WRITTEN QUESTION E-0374/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Natural products and scientific assessment.
Date: 2001-02-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agro-industry, consumer protection, food additive, food inspection, food safety, market approval, organic product, restriction on competition, sweetener

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/97

All these measures have been implemented within the time limits specified by the Lisbon European
Council, and the European Parliament was duly involved in the process, especially in the adoption of the
multiannual programme for enterprise and entrepreneurship, and in particular for the small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs) (2001-2005).

3.
Regarding the outcome of these measures at Member State level, the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention
is drawn to the fact that the Commission will evaluate the implementation of the multiannual programme
and will submit to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions:

(cid:129) every two years, an evaluation report on progress made in taking account, in a coordinated manner,
of enterprise policy in Community policies and programmes as a whole, and of the implementation of
the European Charter for Small Enterprises, and

(cid:129) an external evaluation report by the end of December 2004.

(2001/C 261 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0374/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Natural products and scientific assessment

Following the submission of an application by a Belgian firm, it appears that the Scientific Committee on
Food has (cid:145)banned(cid:146) the use of stevioside, a natural sweetener made of extracts of stevia rebaudiana, which
has been used for decades in many countries. This decision dismays consumers, who have serious
misgivings about the assessment criteria used by those with the power of decision and fail to see why it
is permissible for an artificial sweetener such as aspartame, for example, to be used without restrictions,
despite numerous reports of serious side-effects. Consumers have the impression that double standards are
applied, when it comes to authorising foodstuffs, depending on whether they are produced by powerful
agro-pharmaceutical companies or by small or medium-sized firms.

1.

Does the Commission share consumers(cid:146) misgivings?

Does it agree that the current system for approving substances is influenced more by the power of

2.
the manufacturers than by the need for consumer protection?

Does it not fear that,

3.
lead to the
disappearance of many of the most effective supplements available at present, as has already happened in
the case of sweeteners?

if the same system is applied to food supplements,

it will

4.
Does it not believe that, so long as the directive on food supplements requires strict controls on
admissible substances and (cid:145)sources of nutrients(cid:146), it will always be the power of the large and powerful
pharmaceuticals proposing the use of a new substance that determine whether or not it will be accepted?

5.
That being so, does it not fear that the traditional food supplements industry, which consists of small
and medium-sized undertakings, will be squeezed out of existence by the overwhelming strength of the
multinationals operating in the same sector?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2001)

On the basis of applications from two different companies, the Commission requested the Scientific
Committee on Food to examine the safety of stevioside as a sweetener and Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni
plants and leaves as novel food. The most recent opinions of the Scientific Committee date from June
1999.

C 261 E/98

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

With regard to the plant products, the Committee concluded that the information provided on the
specification, standardisation of the product and safety studies was insufficient. This confirmed an initial
assessment report carried out by the national authority that received the application. Consequently, the
Commission decided not to authorise the placing on the market of Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni plants and
dried leaves as food or a food ingredient (1).

With regard to the sweetener, the Committee expressed concerns regarding the absence of safety data
about the genotoxicity potential of a metabolite of stevioside, about the specification of the compound
(impurities) and about possible effects on human fertility. Therefore, the Commission did not consider it
appropriate to propose the authorisation of this substance as a sweetener for use in foodstuffs.

The Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants of the World Health Organisation
(WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has expressed similar concerns about stevioside as
the Scientific Committee on Food.

Aspartame has also been evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Food and has been found acceptable for
use as a sweetener in food. An Acceptable Daily Intake of 40 milligram per kilogram bodyweight has been
set by the Committee. Accordingly, this sweetener has been authorised under Community legislation for a
restricted range of foods and with maximum usage levels (2).

The Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that the size or the area of activity of the
manufacturer neither influence evaluations of food additives carried out by the Scientific Committee on
Food, nor will they influence future evaluations of substances for use as ingredients in food supplements.

(1) Commission Decision 2000/196/EC of 22 February 2000 refusing the placing on the market of Stevia Rebaudiana
Bertoni: plants and dried leaves as a novel food or novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the
Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 61, 8.3.2000.

(2) Parliament and Council Directive 94/35/EC of 30 June 1994 on sweeteners for use in foodstuffs (OJ L 237,

10.9.1994).

(2001/C 261 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0375/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Return of canis lupus to Alpine areas

The return of wolves (canis lupus) to Alpine areas, as a result of their migrating from the Italian
Apennines, has met with contrasting reactions on the part of national authorities in the light of the laws
of the countries concerned, so that various subterfuges have been employed to get round the inflexible
Community rules according to which the wolf is a species that may not be hunted.

What are the Commission(cid:146)s views on the subject, and does it consider that it would be appropriate to
agree on joint measures and, possibly, changes to the existing legislation?

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

(3 April 2001)

The wolf (Canis lupus), with the exception of some populations in Spain and Greece, is included in Annex
IV of the Habitats Directive (1) as a species of community interest for which rigorous protection is required.
According to Article 12 of the same Directive, this protection includes, among others, the obligation by
the Member States to prohibit, in their natural range, all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens
in the wild and deliberate disturbance, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and
migration.