WRITTEN QUESTION E-1415/02 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Safety of maize variety T-25 for consumers.
Date: 2002-05-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: food safety, health policy, health risk, maize, market approval, transgenic plant

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/141

In order to further develop awareness, and without prejudice to the application of the subsidiarity
principle, the Commission intends to raise this issue in the report on the application of the Television
Without Frontiers Directive, which is to be submitted to the Parliament and the Council by the end of
2002.

(1) Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law,
regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities,
OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997,
OJ L 202, 30.7.1997.
(2) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.
(3) See Recital 43 of Directive 2002/22/EC.
(4) COM(2001) 529 final.
(5) COM(2000) 284 final.

(2002/C 301 E/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1413/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Absence of Dutch language sections at the European Schools in Alicante and Frankfurt

Neither of the two new European Schools which are being set up in Frankfurt and Alicante and which are
expected to open in September this year is to include a Dutch language section, unlike the European
Schools in Karlsruhe and Munich. In Frankfurt the planned language sections are German, English, French
and Italian. In Alicante they are German, English, French and Spanish.

Why has it been decided not to have Dutch language sections at the European Schools in Frankfurt and
Alicante?

What will the Commission do to ensure that Dutch language sections are after all included?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2002)

The two new European Schools set up in Frankfurt and Alicante have no Dutch-language section because
of the number of children of Community staff in those two cities who have Dutch as their mother tongue
falls below the minimum required to open a language section.

Under the viability criteria laid down on 24 and 25 October 2000 by the Board of Governors of the
European Schools, the intergovernmental body responsible for those schools, each language section must
have a minimum of 75 pupils at primary level and 84 at secondary level.

If at any stage in the future it becomes likely that the validity criteria would be met for languages other
than those provided at Frankfurt and Alicante, the Commission would, of course, support opening the
relevant language sections in the schools concerned.

(2002/C 301 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1415/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Safety of maize variety T-25 for consumers

According to reports by the BBC, the maize variety T-25 may be harmful to human and animal health.
Despite this, the commercial use of T-25 is permitted by the Commission. Evidently, authorisation was
granted on the basis of inaccurate research findings.

C 301 E/142

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

On what data was the Commission’s decision to permit the commercial exploitation of the maize

1.
variety T-25 based? Are these data still reliable?

2. Will the Commission have a new study of the safety of the maize variety T-25 made? If not, why
not? If so, will it ban the commercial use of T-25 until the findings of the new study are known?

3. Will the Commission investigate what harmful effects the use of the maize variety T-25 has already
had on people and animals in Europe? If not, why not?

4. Will the Commission also institute a new investigation into the other three genetically modified
maize varieties which it allows to be used for commercial purposes? In the event of irregularities, will it
immediately ban their use?

5. What measures will the Commission take to prevent any recurrence of such errors?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2002)

1.
The Commission Decision 98/293/EC to grant consent to the placing on the market of T25 for the
deliberate release into the environment and for use as animal feed was taken on 22 April 1998 (1) in
accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate
release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (2). The Decision was based on the
authorisation procedure laid down in Directive 90/220/EEC, which provides for a comprehensive
assessment of risks to human health and the environment and evaluation by all the competent authorities
of the Member States and the Scientific Committee on Plants (SCP).

The SCP, in particular, was asked to consider whether there was any reason to believe that the placing on
the market of the T25 genetically modified maize, with the purpose to be used as any other maize, was
likely to cause any adverse effects on human health and the environment. Animal health is considered as
part of the environment.

In its opinion, dated 16 February 1998, the SCP concluded that there ‘there is no evidence to indicate that
the use of the genetically modified maize as any other maize, is likely to cause adverse effects on human or
animal health and the environment’. The SCP reviewed its opinion on 20 July 2001 and came to the same
conclusion. The SCP has also issued other opinions relating to the safety of T25 maize on 30 November
2000, 20 July 2001 and 19 November 2001.

The notification of the placing on the market of food produced from T25 maize in accordance with
Article 5 of the Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the council of 27 January 1997, on
novel foods and novel food ingredients (3) was submitted to the Commission on 12 January 1998. The
notification was based on an opinion given by the competent authority of
the United Kingdom,
concerning the substantial equivalence of products derived from T25 maize.

In September 2000, the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) reviewed information provided by the Italian
authorities concerning the safety of
the
information provided by the Italian authorities does not provide detailed scientific grounds for considering
that the use of food produced from T25 endangers human health.

food produced from T25 maize. The SCF concluded that

As detailed in the answer to question 1, the safety of T25 maize has been scientifically evaluated and

2.
reviewed on a number of occasions in recent times.

Member States are required, according to Article 4(1) of Directive 90/220/EEC to ensure that all
appropriate measures are taken to avoid adverse effects for human health and the environment which
might arise from the deliberate release or placing on the market of GMOs.

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/143

The relevant scientific committees keep safety assessments under review and take account of any new data.

3.
The conclusions of the scientific risk assessments referred to in the answer to question 1 above, give
no reason to believe that food produced from T25 maize or the use of T25 in animal feed would have any
adverse effects on human or animal health.

4.
Directive 90/220/EEC was recently revised and will be replaced by Directive 2001/18/EC of the
Parliament and of the Council on 17 October 2002. In accordance with this Directive, consents granted
for the placing on the market of GMOs under Directive 90/220/EEC have to be renewed by 17 October
2006. This includes a re-evaluation of the risk assessment.

As explained above, the risk assessments of T25 maize and food produced from T25 maize have
5.
been carried out in accordance with the procedures for granting approvals under Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.
(2) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
(3) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2002/C 301 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1419/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Enforced unemployment for professional drivers on account of refusal to extend their HGV driver’s

licence after a medical examination has revealed diabetes

1.
Is the Commission aware that some professional drivers are unable to extend their HGV licences
because a medical examination has revealed them to be suffering from diabetes, and that an eye complaint,
retinopathy,
is diagnosed, as a result of which they are deemed unable to continue to exercise their
profession because they are not free of complications, despite the fact that their eyesight is perfectly
adequate?

2.
Can the Commission confirm that in practice professional drivers who have diabetes are banned
from driving, and may be dismissed by their employer because they no longer meet the conditions for
their occupation? On what grounds does this happen?

Are the rules in this field the same throughout the EU, or do they differ between Member States? Is it

3.
right if, in such cases, European rules are invoked when rejecting driving licence applications?

4.
If in practice drivers with diabetes are banned from working even though ophthalmologists consider
their eyesight to be perfectly adequate, does this ban increase road safety to such an extent as to justify
their enforced unemployment and the need to retrain them for a different occupation?

5.
In view of the growing separation of types of road-user, the introduction of mirrors on HGVs which
eliminate blind spots, and the restrictions on the driving hours of HGV drivers, is it now possible for
drivers who would once have been seen as a risk factor on account of their medical condition to return to
work?

Is the Commission preparing initiatives to protect such drivers against the existing possibility of

6.
enforced unemployment for no compelling reason, or will the Commission do so?