WRITTEN QUESTION P-3084/01 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Experts' statements on the health hazards arising from adulterated butter.
Date: 2001-10-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, butter, competence of the Member States, food contamination, human nutrition, judicial investigation, marketing, public health, qualitative analysis

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/93

Can the Commission imagine that uniform legally binding safety standards might be adopted, despite the
fact that the Member States use different technologies?

When will the Commission be in a position to submit a Green Paper which might be used as a basis for a
discussion about common European safety standards and protective measures for nuclear power stations?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2001)

The competencies of the Union in the Nuclear field are laid down in the Treaty establishing the European
Atomic Energy Community (Euratom Treaty), whose Chapter 3 (Title II) deals with health and safety.

In this context, regulations, directives and guidance related to the area of radiological protection have been
developed with the aim of protection against possible health detriments resulting from exposure to
ionising radiation.

The responsibility to grant
licenses and regulate the siting, design, construction, operation and
decommissioning of nuclear installations rests with Member States and in particular within their Nuclear
Regulatory Authorities, while respecting any requirements resulting from Euratom and other International
Convention and Treaties. Member States have different regulatory regimes and legislative framework and as
a result regulatory procedures vary from State to State, often as a consequence of the differing reactor
technology and administrative framework employed by the Member State.

However, it is important to recall that in June 2001 the Council issued a report (1) on nuclear safety in the
context of the enlargement. This report has been drafted by experts of the Nuclear Regulatory Authorities
of the Member States, with the participation of the Commission. It develops a ‘European perspective’ to
evaluate nuclear safety in candidate states. As a result of this evaluation, a series of recommendations were
addressed to candidate states in order for them to reach a high level of nuclear safety.

Within the context of the Council, a ‘peer review’ mechanism is to be launched in 2002 to monitor the
implementation of these recommendations. The whole process clearly demonstrates that the Community is
able to elaborate a common approach on nuclear safety in spite of the different design and technologies
used in nuclear industries.

(1) COM(2001) 568 final.

(2002/C 147 E/099)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3084/01

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2001)

Subject: Experts’ statements on the health hazards arising from adulterated butter

Until mid-2000, members of the Italian mafia were involved in the large-scale adulteration of butter,
adding milk-free animal and vegetable fats and chemical substances to it before marketing it through
Belgian, French, German and Italian firms. It is believed that a total of 100 000 tonnes of adulterated butter
was used, principally in the production of pastries and processed cheese. When the fraud was revealed,
neither the Commission nor the Member States took any steps to withdraw from sale the remaining stocks
of products made with the adulterated butter. Nothing was done, despite the fact that, in a press release
published on 5 July 2000, the Italian Public Prosecutor’s Office gave a warning about possible hazards for
consumers’ health.

C 147 E/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

In December 2000, the French magazine ‘Expansion’ published extracts from transcriptions of messages
intercepted by the police which lead inevitably to the conclusion that those responsible for adulterating the
butter were perfectly well aware of the health risks involved. A witness claimed that the product, unlike
other mixtures, had a stinging taste in the mouth, smelt like glycerine and, when a drop of it fell on his
hand, burned his skin.

According to information issued by the Italian Public Prosecutor’s Office on 20 March 2001, not only
were chemical substances used for the production of the adulterated butter but also large quantities of fats
from rendering plants, produced from cattle brains, bones and internal organs,
in other words from
materials which might very well contain BSE pathogens. Nonetheless, on 23 May 2001, in its Annual
Report for 2000 on the Fight Against Fraud, the Commission claimed that, on the basis of analyses of the
seized goods, the experts had, to date, not established any direct hazard for the [sic] consumers’ health.

In response to my request (set out in Written Question P-2535/01 (1)) that the Commission publish the
names and indicate the official positions of the experts it consulted, the Commission simply recommended
that I should approach the national judicial authorities.

Must we conclude from that answer that the Commission does not even know the names and official
positions of the experts it consulted?

Can the Commission forward to me copies of the conclusions of the national authorities to which it
referred in its answer?

(1) See page 27.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question P-2535/01.

(2002/C 147 E/100)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3088/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Stephen Hawking’s concern that the human race will die out as a result of accidents in biological

experiments in the area of genetic engineering

1.
Is the Commission aware of the statements made by the well-known British scientist, Professor
Stephen Hawking of Cambridge, reported in the Daily Telegraph on 16 October 2001, in which he says
that he does not expect the human race to survive on earth until the year 3000 because of the likelihood
of biological accidents, which could destroy all life on earth and that he therefore sees the human race’s
sole chance of survival lying in its ability to spread to other planets that cannot be under threat at the
same time?

2. What is the Commission’s view of the fact that Professor Hawking is primarily concerned about
genetic engineering which, unlike other dangerous processes, can be done in a small laboratory that is not
regulated so that a virus can be created without warning and wipe us out?

Do Professor Hawking’s statements prompt the Commission to tighten up safety measures, and their

3.
enforcement, in the sphere of genetic research by:

(a) authorising research in this sphere only under strict government regulation, where society is fully

aware of the aims, methods, interests and funding of the researchers;

(b) not authorising any research in this area by organisations with commercial interests that have an

interest in the results being applied rapidly, without due care or even prematurely;