WRITTEN QUESTION P-3892/03 by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN) to the Commission. Opinion of AFSSA.
Date: 2003-12-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: food inspection, food safety, market approval, operation of the Institutions, transgenic plant

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/333

The Commission is aware of the problem of the excessively long delays and other malfunctions of the
academic recognition procedure in Greece.

Although, as stated above, the academic recognition of diplomas falls within the competence of the
Member States, the Commission is of the opinion that the delays caused by purely administrative reasons
in the academic recognition procedure in Greece can discourage students from exercising their right to free
movement. The excessive length of the administrative procedure can raise obstacles to the free movement
of students.

The Commission has already contacted the Greek authorities asking what are the reasons that justify the
delays in the academic recognition procedure. The Greek authorities have informed the Commission that
the delays were in part due to the large number of applications received by Dikatsa. In order to expedite
the process of recognition, the Greek authorities have reviewed the relevant national regulations and
proposed to put new procedures in place. Dikatsa has been restructured in order to be able to deal with
the large number of applications effectively.

The Commission continues to follow the evolution of the process of academic recognition in Greece.

(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, OJ L 19,
24.1.1989.

(2) Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional

education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(2004/C 78 E/0351)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3892/03

by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Opinion of AFSSA

In its opinion of 3 December 2003 the French Food Safety Agency (Agence française de sécurité sanitaire
des aliments (cid:1) AFSSA) expressed serious reservations about BT 11 maize and took the view that the tests
carried out on animals by the Swiss firm Syngenta, which is presenting the application, were insufficient.

The matter was referred to the agency by the French Government on 18 November, in advance of the
European vote, in which France will be taking part in Brussels on Monday, to decide whether or not to
authorise importation of this tinned maize for human consumption. The opinion of AFSSA was of course
sought on a consultative basis.

This is the third time that the food safety agency has delivered an opinion on this subject. It has twice
issued unfavourable opinions, on 21 July 2000 and 20 March 2001, stressing the inadequacy of the tests
carried out on animals.

The Commission wishes to authorise BT 11 maize, but what account does it take of the opinions of the
national agencies working with EFSA, including the abovementioned opinion?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2004)

The first opinion of the French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA) on the genetically modified sweet maize,
BT 11, delivered on 21 July 2000, was submitted to the Commission in the context of reasoned objections
by France to the initial assessment report of sweet maize BT 11 carried out by the competent authorities of
the Netherlands under Article 4 of the Novel Food Regulation (EC) No 258/97 (1).

These objections, and those raised by other Member States, were referred by the Commission to the
Scientific Committee on Food (SCF). The subsequent AFSSA opinion, of 20 March 2001, was also
transmitted to the SCF for consideration.

C 78 E/334

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

On 17 April 2002, the SCF delivered its opinion that BT 11 sweet maize, is as safe for human food use as
its conventional counterparts. This opinion focused, as requested by the Commission, on the issues raised
in the comments made by Member States’ authorities, namely: the scope of the request, molecular
characterisation, compositional analysis on BT 11 sweet maize, toxicity studies and labelling.

The data provided by the applicant and the safety assessment of the product carried out followed the
criteria and requirements laid down in Commission Recommendation 618/97/EC (2). The methodology
used for the safety assessment of BT 11 was also in line with the recent guidelines prepared by the
Scientific Steering Committee concerning the assessment of genetically modified organism (GMOs), GM
food and GM feed (3) and with the Codex Principles and Guidelines on Foods Derived from Biotech-
nology (4). The concerns raised in the two above-mentioned AFSSA opinions, which were again reiterated
in another AFSSA opinion of 3 December 2003, do not bring any new scientific elements in addition to
the initial assessment of sweet maize BT 11 carried out by the competent authorities of the Netherlands.
These concerns were duly considered by the SCF in its opinion of 17 April 2002, which confirmed the
findings of the initial assessment carried out by the competent authorities of the Netherlands that BT 11
sweet maize is as safe for human food use as conventional maize.

(1) Regulation (EC) no 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and

novel food ingredients, OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2) Commission Recommendation of 29 July 1997 concerning the scientific aspects and the presentation of
information necessary to support applications for the placing on the market of novel foods and novel food
ingredients and the preparation of initial assessment reports under Regulation EC No 258/97 of the European
Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 253, 16.9.1997.
‘Guidance Document for the Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants and Derived Food and Feed’ Joint
Working Group on Novel
foods and GMOS, 6-7 March 2003. http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/
out327_en.pdf.

(3)

(4) Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2003. Codex Principles and Guidelines on Foods Derived from Biotechnology.
Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Food and Agriculture Organisation: Romeftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/
standard/en/CodexTextsBiotechFoods.pdf.

(2004/C 78 E/0352)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3901/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject: President Prodi’s involvement in Italian politics

On 12 November 2003 the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, published a long letter under the
title ‘Europe: the dream; the options’, which he sent to the parties in the Italian centre-left coalition. The
the
touching upon issues such as justice, peace,
letter contains a fully-fledged political manifesto,
environment, economic growth, education,
the welfare state and immigration and putting forward
proposals to be taken up by reformist parties with a view to offering solutions at European level.

The ‘letter’ is thus, in all senses of the term, a manifesto for the forthcoming European elections, as can be
seen from statements such as ‘we can put forward a strong political programme’ (paragraph 4 of the
document) or ‘looking to Italy and the forthcoming spring elections to the European Parliament, I have
suggest to all reformists that they join together on a single list’ (paragraph 4), or again ‘however, the
underlying ideas remain those which first gave birth to the Ulivo’ (paragraph 5). The arguments used in
connection with all the issues covered are based on Mr Prodi’s experience as President of the Commission,
his intention being, it would appear, to make use of the authority conferred on him by his position to
support the electoral campaign of the coalition to which he belongs in Italy. The letter gave rise to serious
concern among Members of the European Parliament, including those belonging to the PSE Group, of
which the Italian parties Mr Prodi was addressing are members.