WRITTEN QUESTION E-2957/03 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission. Commission's proposed amendment of Directive 94/35/EC.
Date: 2003-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: consumer protection, food inspection, food safety, foodstuffs legislation, sweetener

C 88 E/630

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

effect from 1 October 2003. Under its current management, the waiting area provides parking spaces for
700 lorries, with extra room for ADR and abnormal loads, empty vehicles and container carriages, and
also sanitary facilities and sleeping places for drivers, enabling them to observe the rest requirements. The
hours of waiting are made more bearable by the availability of proper waste disposal facilities, a canteen
and snacks.

If no agreement is reached by 1 October 2003 and the termination of the lease is finalised, this will
inevitably lead to mile-long truck tailbacks on the motorway with all the familiar consequences.

Alongside the continuing problems at the border crossing point Guben-Schlagsdorf, where lorries queue as
far back as the town of Guben on an almost daily basis, the closure of the pre-border waiting area at
Preschen would certainly result in traffic chaos.

As an MEP and President of the AEBR, I would like to know whether the Commission intends to take new
measures to prevent this problem at the German-Polish border.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

The Commission has taken note of the remarks of the Honourable Member concerning the possible future
problem at the German-Polish border at the border crossing point Forst-Olszyna. However, as far as the
facilities available for customs controls are concerned, on the basis of the available information, it is not
clear to what extent these are directly affected by the expiry of the lease in question. Moreover, the
administrative and organisational aspects of the customs services do not fall within the Commission’s
competence and are fully within the national competence of the Member States. Consequently, even if the
Member States have to respect certain Community principles,
the provision of such facilities and
infrastructure is purely a matter of national competence. Finally, the Commission has no power to
intervene with regard to local contractual arrangements on which such facilities may depend.

(2004/C 88 E/0648)

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.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/631

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

The Commission wishes to reassure the Honourable Member that all food additives including sweeteners
were examined for their safety by the Scientific Committee on Food prior to their authorisation. This task
is now carried out by the European Food Safety Authority.

Indeed, two new sweeteners are proposed for authorisation in the current amendment of Directive 94/35/
EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1994 on sweeteners for use in foodstuffs (1): sucralose
and the salt of aspartame and acesulfame. Both substances were examined for their safety by the Scientific
Committee on Food before they were proposed for authorisation by the Commission.

The opinion on sucralose was adopted by the Scientific Committee on Food in September 2000. The
Committee concluded that sucralose is acceptable as a sweetener for general food use and established an
Acceptable Daily Intake of 0-15 milligramme per kilogramme (mg/kg) bodyweight.

The salt of aspartame and acesulfame was examined by the Scientific Committee on Food in March 2000.
The Committee concluded that the salt does not raise additional safety considerations since it only
represents an alternative source of aspartame and acesulfame. Aspartame and acesulfame are both already
authorised as sweeteners under Directive 94/35/EC.

At the request of the Commission, aspartame has been re-evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Food
in collaboration with the British and French Food Safety Agencies. To this end, the scientists have reviewed
all the scientific literature published since the last opinion on aspartame amounting to around 150 articles.
The resulting opinion, adopted in December 2002, fully reconfirmed the safety of aspartame and that the
intake of this sweetener, also in consumers with a high intake, including adults, children and diabetics of
all ages, remains well below the Acceptable Daily Intake. The data on headaches examined by the
Committee varied in quality, but the one well controlled double-blind, cross-over trial showed that
aspartame was no more likely than placebo to be associated with headaches.

Moreover, during the 2nd reading of
the Commission has
committed to present within two years of entry into force of this amendment a progress report about the
re-evaluation of food additives, in particular concerning the two newly authorised sweeteners.

the amendment of Directive 94/35/EC,

For the reasons outlined above, the Commission does not consider it necessary to proceed with further re-
evaluations of these sweeteners.

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

(2004/C 88 E/0649)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2992/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: Drugs production in Afghanistan

The UN committee responsible has officially reported record drugs production figures in Afghanistan over
the past year, double the production figures under the Taliban regime, since the new administration has
been unable to secure favourable conditions for wheat and maize growers or guarantee a market for their
produce.

In answer to my previous question on the same subject (E-3357/01 (1)), Commissioner Nielson indicated
that under Article B7-302 (2) the Commission was giving priority to financing alternative crops and sources
of income in the provinces most affected by the ban on opium production, the amount earmarked for this
purpose being around EUR 90 million.