WRITTEN QUESTION E-2515/01 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Answer to Written Question P-2140/99.
Date: 2001-09-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, EU statistics, production aid, production policy, smoking, tobacco

C 115 E/106

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2001)

Commission experts from the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General’s (DG) Food and
1.
Veterinary Office (FVO) carry out regular on-the-spot checks in all Member States to verify the correct
implementation of Community food safety and veterinary legislation. Reports of these missions have been
published on the Health and Consumer DG website. In relation to matters relating to public and animal
health, the Commission’s policy is to maintain a high level of vigilance in order to ensure that Member
States fully comply with their obligations under Community law.

Where, after establishing the facts, it appears to the Commission that a Member State is not fulfilling its
obligations, the Commission is prepared to take all necessary action within its power in order to secure the
respect of Community law. In appropriate cases this action would include the opening of infringement
proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

2.
A range of Community legislation lays down the public and animal health requirements to ensure
that animal by-products are disposed of or processed in safe and controlled conditions to prevent the
spreading of pathogens, including transmissible spongiform encephalopathies agents, in the environment.
This legislation includes in particular: Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27 November 1990 laying down
the veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste, for its placing on the market and for
the prevention of pathogens in feedstuffs of animal or fish origin and amending Directive 90/425/EEC (1),
Council Decision 1999/534/EC of 19 July 1999 on measures applying to the processing of certain animal
waste to protect against transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending Commission Decision
97/735/EC, and Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001
laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (2). The non respect of those requirements could result in exposing, in a direct or in an
indirect way, humans and animals to infected material.

3.

No.

(1) Directive as last amended by the 1994 Act of Accession.
(2) OJ L 147, 31.5.2001. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1326/2001 of 29 June 2001

(OJ L 177, 30.6.2001).

(2002/C 115 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2515/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 September 2001)

Subject: Answer to Written Question P-2140/99

Mr Byrne’s answer to Written Question P-2140/99 (1) not only fails to make any sense but also amounts to
an invitation to produce more tobacco, as if there were no link between consumption (demand) and
production (supply).

Is the Commission aware that for many years the United Nations has been supporting and funding a
campaign to promote alternative crops to poppies in the Golden Triangle and coca in the Andes?
Obviously not. What the Commission seems to be interested in, however, is tobacco growing.

As it is the European taxpayers’ money that is involved not that of the Commission, I must insist on
knowing where the money has gone, country by country, over the past three years. As far as the inexact
reference in the above written question is concerned (the word company can also cover farms, I would ask
the Commission to think again and answer the question in the interests of openness rather than secrecy.

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 99.

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/107

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2001)

In addition to the reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question P-2140/99 (1), it may be useful to
underline that, since that date, the Commission has proved on several occasions its commitment when it
comes to contributing to a reduction of tobacco consumption, to banning tobacco advertising and to
eliminating tobacco subsidies, namely with the following initiatives:

B First and foremost, the Commission’s Communication (2) of 15 May 2001 on ‘A Sustainable Europe
for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development’, addressed to the
Gothenburg European Council, which calls for the phasing out of tobacco subsidies;

B Secondly, the adoption on 30 May 2001 of a new proposal for a directive on the approximation of
laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Members States relating to the advertising and
sponsorship of tobacco products (3);

B Finally, the negotiation process on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control of the World

Health Organisation, in which the Community and its Member States are presently engaged.

The Honourable Member will also find below the total amounts (in €) of Community premiums paid to
tobacco farmers during the last three financial years for which data are available, running from 16 October
‘n’ to 15 October ‘n+1’:

Belgium

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

Italy

Austria

Portugal

1997

1998

1999

3 156 518

3 291 713

3 557 138

26 983 863

29 497 290

23 245 284

355 916 566

365 921 057

374 853 802

122 309 083

107 384 517

70 651 036

84 172 072

84 922 659

70 057 813

394 231 759

259 582 591

348 373 164

640 825

708 060

727 451

17 890 302

19 907 864

18 296 863

Total

1 005 300 988

871 215 751

909 762 551

Source: EAGGF based on the monthly declarations of the Member States.

Other interesting information could be the volume of the tobacco crop production and the total number
of farmers for each one of the years considered:

1997

Surface
hectares

345

3 492

No prod.

280

1 486

Tonnes

No prod.

1 086

8 749

272

1 273

1998

Surface
hectares

355

3 846

Tonnes

No prod.

1 308

9 827

281

1 183

1999

Surface
hectares

359

4 546

Tonnes

1 333

11 334

65 078

59 866

122 966

62 720

62 307

122 847

63 586

60 834

123 851

7 634

8 271

13 225

9 141

41 038

24 498

7 511

7 707

14 370

9 073

42 055

26 694

7 179

7 206

13 313

9 480

39 893

30 136

B

D

GR

E

F

C 115 E/108

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

No prod.

1997

Surface
hectares

Tonnes

No prod.

1998

Surface
hectares

Tonnes

No prod.

1999

Surface
hectares

Tonnes

37 959

47 521

130 519

43 753

46 435

132 031

32 568

42 735

132 509

79

794

101

2 512

227

5 992

78

622

103

2 611

234

7 025

85

571

110

2 192

244

5 925

I

AT

P

Total

121 581

136 203

335 075

123 936

139 100

342 021

112 659

133 569

345 225

Source: Communications from Member States on the basis of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1771/93.

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000.
(2) COM(2001) 264 final.
(3) OJ C 270 E, 25.9.2001.

(2002/C 115 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2516/01

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(14 September 2001)

Subject: Animal slaughter without the use of ‘pithing rods’

The EU has prohibited the practice of ‘pithing’ on grounds of consumer protection. Captive-bolt guns,
which should stun effectively, are frequently used incorrectly with the result that animals are not fully
stunned during slaughter. It has been revealed, therefore, that partially stunned animals are hung on hooks
and butchered while still alive.

Since the right of all
Commission say:

living organisms to a dignified life and death should be respected, will

the

B whether the ban on ‘pithing’ is absolutely essential to ensure that no part of the spinal cord enters the
bloodstream? Are there any clear scientific findings concluding that a ban is the only logical solution?

B whether there are any effective alternative methods of stunning which would obviate the need for

‘pithing’ and achieve the aim of protecting consumers in the same way as the ban?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2001)

The prohibition of pithing in relation to animal slaughter is based on opinions from the Scientific Steering
Committee (SSC). These opinions bring out the fact that certain slaughter techniques including pithing are
recognised to release particles of brain-tissue, potentially containing transmissible spongiform encephalo-
pathy (TSE) infectivity, into the blood stream and therefore should be banned. Further details, can be found
in the opinion on the safety of ruminant blood with respect to TSE risks adopted by the SSC on
13-14 April 2000 and published on Internet at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/
sc/ssc/outcome_en.html.

The rules to ensure animal welfare at slaughter and killing, including appropriate methods for stunning,
are laid down in Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the
time of slaughter or killing (1). Pithing is not a stunning method, but was used to stop post-stunning
convulsions before the animal was shackled. Even before the entry into force of the prohibition, pithing
was only used in a limited number of slaughterhouses in certain Member States.

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993.