WRITTEN QUESTION E-0460/04 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Belgium — European leader in the combating of salmonella enteritidis — pasteurisation of eggs.
Date: 2004-02-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, agro-industry, catering, egg, food poisoning, food processing, food safety, food technology, producer's liability, veterinary inspection

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/407

with ramifications in terms of employment for Terni’s entire steelworking sector. In recent years, TK has
received European funding, including funding from the European Social Fund (ESF), granted to finance staff
training and infrastructure development at the Terni plant.

1. What urgent measures does the Commission intend to take to avert the closure of the magnetic steel
production plant at Thyssen Krupp’s factory in Terni?

2. What guarantees of employment are businesses that receive European funding, from the European
Social Fund for example, requested to provide in terms of the training of their own staff and the
improvement of company infrastructure?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Questions P-0376/04 by
Mrs Sbarbati, P-0388/04 by Mrs Angelilli and P-0445/04 by Mr Mastella (1). In any case, the Commission
notes with satisfaction that an agreement appears to have been reached not to close down the installations.

(1) See page 206.

(2004/C 84 E/0473)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0460/04

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Belgium (cid:1) European leader in the combating of salmonella enteritidis (cid:1) pasteurisation of eggs

According to Commissioner Byrne, 160 000 cases of salmonella enteritidis are recorded every year in
Europe. The welfare costs involved amount to about EUR 2,8 billion, and at least 200 people actually die
as a consequence of eating contaminated eggs.

Consumption of contaminated eggs (cid:1) including in dishes prepared with eggs (cid:1) is one of the most
significant causes of salmonella enteritidis.

However, equipment which is apparently capable of combating such food contaminations without
impairing the nutritional value or the cooking characteristics of the product already exists. An industrial
appliance has been developed by Leda Technologies, a Flemish company, which kills off any bacteria in
shell eggs without adversely affecting the nutritional value or the composition thereof. The appliance is
also able to kill off any bacteria in eggs and cook them. Given that somewhat more than half of the cases
of salmonella enteritidis occur in (large-scale) industrial kitchens, it would appear sensible (cid:1) with a view to
protecting public health and reducing welfare costs (cid:1) to lay down a binding requirement that this
technology be used in (large-scale) industrial kitchens.

Is the Commission aware of the existence of this technology, and is it prepared, with a view to protecting
public health and reducing welfare costs, to promote the introduction of this technology in (large-scale)
industrial kitchens by offering financial incentives? If so, what specific measures has it already taken to that
end? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of this technology, developed by the firm LEDA, which seems to be useful
particularly in institutional catering. There are no provisions in Community legislation to prevent its use in
large-scale or industrial kitchens. However, there are other ways of reducing the risk of salmonella
contamination at this stage in the food chain, for example in the use of egg products. In this context,
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying

C 84 E/408

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

food law, establishing the European Food Safety
down the general principles and requirements of
Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1) confirmed the principle that food
business operators have primary responsibility for the safety of the food they produce.

in terms of cofinancing, the Community has favoured a different approach to the
For this reason,
prevention of salmonella contamination, aiming to improve the egg industry in the initial stages of the
food chain. The new regulations on zoonoses adopted recently by the European Parliament and the
Council
Improvement
thus provide for increased salmonella testing in the rearing of
programmes for breeding flocks of poultry are already in place in all Member States.

laying hens.

The Commission feels that, with these measures, the risk of people contracting salmonellosis from eating
eggs should be significantly reduced in the next few years.

In addition, should Member States wish to provide financial assistance for the use of this technology, such
assistance must comply with Community rules on state aid.

(1) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.

(2004/C 84 E/0474)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0464/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:

‘Brax’ (cid:1) sackings and relocation

The German ready-to-wear ‘Brax’ factory in Vila Noa de Gaia (Portugal) has closed its doors, throwing
430 people out of work. The workers accuse the company of
transferring
production to another country where labour is cheaper (Bulgaria and Poland). Portuguese social security
‘arbitrary closure and shirking of
and labour minister has publicly stated that
responsibilities’ [encerramento selvagem e de abandono], and that the Portuguese Government is going to
take Brax to court, as well as suggesting that reparations will be sought from the company for misuse of
Community funds. The Minister has also announced that he would activate the salary guarantee fund,
so that the 430 Brax workers could receive their backpay, and thus not lose their contractual link with the
firm, should a new investor be found for the factory.

leaving the process of

this is a case of

The Commission:

(cid:1) Is it monitoring this serious situation?

(cid:1) What is the total amount (and the dates) of the subsidies directly or indirectly originating from
Community sources which were granted for the building and equipping of the Brax factory in
Portugal, whether these were granted to the firm operating in Portugal or to the possible mother-firm
or industrial group? What are the dates and sums of the direct or indirect Community subsidies
granted to the group’s companies for its factories in the various countries of the European Union
(or, earlier, the EEC) and the enlargement countries?

(cid:1) Has the Commission already taken any measures against Brax in view of the extremely deleterious
social and economic impact of the closure of the Vila Nova de Gaia factory? Does the Commission
possess any evidence that the company’s administration behaved in a fraudulent manner in respect of
Community funds?

(cid:1) Is the Commission in a position to guarantee that since Brax was directly or indirectly granted
its Portuguese factory, the group will not receive any other

Community funding in respect of
Community funds, directly or indirectly, for possible relocation?

(cid:1) What other measures has the Commission taken or does it intend to take with regard to this case?