WRITTEN QUESTION E-0550/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Carcinogenic Spanish peppers in Austria and replacement of reactive approach to food safety with a preventive approach.
Date: 2002-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, carcinogenic substance, food safety, foodstuffs legislation, fruit vegetable, health control, health risk, marketing restriction, pesticide

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/1

I

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2004/C 58 E/001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0281/02

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 February 2002)

Subject: Customs and excise

Are members of the public and Members of the European Parliament allowed to obtain copies, from the
Commission, of
from
Commissioner Bolkestein, concerning Customs and Excise policies and possible infringements of the
freedom to move goods across borders resulting from those policies? If not, why not?

the Letter of Formal Notice issued in late October to HM Treasury (UK)

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The Commission considers that documents drafted in connection with proceedings under article 226 of the
EC Treaty fall under the ‘inspections and investigations’ exception of Article 4(2), 3rd indent of Regulation
(EC) No 1049/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1) which applies to requests made by members of the
public and by individual members of Parliament. This includes the letter to which the Honourable Member
refers. The Court of first instance has confirmed this position in particular in its judgement T-191/99 of
11 December 2001 (David Petrie vs Commission) (2) which concerned the same exception already foreseen
in Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 February 1994 on public access to Commission
documents (3).

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.
(2) See also judgment of 5 March 1995 in case T-105/95: WWF-UK v Commission Law governing the institutions and
Judgment of 14 October 1999 in case T-309/97: The Bavarian Lager Company v Commission Law governing the
institutions.

(3) OJ L 46, 18.2.1994.

(2004/C 58 E/002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0550/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 February 2002)

Subject: Carcinogenic Spanish peppers in Austria and replacement of reactive approach to food safety with

a preventive approach

Can the Commission confirm that

1.
the carcinogen Pyrzophos, which has been banned in the
European Union since 2000 and which moreover affects the central nervous system and disrupts
hormones in human beings, has recently been found in Spanish peppers which were on sale in Austrian
supermarkets?

C 58 E/2

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

Is the Commission aware that these peppers were also found to contain eight pesticides which are

2.
carcinogenic even in small quantities?

3. Must consumers who wish to protect their health always wait for such cases to be revealed by
environmental or consumers’ organisations so that they can boycott such unfit foodstuffs on their own
initiative? Is it acceptable that in the meanwhile the goods simply continue to be sold to other consumers
until a competent authority intervenes?

Is the risk that harmful foodstuffs may be sold increased because the elimination of border obstacles
4.
and the increasing cheapness of transport are making it possible to offer them for sale further and further
away from their place of origin, so that adequate information about the conditions in which they were
produced reaches the point of sale only after a certain delay?

5. What changes need to be made to enable national and European institutions concerned with food
safety to take preventive action to avoid such products being transported and marketed?

6. What measures, such as prior checks, will the Commission now take in order to put a permanent
stop to the recurrent offering for sale of harmful foodstuffs?

Source: ‘Metro’ daily newspaper, Flanders edition, 13 February 2002

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2002)

1.
The Commission decided in March 2000 not to include pyrazophos in Annex I to Council Directive
91/414/EEC (1) and to oblige Member States to withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection
products containing pyrazophos. The decision was taken because the producer withdrew its support for
the substance during its evaluation at Community level in the framework of the Directive. The detailed
reasoning behind the decision, described in the review report published on the Commission’s public
Internet website (2), is that (i) insufficient data were available to adequately assess the environmental fate of
the substance and to assess consumer exposure to potential residues resulting from its use; and (ii) that the
following areas of concern were identified: high acute risk to honeybees and unacceptable risk to
operators, workers and bystanders. The studies submitted by the producer concerning carcinogenicity were
found to be acceptable and did not indicate any hazard.

As part of the decision, a period of grace of 18 months was allowed to use up existing stocks of the
substance. This expired in September 2001. Subsequently, maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pyrazophos
were set by the Commission at the lower limit of analytical determination (3). Since products containing
residues of pyrazophos that was applied to plants before September 2001 may still be on the market after
that date, it was decided that the MRLs shall apply as of 1 July 2002.

The presence of 8 carcinogenic pesticides

2.
Commission (cid:1) neither by the by the Austrian authorities nor by any other source.

in peppers has not been communicated to the

3.
It is difficult to give a precise response in the absence of the original information. However, it is
clearly unacceptable that unfit goods be sold to consumers. Neither is it acceptable that goods are labelled
as unfit without reliable evidence (cid:1) particularly where a threat
to consumer health has not been
demonstrated.

4.
The Commission has no evidence that the risk of harmful foodstuffs being sold is increased because
of the elimination of border controls within the EU and the increased cheapness of transport. In addition,
the rapid alert system for food has as one of its objectives, to minimise any such risks where they might
occur.

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/3

The Community program of evaluating more than 800 existing active substances should be finalised
5.
by 2008. After that time, all active substances remaining on the market and any newly developed active
substance should have been adequately tested and evaluated at Community level.

The rapid alert system for foodstuffs operated by the Commission, has the role of permitting the
6.
rapid exchange of information between the Commission and the Member States allowing risk mitigation
measures to be taken where appropriate in the event of a reported risk to the consumer. The Commission
is currently developing guidelines for the reporting of risks to the consumer due to the presence of
pesticide residues in food.

(1) 2000/233/EC: Commission Decision of 9 March 2000 concerning the non-inclusion of pyrazophos in Annex I to
Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing this
active substance, OJ L 73, 22.3.2000.

(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/ph_ps/pro/eva/existing
(3) Commission Directive 2000/82/EC of 20 December 2000 amending the Annexes to Council Directives 76/895/
EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on
fruit and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin and certain products of plant origin, including fruit and
vegetables respectively, OJ L 3, 6.1.2001.

(2004/C 58 E/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0770/02

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2002)

Subject: Steel trade

On 5 March the USA unilaterally imposed tariffs on steel imports which range from 8 % to 30 % of the
value thereof and which will apply, subject to review, for a three-year period starting on 30 March.

Naturally, the European Union is going to take the matter to the World Trade Organisation.

What immediate effect might this have on the steel industry in Europe?

What action is to be taken in order to protect the European steel industry whilst the WTO is dealing with
the issue, and how is the sector to be compensated for any losses suffered?

How long is it likely to take for the dispute to be resolved?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2002)

As the Honourable Member rightly mentions in his question, it is clear that the Community has no choice
but to challenge the unilateral American measures against steel imports in the World Trade Organisation
(WTO). The Commission therefore requested consultations with the United States under the WTO Dispute
Settlement undertaking and Safeguards Agreement on 7 March 2002. If these consultations were to be
unsuccessful, the Commission would be in position to request the establishment of a Panel as early as
6 May 2002.

It is clear that the American action involves a number of procedural and substantive violations of WTO
rules. The Commission is therefore confident that the WTO will ultimately rule against the United States,
as it has already done in four other safeguard cases. However, as the Honourable Member implies, this
process will take some time.

The American measures will cause significant disruption to the world steel market. Exporters, particularly
of products covered by 30 per cent increases in tariffs, will look for alternative markets. On a conservative
estimate, some 15 million tonnes of steel could be diverted from the American market. Given the overall
economic situation, much of this steel is likely to head towards the Community.