WRITTEN QUESTION P-0338/04 by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission. Food safety.
Date: 2004-02-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Food Safety Authority, evaluation method, exchange of information, food safety, maize, scientific report, transgenic plant

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/199

its effectiveness and visibility. The corresponding proposal to introduce a legal basis is likely to be
submitted in 2004, and the Commission is intending to adopt a communication in March 2004 on the
new programmes in the areas of youth, culture and audiovisual policy.

it could be added that in its White Paper ‘A New Impetus for European Youth’, the
In conclusion,
Commission regards voluntary activities for young people as a priority, and it is currently drawing up
proposals in this area for common objectives for all Member States.

(2004/C 84 E/0242)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0317/04

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Pork by-products

Is it correct that the EU plans to ban the sale of all pork by-products unless cooked? Is the Commission
aware that raw pork products contain digestive enzymes which provide relief to enzyme-deficient animals
who might otherwise suffer? What assurances can the Commission give that raw pork products will be
available for animal consumption for medicinal purposes?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying
down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (1) requires that
any protein, except some such as milk or colostrum, is heat treated before being given to farm animals.

Furthermore, Article 22 of the same Regulation prohibits intra-species recycling. In accordance with this
prohibition, the feeding of processed animal proteins derived from one species to animals of the same
species, including the case of pigs, is banned.

However, without prejudice of the above mentioned Regulation, enzymes and micro-organisms may be
authorized in accordance with Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives
in feedstuffs (2).

The purpose of these rules is to minimize the risk to public and animal health from material derived from
animals.

(1) OJ L 273, 10.10.2002.
(2) OJ L 270, 14.12.1970.

(2004/C 84 E/0243)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0338/04

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject: Food safety

Is it true that the EFSA has approved the use of GM corn (NK603)? Did the ESFA conduct new and
impartial investigations into the safety of the food? How much, if any, of the information necessary for a
safety evaluation was provided by companies with a vested interest in the product?

C 84 E/200

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

How can the ESFA give assurances on the safety of food if it relies upon the experiments conducted by
companies with a vested interest in the product?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

At the request of the Commission, the European Food Security Authority (EFSA), an independent risk
assessment body, issued a scientific opinion on the genetically modified (GM) NK 603 maize where it
concluded that it is as safe as conventional maize and, therefore, that its import for processing for food
and feed use is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human or animal health. Approval of the maize is the
responsibility of the Commission pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the
Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1) and to Directive 2001/
18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the
environment of genetically modified organisms (2).

The Regulation provides that the applicant submits the necessary information to carry out the safety
evaluation. This is a standard approach to product authorisation. In preparing its opinion of 25 November
2003 (3), the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms which is composed of highly qualified
in addition to the documentation provided by the applicant, access to
independent experts had,
independent, peer-reviewed studies which were taken into account in reaching its conclusion and which
are referenced in the opinion.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.
(2) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.
(3) http://www.efsa.eu.int/pdf/gmo/opinion_gmo_02_final_en.pdf

(2004/C 84 E/0244)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0340/04

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject: Compatibility of Law 69 of 3 February 1963 with the free movement of workers within the

European Community

On 4 December 2002 question P-3549/02 (1) brought to the Commission’s attention the case of Mr Claude
Marie Jenacolas, a French citizen and professional journalist, who was denied the opportunity of acting as
editor-in-chief of a number of magazines in Italy on the basis of Italian legislation concerning the work of
professional journalists.

The questioner asked the Commission whether it did not consider that Article 46 of Law 69 of 3 February
1963 (the Italian law establishing the professional register of journalists) was incompatible with Article 39
of the EC Treaty, which provides for the free movement of workers within the Community.

On 9 April 2003 the Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou, after a provisional preliminary answer, gave a
supplementary answer saying that she had asked the Italian authorities for clarification of how the
legislation in question works and (cid:1) more importantly (cid:1) that the case had been registered as a suspected
infringement of Community law.

In view of the time which has elapsed since then, can the Commission say what further action it has taken
on this suspected infringement of Community law?

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 122.