WRITTEN QUESTION E-0283/03 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. European vision panel.
Date: 2003-02-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU body, driving mechanism, information, optics

C 192 E/166

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

On the basis of the above, does the Commission not consider that:

1.

2.

3.

the regional administrative court should, without prejudice to its own prerogatives and powers, be
required when arriving at its decisions to respect the precautionary principle in the field of food safety
and consumer protection laid down in the European treaties;

the ruling by the regional administrative court conflicts with the principle of the general interests of
the protection of public health taking precedence over economic considerations, as established by the
European Court of Justice (Alpharma Inc versus Council of the European Union (cid:1) Case T-70/99R);

the actions of the Forli veterinary service, which is responsible for the Forlimpopoli area, were in
keeping with the principle of food safety and consumer protection?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2003)

As the Commission has not previously been informed of the alleged incident of 29 August 2001 in
Forlimpopoli to which the Honourable Member refers, it is requesting more information on the matter of
the production of the rabbit brain powder from the Italian competent authorities. Without having available
all relevant facts, the Commission is not in a position to form a judgement on the behaviour of any of the
entities involved.

However, the Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that responsibility
for implementing and enforcing Community legislation lies primarily with the Member States, who are
ultimately liable for the activities of all public authorities and bodies, including national courts and judges.
The general responsibilities of Member States in relation to food are laid down in Article 17 of Regulation
(EC) No 178/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002, laying down the general
principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down
procedures in matters of food safety (1). The Commission may act only in the event that Community
legislation is not being complied with or is inaccurately enforced by the Member State.

The precautionary principle is part of food safety law and, in specific circumstances, may be invoked when
risk management measures must be taken. This is particularly the case when it is necessary to ensure a
high level of protection of human health in relation to food which, as recalled by the Court and the
Honourable Member, is a principle of general interest taking precedence over economic considerations.

(1) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.

(2003/C 192 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0283/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: European vision panel

1. Who are the members of the new ‘European vision panel’, and what powers or decision-making
responsibilities does the panel have relative to European policy on BiOptic driving?

Can the Commission confirm whether the panel is now established and functioning, and what the

2.
frequency of their meetings is?

3. Where is BiOptic driving on their agenda, and what, if any, proactive actions or enquiries are they
pursuing on this subject?

4.

Do they have any projected time frame within which they anticipate developments?

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/167

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2003)

The Commission holds no information regarding a ‘European vision panel’. Therefore,
position to provide an answer to the questions raised by the Honourable Member.

it is not in a

(2003/C 192 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0295/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Nut production in Catalonia

According to the 1999 agricultural census, 6,35 % of Catalonia’s utilised agricultural area (UAA) is used for
nut production. More specifically, in some areas such as Baix Camp and Terra Alta, over 40 % of the UAA
is used for nut production.

Nut production helps to maintain the environmental, rural and social equilibrium of many municipalities
in these areas, and these facets of nut production are viewed as key factors in the ongoing sustainable
development of rural areas.

The aid that
the European Commission has been providing since 1989 for quality and marketing
improvement plans has been efficacious in improving nut crops and quality. Despite this, competition
from hazelnuts produced in Turkey and almonds produced in the United States has meant that nuts
produced in the EU have been unable to establish a firm foothold on the market at prices which guarantee
producers sufficient income, and nut production in the EU remains chronically uncompetitive. The fact
that the European Commission is now to grant 40 % less aid to producers than was the case for the quality
and marketing improvement plans established in 1989 will further exacerbate the situation.

Lastly, it should be emphasised that the Commission working paper entitled ‘Analysis of the nut sector’ (1)
shows there to be an objective lack of alternatives to nut production owing to the situation on the markets
and CAP rules.

Is the Commission aware that its proposal to limit aid to EUR 100 per hectare will, even if this amount is
supplemented by optional aid granted by Spain, be totally insufficient to compensate producers for their
loss of income and will herald the end of nut production and trigger wholesale migration from rural areas?
Will the Commission take steps to rectify this situation?

(1) SEC(2002) 797.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2003)

As reminded by the Honourable Member, during 2001 and 2002, the Commission carried out a global
analysis of the Community nut sector. In short, the results were:

(cid:1) despite the positive effects of marketing and quality improvement plans, introduced in 1989 and
gradually coming to a close, nut production in the Community remains chronically non-competitive
overall;

(cid:1) nut production plays a fundamental part in protecting and maintaining the environmental, social and

rural balance in many regions.

The proposal recently submitted to the Council and the Parliament (1) represents a fundamental shift in
policy for the nut sector. Firstly, it is a new regime and not at all a new extension of the old improvement
plans. Secondly, this proposal
is put forward as a market measure, while containing a strong ‘rural
development’ aspect.