WRITTEN QUESTION E-2051/02 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Vivisection and protection of animals.
Date: 2002-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, animal experimentation, animal welfare, approximation of laws, cosmetic product, ethics, protection of animals, scientific research

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/43

(2003/C 192 E/040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2047/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Oil and energy intensity

Will the Commission estimate the oil and, separately, energy intensity of the average unit of EU GDP in
each fifth year from 1970 (i.e. 1970, 1975, 1980, etc.)?

What is the Commission’s estimate of the marginal or incremental oil and energy intensity of EU GDP
growth currently, and what was it in each fifth year from 1970?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Energy intensity is the ratio of gross inland consumption to the gross domestic product (in euro at
constant 1995 prices). Gross Inland Consumption is the sum of primary energy produced, plus energy
imports minus exports, minus the net change in stocks, minus marine bunkers. The energy data used for
this calculation are collected from national administrations on an annual basis. Figures from 1991 onwards
relating to the gross domestic product were obtained from Eurostat national accounts database whilst
those for 1990 and 1985 are estimates. Data before 1985 are not available for the Union.

(2003/C 192 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2051/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Vivisection and protection of animals

A large number of inhabitants and some politicians in Bolzano have recently been campaigning to save
56 beagle puppies destined to be subjected to vivisection and hence appalling and scientifically unjustified
suffering. This is only one of many cases in which civil society is being mobilised to combat the appalling
practice of vivisection.

In view of this, can the Commission say:

1. whether any documents, initiatives or directives designed to prevent or at least reduce the practice of

vivisection exist or are being considered;

2. whether there are any documents, initiatives or directives designed, more generally, to protect animals

from abuse and suffering?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

1.
Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific
purposes (1) was adopted in 1986. The Directive covers the conduct and authorisation of experiments,
including vivisection. It also lays down provisions for the authorisation of personnel and establishments. It
sets minimum standards for the training of the personnel handling laboratory animals and supervising the
experiments, and for the housing and care of the animals.

Article 7 of the Directive provides that ‘an experiment shall not be performed if another scientifically
satisfactory method of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and
practicably available.’ It is therefore in the spirit of the Directive 86/609 EEC to encourage methods, which
will reduce and ultimately replace the use of animals in experiments.

C 192 E/44

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

In this context, it is worth mentioning that in the Directive 76/768/EEC, as amended by Directive 93/35/
EEC (6th amendment), on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic
products there are specific provisions related to the prohibition of marketing of cosmetics products
containing ingredients or combinations of
(article 4.1.i). The current
provisions are the object of discussions with the Council and the Parliament in the framework of the
proposal for a 7th amendment to the above-mentioned directive.

ingredients tested on animals.

With regard to the Community Research and Technological Development (RTD) Framework Programme,
any research project which is selected for funding and which involves animal experimentation is submitted
to an ethical review procedure. A multidisciplinary panel of experts (including an animal welfare expert) is
checking amongst other issues that the justification given for the involvement of animals is acceptable and
the conditions comply with the legal requirements.

Moreover, the development of alternatives to animal experimentation has been among the research
priorities within Community RTD Framework Programmes for more than a decade.

2. With regard to the question on the protection of animals from abuse and suffering more generally,
there is no Community competency in the field of animal welfare per se. However, the Community has
taken steps to improve the treatment and welfare of animals.

The Amsterdam Treaty, for the first time ever, includes a Protocol on protection and welfare of animals.
The Protocol recognises animals as sentient beings and notes that the Community and the Member States
shall pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals when formulating and implementing the
Community policies on agriculture, transport, internal market and research. In doing so they will respect
the legislative and administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to
religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.

(2003/C 192 E/042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2056/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2002)

Subject: Animal testing for cosmetics

The European Parliament has recently approved a Recommendation for second reading on the common
position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council directive
amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to cosmetic products (A5-0180/2002) requiring a phasing-out of the sale within the European Union of
new cosmetic (but not medical) products that have been tested on animals after a given date. The
Commission has declared on several occasions that it believes that such a ban would conflict with WTO
rules, although there has never been a test case.

Could the Commission state which WTO regulation or regulations make the Parliament’s position
incompatible, in the view of the Commission, with the European Union’s WTO obligations? Does the
Commission believe that acceptance by the Council of the Parliament’s position would discriminate in any
way against non-EU firms, and, if not, does the Commission believe that an organisation such as the WTO
is likely to command broader public support if there is sufficient flexibility within its rules to allow for
measures designed to reduce animal suffering or to enhance environmental protection in cases where there
is no attempt to use such measures for protectionist purposes?

Finally, can the Commission confirm that if there is no agreement in Council then earlier legislation with
similar effect will automatically come into force, and, if so, on what date?