WRITTEN QUESTION E-0548/02 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Accidents to children caused by small objects in chocolate eggs.
Date: 2002-02-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accident in the home, confectionery product, market approval, product safety

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/153

(2002/C 205 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0504/02

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Accidents caused by non-edible contents of chocolate eggs

Using the European Home and Leisure Injury Surveillance System (EHLASS) to record accidents caused by
non-edible objects contained in chocolate eggs, the Athens University Accident Research and Prevention
Centre has found that these products are dangerous and continue to cause accidents, primarily to children.
Moreover, other studies carried out in Germany, Israel and the USA confirm the Athens findings.

With Easter in view, what measures will the Commission take to ensure that foodstuffs containing non-
edible objects are subject to legal rules and standards (regarding their size, for example) which will
guarantee that they are safe and prohibit such practices as mixing edible and non-edible objects? How can
the Commission contribute towards bringing about an agreement with manufacturers to design these
products more safely in order to avoid any recurrence of fatal accidents in the future?

(2002/C 205 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0548/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: Accidents to children caused by small objects in chocolate eggs

The Centre for Research and Prevention of Accidents to Children in Greece has expressed its concern over
accidents to children caused by swallowing small, non-edible objects (toys) in chocolate eggs. Despite the
manufacturers’ claims that they are safe and do not cause injury, an estimated 2000 accidents a year are
reported in Europe. Deaths from asphyxiation have already been reported and no-one can predict when
the next fatal accident will occur. The USA has already banned the sale of these products.

Does the Commission have studies and statistics available for this type of accident?

What measures will it take to put an end to this dangerous practice of mixing edible and non-edible
objects in products designed for young children?

As this is a public health issue, can the Member States take measures unilaterally

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0504/02 and E-0548/02
given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2002)

In 1999, the Commission conducted a preliminary investigation into the risks posed by the association of
certain types of non-food products (often toys) with food products (often confectionery). The investigation
looked at non-food products in distinctive packaging which accompany food products, including ‘surprise
eggs’ containing toys packaged separately (in capsules or in another way). It is important to distinguish
between these and non-food products without their own packaging directly associated (i.e. mixed in) with
foods. With regard to the latter, it was decided as long ago as 1997 that they should be considered as
prohibited under Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (1) because of
the high risk they posed.

C 205 E/154

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

The investigation, concluded in 2000, took all the information on recorded accidents and information
collected from the competent authorities in the Member States into account. The full results of this
investigation were communicated to the European Parliament as part of petition 280/99, the answer to
oral question 21/00 (2) and various answers given by the Commission to parliamentary questions,
in
particular the joint reply to questions E-2630/00 by Mr Moreira Da Silva (3), 2631/00 by Mrs Damião (3)
and 2632/00 by Mr Lage (3).

The Commission, assisted by the Committee on Product Safety Emergencies for Directive 92/59/EEC, on
the basis of the data and information collected, concluded that the risks posed by these products were
similar to those posed by small toys in general or by toys containing small parts.

In other words, the ‘association’ of a non-food and a food product, where the two products have separate
packaging, was not identified as a specific risk factor, because it was not possible at that stage to establish
a cause-and-effect link between, on the one hand, a toy in its own separate packaging and, on the other
hand, the risk of accident. The risk would depend on the actual features of the non-food product or its
packaging, and in particular small toys or those with small parts. The safety of the latter is, moreover,
governed by Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States concerning the safety of toys (4).

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
(2) Oral answer of 14.4.2000.
(3) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
(4) OJ L 187, 16.7.1988.

(2002/C 205 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0507/02

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Report by the Netherlands Court of Audit on management of ESF3 funds by ministries,

1994-1999

the Netherlands Court of Audit published the report

‘ESF3-geld ministeries
On 7 February 2002,
1994-1999’
(Management of ESF3 funds by ministries, 1994-1999). The Court examined records
concerning checks performed on projects in respect of which ESF3 subsidies were granted to the
Ministries of Education, Health, Justice and Agriculture between 1994 and 1999. It observed shortcomings
in connection with projects managed by all the ministries concerned. The faults noted were inadequate
records on participants, hours worked and projects and the quoting of expenses which were not eligible
for subsidy.

Is the Commission aware of the report ‘ESF3-geld ministeries 1994-1999’ of 7 February 2002 by the

1.
Netherlands Court of Audit?

Does the Commission agree that this report contains relevant new facts which could affect the final

2.
settlement of ESF accounts for the periods 1994-1996 and 1996-1998?

3. Was the Commission aware of the role of the Ministries of Education, Justice, Health and Agriculture
in connection with the ESF, and of the shortcomings observed by the Netherlands Court of Audit, such as
inadequate records on participants, hours worked and projects and the quoting of expenses which were
not eligible for subsidy?

4.
A number of the ministries concerned likewise carry out projects funded by the ERDF (European
Regional Development Fund), EAGGF-Guidance (European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund B
Guidance Section) and FIFG (Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance). Has the Commission checked
whether the same shortcomings as have been observed in connection with ESF funds were also occurring
in connection with these other funds and if so, what were its findings?