WRITTEN QUESTION E-0823/03 by Christel Fiebiger (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Ban on Nifursol.
Date: 2003-03-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal nutrition, consumer protection, food additive, poultry, scientific committee (EU), veterinary drug, withdrawal from the market

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/93

The Italian State’s continuing refusal to meet this request represents a serious breach of human rights, since
it has no legitimate interest in retaining these private letters, which the family of Claretta Petacci wish to
conserve and protect out of due respect for the personal and private feelings of a completely innocent
woman, who was barbarously murdered together with Benito Mussolini.

Will the Commission call on the competent Italian authorities to respect the human rights that have clearly
been breached in this case?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The Commission does not have a general competence as regards the fundamental rights under the terms of
the treaties on European Union and establishing the European Community. It could intervene only in the
event of violation of the fundamental rights in the field of application of Community legislation, which
does not seem to be the case related to the property of the letters of the late Mrs Petacci. Indeed the
regulation of property comes under the responsibility of the Member States. In fact, Article 295 of the EC
‘This Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the
Treaty provides that:
system of property ownership’.

It should be noted that a person who considers that her or his fundamental rights were violated has
possibility to apply to the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting domestic remedies.

(2003/C 280 E/099)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0822/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Sovereign rights of the EU

Can the Commission confirm that the sovereign rights of the European Union are derived from the
sovereign rights transferred to the EU by the Member States?

Are there any EU sovereign rights which are not derived from the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2003)

The European Union does not have any sovereign rights.
It exercises the powers which have been
conferred upon it by the Treaties (in particular Treaty on the European Union, EC Treaty and Euratom
Treaty) in conformity with the rules laid down in the said Treaties.

(2003/C 280 E/100)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0823/03

by Christel Fiebiger (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Ban on Nifursol

Authorisation for Nifursol, currently the only substance available as a feed additive for the prevention of
blackhead disease in turkeys (Histomoniasis) is to be withdrawn as from 31 March 2003 for reasons linked
to consumer protection. This will pose serious problems for turkey farms:

C 280 E/94

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

Without prophylactic treatment, turkeys will be unprotected. An outbreak of the disease could take on
epidemic proportions with mortality rates of over 50 %. Tens of thousands of turkeys would die from the
disease. The economic impact arising from the loss of animals and the non-release of diseased animals for
slaughter would jeopardise the existence of specialised turkey farms in particular. Given that blackhead
disease is not a notifiable animal disease, no compensation will be paid in Germany from the animal
disease insurance scheme. For the same reason, the veterinary authority will not order animals to be
slaughtered and there will therefore be no support from the public purse.

Particularly in the new German länder, most turkey farms have been set up only recently and have been
almost exclusively financed through borrowing. A single outbreak of the disease would mean the end for
these farms. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern alone has fattening capacity for around 800 000 turkeys. Losses
on this scale would affect not only the farms themselves, but also slaughterhouses and the animal feed
industry, and would consequently hit jobs in structurally weak regions.

1. What is the justification for the ban on Nifursol in feed, given the lack of proof of harmful effects on
people and animals and the lack of substitute products for the prevention of blackhead disease?

Is it compatible with animal welfare that Nifursol

2.
is to be banned even though there is no
therapeutic or prophylactic alternative, which means accepting the possibility that sick animals will suffer a
painful death?

Is the Council prepared, in acknowledgement of the complex implications of the ban on Nifursol, to

3.
correct its decision or provide a temporary derogation until alternatives to Nifursol become available?

If it is not prepared to do so, is the Council willing to adopt measures to compensate for economic

4.
losses as a result of blackhead disease?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

The purpose of Council Regulation (EC) No 1756/2002 (1) of 23 September 2002 is to withdraw the
1.
authorisation for use as an additive in feedingstuffs of the coccidiostat Nifursol, a histomonostat belonging
to the nitrofuran group.

2.
During the period between 1990 and 1995, both the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food
Additives (JECFA) and the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP) gave opinions on the use
the group of substances known as
of veterinary medicinal products in food-producing animals of
nitrofurans. They concluded that it was not possible, because of the genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of the
substance, to identify an acceptable daily intake (i.e. a level of intake by humans of residues of the
substances which could be regarded as safe). Accordingly, it was not possible to set maximum residue
levels for the substances.

All nitrofurans were therefore inserted into Annex IV to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90, with the
effect of prohibiting throughout the Community the administration of these substances, as veterinary
medicinal products, to food-producing animals.

The Commission therefore asked the Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition (SCAN) to make a

3.
new scientific risk assessment of Nifursol, which belongs also to the group of nitrofurans.

The SCAN adopted an opinion concerning Nifursol on 11 October 2001, which concluded that on the
basis of the genotoxicity studies provided by the person responsible for putting Nifursol into circulation,
and because of the lack of data on developmental toxicity, it was not possible to derive an acceptable daily
intake for the consumers. The SCAN confirmed this opinion on 18 April 2002 after having examined
complementary data submitted by the company.

Consequently, as it deemed that the conditions laid down in Article 3(a) of Directive 70/524/EEC (2)
4.
were no longer met for the coccidiostat Nifursol, the Commission sought the opinion of the Standing
Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on a draft Commission Regulation withdrawing the
authorisation of Nifursol for the use as feed additive.

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/95

In the absence of an opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health the
5.
Commission made a proposal to the Council which unanimously adopted the proposed regulation making
it applicable as from 1 April 2003. An Application for suspension of the Regulation was rejected by Order
of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 April 2003 (Case T-392/02 R Solvay Pharmaceuticals
bv v. Council, not yet reported).

6.
Any future decision allowing the use of Nifursol could only be taken in accordance with Directive
70/524 by the Commission, or the Council on a proposal from the latter, and could only be taken if it
would be proven that, notwithstanding its genetoxic affects in vitro Nifursol is safe and thus meets the
requirements of Article 3a of the directive. The Council understands that new data provided by the
producer of Nifursol were assessed by SCAN which on 17 March 2003 confirmed, as in its previous
opinions, that it was not possible to derive an acceptable daily intake of Nifursol for the consumers.

(1) OJ L 265, 3.10.2002, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 270, 14.12.1970, p. 1.

(2003/C 280 E/101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0825/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Sovereign rights of the EU

Can the Council confirm that the sovereign rights of the European Union are derived from the sovereign
rights transferred to the EU by the Member States?

Are there any EU sovereign rights which are not derived from its Member States?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

The Council would point out to the Honourable Member that the European Union acts under the powers
conferred on it in the Treaty negotiated, concluded and ratified by the Member States.

(2003/C 280 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0826/03

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: European Commission’s Business Environment Simplification Taskforce

Can the Commission indicate the expenses and salaries received by the members of
Environment Simplification Taskforce, which operated from October 1997 to April 1998?

its Business

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

The members of the Business Environment Simplification Task Force (BEST), operating between October
1997 and April 1998, did not receive a salary, but were reimbursed for their travel expenses and were
entitled to a daily allowance of maximum ECU 221,84 (1). In addition, the entrepreneur/non-governmental
members were entitled to a fixed amount of ECU 400 per day, compensating for a maximum of two days
per meeting (including time for preparation of the meeting where applicable) (2).