WRITTEN QUESTION P-2230/01 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Consumer health and protection.
Date: 2001-07-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European standard, cancer, consumer protection, electromagnetic interference, non-ionising radiation, product safety, public health, radio telecommunications

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/225

(2002/C 40 E/243)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2230/01

by Jaime Valdivielso de CuØ (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2001)

Subject: Consumer health and protection

On 11 July 2001 the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy heard the details of a
scientific study compiled for Parliament(cid:146)s Directorate-General for Research by the Warwick University
Department of Physics (United Kingdom) and the German International Institute of Biophysics.

Among other things, the study warns that the radiation emitted by mobile phones and signal-boosting
aerials could cause a rare kind of tumour (termed (cid:145)epithelial neuroma(cid:146)) in the periphery of the brain.

What research is the Commission conducting into non-ionising electromagnetic radiation?

What will be done to protect consumer health against radiation from mobile phones and signal-boosting
aerials?

Is the Commission one of the international bodies which, as the study reveals, have deliberately ignored
the potential danger signs where mobile phone technology is concerned?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission has always paid attention to health risks associated with products put on the market.
Community regulations governing radio products in general, and GSM handsets in particular, oblige
manufacturers to ensure that they are safe. In particular Article 3.1.a of Directive 1999/5/EC (1) obliges
manufacturers to ensure that their products do not have adverse health effects when used for their
intended purpose.

The Community has also provided further guidance on the safety levels to be respected. On 12 July 1999
the Council adopted a Recommendation to Member States limiting the exposure of the general public to
electromagnetic fields from 0Hz to 300Ghz (2). The full respect of the basic restrictions and reference levels
included in the Recommendation will ensure users a high level of protection against acute and long-term
effects of non-ionising radiation emitted by such devices. The limits recommended include a safety factor
of 50 to cover possible long-term effects in the whole frequency range.

The European standards drafted by the European Committee for electrotechnical standardization (Cenelec)
will ensure the compliance of devices put on the market with the Council Recommendation and replace
conflicting national standards. The standards covering mobile phones were adopted in January of this year
and have been ratified by Cenelec in July. Their references were published in the Official Journal on
26 July 2001 (3).

The biological theory proposed by Prof. Hyland is judged very critically by scientific experts and the
mechanisms described still need to be demonstrated and replicated in (cid:145)vivo(cid:146) studies.

At present the World Health Organisation clearly states that no health effects were found in the use of
GSM phones.

Nevertheless the Commission is following the matter closely and has asked its Tox-Ecotox and
Environment Committee to deliver an update of its previous opinion, published in June 1998, on health
risks associated to electromagnetic fields regarding new technologic developments and conditions of
exposure, which at the time formed the basis of the Council Recommendation.

C 40 E/226

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

This will be published during the autumn of 2001 and used, if necessary, to elaborate new Community
legislative proposals in the field.

(1) Directive 1999/5/EC of

the Parliament and of

the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and

telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (OJ L 91, 7.4.1999).

(2) 1999/519/EC (OJ L 199, 30.7.1999).
(3) OJ C 208, 26.7.2001.

(2002/C 40 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2235/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Subject: Social security legislation

Would the Commission indicate whether equivalent provision is made for workers in Member States, other
than the UK, to receive benefit if they are capable of working, if they are available for work and if they are
actively seeking work?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

Unemployment benefits exist
the Member States, although the qualifying criteria vary.
A comprehensive description of the criteria used in each Member State is published in chapter 10 of the
Commission(cid:146)s Missoc (Mutual Information System on Social Protection) (1).

in all

The first two criteria of eligibility mentioned by the Honourable Member, i.e. to be capable of working and
to be available for work, are applied in almost all the Member States. However, the third criterion
mentioned, i.e. to actively seek work, may be implemented in different ways (for example in Ireland the
formulation is (cid:145)genuinely seeking work(cid:146) whereas in other Member States such as Belgium the person must
be registered for employment).

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/missoc2000/index_chapitre10_en.htm.

(2002/C 40 E/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2243/01

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: The Apache people of San Carlos, Arizona, USA

(26 July 2001)

For years now the San Carlos Apaches in Arizona have been waging an energetic campaign against the
plans to build an astronomical observatory on the summit of a mountain sacred to them, Mount Graham.

Influential institutions in the United States, such as the Smithsonian Institute, have refused to take part in
the project out of respect for the culture and religion of the indigenous population of North America.

Those taking part in building the observatory include the Vatican Observatory, the Arcetri Observatory of
Florence and the Max Planck Institut in Germany.

Does the Commission know about any Community funding being received by the three above-

1.
mentioned institutes;