WRITTEN QUESTION E-0543/01 by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) and Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) to the Commission. BSE risks.
Date: 2001-02-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal nutrition, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, derogation from EU law, health legislation, health policy, health risk, import restriction

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/45

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2001)

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Question
E-3981/00 from Mr Stevenson (1) and P-0359/01 from Mrs McNally (2).

Checks which are carried out at the border ensure that the products imported comply with the import
conditions established in the Community.

There is no Community legislation requiring labelling for any natural fur product. However, manufacturers
or importers are free to use voluntary labelling.

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 232.
(2) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 220.

(2001/C 340 E/051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0543/01

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) and Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2001)

Subject: BSE risks

On 7 February 2001 the European Commission submitted three proposals for decisions designed to
combat the risks arising from exposure to BSE to the Standing Veterinary Committee.

The proposals provide for exemptions conditional on the obligation to remove the spinal cord from cattle
over the age of 12 months (the spinal cord can be removed at the place of sale to the consumer) in respect
of five countries: Austria, Finland, Sweden, Portugal and the United Kingdom.

There are no limits on the export of beef from Austria, Finland and Sweden into the other Member States.
The same is not true of beef from the United Kingdom and Portugal. The provision could therefore be in
breach of the rules on competition which govern the internal market.

It would perhaps be advisable to grant derogations on the basis of firms rather than countries. Such
derogations should only be granted to firms subject to strict controls covering the entire production chain.
This would ensure effective consumer protection and provide better safeguards with regard to the danger
of the distortion the market to the detriment of the countries on which trade restrictions have been
imposed.

Can the Commission say what provisions it intends to adopt in this area?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2001)

The Scientific Steering Committee, in its opinion of 12 January 2001 on the safety with regard to bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) of certain bovine tissues and certain animal-derived products, indicated
its view that the vertebral column of bovines over 12 months should be regarded as specified risk material
(SRM). It also indicated that in assessing the risk to human health posed by the bovine vertebral column,
account should be taken of the likelihood of the animal being infected, and made particular reference to
the existence of an effective feed ban.

Following this opinion and the conclusion of the Agriculture Council of 29 January 2001, the Commission
brought forward a proposal to the Standing Veterinary Committee of 7 February 2001 (1) adding the
vertebral column to the list of SRMs, but giving certain derogations to United Kingdom, Portugal, Austria,
Finland and Sweden. The derogations for Austria, Finland and Sweden are based principally on their low
Geographical BSE Risk; those for the United Kingdom and Portugal are based on the demonstration of an
effective feed ban.

C 340 E/46

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

Legislation on BSE is agreed at Community level and enforced by Member State authorities. In the case of
the feed ban that forms the basis of the Portuguese and United Kingdom derogations, it would be difficult
to envisage how such a measure could be enforced and assessed at anything less than a national level.

(1) OJ L 84, 23.3.2001.

(2001/C 340 E/052)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0552/01

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(20 February 2001)

Subject: United States missile defence

In a recent
interview published on 6 February 2001 in the International Herald Tribune, George
Robertson, NATO Secretary-General, said that NATO was the most suitable institution to discuss the
development of the missile defence system which George Bush, the newly-elected President of the USA,
has brought back into the news with plans for its development.

In view of both the extreme importance of this issue for European countries and the creation of the CFSP
within the European Union framework:

1. Does the Council not consider that limiting discussions on this subject exclusively to the NATO
the Union(cid:146)s participation at a time when the EU is

setting will produce conclusions without
establishing the CFSP?

2.

Is the Council examining the possibility of bringing the subject up for discussion within the European
Union to determine the Member States(cid:146) common positions on this issue?

3. What is the Council(cid:146)s position on the topic, in view of the objections to the US leadership(cid:146)s intentions

from a number of EU Member States, NATO and other countries?

Reply

(10 July 2001)

There is so far no Council position on the National Missile Defence System. But as the Honourable
Member stated, several Member States have expressed their national views on the US plans. It should be
also recalled that according to Article 22 of the Treaty on European Union, any Member State may refer to
the Council any question relating to the common foreign and security policy.

The subject of NMD has been raised on several occasions during discussions between the Secretary
the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Mr Solana, and his
General/High Representative for
US counterparts. The Secretary General/High Representative has echoed the views expressed by a number
of Member States on the importance of maintaining global stability through an agreed security framework.
He has also underlined the need for full and transparent consultations between the US and its European
allies on this issue.

Furthermore at the 2000 Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the EU reaffirmed the importance
of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signed in 1972 by the US and the Soviet Union as one of the
pillars of strategic stability. The EU also stated that it wishes to see that Treaty preserved.