WRITTEN QUESTION E-2567/03 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission. Methyl methacrylate (MMA): acrylic liquid monomer.
Date: 2003-08-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: analytical chemistry, chemical product, consumer protection, cosmetic product, marketing, product safety, public health

C 58 E/180

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

The Honourable Member will see from the above that signature of the agreement of 13 November 2002
means that the Commission has direct contractual
links only with the Belgian Government and SA
Berlaymont 2000. Likewise, it is SA Berlaymont 2000, the party responsible for the renovation project,
which enters into contracts with the various companies doing the work.

Accordingly, as far as the Honourable Member’s first question is concerned, since the Commission is not at
this stage a party to the procedure being followed by the judge responsible for this case,
it has no
information about this enquiry, which is in any case subject to pre-trial confidentiality.

As far as the second question is concerned, the Commission considers that the fixed price and the penalties
for late delivery set out in the agreement referred to above fully safeguard the Union’s financial interest.
In addition, as noted above, on fraud, Article 22 of the agreement includes a commitment by the Belgian
Government and SA Berlaymont to do everything possible, in agreement with the Community, to secure
compensation for any damage or harm caused by fraud by third parties with which the Commission has
no contractual relationship and undertake to pay the Commission fifty per cent of any amount which they
recover through such action. In the light of the inquiry in progress and in line with Article 22 of the
agreement,
the
Community.

take the steps required to protect

the Commission will

the financial

interests of

The Honourable Member’s final question concerning failure to comply with deadlines for deliveries and the
penalties to be applied in such circumstances is covered by Articles 9 and 9a of the agreement, which set
out the commitments given to the Commission by the Belgian Government and SA Berlaymont 2000 as
regards the date of delivery of the renovated building and the penalties applicable if this is not respected.
The clauses on the deadlines and penalties in the contracts between SA Berlaymont 2000 and the
companies responsible for carrying out the work concern only the contractual relationships between those
parties.

(2004/C 58 E/193)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2567/03

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: Methyl methacrylate (MMA): acrylic liquid monomer

Is the Commission aware that the acrylic liquid monomer, methyl methacrylate (MMA), is currently being
used in the solution for acrylic nails and is causing numerous allergic and damaging reactions to the users
of this product? Is the use of acrylic MMA banned in the Member States of the EU or is it being considered
for banning? If it is not being considered for banning, why not?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

Methyl methacrylate is not listed in the inventory used in cosmetic products (1) but the Commission is
aware that it might be used in kits to sculpture nails on natural fingernails. Methyl methacrylate is not
regulated in an Annex to Council Directive 76/768/EEC (2).

However, the Directive states as a general principle that only cosmetic products that do not cause damage
to human health can be put on the market (Article 2 of the Directive). Therefore, cosmetic products can
only contain safe ingredients. Regarding an adequate safety assessment of cosmetic products, there is an
obligation for the manufacturer to keep information on its cosmetic products readily accessible for the
control authorities of the Member States (Article 7a of the Directive). This information must contain the
assessment of the safety for human health of the finished product, taking into consideration the general
toxicological profile of its ingredients and its chemical structure. Therefore, the possible allergenicity of the
ingredients needs to be taken into account in the safety assessment.

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/181

The overall issue of substances used in artificial fingernail systems was already discussed in a Working
Group with Member States and stakeholders in February 2001. The Commission asked to send in scientific
data for the safety evaluation of these substances. Based on data submitted by industry a safety evaluation
of three substances was initiated. These substances (hydroquinone, benzoyl peroxide and hydroquinone
methylether) are now subject to restrictions and conditions laid down in Annex III of the Directive.

Moreover, if a Member State notes, on the basis of a substantiated justification, that a cosmetic product,
although complying with the Directive, represents a hazard to health, it may provisionally prohibit the
marketing of that product and inform the other Member States and the Commission of this (Article 12 of
the Directive). So far, the Commission has not received such an information from a Member State on a
methyl methacrylate containing cosmetic product.

The Commission will ask industry to provide information and scientific data on a possible risk associated
with the use of Methyl methacrylate in cosmetic products with a view to consulting the Scientific
Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products intended for the Consumer (SCCNFP) for a safety
assessment if necessary. Based on this safety evaluation the Commission could then take appropriate
measures.

(1) Commission decision 96/335/EC of 8 May 1996 establishing an inventory and a common nomenclature of

ingredients employed in cosmetic products, OJ L 132, 1.6.1996.

(2) Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to

cosmetic products, OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

(2004/C 58 E/194)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2568/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: EC Committee on Driving Licences

1.
Further to the Commission answer given on 30 April 2003 (E-1231/03), will the Commission please
address point four of the original question, namely does the Commission have a projected time frame
within which it anticipates developments?

2. When will the vision medical working group be set up? What is its remit?

Is the Commission itself responsible for appointing this group and if not who is? Who are its

3.
members?

4. When will it be asked to report, particularly on the issue of bioptic driving?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

1.
No calendar has been established yet, neither for the future working group on eyesight, nor for the
specific subject of driving with bioptic lenses, since the Commission replied to Written Question E-1231/
03 of the Honourable Member (1).

2.
Through the regular procedures, the Parliament has been informed that the Committee on the
driving licence met on 22 July 2003. The Committee discussed about the terms of reference for the future
working group on eyesight and its composition. It is expected that both the terms of reference and the
composition of the working group will be finalised at the next meeting of the Committee on the driving
licence. This meeting is expected to take place in October 2003. The Parliament will be duly informed.

The members of the Committee on the driving licence propose the composition of the future

3.
working group on eyesight and its terms of reference.