WRITTEN QUESTION E-2398/02 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission. Neuroscience.
Date: 2002-08-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU research policy, advisory committee (EU), bio-ethics, medical research, neuroscience

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/161

The Commission is also informed that Bioland was not licensed for direct supply to the food industry. As a
result, the firm was not known to the competent control agency. No licence is required to supply the feed
industry.

Dutch feed producers and traders are subject to inspection of the Productschap Diervoeder (PDV), a
3.
statutory trade organisation. On behalf of
the
implementation of Community feed control legislation. Its inspectorate, the Keuringsdienst Diervoedersec-
tor (KDD), is accredited under the relevant standard (EN45004).

the Dutch government, PDV is

responsible for

Additional inspections are carried out by the Rijksdienst voor de Keuring van Vee en Vlees (RVV) and the
Algemene Inspectie Dienst (AID).

In addition,
the Good
the Dutch feed sector has set up its own quality assurance programme,
Manufacturing Practice (GMP) scheme. Companies participating in this programme commit themselves to
a number of non-statutory obligations, such as to buy raw materials exclusively from raw-material
suppliers recognised by the GMP scheme (or an equivalent scheme).

Unfortunately two GMP-certified undertakings bought raw materials from Bioland. Bioland was never
recognised by the GMP scheme. In the meantime both companies have had their GMP status withdrawn.

4.
The Netherlands is the Member State most affected by the incident. The authorities there have
estimated the losses as follows: primary sector (farmers): EUR 43 million due to destruction of animals and
loss of income; feed sector: EUR 33 million due to destruction and recall; slaughterhouses: EUR 25 to
limitations; the Dutch government:
50 million due to temporary decline in production and export
EUR 6 million due mainly to increased testing and surveillance. This amounts to a total loss of EUR 107 to
EUR 132 million.

Council Directive 85/374/EC of 25 July 1985 on liability for defective products (4)

foresees a
5.
common regime concerning compensation for material damage suffered by consumers due to defective
products.

This Community regime does not cover damage or loss suffered by farmers who used ‘defective’
feedingstuffs (e.g. contaminated feedingstuffs), because this damage occurred in the framework of an
economic activity and did not affect goods intended or used for private consumption.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(2) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.
(3) Waste which may contain either inorganic or organic constituents.
(4) OJ L 210, 7.8.1985.

(2003/C 52 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2398/02

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(5 August 2002)

Subject: Neuroscience

Does the Commission not think that a public debate over the ethical
limits to new developments in
neuroscience is long overdue? Would the Commission not agree that there is a case for the creation of an
advisory body similar to the one that has been set up to advise on genetics issues to advise the
Commission and others in the field of neuroscience? If not why not?

C 52 E/162

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The Commission agrees
that new developments in Neuroscience do raise ethical questions. The
Commission has already taken steps to address these issues by funding research projects on the ethical
aspects of brain research and by organising symposia at international scientific conferences such as the
symposium ‘Ethics of psychiatric genetics’ at the World Congress on Psychiatric Genetics, Brussels 8 to
12 October 2002.

The Commission specifically recognises the need for open dialogue on the ethical and social impact of new
technologies in both the Science and Society Action Plan (1) and in its communication on Life sciences and
biotechnology (cid:1) A strategy for Europe (2).

The launching of a public debate regarding the advances in Neuroscience and its ethical and social
implications is currently being discussed with the European Group on Life Sciences. This high level group
of scientists was established in April 2000 by the Member of the Commission responsible for Research
with the objective of contributing to the organisation and animation of a Life Science Discussion Platform.
The Commission is willing to investigate the possibility of organising a public debate on this topic.

Providing advice on the ethical aspects of new developments in Neuroscience is clearly in the remits of the
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies. The Group is an independent, pluralist and
multidisciplinary body with a wide range of expertise including science and medicine, informatics, law,
philosophy and theology. Therefore, the Commission does not consider it necessary to create a new
advisory body to give advice in the field of neuroscience.

(1) COM(2001) 714 final.
(2) OJ C 55, 2.3.2002.

(2003/C 52 E/179)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2401/02

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 August 2002)

Subject: False and damaging information on the Rome coastline posted on a German tourist site on the

Internet

Is the Commission aware of the fact that, on its Internet site (www.marcopolo.de/index), Germany’s leading
tourist guide, Marco Polo, makes the totally unjustified accusation that the Rome coastline (cid:1) with
particular reference to the beach at Ostia (cid:1) is infested with rubbish and terrible diseases, going so far as to
make defamatory statements about the presence of typhus fever and cholera among other things?

What action does the Commission intend to take in order to make the truth known and to protect Ostia’s
image, given that the Italian public health authorities have categorically denied any risks and given
assurances that it is safe to bathe anywhere on the coast?

How does it intend to prevent the major efforts and investments being made by the public authorities and
the private sector with a view to enhancing the Rome coastline’s appeal to Italian and foreign tourists from
being undermined by false accusations?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

The Commission has no knowledge of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member.

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, actions aimed at promoting or safeguarding the image of a
specific tourist destination are the sole responsibility of the national and/or regional authorities.