WRITTEN QUESTION E-3746/00 by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) and Karl Olsson (ELDR) to the Commission. TSE in pigs.
Date: 2000-12-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, animal disease, swine

C 174 E/132

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

(cid:129) what action does the Council intend to take in relation to the officials responsible for drafting the

reply to question P-2247/00?

(cid:129) does the Council intend to answer the questions raised in question P-2247/00, and if so, when?

Reply

(12 March 2001)

The Council believes that it gave a proper and full reply to question P-2247/00.

The Council was not apprised of the facts set out in question P-2247/00 before the Honourable Member(cid:146)s
question was referred to it. The reply stating that (cid:145)the first four questions raised by the Honourable
Member have never been brought before the Council(cid:146) has to be understood against that background.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is not bound by the provisions of the Rules of
Procedure of the European Parliament, as inferred from the joint reply by the Council to Written Questions
E-1299/00 and E-1300/00 put by Charles Tannock and P-1541/00 put by Michl Ebner. For all that, the
Council has never refused to reply to parliamentary questions concerning the powers or activities of its
General Secretariat.

In the case in point, the decision to which the Honourable Member referred in question P-2247/00 ((cid:145)(cid:133) the
secretariat of the Council of Ministers refused to allow the holding of a meeting on its premises organised
by an association of officials, the Amicale de la pensØe critique, on the question (cid:147)Do sects in general, and
Opus Dei in particular, represent a threat to a democratic and pluralist Europe?(cid:148)(cid:146)) was not taken. In fact, in
order to take account of the comments made by the administration of the General Secretariat of the
Council on the wisdom of the wording of the planned topic, which was likely to cause controversy, the
Amicale de la pensØe critique decided to hold the scheduled meeting off the Council premises, as it is
always free to do, and withdrew its request. The General Secretariat of the Council took note of that
decision.

Officials of the General Secretariat of the Council are subject to the Staff Regulations of officials of the
European Communities, as laid down by amended Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of
29 February 1968. The Council has not found there to be any delay in the preparation of the reply to
question P-2247/00 and therefore does not intend to take any action or make any special arrangements.

(2001/C 174 E/136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3746/00

by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) and Karl Olsson (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: TSE in pigs

What do we actually know about prions, the agents which pass on TSE and Creutzfeld-Jacobs disease? No-
one knows exactly how this protein becomes a hazard but we do know that it does.

The disease is spread via feedstuffs and food and the incubation period can extend over several years.
Contagious prions have already crossed two species barriers, from sheep to cattle and from cattle to
humans. We have also known for more than ten years that prions enter the food chain via meal
containing animal remains.

Pigs are fed the same type of foodstuffs as cattle and have the same digestive system as humans. The
reason pigs have so far not demonstrated TSE symptoms might well be that they do not live long enough
for the disease to develop.

Can the Commission therefore exclude the possibility that pigs might be carriers of TSE?

If not, when does the Commission intend to propose that TSE tests are also carried out on pigmeat?

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/133

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2001)

The Commission,
in matters related to health and consumer protection, bases its risk management
measures on the most recent available evidence and sound scientific advice. This advice is provided in
the form of scientific opinions adopted by the scientific steering committee (SSC). The SSC itself is assisted
by the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy/bovine spongiform encephalopathy (TSE/BSE) ad hoc
Group composed of Europe(cid:146)s leading scientists in the field of TSEs. All the SSC(cid:146)s reports and opinions are
publicly available on the Internet site of the Health and Consumer Directorate General.

Limitations of knowledge in the field of TSEs, including the species barrier, are listed and discussed in:

(cid:129) the scientific opinion on Oral exposure of humans to the BSE agent: infective dose and species barrier.
Adopted by the scientific steering committee at its meeting of 13-14 April 2000, following a public
consultation via Internet between 6 and 27 March 2000.

(cid:129) Updated Scientific Report on the (cid:145)Safety of meat-and-bone meal derived from mammalian animals fed
to non-ruminant food-producing farm animals(cid:146). Scientific steering committee, meeting of 24-25 Sep-
tember 1998.

The issue of TSEs in pigs to which the Honourable Members refers, is addressed in two reports and three
opinions of the SSC:

(cid:129) the scientific opinion on (cid:145)Fallen stock(cid:146), addressing the risks of non conventional transmissible agents,
conventional infectious agents or other hazards such as toxic substances entering the human food or
animal feed chains via raw material from fallen stock and dead animals (including also: ruminants,
pigs, poultry, fish, wild/exotic/zoo animals, fur animals, cats,
laboratory animals and fish) or via
condemned materials. Adopted by the scientific steering committee at its meeting of 24-25 June 1999.

(cid:129) the scientific report on (cid:145)Fallen stock(cid:146) addressing the above issues in detail. Submitted to the scientific

steering committee at its meeting of 24-25 June 1999.

(cid:129) the scientific opinion on the risk born by recycling animal by-products as feed with regard to
propagating TSE in non-ruminant farmed animals. Adopted by the SSC on 17 September 1999.

(cid:129) the scientific report on the Risk Borne by Recycling Animal By-Products as Feed with Regard to
Propagating TSE(cid:146)s in Non-ruminant Farmed Animals. Prepared by a working group for the scientific
steering committee as an input into the elaboration of the opinion on the same subject adopted on
16-17 September 1999.

(cid:129) the scientific opinion on the scientific basis for import bans proposed by 3 Member States with regard
to BSE risks in France and the Republic of Ireland; on the scientific basis for several measures
proposed by France with regard to BSE risks; and on the scientific basis for banning animal protein
from the feed for all farmed animals, including pig, poultry, fish and pet animals. Adopted by the
scientific steering committee at its meeting of 27-28 November 2000.

With regard to the questions posed by the Honourable Members, these reports and opinions can be
summarised as follows: (cid:145)((cid:133)) there is no epidemiological evidence that pigs, poultry or fish are susceptible
to BSE or that BSE has moved into these species. So far there is no scientific evidence of the occurrence of
TSE in farmed pigs, poultry and fish. Only pigs have been found to be susceptible to intra-cerebral
challenge under experimental conditions. Also the hypothesis that pigs, poultry or fish do act, after oral
challenge, as healthy carriers of TSE-agents is not supported by the limited experimental data available.(cid:146)
[Extract from the opinion adopted on 27-28 November 2000.]

C 174 E/134

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

The Commission therefore at this stage sees no justification in proposing TSE tests to be carried out on pig
meat. In this context it also needs to be stressed that currently no tests are available either for pigs or for
meat in general including cattle meat. As far as farmed animals for human consumption are concerned, the
only operational tests that are available have been developed and evaluated to be used on central nervous
tissue (brain and spinal cord) of ruminants.

(2001/C 174 E/137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3747/00

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against foreign coach drivers in France

French law allows huge fines to be levied on coach drivers for the slightest infringements, such as not
completely accurate tachograph discs. The fines are completely disproportionate to the offences.

The French police make especially frequent checks on foreign coach companies.

These constitute an indirect obstacle to the freedom to provide services.

1.

2.

3.

Is the Commission aware of this pattern?

Does the Commission consider these measures in France to be compatible with Community law?

If not, does the Commission intend to initiate infringement proceedings?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2001)

The Commission is aware of a change in French law, which authorises higher penalties, where

1.
serious offences are detected and a (cid:145)document de suivi(cid:146) is absent.

As regards general discrimination against foreign bus drivers by the French authorities, statistics provided
by the French authorities for offences detected within their territory over the past decade (see Commission
reports for 1991-1992 (1), 1993-1994 (2); 1995-1996 (3)) and the French data sent for the forthcoming
report for years 1997-1998 do not indicate an abnormally high number of non-residents checked or
offences detected on the part of non-resident drivers. On the contrary, the number of non-resident drivers
checked and found to be offending has consistently been a much lower figure than that for resident
drivers.

2. and 3.
The Commission is still examining whether the French law mentioned above is in conformity
with Community law. However normally the issue of penalties for road transport offences is a matter for
Member States to decide under the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission can only advocate that
sanctions for infringements of Community law are sufficiently dissuasive, proportionate and effective.

(1) COM(95) 713 final.
(2) COM(97) 698 final.
(3) COM(2000) 84 final.