WRITTEN QUESTION E-3773/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. New plants with genes for toxic substances pollinating crops and producing poisonous food plants.
Date: 2000-12-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: crop production, environmental protection, environmental risk prevention, human nutrition, pesticide, public health, toxic substance, transgenic plant

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/17

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. whether it is true, as has been reported, that the staff complement is to be reduced again, bringing the

total job losses to 400;

2. whether there is an intention to rationalise scientific research, and what the guiding criteria would be;

3. whether it is true that, if the cut were to be made, the Ispra centre would be transferred from the

Community(cid:146)s responsibility to Italian national responsibility?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3763/00 and E-3778/00
given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2001)

The Commission would like it to be noted that the most recent revision of the JRC(cid:146)s (Joint Research
Centre(cid:146)s) staff complement goes back to the 1999 budget. That complement was kept constant by
increasing the number of A posts (+120) and reducing the number of B and C posts accordingly.

As part of the review of its priorities launched early this year, the Commission adopted the recommenda-
tions of the Peer Group in its meeting on 26 July 2000.

This being the case, the Commission has asked the Commission member responsible for research to make
the JRC responsible for conducting a feasibility study on the closure of the Petten centre and, alternatively,
to contemplate the cutting of 200 jobs by scaling down activities throughout the JRC(cid:146)s departments.

The feasibility study on the closure of the Petten centre has been completed. The JRC(cid:146)s other departments
are also being subjected to an audit, the conclusions of which are planned for late March 2001. On the
basis of the study and the audit the Commission will then subject any proposals concerning the research
staff complements to a budgetary audit.

There is no wish to transfer Community responsibilities concerning the JRC to the Member States.

(2001/C 235 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3773/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: New plants with genes for toxic substances pollinating crops and producing poisonous food plants

1.
Is the Commission aware of the report from the British Government(cid:146)s Advisory Committee on
Releases to the Environment (ACRE), entitled (cid:145)Guidance on Best Practices in the Design of Genetically
Modified Crops(cid:146), (www.environment.detr.gov.uk/acre/bestprac/index.htm), which establishes that new tech-
nologies could be used to prevent genes resistant to herbicides crossing into other plants?

Is it aware that

2.
for example, of plants with genes for toxic substances
pollinating crops and producing poisonous food plants or GMOs containing novel proteins provoking
allergic reactions?

the possibility exists,

Does the Commission share ACRE(cid:146)s concern regarding these potential hazards, and would it endorse

3.
the guidelines issued by the Committee on minimising the risk of gene flow?

C 235 E/18

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

Does it share the view expressed in the (cid:145)New Scientist(cid:146) of 28 October 2000 by Brian Johnson, who
4.
serves on the UK Government conservation body, English Nature, that technologies currently in develop-
ment capable of combating these undesirable effects should not be patented but instead made widely
available?

Does the Commission endorse ACRE(cid:146)s recommendation that, when plants are modified, they should

5.
be engineered in a way that minimises the risk of gene flow via cross-pollination?

Is it aware (for example, through the report in the (cid:145)New Scientist(cid:146) of 21 October 2000) that examples

6.
of such gene flow have already occurred?

7.

Is it aware that the creation of buffer zones is not totally effective in preventing such gene flow?

8. Will the Commission consider proposing the modification of legislation to ensure that licences are
not issued for the development or cultivation of GMOs in the open environment which do not use best
available technology to prevent gene flow, to ensure that as little DNA as possible is added in the
modification of organisms, that the use of antibiotic resistance markers is eliminated, and that technologies
are developed and employed to ensure that genes added to plants are expressed only when and where
needed?

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

(19 February 2001)

The report of

1. and 2.
(ACRE)
summarises general principles that should be taken into account during the development of a genetically
modified organism (GMO).

the British Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment

According to Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the
environment of genetically modified organisms (1), all specific characteristics of the plant,
i.e. cross-
pollination and the inserted trait, including potential toxic or allergenic effects, have to be evaluated in
a comprehensive environmental risk assessment prior to the placing on the market of a GMO.

3. and 4.
Gene flow is a natural phenomenon, which can only be influenced by substantial technical
interference such as using physical barriers, cutting the reproductive organs for breeding purposes or
genetic engineering.

Methodologies to directly influence the reproduction of genetically modified organisms have been and are
currently being developed. But as demonstrated i.e. by the discussion on the so-called terminator
technology, these developments are the subject of controversial public discussion and concern. These
ongoing discussions include, in addition to the question of whether these technologies should be applied at
all, the issue of free access to these technologies.

The development and the final characteristics of a GMO are determined by the notifier.
5. to 7.
Guidelines, as they are now proposed by the ACRE, might be helpful
in that respect, as they draw
attention to specific important points and developments that will be addressed in the environmental risk
assessment.

During the risk assessment, all potential effects of a GMO and the inserted trait have to be taken into
account and evaluated. Depending on this risk assessment, appropriate measures have to be taken to
minimise the risk of the deliberate release including the spread of a trait in order to ensure the highest
level of protection for human health and the environment.

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/19

Directive 90/220/EEC is the core element in the regulatory framework for biotechnology. It sets out
8.
the procedures for approvals concerning the initial placing on the market of GMOs. The revised Directive
to be adopted shortly provides for an efficient and transparent regulatory framework guaranteeing a high
level of protection for human health and the environment.

The specific question of antibiotic resistance marker genes is explicitly addressed in the revised Directive
90/220/EEC where an obligation to phase out the use of these markers by the end of 2004 has been
included.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.

(2001/C 235 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3782/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Price rises for (cid:145)clean(cid:146) electricity as a result of EU competition rules

there is a serious difference in the interpretation of

Is the Commission aware of the report in the Dutch newspaper (cid:145)De Volkskrant(cid:146) of 18 November
1.
2000 that
the Commission(cid:146)s policy, with the
Netherlands energy firms maintaining that the consumer price for electricity from renewable sources
((cid:145)clean electricity(cid:146)) must be increased on the Commission(cid:146)s instructions, while Greenpeace describes this
claim as nonsense?

2.
Is it true that the Commission will be deciding in December that (cid:145)clean(cid:146) electricity in the Netherlands,
which is exempt from the environmental tax, will be required in 2001 to be increased because the
environmental tax on (cid:145)dirty(cid:146) electricity will then be rising from 8,5 cents to 12,5 cents per kW/h, thus
placing (cid:145)clean(cid:146) electricity in a better competitive position and enabling it to price a competing product out
of the market?

Can the Commission confirm that the cost price of wind-generated power can be lower than that for
3.
electricity generated by fossil fuels which are subject to the environmental tax? Has it in the past taken
action to prevent such power being available to consumers at the same or a lower price?

Does the Commission agree that it is not enough if only environmentally aware people on high
4.
incomes have the opportunity to contribute voluntarily to cleaner forms of energy, while clean power
remains unaffordable for the majority of users and there is no change in electricity production for the
majority?

Is the Commission prepared to encourage a growth in the number of users of (cid:145)clean power(cid:146) by

5.
removing obstacles (cid:129) such as the relatively high price (cid:129) as far as possible?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2001)

1.
The Commission cannot confirm that the consumer price for electricity from renewable energy
sources must be increased on its instructions. To the contrary, the Commission adopted in May 2000
a proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of electricity from
renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market (1). The basic objective underlying this proposal
for a Directive is to create a framework that will facilitate a significant medium-term increase in renewable
generated electricity within the Community. To this end the Commission proposal recognises in its recital
18 that public support for renewable electricity will be necessary to reach the Community(cid:146)s objectives with
regard to its expansion, in particular as long as electricity prices in the internal market do not reflect the
full social and environmental costs and benefits of energy sources used.