WRITTEN QUESTION E-2116/01 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Aventis T25 genetically modified maize.
Date: 2001-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: environmental protection, food inspection, foodstuffs legislation, genetically modified organism, health risk, human nutrition, maize, market approval, public health

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/13

In view of a lack of information, the Commission decided to open a formal enquiry within the terms of
Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC)
No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards
coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations
of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (1).

Accordingly, the Commission sent a letter to the Greek authorities on 19 January 2001, to which the
Greek authorities replied on 11 February 2001. The Commission requested further clarifications by their
letter dated 11 April 2001, to which the Greek authorities replied on 11 May 2001. The issues raised by
the Honourable Member are well known to the Commission, and are being considered together with
others, as part of this enquiry.

The Commission will now reply to the Greek authorities, with its evaluation of the situation. On the basis
of this evaluation and the reaction of the Greek authorities, the Commission will reach its final conclusion,
which is expected for the month of September 2001.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.

(2002/C 134 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2116/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Aventis T25 genetically modified maize

Given the inadequacy of the research aimed at proving the safety of Aventis T25 for humans and the
environment, and the suspicious trends present in the tests done on chickens, does the Commission plan
to withdraw the authorisation of Aventis 25 against both the Deliberate Release Directive and the Novel
Food Regulation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2001)

The Aventis T25 genetically modified (GM) maize received approval for the placing on the market under
Part C of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment
of genetically modified organisms (1). The authorisation procedure, as for all product notifications, included
a comprehensive assessment of risks to human health and the environment and subsequent evaluation by
the Scientific Committee on Plants. The Committee concluded that there was no reason to believe that the
placing on the market of this product constituted a risk to either human health or the environment.

According to Article 4(1) of the Directive ‘Member States shall ensure that all appropriate measures are
taken to avoid adverse effects for human health and the environment.’ Articles 11(6) and 12(4) of the
Directive also refer to further measures that can be taken by Member States in view of new information
that becomes available with regard risks to human health and the environment. Furthermore, Article 16 of
the Directive allows a Member State to provisionally ban the use or sale of an authorised product on its
territory where it has justifiable reasons to consider that the product constitutes a risk to human health
and the environment.

Austria invoked the Article 16 clause for the Aventis T25 genetically modified maize in May 2000. The
Scientific Committee on Plants concluded, however,
the information submitted by Austria in
justification of the ban did not alter the original risk assessment. Recently, the United Kingdom has also
invoked the Article 16 clause for this product. The Scientific Committee is currently considering this
matter in terms of risk to human health and the environment and the Commission awaits its opinion on
the matter.

that

C 134 E/14

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

It should also be noted that this product requires authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the
Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (2),
before it can be used as or in food. Use of the maize kernels themselves from the Aventis T25 maize line
has not been authorised under the above mentioned Regulation. Under this Regulation, only products
derived from Aventis T25, such as flour, starch or oil may be placed on the market,
following a
notification made to the Commission in January 1998 under Article 5 of the Regulation.

This notification was based on an assessment carried out by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and
Processes of the United Kingdom, which established that the products concerned were substantially
equivalent to products derived from conventional maize varieties and that there would be no risk for
human health and the environment.

The Commission does not plan to withdraw authorisation of the foodstuffs derived of the sweet corn line
Aventis T25 under Regulation (EC) No 258/97.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
(2) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2002/C 134 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2149/01

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Time-wasting bureaucracy at the Commission

(18 July 2001)

The European Union’s popularity with the public depends on whether the EU can make a practical positive
difference to people’s lives. Many of the small cultural and educational projects which the EU supports
provide a positive experience of the European Union, and it is therefore incredibly annoying if work on
such projects ends up producing exactly the opposite effect.

Unfortunately, many people applying for funding for small projects become very disappointed and
frustrated as a result of their encounters with the EU system. This is because of the long delays they
experience in having their applications dealt with. Such delays are especially serious for small projects
which do not have big financial backing, as the applicants cannot afford to wait as long as 5-6 months for
an answer. Many small projects unfortunately do not get off the ground if it takes so long, and EU funding
therefore goes mainly to those already in a financially strong position.

The delays in question are probably due to a very bureaucratic approvals procedure within the
Commission. Many Directorates-General are involved in taking the decisions, and sometimes small projects
involving as little as EUR 10 000 have to be approved by the whole college of Commissioners.

Does the Commission have any plans to change the procedure so as to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and
reduce the time needed to process applications?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2001)

The Commission is fully aware of the need to reduce the period of time needed to inform applicants for
grants of the result of their applications.

This period is necessary, however, because the Commission has to examine a very large number of
applications submitted in response to its calls for proposals. Consequently, in the case of programmes
which directly concern the public,
like those in the field of education and culture mentioned in the
question, the number of grant applications to be vetted vastly exceeds the number of grants available.
(Thousands of grants are awarded each year. For a given budget heading, the ratio of the number of grants
awarded to the number of applications examined can be 1:6, or even more.)