WRITTEN QUESTION E-0251/02 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Treatment of fish with water-binding substances to increase their total weight.
Date: 2002-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, consumer protection, fish product, fishery product, food inspection, labelling, product quality, restriction on competition

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/33

Does the Commission agree that customs rules do not keep up with the speed required in modern society’s
activities?

Could the Commission envisage a simplified and harmonised customs form, in which the administrative
burden of the proof of residence could be dealt with at a later stage, after the household goods have been
imported?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

The Commission can confirm that it had been approached by representatives of some removal companies
describing the situation as set out in the Honourable Member’s question.

In response the Commission would like to outline the following principals in the customs clearance of the
removal goods coming from a third country:

(cid:1) any natural person transferring its normal place of residence from a third country to the customs
territory of the Community has the right to choose any customs office in the Community for the
release into free circulation of its personal property which it imports on this occasion. Given the
Single Market rules its choice is therefore not limited to customs offices located in the Member State
in which the person wants to establish its residence;

(cid:1) not withstanding the rules of

the Community’s Customs Code setting out

the conditions and
procedures for the release into free circulation of the imported goods the customs authorities of the
Member States have a certain discretion in respect of the documentary evidence to be provided by the
person transferring its residence to the Community in order to be able to benefit from duty relief in
accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up
a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (1). The discretion has its reason in the big
differences in the national legislation of the Member States in respect of the administrative procedures
and requirements for a person taking residence in a country;

(cid:1) the customs authorities in the Member States, however, should not use their discretion to discriminate
in their customs treatment between persons taking residence in the country of the customs authority
and persons taking residence in another Member State of the Community. Therefore, any customs
office should grant the release on presentation of similar documentary evidence as required for a
person taking residence in the Member State of the customs office. Any refusal or request to use
Community transport procedures solely on the ground that the person takes its residence in another
Member State would be incompatible with the current legislation.

Should the Honourable Member dispose of any knowledge of specific cases where these principals have
not been observed he is invited to transmit such information to the Commission in order to enable its
services to follow it up in an appropriate manner.

(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.

(2002/C 301 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0251/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Treatment of fish with water-binding substances to increase their total weight

There have been reports in the German specialist press about a method of processing fish and fish
products which misleads consumers. Products are said to be in use in the Netherlands which bind excess
water, thus artificially increasing the weight of the final product. These substances, known collectively as
‘Tari’, are allegedly used in both fillets and whole fish. The active ingredients are said to be proteins, so that
the European ban on the use of phosphates does not apply. The proteins added are not listed on the label
of the final product, in violation of the relevant legislation.

C 301 E/34

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

The consumer suffers because the 5-15 % weight gain, which is reflected in the price of the product, is
entirely lost when the fish is cooked. Furthermore, the consumer is not informed that the substances have
been added.

As well as this, the parts of the industry which do not use these unfair methods are affected by the
competitive disadvantage they suffer.

1.

Is the Commission aware of fish being treated in this way, in the Netherlands or elsewhere?

2. What can be done to prevent this practice, which is prejudicial to the interests of consumers and
honest producers alike?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

Council Directive 91/493/EEC, of 22 July 1991, laying down the health conditions for the production and
the placing on the market of fishery products (1), states clearly which treatments for fishery products are
authorised. The use of substances binding excess water in fishery products is forbidden in the Directive.

The Commission has received a reply from the Dutch authorities regarding the treatment of fish with
water-binding substances to increase their total weight. They confirm that in the Netherlands the use of
these substances is illegal.

In their reply, the Dutch authorities stated that they are examining the situation following which any
appropriate and necessary action will be taken.

The Commission is not aware of fish being treated in this way elsewhere.

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.

(2002/C 301 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0257/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2002)

Subject: Seignorage revenue in 2001

1. Will the Commission estimate the seignorage revenue accruing to each Member State’s central bank
in 2001, being the last year of the issue of national currencies in the Euro-area?

2. Will it express this as a percentage of each country’s GDP?

3. Will it further detail the transfers or dividends paid by each Member State’s central bank to its fiscal
authority during the year?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

The Commission currently does not have estimates of the monetary income that is accruing to the

1.
national central banks in the performance of the monetary policy function in 2001.

In accordance with the reply to the first question,

2.
percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) is not feasible.

the calculation of monetary income as a