WRITTEN QUESTION P-2951/03 by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Draft REACH regulation.
Date: 2003-10-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, EU policy, Internet, chemical industry, chemical product, competitiveness, cost analysis, environmental protection, impact study, sustainable development

C 58 E/208

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

As for the detection of two strains of salmonella (DT 108 and DT 170), the competent laboratory services
agree that these strains are virtually identical and hence extremely difficult to differentiate.

The Commission would like to reiterate that the sole purpose of the Rapid Alert System is to protect the
health of consumers. The Commission publishes a weekly overview of alert and information notifications
at (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sfp/ras_index_en.html). Companies and brand names do not figure
on these lists but are supplied to the competent authorities of the Member States so as to enable them,
where necessary, to take the appropriate protective measures.

(2004/C 58 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2949/03

by Gian Gobbo (NI) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: Indication of frozen products

Does the Commission consider that it would be appropriate to adopt rules requiring public commercial
establishments in the Union to indicate clearly, for the purpose of consumer protection, any use of frozen
products in the preparation of food offered to customers?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

The Commission does not consider that it would be appropriate to oblige restaurants, canteens, etc. to
indicate the use of frozen products in the preparation of the food they serve, as a measure of this kind is
not justified from a food safety perspective in particular. In any case, the adoption of such measures would
come under the competence of the Member States.

However, the Commission plans to make it compulsory for foods sold frozen or defrosted to bear a label
to this effect, together with a warning that the food in question should not be refrozen.

(2004/C 58 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2951/03

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: Draft REACH regulation

The recent
evaluation and authorisation of chemicals (REACH) elicited over 6 300 contributions.

Internet consultation on the Commission’s draft regulation concerning the registration,

The vast majority of contributors expressed concern about the financial and bureaucratic implications of
these measures for the European chemical industry, and also about the damaging impact on competitive-
ness, employment and European know-how. SMEs in the chemical industry will be particularly affected.
The knock-on effect will mean that the economic impact on sectors downstream from the chemical
industry will be strongly felt across the board. The cessation or relocation of certain production activities,
combined with the desire to avoid excessive red tape in Europe will lead some operators to downsize and/
or relocate some of their R & D expertise in the long term. Lastly, the registration of polymers on the basis
of the options laid down by the regulation could stifle innovation in a field whose vibrancy is almost
unrivalled.

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/209

if
Two independent studies have found that,
jeopardise 1,7 million jobs in Germany and 670 000 jobs in France (between now and 2012).

implemented in its current

form, the proposal would

Given that the expected health and environmental benefits do not appear sufficient to justify the threats to
the competitiveness of Europe’s chemical industry, would the Commission be prepared to ask an impartial
body to assess the impact of this new legislation before it is formally presented?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2003)

The Commission proposals for the implementation of the new strategy on chemicals will be accompanied
by an impact assessment which will address the estimated costs and benefits of the system. The estimates
will be underpinned mainly by the results of a comprehensive study carried out by an external consultant
focusing on the direct costs of the system.

In relation to the studies mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission would point out that
in May 2003 and/or the
their findings are based on texts posted for consultation on the internet
Commission’s White Paper on a Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy (1).

It is expected that significant modifications will be made to the internet texts, resulting in substantial
reductions in costs to industry. The changes envisaged will address in particular potential problems for
downstream users, whose obligations under the new proposals, will be substantially alleviated.

(1) COM(2001) 88 final.

(2004/C 58 E/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2957/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Commission’s proposed amendment of Directive 94/35/EC

A report in the scientific journal ‘Headache’ (May 2003, p. 555) indicates that people with a predisposition
to migraine may suffer an attack if they take a substance known as sucralose.

This substance is being considered for possible inclusion on the EU’s list of approved additives.
The Commission has accordingly submitted, in a document of 16 May 2003, a revised amendment to
Directive 94/35/EC (1) of 30 June 1994 on sweeteners for use in foodstuffs. The amendment proposes that
the active substance ‘Splenda’ (sucralose) be approved in the EU as E955.

The amendment also relates to substance E962 (aspartame-acesulphame salt). Aspartame is a well-known
migraine-inducing substance, but there are no studies on aspartame-acesulphame salt.

Will the Commission take the initiative of having both these substances (together with other food
additives) thoroughly investigated for possible migraine-inducing effect before they are included on the list
of approved additives?

(1) OJ L 237, 10.9.1994, p. 3.