WRITTEN QUESTION E-1064/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Registration of GMOs in the USA based on deception and the misrepresentation of evidence.
13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/115 Does it not think that the environmental impact statement is also flawed, since hitherto the requirements laid down in the annex thereto have gone unheeded and the process has failed to assess the damage to the Parkís most highly prized areas? (1) OJ L 103, 25. 4. 1979, p. 1. (2) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992, p. 7. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (18 May 2000) The Commission was informed of the situation to which the Honourable Member refers by complaints 99/4430 and 99/4494 mentioned in the written question. As part of its investigation, the Commission contacted the Spanish authorities several times to ask them for their observations. As they did not reply, the Commission then sent Spain a letter of formal notice pursuant to Article 10 (ex Article 5) of the EC Treaty. The project receives financial support from the Cohesion Fund (project number 98. 11. 61. 012). The Spanish authorities know that this support is conditional upon compliance with Community environ- mental legislation. Once the Commission has received their reply (including the environmental examine it to check whether relevant Community legislation has been complied with. impact statement) it will It would therefore be premature at this stage to say whether or not Community law has been infringed. (2001/C 46 E/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1064/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (4 April 2000) Subject: Registration of GMOs in the USA based on deception and the misrepresentation of evidence According to Steven M. Drucker, a Doctor of Laws and specialist in administrative law, the Commissionís decisions on registering genetically modified plant varieties are based on erroneous assessments by the US Food and Drug Administration. For instance, when the American authorisation body permitted the marketing of the Flavr Savrí tomato which is also marketed in the EU in the form of tomato concentrate and ketchup, it was acting contrary to the specific test results of its own scientists. For laboratory tests show that when these tomatoes are fed to rats, this leads to a bleeding of the stomach walls. In view of this high health risk, the scientists advised against the authorisation of this product as a foodstuff. The safety tests on GMOs that have been authorised since then have been even less demanding ü in many cases, no tests at all were carried out. 1. Is the Commission aware of this information? Is the Commission prepared to examine these latest findings regarding the bleeding of stomach walls? 2. If not, why not? 3. What lessons will the Commission draw from these latest findings? C 46 E/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (19 June 2000) The Commission is aware of the lawsuit which a number of organisations in the United States have filed against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concerning assessment of genetically modified food. The specific product mentioned by the Honourable Member has not been subject to any request for authorisation or notification in the Community and can therefore not be legally marketed in the Community. It is up to the Member States to do the controls. The Commission is always prepared to ask the scientific committee on food (SCF) to evaluate new scientific findings which cast doubts on the safety of genetically modified organism (GMO) derived products authorised or notified in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 Janaury 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1) to be on the European market. In the light of the results of the feeding experiments on rats with the Flavr Savr salad tomato, the Commission has asked the SCF for complementary information with respect to its opinion concerning the safety of products derived from genetically modified processing tomatoes for which the company Zeneca has applied for authorisation. The Community legislation on novel foods and novel food ingredients ensures that a safety assessment is carried out prior to the placing on the market in the Community of GMO food and food ingredients. Article 12 of the Novel Food Regulation (1) also provides for the possibility to revise or revoke any decision on specific products in the light of new findings. (1) OJ L 43, 14. 2. 1997. (2001/C 46 E/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1070/00 by Gianfranco Fini (UEN) and Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission Subject: Objective 2 funding for Viterbo and the surrounding province (4 April 2000) As a result of the delay on the part of the Italian Government and the Lazio region in presenting the Commission with the list of eligible zones under Objective 2, the territory of Viterbo and its province have been prevented from receiving Community assistance in the current year. Would the Commission redefine the areas fulfilling the Objective 2 requirements with a view to reintroducing the excluded territory of Viterbo and its province into the list? Will the Commission also verify as a matter of urgency the proposal by the Italian authorities regarding the zones defined as eligible under Objective 2 of the structural funds? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (24 May 2000) The Italian authorities sent the Commission their Objective 2 zoning proposal on 1 October 1999. The Commission rejected this on 11 October on the grounds that it did not comply with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1). This requires areas meeting the criteria set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of that Article to account for at least 50 % in population terms of the Objective 2 zones