WRITTEN QUESTION E-3212/03 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. British newspaper allegations regarding irregularities in connection with Commission funding.
Date: 2003-10-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, Greece, contract, correspondence, fraud against the EU, information

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/489

Peroxide is inherently dangerous. For that reason, Japan and Brazil recently banned the use of peroxide in
this connection, especially since there are safe teeth-whitening alternatives not containing peroxide. The
American Dental Association also cautions against the use of products with a high concentration of
peroxide, which may damage teeth and cause gastric problems.

The World Health organisation is also concerned about the presence of peroxide in cosmetic products.

Does the Commission not think that, on the basis of the precautionary principle, an increase in the
concentration of peroxide is not conducive to (public) health?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

One of the main objectives of Council Directive 76/768/EEC (1) is to protect public health. Therefore, 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). To ensure this, measures have been taken, for
example certain ingredients must not form part of a cosmetic product (Annex II of the Directive) or certain
substances shall only be used up to a maximum concentration or under certain conditions of use (Annex
III of the Directive). Reference number 12 of Annex III regulates hydrogen peroxide, and other compounds
or mixtures that release hydrogen peroxide,
including carbamide peroxide and zinc peroxide in oral
hygiene products up to a maximum authorized concentration of 0,1 %.

The Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products (SCCNFP) is mandated to give its
opinion on consumer health and safety issues in the field of cosmetics, based on scientific data. The
SCCNFP was asked by the Commission to evaluate, if higher concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and
other compounds releasing hydrogen peroxide are safe for use in tooth-whitening products. These
products are a different category of cosmetic products than oral hygiene products.

In its opinion adopted during the 21st plenary meeting of 17 September 2002, the SCCNFP stated that ‘the
content of hydrogen peroxide in tooth whitening products should not exceed 6 % (present or released)
with a limitation of maximum 50 mg hydrogen peroxide per day. The use of tooth whitening products is
not recommended prior to or immediately after dental restoration. Conditions such as pre-existing tissue
injury or concurrent use of tobacco and/or alcohol may exacerbate the toxic effects of hydrogen peroxide.
Overall evidence indicates that the proper use of tooth bleaching agents containing 0,1 to 6,0 % hydrogen
peroxide (or equivalent for hydrogen peroxide releasing substances) is safe if used under the supervision of
a dentist.’

Based on this opinion the Commission intends to take appropriate steps to adapt Annex III to Directive
76/768/EEC, accordingly.

(1) 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 78 E/0511)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3212/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject: British newspaper allegations regarding irregularities in connection with Commission funding

According to the British ‘Daily Telegraph’ newspaper of 24 September 2003, Mr Neil Kinnock,
Commission Vice-President, has received a letter informing him that the OLAF has uncovered irregularities

C 78 E/490

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

concerning Community funding for Greek companies. According to the newspaper’s correspondent
(Mr Ambrose Evans-Prichard) the ‘letter claimed that alleged abuses at Eurostat were almost insignificant’
by comparison with those uncovered by OLAF regarding the awarding of contracts to a number of Greek
companies.

Was such a letter sent to Mr Kinnock? If so, who signed it and what was its exact content? Can the
Commission give a breakdown showing the precise amounts involved in these irregularities and which
Greek companies (by name) were involved? What action has been taken by the Commission and what
immediate measures will
it take to elucidate this affair which has shed an unfairly negative light on
Greece?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

An anonymous letter addressed to an Honourable Member and containing allegations of irregularities was,
quite properly, handed to the Member of the Commission in charge of Personnel and Administration,
Vice-President Kinnock, by that Honourable Member on 4 September 2003.

On the same day, following the established procedure, Mr Kinnock passed the anonymous letter to
Mr Brüner, Director-General of OLAF, for appropriate inquiry and follow-up and then informed the
Honourable Member of the action taken. Naturally, the Commission did not communicate the existence of
the letter to the press at any time.

OLAF proceeded to carry out an assessment which included (cid:1) ‘inter alia’ (cid:1) detailed examination of all the
files mentioned in the letter.

The outcome of this assessment by OLAF is that the allegations were unfounded. The Commission
considers that no reputation of an individual, or of a company, or (cid:1) a fortiori (cid:1) of a Member State
should suffer as a result of anonymous allegations of this kind when neither the investigations by OLAF,
nor the internal checks carried out by the relevant Directorate-General, have discovered any evidence to
substantiate the allegation.

The results of the OLAF examination were conveyed to the Honourable Member who gave the anonymous
letter to Mr Kinnock.

All information which might lead to detection of misconduct is treated seriously by the Commission and
given to the appropriate investigatory authorities. Misuse of the system for reporting alleged wrongdoing
does, however, waste the valuable time of
investigators and can discourage those who seek to
communicate legitimate concerns in a responsible way.

The Commission would, therefore, be interested in receiving any information which could assist with the
discovery of the identity of the anonymous letter writer.

(2004/C 78 E/0512)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3216/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject: Disposal of hazardous waste in Greece and infringement of environmental legislation

In reply to my question (P-2724/03 (1)) Commissioner Wallström indicated that an annual amount of
392 539 tonnes of hazardous waste was produced in Greece. She also indicated that the Commission did
not know where the disposal sites were located. This gives rise to legitimate concerns as to where these
hazardous wastes, which are put
the
accumulated quantities must total over one million tonnes.

into temporary storage, are in fact disposed of, given that