WRITTEN QUESTION P-1619/03 by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Exposure of residents and long-term bystanders to pesticides.
Date: 2003-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, air quality, marketing standard, pesticide, plant health product, public health, rural population, rural region, testing

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/117

commitment of EUR 9 000 000 before the end of 2003 to foster research on SARS and with particular
regard to diagnosis, medication and vaccination. The Presidency then stressed the importance of
coordinating exchange of information at European level in view of the cross-border nature of SARS.

The Council invites the Honourable Member to refer to the Presidency’s declaration on SARS made during
the EP session in Strasbourg in April 2003 and the answer given to H-0269/03 put by Patricia McKenna
to the Council at Question Time in May 2003.

The Council would stress that the removal of checks at internal borders goes hand in hand with the
strengthening of checks at external borders through the introduction of a high level of checks applied in a
harmonised manner. For as long as there were confirmed cases of the disease, checks at external borders,
in particular on aircraft arriving from countries affected by the SARS epidemic, therefore constituted a first
level of coordination for Member States and the adoption of specific protection measures. It may also be
noted that the Schengen States have retained the possibility of reintroducing internal border controls for a
limited period according to well-defined criteria and procedures (1).

(1) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, pages 133-134.

(2004/C 51 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1619/03

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Exposure of residents and long-term bystanders to pesticides

On 27 March 2003 the European Parliament adopted the Van Brempt report, ‘Towards a thematic strategy
on the sustainable use of pesticides’ (2002/2277(INI)), which called on the Commission, before the end of
2003, to ‘propose a ban … on the use of pesticides … in areas close to inhabited zones.’

the Commission itself acknowledged in its Thematic Strategy communication (1)

that
Furthermore,
‘potential exposure of bystanders and residents to pesticides via the air might constitute an exposure
route, which needs further attention by research and possibly also regulatory measures.’

Given that the EU has adopted the precautionary principle as a guiding concept, and given that several
million citizens of the EU live in zones close to fields where pesticides are regularly sprayed, what plans
does the Commission have to introduce a ban on the use of pesticides in areas close to inhabited zones?

While risk assessments for operators already exist, there appears to be currently no research into the risks
for residents and long-term bystanders. The UK Government, for example, recently admitted that ‘direct
measurements of long-term bystanders living adjacent to a treated area have not been made in the UK’.
What are the Commission’s intentions for action to remedy this situation?

Will the Commission also introduce new regulations to require farmers to disclose publicly the pesticides
which they are using, and to give prior notification before any spraying application?

(1) COM(2002) 349 final.

C 51 E/118

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2003)

The Commission recalls the Parliament’s broad support expressed in its Resolution on the Commission
Communication ‘Towards a thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides’, in particular towards the
general approach,
the potential measures presented in the
Communication.

the main objectives, and many of

In this context, the Commission notes in particular the suggestions for additional restrictions and bans of
the use of pesticides in certain areas, such as those close to inhabited zones. The Parliament asks the
Commission to propose such bans before the end of 2003.

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the numerous detailed comments and
requests contained in the Resolution are being fully considered in the ongoing development of the future
thematic strategy and the proposal to amend Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning
the placing of plant protection products on the market (1). In line with the general wish expressed by the
Parliament and the Council
first evaluate their
environmental, economic, and social impacts. This entails that it will be difficult to present any such
proposal within the time schedule requested by the Parliament.

the Commission will, before proposing measures,

The Commission would like to recall that the exposure of bystanders to plant protection products is
already assessed by Member States and the Commission within the scope of the evaluations of active
substances made under Directive 91/414/EEC, minimising already in this way the risks for workers and
bystanders before the placing on the market of those products.

The Commission agrees that further research into the impacts of pesticides on human health and the
environment is necessary. The Commission recalls that more than 200 projects related to pesticides have
been funded under
research and technological
development. Also within the 6th Community framework programme, a specific chapter is dedicated to
this area to support policy development.

the 5th Community framework programme for

Finally, concerning the request to establish requirements for farmers to disclose publicly the pesticides
which they are using, and to give prior notification before any spraying application, the Commission will
evaluate the impacts, including the potential benefits and costs, of such a measure in its development of
the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(2004/C 51 E/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1621/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(8 May 2003)

Subject: North Korea’s illegal trade in heroin and meta-amphetamines

According to a report from the South Korean intelligence services the North Korean authorities have set
up an illegal drugs production unit in the Nanam pharmaceuticals plant. Furthermore, the US State
Department’s annual report on the world drugs trade states that the North Korean regime is illegally
growing opium to be refined into heroin and is producing meta-amphetamines in order to bring in foreign
currency earnings from illegal trading in the drug.

In March, the Japanese police found a large quantity of illegal meta-amphetamines on board a North-
Korean vessel off the Japanese coast. On 21 April the crew of a North Korean vessel appeared before an
Australian court charged with drug smuggling after the Australian authorities had caught the crew
attempting to bring 50 kilograms of heroin into the country.

Is the Council aware of any similar instances in Europe? Has this issue been raised during contacts with the
North Korean authorities?