WRITTEN QUESTION E-0130/04 by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Fluoridation of drinking water.
Date: 2004-01-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, United Kingdom, competence of the Member States, drinking water, food safety, water treatment

C 84 E/540

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Presidency will convene a Conference on Biodiversity and the EU in Malahide, Ireland, 25 to 27 May
2004. This Conference will aim to produce an outline ‘2010 delivery plan’ which identifies priority
measures, targets, indicators and lead actors as well as the resources required. Without prejudice to the
outcome of the review,
it is anticipated that the 2010 Delivery Plan will reconfirm IAS as a priority.
The Commission recognises that IAS is a complex issue which touches on many economic sectors and
requires a comprehensive policy response. Unfortunately, existing resources do not permit such a response.
The Commission trusts that the current momentum-building exercise will result in the allocation of
adequate resources to address all key measures required to meet the 2010 target, IAS included. In the
meantime, the Commission is aware of and welcomes the work done by the Council of Europe to develop
a pan-European strategy for IAS; this is a useful point of reference for the development of EU policy.

Regarding the grey squirrel, Member States have an obligation to maintain the favourable conservation
status of habitats and species of European conservation interest; if and where the grey squirrel threatens
this status, Member States are obliged to act accordingly. It is also relevant to note that a study is currently
being completed under the LIFE-Nature programme on lessons learnt in LIFE-Nature projects which
address IAS.

(2004/C 84 E/0617)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0130/04

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject: Fluoridation of drinking water

On 25 December 2003 the Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC (1)), which permits Member States to add
fluoride to drinking water, came into force. The benefits and risks of water fluoridation are far from well
established, and scientific controversy and health concerns have loomed over the issue for many years.

The York Review into the efficacy and safety of the fluoridation of drinking water, commissioned by the
British Department of Health in 1999, could not accurately determine the effect of fluoridating water on
teeth, because the evidence was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable. Since then there has been,
according to the authors of this review, no other scientifically defensible review to alter its findings.

In light of this and of the fact that in the UK and Ireland some nine million consumers have fluoride added
to their drinking water without their consent, what research is the Commission promoting and funding
into the safety of water fluoridation? Does the Commission agree that such research is an essential step in
enabling Member States to follow the precautionary principle and to prohibit
this form of mass-
medication, if they so choose?

(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The matter of
fluoridation of water supplies lies within the Member States’ responsibility and the
Commission is not involved as long as the maximum limit set out in Council Directive 98/83/EC of
3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption is respected. Fluoridation, like
other water treatment processes, is an issue that should be addressed by the national authorities.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/541

The policy that individual Member States follow on this matter depends on a number of factors and takes
into account local customs and habits as well as the fact that ingestion of fluoridated compounds may also
result from the use of fluoridated toothpastes, fluoride rinses, fluoride treatments in dental offices, food and
beverages. At present, the Commission is not promoting nor funding specific research into the safety of
water fluoridation.

(2004/C 84 E/0618)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0152/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Subject: Collection of biometric data at ‘Eleftherios Venizelos’ airport, their processing by an external

partner and the decision of the Greek Authority for the Protection of Personal Data

The Greek airport of ‘Eleftherios Venizelos’ is taking part in a pilot programme to collect biometric data
from airline passengers. The programme is funded by the European Union and the other participants are
the International Air Transport Association, Milan airport and Alitalia. In a recent decision, the Greek
Authority for the Protection of Personal Data ruled that the collection and processing of biometric data
was illegal, even on a voluntary basis, and prohibited the continuation of the programme.

Is it possible for the European Union to fund such programmes without the prior approval of the

1.
data protection authorities in the countries concerned, in this case Greece and Italy?

Does the Commission intend to withdraw financial and political support for such programmes
2.
immediately since the decision by the Greek Authority for the Protection of Personal Data has created a
new legal framework for EU decisions on checking the identity of European citizens by means of biometric
data?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Honourable Member makes an implicit reference to the s-Travel project (ref: IST-2001-3825).
1.
It must be remembered that Community funded projects must work within the existing legal framework at
the EU and Member State levels.

The main objective of this project was to strengthen airline passenger security by early adoption of
biometric technologies in the airport boarding process.

One task of the project was to design and to implement the security measures to be set up in pilot
activities in the Eleftherios Venizelos Airport and in Milan Airport. These security measures were in
conformity with the ones identified in the light of the working paper (1) adopted on 1 August 2003 by the
Working Party described hereafter (see: question 2.). The purpose of that document was to provide general
guidelines relating to the processing of biometric data and to contribute to a common understanding of
the different issues.

Another task was to run biometric enrolment and checking kiosks. Authorisations to run these kiosks were
requested in July 2003 before the start of this task. The Greek authority gave a negative answer in October
2003. Decision was taken to terminate the project in conformance with the Commission procedures and
to not fund this final trial phase.