WRITTEN QUESTION E-2012/02 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Iodisation.
Date: 2002-07-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: allergy, food safety, food technology, foodstuffs legislation, iodine, labelling

C 52 E/118

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

The Commission has made formal and informal contacts with the competent Romanian authorities, in
particular the Romanian Minister for Agriculture. The Commission has made it clear that measures
introduced must not be a barrier to legitimate trade and is pressing for the order to be repealed or brought
into line with Community norms.

The Commission will continue and intensify its actions as long as excessive measures remain in place, as
non-tariff trade barriers go counter to the provisions of the Europe Agreement, signed between the
Community and its Member States of the one part, and Romania of the other part.

The Commission will also provide assistance to the Romanian authorities in the drafting of new legislation
in the framework of Romania’s preparations for accession to the Union.

(2003/C 52 E/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1984/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 July 2002)

Subject: Convention financing

Further to written question E-0486/02 (1) (Subject: ‘Civil Society’), would the Commission, now that a list
of organisations participating in the forum on the Convention of the Future of Europe has been published
on the Internet
(http://europa.eu.int/futurum/forum_convention/organlist_en.htm#list), please indicate
which of these organisations have received European Community funds in the past five years?

Could the Commission please indicate how much money each of these Community funded organisations
has received in each of the past five years?

Could the Commission please indicate from which budget line each organisation derived/derives its funds?

Finally, which organisations have money ‘earmarked’ from the Community’s budget?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 32.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2002)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that for the last five years
Parliament has been informed annually of the appropriations earmarked for grants (A-30) and of the use
to which they have been put.

As regards the Honourable Member’s precise request, the Commission’s departments are undertaking more
detailed research, the findings of which will be the subject of a supplementary answer.

(2003/C 52 E/134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2012/02

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Iodisation

In the light of the deliberations on the proposal to amend Directive 2000/13/EC (1) concerning the
indication of additives contained in food, is the Commission aware that the iodisation of foodstuffs, even
in the smallest concentrations, may result in numerous ailments ranging from allergies, Basedow’s disease
and hyperthyroidism to anaphylactic shocks resulting in death?

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/119

Does the Commission intend to take practical measures regarding the current standard of labelling of

1.
foodstuffs containing iodine?

2.

Does the Commission intend to include iodine on the list of allergenic substances?

(1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

The proposal (1) currently under discussion to amend Directive 2000/13/EC relating to the labelling and
presentation of foodstuffs will ensure that all ingredients used in the manufacture of foodstuffs are included
in the list of ingredients.

When used as an ingredient, iodine will have to be listed as such on the label and will not be covered by
any limited derogations likely to remain.

Iodine is not a substance known to be a factor in a large number of cases of allergies or food intolerances.

Should this situation change in the future, the provision contained in the above-mentioned proposal for
amendment requiring the list of
ingredients causing allergies or intolerances to be updated when
scientifically justified would also apply to iodine.

(1) OJ C 332 E, 27.11.2001.

(2003/C 52 E/135)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2019/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Repeal of Council Regulation No 1275/94

According to information stored on the European electronic data base EUR-lex Council Regulation (EC)
No 1275/94 (1) of 30 May 1994 ‘is no longer in force’.

This Regulation established the guiding principles for the necessary adjustments to the arrangements in the
fisheries chapters of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal due to enter into force on 1 January 1996
and constituted the basis for Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95 (2) of 27 March 1995.

In these circumstances, can the Commission say what legal act repealed Regulation (EC) No 1275/94,
whether its repeal implies the repeal of Regulation (EC) No 685/95, and what legal effect the possible
repeal of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 (3) of 20 December 1992 would have on either of these two
regulations?

(1) OJ L 140, 3.6.1994, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 71, 31.3.1995, p. 5.
(3) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2002)

The information to which the Honourable Member refers is not correct. No legal act of the Community
has repealed Council Regulation (EC) No 1275/94 of 30 May 1994 on adjustments to the arrangements in
the fisheries chapters of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal.