WRITTEN QUESTION E-2164/02 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Curved bananas.
Date: 2002-07-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, United Kingdom, application of EU law, fruit vegetable, interpretation of the law, marketing standard, tropical fruit

C 52 E/132

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

(2003/C 52 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2129/02

by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Honey, bees and systemic insecticides

An article entitled ‘Dove sono finite le api’ (where have all the bees gone) which was published on the
front page of the newspaper ‘La Repubblica’ on Saturday, 29 June 2002 stated that French bee-keepers
have asked the Commission to block the distribution of systemic insecticides, the active molecules of
which are incorporated into plant seeds and spread as the plant grows: they therefore have a progressive
effect (the more the plant grows, the greater the effect).

The molecule at issue, Imidacloprid, is produced by the Bayer pharmaceutical company and is lethal for
bees, even in minute doses. This molecule is incorporated into wheat, maize, sunflower and other seeds.
Insecticides containing the molecule first appeared on the Italian market ten year ago.

These insecticides are harming not just the bee population itself: honey production is apparently down by
as much as one third, and honey prices are rising to compensate for the loss of production. There has
been no response to the large number of complaints made by European bee-keepers, despite the steady
deterioration in the situation as more and more bees are killed by the insecticide.

Given the above, can the Commission state whether:

(cid:1) it is aware of the existence of the above molecule produced by Bayer and of the use being made of it

in farming, with the effects referred to in ‘La Repubblica’;

(cid:1) any studies have been conducted with a view to reassuring consumers about the possibility of traces

of the molecule being found in honey and posing a threat to human health;

(cid:1) it would agree that it should block the distribution of systemic insecticides, the active molecules in
which are incorporated into plant seeds and spread as the plant grows, with particular reference those
containing the molecule Imidacloprid, given that bees are of essential importance to farming and to
society in that they pollinate almost all plants?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-1804/02 by Mr Souchet (1)

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 163.

(2003/C 52 E/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2164/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Curved bananas

Given the recent confirmation by two British courts that EU rules on acceptable levels of curvature in
bananas and cucumbers is unenforceable, could the Commission indicate whether it intends to take any
action to ensure the enforcement of these rules in the UK? Could the Commission also say why the
London office of the Commission has repeatedly denied the existence of legislation from the EU governing
the shape of fruit and vegetables and characterised such claims as ‘scare-stories’ and ‘Euro-myths’?

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/133

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2002)

Marketing standards for several fruit and vegetables, including bananas, are laid down in Commission
regulations. They are based on international agreements discussed in forums such as the Economic
Commission for Europe in the United Nations context (CEE/ONU). The Commission has repeatedly made
this situation clear, including in the explanations of ‘Euromyths’ given by the Commission Representation
in the United Kingdom.

the Commission would like to point out

As regards the High Court judgment of 24 June 2002, to which the Honourable Member refers in his
question,
into question the
applicability of the said Community marketing standards in the United Kingdom. Rather, its judgment is
concerned with the interpretation of a national provision which makes the violation of those standards an
offence. The Court concluded that that national provision does not apply in respect of such standards that
were made after the provision came into force.

the Court did not call

that

The Commission is following closely how the British authorities will react to the High Court’s judgment.

(2003/C 52 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2184/02

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Modification of the cohesion policy agreed on in Berlin in the context of Agenda 2000

Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 (1) laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds
stipulates ‘each plan, Community support framework, operational programme and single programming
document shall cover a period of seven years’. Four exceptions to this timescale are envisaged, the first two
in paragraph 1 itself and the others in paragraph 2.

The recent Commission proposal to amend Regulation (EC) 2792/1999 (2) aims to abolish certain forms of
aid envisaged under the FIFG in accordance with the provisions of Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC)
1263/1999 (3), which constitutes a unilateral modification of the Community Support Framework (CSF)
adopted by the Commission, once the plan submitted by the Member State concerned has been analysed.
The plan should describe, inter alia, the ‘specific objectives’ (Article 9(d)) of Regulation 1260/99.

Can the Commission say whether it considers this unilateral modification of what was already agreed
under the said CSF as a result of the legislation deriving from Agenda 2000 to be lawful?

If it does, on the basis of what tangible legal basis and what arguments can the Commission justify this
unilateral modification of the rules agreed for a period of seven years, which seriously affects the
programming and interests of economic operators in the Member States and the economic and social
cohesion of the regions where they are established, mainly Objective 1 regions?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.
(3) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 54.

(2003/C 52 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2189/02

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2002)

Subject: FIFG reprogramming

In its proposals for the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) approved by the College of
the Commission proposes abolishing aid for fleet renewal and
Commissioners on 28 May 2002,