WRITTEN QUESTION E-0367/02 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. Report on welfare of animals bred for fur.
Date: 2002-02-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal health, animal welfare, fur-bearing animal, livestock farming, report, scientific committee (EU)

C 172 E/174

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

It is stated at the end of the report that it is based substantially on the work of the working party of
scientists set up by the committee and chaired by Dr Robert Danzer. The members of the working party
are also listed.

Six of these eight members have now written to the Scientific Committee itemising a number of essential
points on which the final report departs from the working party’s unanimous conclusions. The letter lists a
large number of direct factual errors in the final report. Furthermore, the working party’s most important
conclusion, i.e. that the welfare of fur animals is fully comparable with that of other animals kept for
production purposes, is totally absent.

The upshot is that these six scientists are demanding that the report be corrected in line with the final
document of the scientific working party. However, if the Scientific Committee maintains the final report
as it stands, the six scientists who signed the latter will quit the working party and ask that their names be
deleted from the final report.

Is it customary for scientific committees to distort the opinions of scientists?

Is it customary for the final reports of such committees to contain assertions about the opinions and
research findings of named persons that differ from what these persons have themselves presented and
from which these persons therefore need to dissociate themselves?

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the work of scientific committees is placed
on a scientifically sound footing and the ethical and legal standards governing scientific work are
respected?

What action does it intend to take to guarantee the scientific quality of the report in question?

(2002/C 172 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0367/02

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 February 2002)

Subject: Report on welfare of animals bred for fur

On 12 and 13 December 2001, the Scientific Committee for Animal Health and Animal Welfare brought
out a report on the welfare of animals kept for fur production.

In a recent article in the Netherlands press (Agrarisch Dagblad (’Agricultural Daily’), 30 January 2002) it is
stated that the conclusions reached by the researchers in the working party were substantially altered by
the above committee. Mr De Jonge, researcher and member of the working party that drew up the report,
states in the above article that positive findings concerning the wellbeing of mink were removed from the
report.

Can the Commission confirm that the above scientific committee adjusted the report in the manner

1.
stated?

2.

If so, can the Commission state what considerations led to that adjustment?

Does the Commission consider that the report as it now stands presents an accurate picture of the

3.
welfare of animals bred for fur in the EU?

Does the Commission draw any particular conclusions from the report with a view to the European

4.
policy to be pursued?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0285/02 and E-0367/02
given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, as one of the eight scientific committees
established by Commission Decision 97/579/EC of 23 July 1997 setting up Scientific Committees in the

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/175

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 remains intact.

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. After an in
depth examination of
the sub-committee adopted a draft opinion on
26 November 2001, with 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.

the working group’s report,

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 were discussed at the meeting of sub-committee on Animal
Welfare on 21 of January 2002 and in the meeting of the Scientific Committee on 5 February 2002. The
Committee decided to reply to the members of the working group and to publish on the Internet an
erratum (2) 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 in
accordance with the approach that whilst scientific risk assessment must be carried out independently and
transparently by Scientific Committees, risk management is a matter for the Commission and the other
Community institutions.
therefore decide whether
follow-up action, if any, is required and will submit any legislative proposals 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.

the Commission will

In the case of

fur farming,

(1) OJ L 237, 28.8.1997.
(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scah/outcome_en.html#opinions.

(2002/C 172 E/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0287/02

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 February 2002)

Subject: Project for the further development of the Gardaland theme park at Castelnuovo del Garda, Italy

Written question E-2653/00 (1) pointed out that the municipality of Castelnuovo del Garda (VR) had made
some alterations to the use of land envisaged in the current town-planning regulations in order to allow
the Gardaland theme park to be extended (General variant to the PRG of the municipality of Castelnuovo,
approved by the Veneto Region on 6 July 1999 by virtue of Regional Council Decree No 2340). One of
the alterations concerns conference zones D5 and 1, for which a project for the allocation of hotel
building-space was granted final approval on 24 October 2001 (Municipal Council Decision No 44).
Before the execution of this project no provision has been made for ascertaining the environmental impact
(screening), although it can be considered as belonging to one of the following categories: ‘theme parks’,
‘holiday villages and hotel complexes outside urban areas and associated developments’or’any change or
extension of projects listed in Annex I or Annex II, already authorised, executed or in the process of being
executed, which may have significant adverse effects on the environment’ (Directive 97/11/EC (2), Annex II).

The project make provision for building about 100 sq.m. of accommodation for use as hotel, conference
and recreational
linked to the Gardaland theme park in an area of high environmental
vulnerability, subject to great pressure as regards town-planning work.

facilities,