WRITTEN QUESTION E-1082/02 by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission. Antibiotics in honey and other foodstuffs.
Date: 2002-04-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Indonesia, Myanmar/Burma, Thailand, Viet Nam, antibiotic, application of EU law, carcinogenic substance, customs regulations, food contamination, food safety, foodstuffs legislation, honey, import restriction, product quality

C 301 E/88

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Apart from the ways highlighted in the Strategy for Endocrine Disrupters, the Commission wants to
6.
the existing water legislation (Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC (3), Water Framework
recall
that
Directive 2000/60/EC (4) and the list of priority substances Decision 2455/2001/EC (5)) are aiming at
protecting the water for the production of drinking water. In particular, for Directive 98/83/EC, a study on
‘Endocrine Disrupters in drinking water’ is under way; the subject and scope of this study is among others
to identify those individual endocrine disrupters or groups of endrocrine disrupters that might be
appropriate for future regulation in drinking water.

Impositin of male characteristics in female animals.

(1)
(2) COM(1999) 706.
(3) Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption,

OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32.

(4) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework

for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(5) Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the
list of priority substances in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC, OJ L 331, 15.12.2001.

(2002/C 301 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1082/02

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Antibiotics in honey and other foodstuffs

1.
A recent survey carried out by the Belgian consumer magazine Test-Aankoop (No 451, 2002) found
that 78 % of all imported honey contained prohibited antibiotics (in particular, streptomycin, tetracyclines
and sulphonamides), and research in other European countries has produced similar findings. Does the
Commission intend to take measures to prevent this contamination, and if so, how?

2.

Is this contamination also present in other imported foodstuffs?

On 15 March 2002 the European Union announced an import ban on foodstuffs from China,
3.
the same time the
including honey, containing the carcinogenic antibiotic chloramphenicol. At
Commission proposed measures against
foodstuffs contaminated with antibiotics (chlor-
amphenicol and nitrofuran) from Burma, Thailand and Vietnam. Have imports of such foodstuffs now
ceased?

imports of

4.
Is it correct that chloramphenicol can still be administered to cattle in the EU by way of exception
and, if so, what measures are taken to prevent this antibiotic from entering the food chain via this route?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2002)

In the EU, there is an absolute ban on the use of chloramphenicol and compounds of the nitrofuran family
for animals whose products are intended for human consumption. It emerged from an evaluation of these
molecules that these substances pose risks to public health, and the EU therefore issued a formal ban.

The discovery of chloramphenicol and nitrofuran contamination in foodstuffs of animal origin from
Thailand, Myanmar,
Indonesia and Vietnam led the Commission to call on the Member States to
systematically monitor these imports. In practice, these measures enable the batches contaminated by these
substances to be identified and removed from the market without any embargo being imposed on imports
from these countries. The placing on the EU market of batches of imported honey contaminated with
chloramphenicol should therefore not occur.

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/89

Within the current legal framework in the EU, the maximum limits on residues in a medicine for
veterinary use are laid down following an assessment of an application filed by a pharmaceutical firm.
Sometimes, in the course of evaluating the documentation concerning existing substances, the scientific
findings did not allow maximum limits on residues to be fixed because the data provided by the
pharmaceutical firms were insufficient. This is especially the case with antibiotics such as tetracyclines and
sulphonamides, which are authorised for use in the EU with all animal species except bees. However, the
use of these substances for treating bees is legal in some non-member countries. This problem could be
dealt with by the Commission in the context of future provisions laying down maximum acceptable limits
in products from non-member countries.

(2002/C 301 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1115/02

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Violation of the European Convention on Human Rights by Netherlands emergency law on drug

couriers

Recently (on 5 March 2002) the Netherlands adopted two emergency laws on the detention of cocaine
smugglers. What is and is not allowed in the treatment of detainees is set out in the Netherlands in two
basic laws. The emergency laws temporarily suspend these basic laws for a specific category of detainee. As
justification for this the Netherlands government cites an emergency arising from ‘major capacity problems
in detention centres and prisons’.

As a result of these changes to the law, prisoners being held on suspicion can, in contrast with usual
practice in the Netherlands, be put in the same cell as convicted criminals, and minors with adult
prisoners. In addition, restrictions are placed inter alia on constructive use of time, visiting rights, access to
rehabilitation and vocational possibilities. This would appear to be in violation of international criteria
such as those laid down, for example, in the substantive sections of the general reports of the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhumane and Degrading Treatment and with Article 3 of the
European Convention on Human Rights.

Article 6 of the EU Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union affirm the
fundamental importance that the EU attaches to human rights. In that it is entitled to attend the relevant
deliberations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (Arrangement between the Council of
Europe and the European Community of 16 June 1987) and on the basis of Article 303 of the EC Treaty,
the Commission can put human rights issues on the agenda for the Council of Ministers, which has direct
authority in this area.

1.

Is the Commission familiar with the content of the aforementioned Netherlands laws?

2.
Does it share my concern that fundamental principles, as contained in the European Convention on
Human Rights and the reports of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, are being violated as a
result of these laws?

3. What possibilities does it see of raising these problems with the Netherlands government?

4.

Is it prepared to bring this matter to the attention of the Council of Europe for further investigation?

If a similar situation were to arise in an applicant country, what steps could the Commission take,

5.
and should this subject be included in the annual progress reports?