WRITTEN QUESTION E-0407/01 by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen (PSE) to the Commission. Competitive disadvantages for ships with catalytic converters.
Date: 2001-02-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: anti-pollution device, environmental protection, fuel oil, international convention, maritime transport, operating cost, pollution control measures, restriction on competition, transport company

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/45

Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council (2), a claim regarding the effects of
phytosterol-esters on blood cholesterol
levels has been approved. In addition supplementary labelling
requirements for that product were also mandatory.

In the assessment of this product no unacceptable risks for human health have been revealed. However, if
regularly eaten the Beta-carotene levels in the blood serum are shown to be lowered, but still remain in the
(cid:145)normal(cid:146) range. Therefore, as a precautionary measure it was made compulsory to state on the label that
the product is intended for people who wish to control their blood cholesterol and that it is not
recommended for pregnant women, breast-feeding mothers and children under five.

Regarding the population in general the Scientific Committee on Food stated in its opinion that (cid:145)Given the
overall evaluation of the submitted information the Committee concludes that the use of phytosterol-esters
in yellow fat spreads at a maxmium level corresponding to 8 % free phytosterol is safe for human use(cid:146).

The Commission is aware of the varying rules on claims on foodstuffs. Claims should be truthful and
substantiated. For this reason the Commission announced in its White Paper on Food Safety (3) its intention
to consider whether specific provisions should be introduced in Community legislation to govern
(cid:145)functional claims(cid:146) and (cid:145)nutritional claims(cid:146) on foodstuffs. A discussion paper on this issue will be available
shortly, and on the basis of the comments received the Commission intends to prepare a legislative
proposal. The Commission foresees to adopt a proposal at the end of 2001.

Under current Community legislation (Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC of the Parliament and of the
Council, of 20 March 2000, on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (4)) the attribution
to any foodstuff of the property of preventing, treating or curing a human disease, or reference to such
properties, is prohibited.

As for the presentation of the information particulars on the label of foodstuffs, Directive 2000/13/EC
does not specify the font to use on the labels of food products. However, it requires all labelling particulars
to be easy to understand and marked in a conspicuous place to be easily visible, clearly legible and
indelible; they shall not in any way be hidden, obscured or interrupted by other written or pictorial matter.

As far as controls and sanctions are concerned, the Member States, on the basis of Community rules, carry
out controls. However, sanctions are strictly the prerogative of Member States.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.
(2) OJ L 200, 8.8.2000.
(3) COM(1999) 719 final.
(4) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.

(2001/C 318 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0407/01

by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen (PSE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Competitive disadvantages for ships with catalytic converters

Shipping companies which have fitted their ships with catalytic converters and use low-sulphur bunker oil
have great difficulty in procuring that type of oil. The result of this situation is that companies wishing to
invest in environment-friendly transport suffer a sharp increase in costs which, naturally, benefits their
competitors.

Bunker oil with a 1 % sulphur content is produced only at Flushing and Brofjorden. One percent sulphur
bunker oil is between USD 10 and 15 more expensive than oil with a 3 % sulphur content. In addition,
there is a further charge of USD 10 for transporting the oil out to ships for loading. In total,
it is
USD 20-25 more expensive to use low-sulphur oil. With the current price of oil standing at USD 170 per
ton, this signifies a 12 % higher cost margin. At an annual consumption of 25 000 tons of oil, that results
in current conditions in an additional cost of DKK 5 million, which amounts to distortion of competition

C 318 E/46

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

to the detriment of environment-conscious companies. Does the Commission consider it reasonable that
companies using catalytic converters on their ships to spare the environment should be punished in this
way?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Equipment of vessels with catalytic converters and the use of low-sulphur bunker oil are decisions which at
this stage are still left to the discretion of the ship owner. Distortion of competition can only be avoided
when appropriate rules for the construction and equipment of ships and the use of low sulphur bunker
oils will be put in place.

Harmonised technical rules for the prevention of air pollution from ships,
including those related to
bunker fuels, are laid down in Annex VI of the International Convention for the prevention of pollution
from ships (Marpol) Convention. This Annex was adopted at a diplomatic Conference organised by the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1997. Following Community action at the IMO both the
Baltic Sea and the North Sea will be recognised as special (cid:145)Sulphur oxides (SOx) Emission Control Areas(cid:146)
within this Convention. In these areas all ships, irrespective of flag, will be obliged to use bunker fuel with
a low (1,5 %) sulphur content. This will ensure ships operating in the Baltic and North Sea are on an equal
footing with regard to the supply of bunker fuel.

These rules will only enter into force when fifteen flag States representing 50 % of the world tonnage fleet
have ratified Annex VI of Marpol. Today the number of ratifying States is still insufficient. However, the
1997 Conference, which adopted these rules, expected that the harmonised rules would effectively apply
by 31 December 2002. If this is not the case the IMO has been invited to initiate a review of the rules to
identify the impediments to entry into force and any measure to alleviate those impediments.

(2001/C 318 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0408/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Hainaut Objective 1 region

According to the Commission, it is still too soon to say how many businesses based in West Flanders will
move their registered offices to Hainaut in order to obtain European subsidies for the programme period
2000-2006. Between 1994 and 1999 about fifty businesses apparently surrendered to the enticement to
move from Flanders to Hainaut.

Further research is needed in order to gain a clearer idea of the reasons why managers of businesses in
West Flanders decide to move to Hainaut, or indeed decide not to do so. In his reply to Question P-1706/
00 (1), Commissioner Michel Barnier says that (cid:145)the Community has, however, a particular interest where
a firm undertaking a relocation has been supported by public funds either in its present or future location(cid:146).
Nonetheless, the Commission (cid:145)does not intend to carry out such research(cid:146).

1. Will the Commission after all
investigate the reasons why the managers of businesses in West
Flanders decide to move to Hainaut, or decide not to do so, in view of the Community(cid:146)s (cid:145)particular interest
where a firm undertaking a relocation has been supported by public funds either in its present or future
location(cid:146)? If not, why does the Commission refuse to investigate the reasons why the managers of
businesses in West Flanders decide to move to Hainaut, or not to do so? What are the Commission(cid:146)s
arguments in favour of
the Community(cid:146)s (cid:145)particular interest where a firm
undertaking a relocation has been supported by public funds either in its present or future location(cid:146)?

this refusal,

in view of

How many applications, and which, have been submitted for Objective 1 assistance to new economic
2.
activities in Hainaut since 1 January 2000? When and where were these businesses(cid:146) registered offices
registered? How many of these businesses had previously been operating in the province of West Flanders?
How many of these businesses are operating in the province of West Flanders?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 75.