WRITTEN QUESTION E-0307/04 by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Genetically modified crops.
Date: 2004-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: environmental risk prevention, health risk, market approval, scientific report, transgenic plant

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/357

The EU hopes that Libya can become a fully-fledged member of the Barcelona process, which it could only
join on an unconditional basis and by accepting all its acquis.

This would make it possible to enter into dialogue with Libya on all matters of interest, including human
rights.

As things stand, in the absence of any official relations with Libya, human rights issues are dealt with in an
ad hoc way.

Lastly, Amnesty International has just made a visit to Libya, where it had been denied entry since 1988.
The Commission views this as a positive development.

(2004/C 84 E/0415)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0307/04

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Genetically modified crops

In the light of the results of the UK farm-scale evaluations with genetically modified herbicide-tolerant
crops, what advice has the Commission given to the competent authorities of Member States which are
considering Part C applications to market these crops in Europe under Directive 2001/18/EC?

Does the Commission consider that the applicants will have to provide revised risk assessments according
to Article 13(6) of Directive 2001/18/EC, in the light of this new information?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission has not given any specific technical advice to the competent authorities of Member States
given that consideration of applications, including risk assessments and final decisions, are conducted on a
case-by-case basis under Directive 2001/18/EC (1). Similarly, any new information has also to be considered
on a case-by-case basis. This approach is applied at all stages of the authorisation procedure.

The farm-scale evaluations conducted in the United Kingdom included cultivation of genetically modified
herbicide tolerant maize, spring-sown oilseed rape and sugar beet. Current applications for the placing on
the market of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for cultivation include both herbicide tolerant and
other varieties of maize, oilseed rape, sugar beet, fodder beet, potatoes and cotton. In terms of these
applications, the Commission has received the assessment reports, from the lead competent authority, for
two maize varieties only. The remaining applications are still being appraised by the lead competent
authorities and no assessment reports have as yet been forwarded to the Commission.

New information in terms of notifications is, as is correctly pointed out, addressed under Article 13(6) of
Directive 2001/18/EC, and where a notifier considers that new information has come to light in terms of
risks of the GMO in question to human health or the environment, then there is a requirement to inform
the lead competent authority and revise the information and conditions specified in the notification. The
lead competent authority may also request further information concerning new information prior to
finalising its assessment report.

If a positive assessment report is submitted to the Commission from the lead Member State, then all other
Member States and their scientific committees appraise its content with the possibility of raising
objections. This would include assessment of any new information, and objections could also be raised if

C 84 E/358

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

this information was seen as relevant and not included in the initial appraisal. The European Food Safety
Authority would also be consulted for opinion where objections remained, including in the context of new
information.

In addition: ‘there is no evidence that adverse effects on biodiversity have arisen from the cultivation of a
crop which has been modified through modern biotechnology’, as stated in the Form Scale Evaluation
(FSE) report.

(1) 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 and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

(2004/C 84 E/0416)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0308/04

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: The French language at the Commission

If my information is correct, the Commission intends to spend more than EUR 20 million on French
courses for its employees. On what basis does the Commission train its staff specifically to improve their
command of French, and does it intend to promote the position of French at the expense of other
languages within the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

The Honourable Member’s information is not correct, and neither are the similar figures that have recently
appeared in some newspapers, together with misleading reports about French as a working language of the
Commission.

The Commission has not taken any decision which gives or will give the teaching of French a privileged
place by comparison with that of the other official languages.

Courses for each language for each year are planned on the basis of the previous year’s take up. Apart
from demand from staff seeking to improve language skills the only other factor taken into account is the
budget limit set for language training. For 2003 this was EUR 5 000 000. French courses accounted for
23 % of the total in 2003, English for 20 %, Spanish for 10 %, German for 10 % and the remaining 37 %
was used for courses in 28 other languages.

For some languages demand does not noticeably vary. For others, principally English, French and the
languages of the acceding countries, there has been an average increase in demand of about 10 % a year
since 2001. This trend will probably strengthen from 2004 following enlargement and entry into force of
the new Staff Regulations which give increased importance to multilingualism, particularly by requiring
officials to attain the ability to work in a third Community language before a first promotion can be
secured.

It should be noted that the priority given to a staff member’s language training provided or financed by the
Commission depends, and will continue to depend, on the requirements of the job that he or she does (1).

Clearly, it is not possible to estimate precisely which languages will be most in demand in the immediate
future. The Commission assures the Honourable Member that it will continue to be committed to
providing its staff with accessible opportunities for learning or developing their capabilities in all the
official languages.

(1) Commission Decision on staff training C(2002) 1577 of 7 May 2002.