WRITTEN QUESTION E-1365/02 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Animal experiments involving chimpanzees and other primates.
Date: 2002-05-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Netherlands, animal experimentation, animal welfare, application of EU law, medical research, monkey, protection of animals

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/135

(2002/C 301 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1365/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Animal experiments involving chimpanzees and other primates

In its very clear and helpful answer to my Written Question E-0291/02 (1), the Commission states that the
Biomedical Primate research Centre (BPRC) in the Netherlands is, to the knowledge of the Commission, the
only institution in the Community which currently conducts experiments involving chimpanzees. Can the
Commission confirm that the Centre is partly funded by the Commission and indicate the level of funding?
Can the Commission also confirm that that funding is conditional upon the Centre complying with all
appropriate Directives and future Directives pertaining to animal experiments?

in cases involving primates,

The Commission also stated in its reply that it has become clear that Directive 86/609/EEC (2) ‘does not
provide sufficient controls to safeguard the welfare of non-human primates’ and that, in consequence, the
industry was taking stock of the current situation, with discussions between Member States, industry and
non-governmental organisations in the field of animal welfare having already begun. Can the Commission
it is mandatory and consistent with the principle of
indicate whether,
replacement, reduction and refinement for those wishing to carry out experiments to issue advance
notification to the national authorities of the nature of the experiments, together with an explanation of
the reason why other animal models or alternative testing methods cannot be used, the relevance of the
experiments and the maximum levels of pain which will be permitted? If not, does the Commission agree
that a requirement of this kind is necessary if monitoring of the Directives is to be effective and that the
monitoring process would be enhanced further if such requests for authorisation, once approved, were to
become public documents? Finally, does the Commission know how many experiments involving primates
were conducted at the BPRC last year?

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 176.
(2) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 2002)

The Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC) in Rijswijk, the Netherlands, is participating in several
three-year research projects under the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Technological
Development (RTD) (1998-2002). The Commission has so far funded the BPRC to a total amount of
approximately EUR 5,4 million under the 5th Framework Programme for RTD. These projects cover
research areas such as vaccine and drug development
for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV),
tuberculosis, malaria and hepatitis C.

The Biomedical Research Primate Centre (BPRC), which is situated in the Union but independent of the
Union, has engaged itself contractually to fulfil all legal and ethical requirements at national as well as at
Union level.

As indicated in the 6th Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development, adopted by the
Parliament and the Council, fundamental ethical principles including animal welfare requirements are to be
respected and furthermore research activities must respect the Amsterdam Protocol on Animal Protection
and welfare. The Commission’s amended proposals concerning the specific programmes implementing the
6th Framework Programme (1) stipulates that the research activities must respect the protection of animal
in accordance with Community law and participants in research projects must conform to current
legislation and regulations in the countries where the research will be carried out.

Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental
and other scientific purposes, sets out that an experiment entailing the use of an animal shall not be
performed if another scientifically satisfactory method of obtaining the result sought is reasonably and
practicably available. It also states that, when an experiment has to be performed the choice of species
In a choice between
shall be carefully considered and, where necessary, explained to the authority.
experiments, those which use the minimum number of animals,
involve the animals with the lowest
degree of neurophysiological sensitivity, cause the least pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm and which
are most likely to provide satisfactory results shall be selected. The Directive obliges the Member States to
establish procedures whereby experiments
the details of persons conducting such
themselves or
experiments shall be notified in advance to the authority. Where it is planned to subject an animal to an

C 301 E/136

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

in which it will, or may, experience severe pain which is likely to be prolonged, that
experiment
experiment must be specifically declared and justified to, or specifically authorised by, the authority. On
the basis of requests for authorisation and notifications received the authority in each Member State shall
collect, and as far as possible periodically make publicly available, the statistical information on the use of
animals in experiments in respect of
the number and kind of animals used in experiments (the
confidentiality of commercially sensitive information shall be protected). Whether a general mandatory
requirement to give advance notification to the authority for experiments involving the use of non-human
primates should be introduced will need to be examined carefully during the in-depth revision of the
Directive.

The Commission has no information regarding the number of experiments conducted at the BPRC in
2001, which involved non-human primates.

(1) COM(2002) 43 final.

(2002/C 301 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1369/02

by Sergio Berlato (UEN) and Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Proposal for a regulation concerning the vinification and processing of organically produced

grapes

In the absence of Community legislation properly regulating the processing of grapes produced by
holdings practising or in the process of converting to organic farming, there are a variety of rules issued by
the authorities in the Member States, which are often confusing for consumers.

Since the market needs to have the broadest possible guarantees regarding ‘organic wine’ regulated by
precise rules governing processing, can the Commission propose an appropriate Community regulation
with a view to standardising the systems for processing organically produced grapes and protecting
European consumers so that they can drink a healthy and typical wine of quality, produced without
damaging the environment, and ensure that the monitoring authorities in the Member States do not have
to ascertain compliance with rules they themselves have laid down?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2002)

The rules on organic grape production (and other organic crop production) are set by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications
referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (1).

Council Regulation (EC) 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in
wine (2) sets general rules on authorised oenological practices and processes in the production of all types
of wine. These are particularly rigorous, precise and detailed and apply equally to vinification of
organically grown grapes.

The Commission is aware of the expansion of wine production from such grapes and has examined the
possibility of specific rules for their vinification that would also conform with the general rules.

The professional organisations that represent the wine sector have questioned the need for a further set of
rules additional to the table wine rules and the stricter rules set by the Member States for quality wines
produced in specific regions (QWPSR) and do not want regulatory definition of a specific production
process for wine from organic grapes. Their position is shared by a majority of the Member States. In fact
for the essential operations there is no substantial difference in practices and processes, particularly where
quality wines are concerned.