. In addition, the
conditions governing the procedure and the way in which it is organised must be such as to rule out the
possibility of aid being granted in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the operators or the activity
in question.