WRITTEN QUESTION E-2987/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Inadequate monitoring of maximum residue levels (MRL) of toxic substances and combinations of toxic substances in nectarines and grapes originating in the EU.
Date: 2003-10-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: consumer protection, food inspection, food safety, food standard, grape, pesticide residue, stone fruit

C 65 E/254

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

points’ for diplomas and professional recognition: the list of these contact points is published on the
Commission’s website:
Lastly,
Directive 98/5/EC (2), although it does not list the diplomas required for access to the profession of
lawyer, contains a list of the titles of lawyer existing in all Member States.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/qualifications/index.htm.

(1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education

diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration.

(2) Directive 98/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession
of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained, OJ L 77,
14.3.1998.

(2004/C 65 E/269)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2987/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2003)

Subject: Inadequate monitoring of maximum residue levels (MRL) of toxic substances and combinations of

toxic substances in nectarines and grapes originating in the EU

1.
Is the Commission aware that research carried out by the Dutch organisations Stichting Natuur en
Milieu (‘Nature and Environment Foundation’), Vereiniging Milieudefensie (‘Association for the Defence of
the Environment’) and the alternative consumers’ association Goede Waar & Co (‘Good Produce & Co’) has
revealed excessively high levels of toxic residues and of even more dangerous combinations of toxic
substances in nectarines and grapes from Spain, Italy and Greece, all EU Member States, which are
principally sold in branches of stores run by international practitioners of predatory pricing?

2.
Has the Commission paid particular attention to fruit which is eaten unpeeled and from which,
therefore, any toxic substances remaining are introduced into the human digestive system in greater
concentrations than from peeled fruit?

3.
Can the Commission confirm that the treatment with toxic substances of fruit trees and bushes in the
EU is increasing again, as is the possibility of the presence of toxic substances in fruit imported from inside
or outside the EU?

4.
According to the current findings of national and Community-coordinated programmes to monitor
residue levels of pesticides in cereals, vegetables and fruit respectively, by what percentage is the maximum
residue level (MRL) presently being exceeded?

5. What are the Commission and the Member States doing (cid:1) with the assistance of the Rapid Alert
System and with the application of harmonised guidelines (cid:1) to bring about further improvements in
Member States’ notification of pesticide-residue MRLs in food of vegetable origin and to intervene regularly
with a view to providing all consumers in the EU with maximum protection?

Is the Commission intending to take supplementary measures in order to put a stop to any possible

6.
decline in food safety and to improve monitoring of food safety standards?

Source: the 24 September 2003 edition of ‘De Volkskrant’, a Dutch newspaper

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the research mentioned by the Honourable Member.

In the risk assessment performed when setting Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs), and when evaluating
findings in the framework of the Rapid Alert System for Foodstuffs, the Commission makes a distinction
between fruit that is consumed with the peel and fruit consumed without the peel.

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/255

In the Community coordinated report on Pesticide Residues, available on the Commission website, the
percentage of violations of MRLs varies between 2 and 5 percent. There is no significant trend pointing to
an increase of incorrect uses of plant protection products either in or outside the Community.

The results of the latest Community coordinated report for the year 2001 shows an average of 3,9 % of
violations, ranging in the Member States between 1,3 and 9,1 percent.

It should be noted that MRLs are not toxicological limits and a violation of a MRL is not necessarily a food
safety issue. MRLs are set, based on (i) evidence that the correct use of a plant protection product leads to
a residue on the harvested produce and (ii) that the presence of this residue does not lead to a risk to the
consumer. In most cases the MRL represents a level that is significantly below the level of concern. When,
in the framework of the Rapid Alert System for Foodstuffs an MRL violation is notified, a risk assessment
is carried out. If an immediate risk to the consumer is established, an Alert notification is issued. The
Commission, through the Food and Veterinary Office, systematically addresses the issue of notifications
when making inspections in the Member States.

In addition, the Commission proposal for a Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council on the setting
of maximum residues limits in food (1) includes proposals to increase monitoring and control measures in
the Member States.

(1) COM(2003) 117 final.

(2004/C 65 E/270)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3000/03

by Geneviève Fraisse (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject: Follow-up to the ‘women’s sport’ resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 5 June 2003

On 15 September 2003, at the time of the Women’s Football World Cup, it was announced that the
American Women’s Football Championship had been abolished. Despite clear progress, women’s sport,
across the board (schools, leisure and professional) needs to be supported.

In June 2003, the European Parliament, on my initiative, adopted a resolution dedicated to the issue of
women and sport (P5-TA(2003)0269). The text’s 46-odd proposals call on the European Union, the
Member States and the sporting movement to put the issue of the effective equality of women and men in
sport on their political agenda. The Commission has, thus far, done nothing to follow up this EP
resolution.

The draft European constitution provides for a legal base for supportive action in the field of sport
(Article 16), so as to promote the European dimension of sport, with particular regard to its social and
educational role (Article III-182).

How does the Commissioner for sport, Mrs Viviane Reding, intend to follow up the EP resolution on
women and sport? Will the Commission use the new legal framework for sport to make a favourable
response to the demands set out in the resolution, and draw up the study of the situation of women in
sport within Europe suggested by the Council of Sports Ministers meeting on 12 November 2001?

What initiatives are the Commission, and more particularly,
its DG EAC going to take to promote
women’s sport and raise Member States’ awareness of this policy issue (Community programmes and/or
actions, Communication, White Paper, etc.)?

Could the European Union not seize the opportunity offered by the European location of the forthcoming
2004 Olympic Games to set out its vision of what sport is, by taking an active stance, as it did in the fight
against doping, for equality between the sexes in sport, in terms of both access and practice?