WRITTEN QUESTION E-0763/03 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE), Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE)and Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Nitrofuran residues in imported shrimp and poultry.
Date: 2003-03-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Viet Nam, crustacean, food contamination, food inspection, food safety, foodstuffs legislation, import (EU), poultry, third country

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/173

collection and treatment of waste tyres. Therefore, Member States are free to establish such rules at
national level. Furthermore, the Commission has no indication that the Flemish EPA on waste tyres is not
in conformity with relevant Community legislation, such as Directive 2000/53/EC of the Parliament and of
the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles (3).

(1) Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/96/EC.
(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
(3) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000.

(2003/C 242 E/180)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0763/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE), Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE)
and Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Nitrofuran residues in imported shrimp and poultry

(12 March 2003)

On 17 December 2002, the Commission made a statement on the presence of nitrofurans and other
prohibited substances in poultry and shrimps imported from third countries.

As several questions raised remained unanswered, the Commission made a second statement concerning
nitrofurans and other residues in poultry and shrimps at the meeting of the Committee on Environment
on 19 February 2003.

During the debate, the following question was raised: How many rapid alerts related to residues in food
products imported from Vietnam had been launched after 2 October 2002, when Commission decision
2002/770/EC (1) lifted the safeguard measures regarding shrimp imports from Vietnam? The Commissioner
indicated that this question had been answered the previous day to a parliamentary delegation at the FVO
in Ireland.

As this had actually not been the case, the Commission should inform Parliament about the number of
rapid alerts relating to residues in food products imported from Vietnam launched before and after
2 October 2002. How many rapid alerts related to nitrofuran or chloramphenicol residues in food
imported from other third countries were launched in 2002? Which countries were concerned? What
action was taken by the Commission in order to guarantee consumer safety?

Has the contaminated food been sent back to the country of origin? If not, how was the disposal of the
contaminated material organised? Can the Commission guarantee that the contaminated material did not
end up in feedingstuffs?

(1) OJ L 265, 3.10.2002, p. 16.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

It appears from the question that the Honourable Members may not be aware of the memorandum
forwarded to Parliament on 14 February 2003 regarding its policy on residues. This memorandum by the
Commission addresses the full range of issues relating to residues, including the questions raised in the
Parliament on 17 December 2002.

With regard to Vietnam, before 2 October 2002, 59 notifications concerning shrimps with residues of
prohibited substances were issued through the Rapid Alert System for Food (RASFF). Since then,
16 notifications on the same subject have been issued. Of these, three notifications have been issued in the
year 2003 and none after 31 January 2003.

C 242 E/174

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

All together, 411 RASFF notifications on food from third countries containing residues of prohibited
substances were issued during the year 2002, concerning mainly products from China, Thailand, Brazil,
and Vietnam. The details of these alerts broken down by country are set out in a report which has been
circulated to the Parliament. This information is also to be found in the report on the RASFF for the year
2002 published on the Commission web site at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/
sfp/ras_report2002_en.pdf.

When a maximum residue limit cannot be established for a substance because its residues in food,
‘at
whatever limit, constitute a hazard to the health of the consumer’ according to Community law (1), the
substance is prohibited for use in food producing animals within the Union. This leads to the conclusion
that all products of animal origin containing such residues should be withdrawn from the food and feed
chain. Article 22.2 of Directive 97/78/EC (2) also provides that, where the Competent Authority determines
that the goods constitute a danger for human health, the importer Member State must ‘seize and destroy’
the consignments in question under the supervision of the Competent Authority.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment
of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (cid:1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.
(2) Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of

veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (cid:1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.

(2003/C 242 E/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0780/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject: President Bush’s powers to carry out cyber attacks

Up until recently very little attention was paid to possible cyber attacks and their repercussions. In Europe
the primary responsibility for the vulnerability of computer systems was placed on industry and
organisations themselves, even by the European Parliament. Since the terrorist attacks of 11 September
2001 in the United States and the constant warnings about possible cyber attacks, much greater attention
is now being paid to security.

Not only do we have to fear damage as a result of cyber attacks by Iraq or Islamic groups such as the Unix
Security Guards or Anti-India Crew but, in the war on Internet terrorism, President Bush signed a special
into law six months ago enabling him to carry out cyber attacks himself. These attacks are not
bill
necessarily restricted to Iraq but can also affect the total operation of the World Wide Web. In other
words, Bush can completely paralyse the net if he wants to. It is assumed that only targets of military
importance would be attacked. The major problem with online attacks is that there can be a great deal of
collateral damage. Because of the high degree of complexity and interdependence of the Internet, other
countries and firms may be seriously inconvenienced by such action. A denial-of-service attack, a classic
way of disabling a network, also has implications for intermediate networks between the attacker and his
target.

Is the Commission aware of this new law which gives President Bush the power to carry out cyber

1.
attacks and, if so, what does it think of it?

How does the Commission intend to protect European citizens and firms from such attacks and their

2.
consequences?

3. Who does the Commission think should pay for the damage that might be caused by such attacks
and how can compensation be obtained?