WRITTEN QUESTION E-3334/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Production of fruit and vegetables contaminated with plant protection products and possibility of stopping their being distributed in other Member States.
Date: 2001-11-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: fruit, health control, marketing standard, pesticide, plant health control, plant health legislation, vegetable

C 147 E/156

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

some significant successes but also claimed their first innocent victims, namely a number of Community
citizens living and working in Andorra.

Recent changes in Spanish tax regulations regarding tax on the income of natural persons have overturned
the long-established arrangement, and the Spaniards habitually resident in Andorra, where they make up
the largest group of Community citizens, are consequently having to pay too much tax. The problem
appears to lie in the confusion between the concepts of residence for tax purposes and habitual residence.
Residents of other Member States are not affected in the same way. The end result
is that some
Community citizens are suffering discrimination compared with others. Is the Council aware of these facts?

When pursuing the measures referred to above and seeking to harmonise taxes, will the Council allow this
distinction in tax treatment to remain unaltered? Is it taking into account the legitimate interests of the
citizens concerned, who have no connection with criminal activities of any kind?

Reply

(18 March 2002)

The issue raised by the Honourable Member does not fall within the Council’s competence.

(2002/C 147 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3334/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 November 2001)

Subject: Production of fruit and vegetables contaminated with plant protection products and possibility of

stopping their being distributed in other Member States

1.
Is the Commission aware that an investigation conducted by the Netherlands Food Inspection Service
concerning the situation in 2000 revealed that, of 2 600 samples of fruit and vegetables in shops in the
Netherlands examined, 9,2 % contained higher amounts of plant protection products than are permitted by
law?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that, in the case of domestic produce, the level of contamination was
significantly lower, at 4 %, whilst the worst cases of the limits being exceeded (up to 50 %) were found in
grapes from Italy,
lettuce from France and peppers and oranges from Spain (despite the fact that a
proportion of these products had already been detected and destroyed before reaching the shops)?

3. What is the Commission’s view of the demand by the Netherlands Foundation for Nature and the
Environment and the Netherlands Association for Environmental Protection that the government and the
distribution sector must detect and destroy such contaminated foodstuffs in good time, before they reach
consumers? And how does it view the advice given by the consumers’ association and environmental
organisations to consumers to eat only organically-grown fruit and vegetables in future?

4.

How can it help prevent such contaminated foodstuffs continuing to be produced in Europe?

5. Within the single market, how can EU Member States prevent contaminated fruit and vegetables
from other Member States where the rules are applied less strictly from being introduced into their
territory and causing disease or entailing high costs in connection with early detection and destruction?

How and from when can consumers be assured that fruit and vegetables produced and distributed

6.
within the EU can no longer contain impermissible levels of toxins?

Source: Netherlands newspaper ‘De Volkskrant’ of 2 November 2001.

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/157

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2002)

The Commission has examined the Netherlands’ monitoring report for 2000 and has noted that not
1.
all the samples in the Dutch report are randomly taken and that many are specifically directed towards
product-pesticide combinations for which possible violations were expected due to e.g. previous violations.
Sampling and analysis is expensive and it is justifiable to adopt an efficient sampling strategy to detect as
many violations as possible at the cost of the representativity of the sample. To obtain a representative
view the Commission organises annual co-ordinated monitoring exercises. From the results of these it can
be concluded that each year 3-4 % of samples exceed the legal limits for pesticide residues (MRLs) in food
on the European market.

In most of the national reports from the Member States, the levels of pesticide residues in domestic
2.
produce is lower than in imported produce. The Member States have not provided an explanation for this
to the Commission.

3.
The Commission considers that MRLs should be respected but does not consider that produce for
which MRLs are exceeded should automatically be destroyed because not all such produce is dangerous
and there may be other methods of processing, treatment or disposal available that could be considered on
a case-by-case basis, particularly when there is no risk to the consumer. However,
in the case of a
consumer health concern, then it is clear that such produce cannot be consumed. Advising consumers
only to eat organically grown produce could give the erroneous impression that food legally produced
using other methods is somehow unsafe and could also lead to market problems in view of the limited
supply of organic produce. Since the benefits to health of eating fresh fruit and vegetables are well-known,
then the taking of any measures that might reduce their consumption should be carefully considered
beforehand. Therefore the Commission does not agree with the consumer organisations’ view in this
instance and is of the opinion that legally produced conventionally and organically grown produce are safe
for the consumer and that the control measures in place aim to ensure the continued safety of both types
of production.

The Commission is currently reviewing the safety of all pesticide active substances and has presented
4.
a report to the Parliament and Council on this (1). The report includes ideas for strengthening the control
measures in place and, based on the reactions of the Council and the Parliament to the Report, the
Commission foresees proposing to amend the directive to do so.

5. Member States can prevent the marketing of produce containing excess residues by spending more
resources in monitoring and check sampling and by more directed and effective sampling at all stages of
the production chain.

There is a significant body of legislation already in place to ensure that consumers are protected.
6.
However, misuse of pesticides by operators can never be excluded and this is one reason why monitoring
and control measures are necessary. It is the responsibility of the Member States to monitor and impose
penalties.

(1) COM(2001) 444 final.

(2002/C 147 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3339/01

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 November 2001)

Subject: Dramatic consequences for a significant number of HGV drivers of the minimum visual acuity

criteria laid down by Directive 91/439/EEC

The minimum visual acuity requirements laid down in Directive 91/439/EEC (1) have resulted in a
significant number of professional drivers, hitherto regarded as being medically fit to drive, suddenly being
prevented from exercising their profession any longer.