WRITTEN QUESTION E-2687/02 by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission. Toxicity of EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins.
Date: 2002-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: allergy, consumer protection, euro, health risk, money, nickel, paper money, technical specification

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/41

The Commission also identified in the above-mentioned Communication the need to perform a risk
assessment on the non dioxin-like PCBs and to obtain recent data on occurrence of these contaminants in
feed and food. The Commission has therefore requested the Scientific Committee on Food to perform such
a risk assessment. Thereafter, the Commission will consider appropriate measures to limit the presence of
non dioxin-like PCBs throughout the whole feed and food chain. In the meantime, the Commission has
requested authorities and operators to monitor also non dioxin-like PCBs in feed and food, in particular
fish and fishery products, and will compile the results in a comprehensive database. For the time being, the
Commission has not received comprehensive evidence of the presence of very high levels of PCBs in
salmon on the European market, which would entail substantial risks for consumer health.

The Community strategy for sustainable development of European aquaculture aims to create the best
possible conditions that will enable aquaculture producers to offer a healthy product in the quantities
required by the market, while not degrading the environment. This strategy is set out in the recent
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament entitled ‘A strategy for the
sustainable development of European Aquaculture’ (4). This strategy has been drawn up in the context of
the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform and sets out a plan to further develop the aquaculture sector
and create secure employment particularly in fisheries dependent areas but not at the expense of the
environment, food safety or quality.

The Commission does not agree that fish farming is the principal threat to the sustainable development of
fisheries. Rather, the principal threat comes from overexploitation of wild stocks, low quantities of mature
fish and the fact that the available fishing capacity of the Community fleets far exceed that required to
harvest fish in a sustainable manner.

As regards the pressure put on wild fish, the Commission has requested the International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to carry out an evaluation of the impact of industrial fishing on marine
ecosystems. It will continue to monitor the conduct of industrial fisheries to ensure that their impact on
human consumption fish species and other marine species remains low and improved management
measures will be proposed as appropriate.

(1) OJ C 322, 17.11.2001.
(2) OJ L 321, 6.12.2001.
(3) OJ L 67, 9.3.2002.
(4) COM(2002) 511 final.

(2003/C 155 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2687/02

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Toxicity of EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins

According to a report published recently by the British scientific Journal ‘Nature’, the EUR 1 and EUR 2
coins release a quantity of nickel between 240 and 320 times higher than the ceiling laid down by
European Directive 94/27/EC (1).

The allergic nature of nickel, which can irritate the human skin, and its toxic metallic properties for the
liver, kidneys and brain are causing concern among scientists who have carried out experiments taping the
coins to the skin of volunteers, with worrying results.

As the Commission not consider that these coins should be replaced as a matter of urgency with EUR 1
and EUR 2 notes?

(1) OJ L 188, 22.7.1994, p. 1.

C 155 E/42

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2002)

The conclusions drawn in the article referred to in the question tabled by the Honourable Member are
misleading, because the Parliament and Council Directive 94/27/EC of 30 June 1994 amending for the
12th time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of
the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous
substances and preparation, hereafter the ‘Nickel Directive’ refers to objects that come into direct and
prolonged contact with the human skin, such as jewellery or wristwatches. This Directive does not cover
coins. Secondly, the results were generated by sticking 1- and 2- euro coins to the skin of patients with a
known nickel allergy for 48-72 hours. These conditions clearly do not reflect the normal conditions under
which coins are used.

The recent publication does not change the Commission’s view that the normal use of euro coins does not
represent a risk for European citizens. The Commission is not aware of any particular cases of patients
suffering from nickel allergy which can be traced back to the handling or use of 1 and 2 euro coins. These
conclusions were confirmed by a recent independent study, which showed that the amount of nickel
released from the 1 and 2 euro coins is significantly lower than from the national coins used prior to the
introduction of the euro.

Consequently, there is no need to evaluate again the denominations chosen for the euro banknotes and
coins, which regarding the coins have been laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 975/98 of 3 May
1998 on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation (1).

(1) OJ L 139, 11.5.1998.

(2003/C 155 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2692/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Uniform European registration system for weapons

A good number of arms manufacturers have a system for identifying and registering the weapons they
produce. Usually serial numbers are put on one or more of the weapon’s components. Exchange of
information among the EU countries as to the method used is somewhat patchy. In addition, the markings
used at present can sometimes be removed very easily. Each of these factors adds weight to the call for a
simple, efficient and universally applicable method. The markings can be kept in a national register so that
the route taken by arms found in a conflict zone can subsequently be traced.

Does the Council share my view that the EU would do well to launch a uniform, watertight registration
system as quickly as possible? If so, what steps has it taken, and will it take, to put this into effect? Will the
Council urge the Member States in this case to set up an efficient system of data exchange and to establish
national registers so that arms which are circulating illegally can be traced? If not, why not?

Reply

(20 February 2003)

Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on the control of the acquisition and possession of
weapons lays down a comprehensive system regulating inter alia the acquisition and the movement of
firearms (1).