WRITTEN QUESTION E-2309/02 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Environmental education.
Date: 2002-07-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, European Commission, competence of the Member States, education policy, environmental education, operation of the Institutions, public awareness campaign

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/151

impose certain traffic data retention requirements. A first pillar instrument (under the EC Treaty), with the
objective to ensure the proper functioning of the single market, would probably impose limits to traffic
data retention conditions that may be imposed on providers of electronic communications services and
networks especially in order to suppress any obstacle to the freedom of establishment

The Commission has no plans to propose either type of legislative instrument at this stage.

the importance of

The Commission recognises
liability of providers of electronic
communications services and networks for the transfer of incorrect data or for misuse of such data. In
their capacity of controllers of personal data the providers are responsible for any damage resulting from
any act incompatible with the data protection Directives including the quality and accuracy of the data or
the unlawful transfers to third parties. However, it is up to those Member States that find it necessary to
impose traffic data retention requirements on providers, to ensure that requirements will not lead to
liability for providers if they implement them lawfully.

the issue of

(1) OJ L 201, 31.7.2002.

(2003/C 52 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2309/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Environmental education

The Environment Directorate-General will be aware of the work of the Foundation for Environmental
Education and of the fact that some of its programmes have,
in the past, received funding from the
Commission.

Does the Commission agree that environmental education has an important role to play in promoting the
EU’s environmental agenda?

Assuming this to be the case, which Directorate-General, DG Environment or DG Education and Culture,
takes the lead in processing and supporting applications for appropriate environmental education projects
in both Member States and the applicant countries?

If there is any uncertainty as to the appropriate Directorate-General in the case of a particular application,
who is responsible for resolving such conflict?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

In the sixth Environmental Action Programme of the Community, the Commission has indicated five
strategic approaches to meeting the environmental objectives for 2001-2010. These are all preventive
instruments aimed at protecting the environment rather
than to cure. One way to bring about
is by helping people to make environmentally friendly choices.
improvements to the environment
Individual citizens, as well as business, make daily decisions that directly or indirectly impact
the
environment. Better quality and easily accessible information on the environment and on practical matters
will help shape opinions and thus decisions. Environmental education and awareness raising activities will
be essential
the
responsibility of Member States and applicant countries.

to this process. The education systems and school curricula remains, however,

C 52 E/152

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Within the framework of the Community action programmes Socrates (in the field of education) and
Youth, the Commission supports a number of projects, where young people learn about the environment
in the school, as volunteers or in youth projects. The theme of environment is in fact frequently dealt with
and projects are implemented in both Member States and the applicant countries. Both programmes,
Socrates and Youth, are administrated by Directorate General (DG) Education and Culture, which thus
takes the lead in processing and supporting the applications.

In addition, the Commission gives financial support to environmental information and awareness raising
projects as well as to European environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs). These activities fall
under the responsibility of DG Environment. Also these activities are open to participation by the
applicant countries.
this year, 2002, environmental education and the
involvement of young people is included as an element of consideration. When selecting the projects to
fund, each of the two Directorates General involved must of course respect the specific eligibility clauses of
Community instruments, as approved by the Parliament and by the Council.

for proposals of

In the call

(2003/C 52 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2331/02

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: BSE risk from frozen chicken fillets injected with beef

On 8 July 2002, the ‘Guardian’ newspaper reported that vast quantities of frozen chicken imported into
the United Kingdom from the Netherlands had been injected with beef and pork proteins and that this
might present a risk of BSE. The proteins were not declared on the label attached to the packets of frozen
chicken. Commissioner Byrne thereupon roundly criticised the Netherlands Government for mislabelling
(i.e. misleading the consumer by failing to provide accurate information) and said that additional measures
would be taken if he received any further evidence of fraud. The report in the ‘Guardian’ about the
potential BSE risk really did, as it should, put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Can the Commission confirm that EU legislation authorises the injection of chicken fillets with beef

1.
and pork proteins?

Does the Commission take the view that the practice of injecting chicken fillets with beef protein

2.
entails a potential BSE risk and therefore constitutes a threat to public health?

Does the Commission take the view that the practice of injecting chicken fillets with beef protein

3.
should be continued?

4.

(Further to Question 2). How did the Commission notify the public of its view?

5. What spin does the Commission give to its external communication? Does it emphasise the breach of
Community law or the possible existence of a food safety risk?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Commission was notified on 21 May 2002 by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and through the
Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, that preparations of chicken fillets, which were manufactured in the
Netherlands and put on the market in Ireland, did not conform to Community requirements laid down in
Directive 2000/13/EC (1).

When the information was released by the press, the issue of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)
risk linked to the origin of the bovine proteins was raised. In fact, two questions need to be considered
separately: the labelling of the products in relation to the information provided to the consumers and the
risk for public health.

The Commission considers that the labelling of these products is clearly an infringement of the

1.
Community legislation on the labelling of foodstuffs.