WRITTEN QUESTION E-1465/03 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Company failure due to European regulations.
Date: 2003-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European standard, Portugal, agricultural by-product, agro-industry, cessation of trading, health legislation, public health

C 11 E/184

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2003)

The Commission now expects the results of the Targeted Risk Assessment on cadmium (oxide) used in
batteries conducted by Belgium to become publicly available before autumn.

So far, the Belgian rapporteur for the Targeted Risk Assessment on cadmium (oxide) used in batteries has
circulated several draft reports. The Commission intends to take the preliminary results of these draft
reports into consideration for the preparation of the Extended Impact Assessment.

Other general risk assessments on metals have been, or are being carried out on priority substances
identified in accordance with Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93 of 23 March 2003. These
include nickel (Danish rapporteur) and zinc (Dutch rapporteur). For lead, a voluntary risk assessment is
ongoing, which follows the same assessment procedures, but without a formal Member State rapporteur. A
complete list of the identified priority substances for risk assessments as well as a summary of the finalised
risk assessment reports, can be found on the following web page: http://ecb.jrc.it/existing-chemicals/.

(2004/C 11 E/210)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1465/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 2003)

Subject: Company failure due to European regulations

The Portuguese press (for instance Público on 27 March 2003) has reported that the ‘Bela Olhão’ company
has had to close down because it was unable to comply with the new Union legislation laying down a
body of health rules governing the manufacture of animal feedingstuffs.

Can the Commission say what specific legislation is meant?

The press reports also maintain that the separation required by the legislation is such that two entirely
separate buildings would be needed for each operation and shared premises of any type would be
completely ruled out.

Can the Commission say whether this assertion is correct?

Can the Commission confirm that the legislation in question exists? Can it supply copies of impact
statements indicating how employment in Europe is likely to be affected by this recent legislation? Can it
supply a statement specifying the enforcement costs of this legislation both to public regulatory authorities
(at European, national, regional, or local level) and to the private sector?

Assuming that the Commission can confirm that the above information is incorrect, could it explain what
steps have been taken to dispel the misapprehensions within Portuguese public opinion?

Does it have an idea of the immense damage caused by news stories of the kind referred to above in that
they undermine support for the actions of the European institutions?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2003)

Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (1) of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 October 2002, as amended
by Regulation (EC) No 808/2003 of 12 May 2003 (2),
lays down health rules concerning animal by-
products not intended for human consumption. It was adopted by the Parliament and by the Council on
3 October 2002, published on 10 October 2002 and is applied from 1 May 2003.

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/185

General requirements for the approval of category 1 and category 2 processing plants (Article 13) and for
approval of category 3 processing plant (Article 17) are set out in Chapter I of Annex V to the above-
mentioned Regulation.

Paragraph (1) (a) of Chapter I of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No1774/2002, as amended by Regulation
(EC) No 808/2003 of 12 May 2003, foreseen that premises for the processing of animal by-products (ABP)
must not be at the same site as slaughterhouses, unless located in a completely separate building.

However, a conveyer system may link an individual processing plant to a slaughterhouse on the same site
provided the following conditions are met:

(cid:1) There are separate entrances, reception bays, equipment, exits and personnel for the processing plant

and the slaughterhouse; and

(cid:1) The animal by-products to be processed originate on the same premises.

A fundamental revision of the Community rules applicable to ABP was necessary in the light of a wide
variety of approaches existing in Member States as regards the financial support for processing, collection,
storage and disposal of ABP. To ensure that the conditions of competition between agricultural products
if necessary, to take appropriate
are not affected,
the
measures at Community level. On the basis of Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No1774/2002,
Commission is preparing a report on the financial arrangements in Member States for the processing,
collection, storage and disposal of animal by-products accompanied by appropriate proposals.

it has been necessary to carry out an analysis and,

Concerning information to the public opinion on the above-mentioned Regulation, the Commission
recently issued guidance clarifying a number of issues raised by industry in relation to the provisions of the
Regulation. Copy of the guidance is available on the Commission web-site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/
food/fs/bse/legislation.

(1) OJ L 273, 10.10.2002.
(2) OJ L 117, 13.5.2003.

(2004/C 11 E/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1466/03

by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 April 2003)

Subject: Downsizing

Between 1993 and 1995, nearly two million jobs disappeared in the USA as a result of downsizing. The
cutbacks affected companies which were performing well (Thurow, The Future of Capitalism, London
1996). The aim of downsizing is to reduce staff and boost efficiency. Several studies show, however, that
there has been no improvement in the efficiency of the companies concerned and that, more often than
not, the measures have resulted in economic inefficiency (Pfeffer, Flexibility on the labour market: Do
companies really know best? Stockholm 2000, Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research). In
addition, there has been an increase in ill-health among the staff remaining after the cutbacks. Downsizing
tends to produce stress since the chances of promotion can be expected to decrease as the company levels
down and the work can be expected to intensify if fewer staff are to carry out the same amount of work as
previously (Jackson, Downsizing and lean organisations in Barklof (ed.) The pain threshold? An anthology
concerning the effects on health in lean organisations, Stockholm 2000, Swedish Council for Working Life
and Social Research).

Does the Commission consider downsizing to be a sustainable strategy for growth and new jobs?