WRITTEN QUESTION P-4043/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Inspections of game in the Netherlands.
Date: 2000-12-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, animal disease, consumer protection, game meat, public health, veterinary inspection

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/235

(at least three languages must be involved); quality and relevance of European and multicultural content;
nature and extent of European audience; strength and transnational nature of
initiative(cid:146)s partners;
innovative nature of the initiative; utilisation of current technological developments for transmission and
dissemination of programmes.

Information requested by means of the application form is used to assess not only the likelihood of the
realisation of the project submitted but also to test the capacity of the applicant to implement effectively
such initiatives, in particular with regard to their potential for financial and technical viability.

The projects financed in 1998 and 1999 are as follows:

Project

Contribution

(€)

Radio Citta(cid:146) del Capo

Radio Popolare di Milano

Cospe

Kinema

72 623

134 046

236 439,98

258 228,50

(2001/C 163 E/276)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4043/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Inspections of game in the Netherlands

The final report of a mission carried out in the Netherlands (6 to 10 March) by the Food and Veterinary
Office notes several major shortcomings concerning inspection of varieties of game. A number of
recommendations are made to improve monitoring and inspections (for example, on p. 12 of the report,
recommendations concerning guarantees of inspection before meat is placed on the market, inspection for
trichinae etc.) The Netherlands was given three months from 10 March 2000 to regularise the inspections.

Can the Commission indicate to what extent the recommendations made in the report have actually

1.
been carried out by the Netherlands?

In the report the Commission announces a follow-up mission by the end of the year. Has this

2.
mission taken place and, if so, what are its findings and when will they be published?

3. Will these findings lead to any further action and, if so, what sort of action?

If the follow-up mission has not yet taken place, why not, given that the serious nature of the

4.
situation involving inspections of game in the Netherlands provides every reason for doing so?

Is the Commission aware of reports to the effect that the Netherlands has still not regularised the

5.
inspections? (1) If so, will this prompt the Commission to have this done as a matter of urgency?

Does the Commission agree that there are major risks in eating game which has not been properly
6.
inspected? What action does the Commission intend to take, at a time when large amounts of game will be
consumed, and what measures does it feel it can take in the immediate future to protect public health and
consumers?

(1)

(cid:145)Het wild is niet altijd even eco(cid:146) (Game is not always environmentally sound), Trouw, 11.12.2000.

C 163 E/236

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2001)

Following the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) inspection mission to which the Honourable Member
refers, the Dutch authorities gave an initial reaction on 27 March 2000. This indicated the immediate
action taken to address the deficiencies that had been identified. This was followed by a detailed response
on 4 April 2000, which addressed each of the report(cid:146)s recommendations.

In response to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s specific questions, the Commission would like to offer the
following replies:

1. Taken in conjunction, the above two replies from the Dutch authorities provided fully satisfactory
assurances as to the action taken or planned in response to each of the above recommendations. In
addition, direct contact was taken with the Dutch Chief Veterinary Officer on 24 March 2000 to
discuss the follow-up action required of the Dutch authorities.

2. and 3. No follow-up mission has yet taken place.

4.

In drawing up the Food and Veterinary Office(cid:146)s mission programme for the second half of 2000, it
was necessary to decide on priorities for its control and inspection activities. In view of the satisfactory
nature of the responses from the Dutch authorities, and the findings of inspection missions to the
Netherlands in May and June 2000 in related food production sectors (processed meat product and
pig meat production), the need for an urgent follow-up mission to review the production of wild
game meat was not considered to have the same high priority as had originally been judged to be the
case. Instead, priority has been given, for example, to inspections on BSE controls. The situation is
being kept under close review, and further action will be taken where this is considered necessary to
ensure that satisfactory levels of consumer health protection are being achieved.

5. The Commission was not aware of the information to which the Honourable Member refers. It will
take immediate contact with the Dutch authorities in order to clarify the situation. A decision on
whether a further inspection mission is required will be taken in light of the outcome of this inquiry
and other pressing priorities.

6. Detailed rules exist in Community legislation as to the standards to be observed in Member States
during wild game meat processing and production. These include specific requirements for the
inspection of carcases and offals, which form an essential part of food safety controls in this sector.
A failure to respect the requirements of this legislation means that there is an increased risk that these
minimum standards will not be met. Member States are responsible for ensuring compliance with
these rules, and are fully aware of their obligations in this respect. As indicated above, contact will be
taken with the Dutch authorities in relation to the reports to which the Honourable Member refers, to
ensure that acceptable standards are being met.

(2001/C 163 E/277)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4046/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Variation in rates of duty on fuel

Does the Commission consider that the variation in rates of duty on fuel in the various Member States
distorts intra-Community trade? If so, should low rates of tax be deemed to be unfair state aids?