WRITTEN QUESTION E-2127/02 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Hemp products.
Date: 2002-07-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common agricultural policy, crop production, hemp, import restriction, marketing, narcotic, production aid, seed, textile fibre

C 92 E/138

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Commission to use the accounting information of the paying agencies in the context of the clearance of
account procedure and to monitor developments as well as to provide forecasts in the agricultural sector.
The accounting information transmitted to the Commission remains, however, confidential and is
communicated only for the purposes given in Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999.

In carrying out the new two actions, the Commission is obliged to respect the provisions of Regulation
(EC) No 45/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and
on the free movement of such data (3). Therefore it renders the information anonymous and processes it in
aggregated form only.

In conclusion, the Commission will be soon in a position to provide statistical information on the amounts
paid to farmers. Detailed statistical information will be shortly made available to the public which will in
principle cover the request made by the Honourable Members.

(1) See page 123.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 419/2002 of 6 March 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 as regards the form and content of the
accounting information that the Member States must hold at the disposal of the Commission for the purposes of
the clearance of the EAGGF Guarantee Section accounts, OJ L 64, 7.3.2002.

(3) OJ L 8, 12.1.2001.

(2003/C 92 E/189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2127/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Hemp products

The shelled hemp seed is rich in protein, fibre, minerals, vitamin E, iron and the fatty acids Omega 3 and 6.
Currently in the United States, products such as food, soaps, cosmetics and clothes which contain hemp
may be outlawed as minute traces (1-10 parts per million) from the bract dust on seed means that hemp
products can give false positive tests of THC, the illegal hallucinogenic, in a person.

What approach does the Commission take to the marketing of hemp products in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Within the frame of the Common Agricultural Policy, the production of hemp is subject to very strict
community legislation as regards the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content.

On the one hand, hemp is covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 (1),
establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops. Under the terms of this Regulation, a
hemp producer can request an area payment if he observes certain conditions. These concern in particular
the use of varieties that have a very low THC content not exceeding 0,2 % and which are listed in annex XII
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2316/1999 of 22 October 1999, laying down detailed rules for the
application of Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 (2). Member States have to implement a specific control
system on the THC content of the hemp plants, based on a sampling and analysis procedure defined at the
Community level, which can result in the withdrawal of certain varieties from the list of approved varieties
if it is established that the THC limit is exceeded. But for example, since hemp stems do not contain THC,
hemp fibres used to manufacture clothes cannot contain it either.

On the other hand, hemp is also subject to Council Regulation (EC) No 1673/2000 of 27 July 2000 on
the common organisation of the markets in flax and hemp grown for fibre (3). An aid can be granted to
authorised primary processors who obtain hemp fibres, only from hemp grown under Regulation (EC)
No 1251/1999, i.e. not exceeding 0,2 % THC. Council Regulation (EC) No 1673/2000 also stipulates

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/139

imports of raw hemp and hemp seeds
specific provisions with regard to hemp imports. In particular,
intended for sowing must respect the 0,2 % THC limit. For their part, imports of hemp seeds not intended
for sowing can only be carried out by importers approved to this end. These importers have to provide the
competent authorities with the documents attesting that the imported seeds have not been used for
sowing.

In addition, hemp is also covered by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 of 26 October 1971, on the
common organisation of the market in the seeds (4). An aid can be granted for the production of seeds
intended for sowing of hemp varieties covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 above
mentioned.

Under these conditions, no significant traces of THC should be found on hemp products obtained from
hemp grown in the Community or from imported raw hemp or hemp seeds, falling under the above-
mentioned legislation. In addition, these insignificant traces of THC could not give any possibility to make
drug.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(2) OJ L 280, 30.10.1999.
(3) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000.
(4) OJ L 246, 5.11.1971.

(2003/C 92 E/190)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2177/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Revision of

the Seveso II directive and the Rotterdam authorities’

intention to relax safety

regulations for the transport of fireworks by sea

The Commission proposal COM(2001) 624 (cid:1) C5-0668/2001 (cid:1) 2001/0257(COD) (1) to amend the
1.
Seveso II directive (Directive 96/82/EC (2) of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards
involving dangerous substances), which was put to the vote in the European Parliament on 3 July 2002,
arose as a result of (a) the huge firework disaster on 13 May 2000 in Enschede in the Netherlands where
licences for the storage and processing of fireworks had been liberally granted, local residents had not been
informed and checks on compliance with regulations were insufficient and (b) the assurance given shortly
after this disaster by Commissioner Wallström in answer to my question E-1733/00 (3) and in discussions
with four Dutch members of the EP.

2. What is the Commission’s view of fact that the Rotterdam city authorities believe that their port is
unfairly disadvantaged by the fact that all containers of Chinese fireworks are classified as fireworks in the
highest risk category and that ships carrying three or more containers of Chinese fireworks are no longer
allowed into Dutch territorial waters?

3. What is the Commission’s view of the stance taken by the Rotterdam Port Authority that Chinese
membership of the International Maritime Organisation means that the Chinese classification of fireworks
is correct by definition and that is it is not only the effect of a potential disaster that must be taken into
account but also the small likelihood of such a risk?

4.
Can the Commission confirm that the same fireworks are allowed into other north-west European
harbours and that containers of fireworks have been transported from the nearby Belgian port of Antwerp
to Rotterdam by road for onward transportation in the Netherlands, possibly creating greater risks than
transport by ship?

5. Will the situation described in paragraph 4 be allowed to continue after the entry into force of the
recent amendment of the Seveso II directive?