WRITTEN QUESTION E-3783/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Additional rules to ensure continuing prevention of a renewed BSE infection among cattle.
Date: 2000-12-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, animal nutrition, animal product, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, disease prevention, health control, labelling, product safety, public health, veterinary legislation

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/47

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

information provided by the Flemish authorities,

On the basis of
the possibility of renovating the
Zilvermeer camping ground was suggested in the context of local discussions to prepare the objective 2
programme for the province of Antwerp, which is still under negotiation. No application for a project to
be realised in this area has yet been submitted.

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999, laying down general provisions on the
structural funds (1), in particular Article 8, paragraph 3, the implementation of assistance is the responsi-
bility of the Member States, at the appropriate territorial level. Therefore, if the Zilvermeer project would
eventually be submitted, its appraisal for funding via the future objective 2 programme for the province of
Antwerp is first and foremost a matter for the Flemish managing authority.

In accordance with Article 34, paragraph 1(g) of the above mentioned Regulation, the managing authority
has to ensure that all operations funded in the context of the programme are in compliance with
Community policies, including in particular Community legislation in the area of State aid. If the managing
authority has any doubts as to whether a particular operation is in conformity with Community State aid,
it would be prudent for it to seek advice from the department dealing with State aid issues in the regional
or national administration or from the Commission.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 187 E/051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3783/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Additional rules to ensure continuing prevention of a renewed BSE infection among cattle

1.
In the light of the recent discovery of more cows suffering from BSE in France and the Netherlands,
within what timescale does the Commission expect the existing regulations to bring about a final end to
the continuing problem of (cid:145)mad cow disease(cid:146)?

Are parts of slaughter animals now still being used in any way (cid:129) whether legally or illegally (cid:129) in the

2.
Member States of the European Union for feeding to (originally herbivorous) cattle.

Are checks aimed at preventing relatively cheap offal from being used in feedstuffs adequate to

3.
ensure that any new use of animal-based feeds can be ruled out on a lasting basis?

By what additional measures (cid:129) relating both to animal feed and to the import of cattle from outside
4.
the European Union (cid:129) is the Commission currently proposing to ensure that Europe is fully protected
from any new BSE infection as soon as possible and from the risk of further groups of consumers
eventually contracting Creutzfeld-Jacob disease?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Given that the average incubation period of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is five years, the
Commission expects to see a reduction in the clinical incidence of BSE approximately five years after the
introduction of effective control measures.

Since August 1994, the feeding of mammalian protein to ruminants has been banned. This prohibition has
been extended from 1 January 2001 to the feeding of any processed animal protein to any farmed animal,
as a temporary measure. Rendered animal fat is still allowed for incorporation in ruminant feed provided it
has been processed in the specified manner. The safety of tallow in such feed has recently been assessed by
the Scientific Steering Committee, which recommends an additional heat treatment to increase its safety.

C 187 E/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

The enforcement of the Community regulations governing the formulation of animal feedstuffs and testing
for the absence of prohibited substances is the responsibility of the Member States. This enforcement is
monitored by the Food and Veterinary Office, whose programme of inspections has recently been stepped
up. The reports on these inspections are circulated to the Parliament and are published on the internet.

The temporary extension of the list of proteins banned from animal feeds to include substances such as
poultry offal meal will greatly facilitate the use of microscopic testing to detect infringements of the
legislation. However no currently available test is capable of detecting all prohibited animal protein. For
that reason very stringent Community control provisions on labelling, separation and treatment applicable
to the production, transport, storage and on-farm utilization of animal protein in animal feed are in force.

Since 1 January 2001 the importation from third countries of processed animal proteins intended for the
feeding of farmed animals has been prohibited by Council Decision 2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000
concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the
feeding of animal protein (1). This Decision will apply until 30 June 2001. On 1 April the Community
rules on the absence of specified risk material from products imported from non-BSE free third countries
will enter into force. Until that moment comparable national rules may remain in force. Finally, it is hoped
that on 1 July 2001 the proposal for a Parliament and Council Regulation laying down rules for the
prevention and control of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (2), as amended (3), on the
prevention and control of this group of diseases will enter into force. It lays down a wide range of rules
including those on the importation of bovine animals and products from third countries.

(1) OJ L 306, 7.12.2000.
(2) OJ C 45, 19.2.1999.
(3) COM(2000) 824 final.

(2001/C 187 E/052)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3788/00

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Scientific Committee(cid:146)s evaluation of proposals conderning Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs)

In September this year, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Eco-toxicity (CSTEE) and the Environment
published its opinion on the BKH report which proposed a priority list of substances to be assessed as
potential EDCs: (cid:145)Towards the establishment of a priority list of substances for further evaluation of their
role in endocrine disruption (cid:129) preparation of a candidate list of substances as a basis for priority setting(cid:146)
(BKH report MO355008/1786Q).

Is the Commission aware that this CSTEE opinion relies heavily on the views of the chemical industry (cid:129)
CEFIC (cid:129) and that these appear to be the only outside comments to have been used, apart from other EU
scientific bodies? Does the Commission agree that this gives the Scientific Committee(cid:146)s opinion the
appearance of a biased consultation procedure in which views of only certain parties have been taken
into account?

In these circumstances, does the Commission intend to rely heavily on the CSTEE opinion when assessing
actions to be taken on the basis of the BKH report, and how does it intend to balance its final conclusions
so that it takes account of submissions from other stakeholders (cid:129) including Member State authorities and
an international environmental NGO?

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

(11 January 2001)

Regarding the opinion of the Commission scientific committee for toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environ-
ment (SCTEE) on the BKH report (cid:145)Towards the establishment of a priority list of substances for further