WRITTEN QUESTION P-0077/02 by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission. Scientific Committee report on animals kept for fur production.
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal welfare, fur-bearing animal, research report, scientific committee (EU)

C 147 E/238

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

(2002/C 147 E/255)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0077/02

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Scientific Committee report on animals kept for fur production

A working party composed of eight experts in the field of research into animals kept for fur production
from France, Norway, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Finland, appointed by the
Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare carried out a study of the welfare of such
animals over a one-and-a-half year period.

The working party had its last meeting in May 2001 and thereafter submitted a draft report, running to
just over 200 pages, to the Scientific Committee’s subcommittee. The Scientific Committee considered the
report on 12-13 December 2001.

The final outcome of the committee’s deliberations came as a shock to the members of the working party.
The report had been reworked so that it was unrecognisable and now contained a number of factual errors
and misinterpretations of established research findings. A significant number of references had been left
out or simply deleted, and new text, negative towards fur farming, had been inserted without any
references whatsoever to research reports.

The researchers responsible for drafting the original report reacted strongly. In a letter of 3 January 2002
to the Scientific Committee, signed by six of the eight members, they demanded that the report be
withdrawn and revised in an objective manner on the basis of the scientific research presented in their
own report, otherwise they would not allow their names to be associated with the report. They list 42
points where the current report diverges very substantially from their own report.

Does the Commission consider that the independent Scientific Committee has fulfilled its role of providing
it with highly qualified scientific advice on matters relating to animal welfare? Has the Committee provided
it with a sound scientific basis for drawing up proposals for legislation and other proposals, as required by
the rules governing the Committee’s activities?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, as one of the eight such committees
established by Commission Decision 97/579/EC of 23 July 1997 setting up Scientific Committees in the
field of consumer health and food safety (1), provides independent scientific advice as part of the risk
assessment exercise on potential risks to public health, animal health, animal welfare etc.
It is the
Commission’s policy not to interfere in this process in order to ensure that public trust in the transparency
and independence of the risk assessment exercise is intact. This process will be put on an even sounder
footing now that there has been final agreement on the establishment of a European Food Safety Agency.

The Committee’s sub-committee on animal welfare established a working group with a mandate to prepare
a report on the welfare of animals kept for fur production, for submission to the sub-committee. It was
made clear to the working group, as is provided for in the Commission Decision, that it would be the
responsibility of the sub-committee to prepare and adopt a draft opinion with a final adoption of the
opinion by the Committee after review and possible amendment. This procedure was followed and after an
in depth examination of the working group’s report, the sub-committee adopted a draft opinion on
26 November 2001 with a final adoption by the Committee on 12-13 December 2001. The Commission
is satisfied that the provisions of its Decision establishing the Scientific Committees and governing their
operation were followed.

Following the adoption of the opinion, a member of the Working Group, on behalf of six of the eight
members, sent a letter to the Commission and to the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal
Welfare. The views expressed in the letter have been discussed at the meeting of sub-committee on Animal
Welfare on 21 January 2002 and in the meeting of the Scientific Committee on 5 February 2002. The
Committee has decided to reply to the members of the working group and to publish on the Internet an

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/239

erratum (which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat) containing the
modifications accepted by the Committee.

The Commission reserves the right to take the final decision on the appropriate follow up action. This is
keeping in mind with the view that while scientific risk assessment must be carried out independently and
transparently, risk management is a matter for the Commission and the other Community institutions. In
the case of fur farming, the Commission will therefore decide whether follow-up action, if any, is required
and will submit proposals accordingly to the Member States and/or the Parliament. The opinion of the
Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare will be taken into account in this process.

(1) OJ L 237, 28.8.1997.

(2002/C 147 E/256)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0091/02

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 January 2002)

Subject: Testing of medicinal products in Europe

In December 2001, Professor Urpo Rinne of
the University of Åbo/Turku received a four-year
unconditional prison sentence for misconduct and embezzlement in connection with research projects he
had been in charge of. According to newspaper reports, the research projects related inter alia to the
testing of medicines for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease and patients’ safety was put at risk. Given that
licence approvals in the USA has fallen (1996: 53; 2000: 27; 2001: 16), will the
the number of
Commission state whether the rules on the testing of medicinal products are less stringent in Europe and
whether pharmaceuticals firms have switched testing to Europe and Finland owing to differences in the
rules on the licensing of medicines? Are there any other major differences, which could put patients at
risk, that have attracted such ‘research projects’ to Finland?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

The rules on the testing of medicinal products in Europe are no less stringent than those that apply in the
US.

According to Directive 2001/83/EC, all phases of clinical investigation on a medicinal product shall be
designed,
in
accordance with the ethical principles laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki. The internationally
harmonised guideline on good clinical practice applies in Europe, the US and Japan.

implemented and reported in accordance with good clinical practice and carried out

In addition, Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the
implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human
use sets out the rules relating to the design, conduct, recording and reporting of such clinical trials in the
European Union. This Directive sets out strict rules for the conduct of clinical trials and their audit and
inspection, which are already set out in the harmonised guideline on good clinical practice.

Other European texts provide guidance on clinical trials in general and on the development of particular
medicinal products in different therapeutic areas, including Parkinson’s disease.