WRITTEN QUESTION E-0050/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Common Foreign and Security Policy and the NMD initiative.
Date: 2001-01-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, United States, anti-missile defence, arms limitation, missile

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/169

In the light of the Commission(cid:146)s answer, I would reformulate this question as follows:

(cid:129) does the Commission take ethical aspects into account in its consideration of whether the existing

directive can be modified?

(cid:129) one reason for the existing ban on producing L-cysteine from human hair was the risk of transmitting

Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease and certain virus diseases.

(cid:129) in the light of the most recent findings on BSE and the uncertainty as to how Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease

is transmitted, does the Commission really think it is responsible to water down the ban?

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 224.
(2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2001)

As stated in Council Directive 76/768/EEC, of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to cosmetic products, the Cosmetics Directive, the pursuit of the safeguarding of
public health must inspire the Community legislation in the cosmetic sector. This objective must be
attained by means which also take into account economic and technological requirements. Technical
progress necessitates rapid adaptation of the technical provisions of the Directive ensuring that only safe
cosmetic products are put on the market. To this end, the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and
Non-Food Products (SCCNFP) is mandated to give opinions on consumer health and safety issues in the
field of cosmetics, based on scientific data, while taking into account ethical considerations such as the use
of human volunteers for testing purposes.

Therefore, when proposing its technical adaptation of the Directive, the Commission takes into account
the scientific as well as the ethical aspects considered by the SCCNFP in its opinions.

The risk assessment of amino acids such as L-cysteine obtained by hydrolysis of human hair carried out by
the SCCNFP and the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) has shown that such amino acids are safe.

This is based on the following facts:

(cid:129) at present prions associated with transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) have not been

detected in hair;

(cid:129) cosmetic uses of these hydrolysates are for topical application only and there is no evidence indicating

that TSE may be transmitted by topical application;

(cid:129) the very rigorous procedure leading to an absence of peptides may guarantee the exclusion of the

responsible prion;

(cid:129) by their nature amino acids cannot transmit TSE.

In conclusion the current scientific knowledge fully supports the modification of entry 416 of Annex II of
the Cosmetics Directive.

(2001/C 187 E/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0050/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Common Foreign and Security Policy and the NMD initiative

The President of the United States, George W. Bush, is a great supporter of the National Missile Defense
(NMD) shield.

C 187 E/170

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

The shield system is supposed to defend the US against a missile attack. However, the initiative is a threat
to security on the continent of Europe. The Russian government has pointed out that the NMD system is
incompatible with the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) Treaty of 1972. Robin Cook, Britain(cid:146)s Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs, has expressed fears of a new arms race.

If the US Administration really does want to create a missile shield it needs the support of the UK
government. One part of the shield would be situated in North Yorkshire.

1. What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the National Missile Defence system?

Does the Commission believe that the NMD system is compatible with the ABM Treaty of 1972?

2.
If so, on what grounds?

3.
Does the Commission share the fears of Robin Cook, Britain(cid:146)s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
of a new arms race if the United States develops the missile shield? If not, on what grounds does the
Commission reject Mr Cook(cid:146)s views?

In view of its replies to questions 1, 2 and 3, does the Commission support the siting of part of the

4.
missile shield in North Yorkshire?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2001)

This is an issue of defence which falls outside the scope of Community competence.

(2001/C 187 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0053/01

by Giuseppe Pisicchio (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Situation of Carime

Italy authorised the banking group Cariplo to acquire through its
During the 1990s the Bank of
subsidiaries a number of important credit institutions in the south of Italy such as Carical, Caripuglia,
Carisalerno and Mediocredito Sud, which were seriously in debt, at a cost of only a few hundred billion lire
for a network of 400 branches with more than 4000 employees.

The benefits of this operation were twofold. From the point of view of taxation, the outstanding debts
could be included in the consolidated balance sheet, while the share capital could be reconstituted by
undervaluing the old shareholdings using criteria designed to bring their value down sharply if they were
not converted into new ones, making it possible possible to recover the capital used for the purchase of
the banks themselves.

The existing institutions taken over by Cariplo were brought together in a single structure, Carime, in
which the majority shareholding of 66 % was transferred for ITL 2 300 billion to the Banco Popolare
Commercio e Industrial del Veneto in November 2000, which is considerably smaller in size than the bank
purchased.

At the time of the transfer, Carime had an overall value of 20 000 billion lire, with investments of 6000
billion lire, mainly in local development, at a time when this is particularly necessary.