WRITTEN QUESTION E-1927/02 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission. Ban on amalgam and mercury for human use.
Date: 2002-07-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: dental medicine, environmental impact, health risk, mercury, toxic substance, vaccine, waste management

C 92 E/118

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 2002)

The Vatican City State (VCS) is an independent State and is not a member of the European Union.
Community legislation is not applicable in the VCS.

The Commission is not aware of any anti-money laundering law in force in the VCS. However, as noted by
the Honourable Member, the only bank operating in the VCS, the Istituto per le Opere di Religione, is also
the Central Bank. Thus, since there is no commercial financial sector in the VCS, the scope for the
application of normal anti-money laundering rules covering the financial system would appear to be
necessarily limited.

The Commission is not aware of any examination by international organisations of the VCS’s banking,
economic and financial systems.

(2003/C 92 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1927/02

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Ban on amalgam and mercury for human use

Fresh research shows that the use of amalgam for tooth fillings and mercury for other human applications,
e.g. vaccines, entails substantial health risks. Mercury damages the nervous system and can cause arthralgia,
myalgia and severe allergic reactions.

Recent scientific material seems to indicate that mercury in influenza vaccines may promote the
development of Alzheimer’s disease in the elderly. Furthermore, the use of mercury represents a serious
environmental waste problem.

In the light of the above, will the Commission say what measures have already been taken in the EU to
protect the public and the environment from the harmful effects of mercury for human use?

What measures does the Commission intend to take? Is the Commission prepared to ban the use of
amalgam and mercury for human use on health and environmental grounds? Can the Commission confirm
that waste mercury from dental clinics is destroyed in sealed containers marked ‘highly toxic’. If not, how
is waste mercury from dental treatment dealt with?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 August 2002)

On 20 June 2002 the Parliament’s Petitions Committee closed a petition in the light of the results of a
study on dental amalgam and other restorative materials ordered by the Commission and published in
1998. According to this study, all dental restorative materials may cause some adverse reactions, and most
contain components that are toxic. However, according to the same study, the benefits of restoring teeth
with dental amalgam that contains mercury significantly out-weigh the documented risks and the risk-
benefit ratio corresponds to currently acknowledged and accepted state of the art.

Given concerns expressed, Commission and Member States representatives decided to proceed to a review
of the study’s conclusions in the light of new data available at a national level. In their meeting of 11 and
12 July 2002, they confirmed that the study’s conclusions are still valid and accurate.

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/119

The Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member on the importance of a safe handling and
disposal of mercury-containing waste. Indeed, amalgam waste from dental care is classified as hazardous
waste and hence Member States have to ensure that it is disposed of in accordance with the provisions of
the Framework Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1) and in particular of Council
Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (2). Waste management of dental
amalgam is addressed by Parcom Recommendation 93/2, which states ‘equipment should be installed to
separate water and amalgam to enable collection of amalgam as from 1 January 1997’. Preliminary results
of an ongoing study of
this
recommendation has been largely implemented in the Member States. Nevertheless, there is no Community
legislation that specifically requires sealing the mercury-waste from dental clinics prior to destruction.

the Commission on risks to health and the environment show that

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(2) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

(2003/C 92 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1928/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Payment of contractors and suppliers

Further to Ms Schreyer’s answers to my written questions E-0505/00 (1), E-1669/00 and E-1670/00 (2), will
the Commission please update the figures given for performance and change in average invoice payment
times for contractors and suppliers for the years for which data is now available (2000 and 2001)?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 10.
(2) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 70.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Performance and change in average payment times since 1995 (overall statistics).

A. Performance as regards target times achieved since 1995

Percentage of payments executed

≤ 60 days

> 60 and ≤ 90 days

> 90 days

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

83,7

77,7

73,4

73,6

65,1

74,5

79,7

8,8

11,8

9,0

10,9

14,9

11,1

10,6

7,5

10,5

17,6

15,5

20,0

14,4

9,7

B. Annual average payment times since 1995 (calendar days)

Total numbers of days

1995

43,9

1996

51,5

1997

58,5

1998

55,1

1999

54,1

2000

50,3

2001

43,1