WRITTEN QUESTION No. 33/99 by David HALLAM Veterinary checks by EU-veterinarians of third country poultrymeat- processing establishments
12. 11. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 325/59 Present WTO rules do not allow discriminatory differentiation within the GSP in favour of a particular group of countries, with the exception of LDCs, 39 of them being ACP. However, a discussion of the adequacy of these rules in the light of the evolution of the international context and development policies could be foreseen in the future. The exclusion of Thailand from the preferential benefits of GSP for the fishery sector is a result of the application of the so-called graduation mechanism, which excludes sectors and countries from the benefit of the preferential margin if a certain level of development has been reached in that sector. This mechanism, which is applicable on the basis of non-discriminatory criteria to all benefiting countries, has so far never been challenged in WTO. (1999/C 325/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0032/99 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (20 January 1999) Subject: Viagra and the ill-treatment of animals Reports have recently appeared in the European press that the company which manufactures the well-known drug Viagra carried out experiments on dogs in its laboratory in the Sandwich area in the United Kingdom. During these experiments many of the dogs were killed and scores of others suffered appallingly. Will the Commission say whether its services were informed about the ill-treatment and killing of scores of innocent dogs and, if so, what action it has taken to identify those responsible so as to prevent anything similar occurring in future? Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (27 April 1999) The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-3349/98 by Mr Tamino (1). (1) OJ C 297, 15. 10. 1999, p. 66. (1999/C 325/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0033/99 by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission (20 January 1999) Subject: Veterinary checks by EU-veterinarians of third country poultrymeat-processing establishments In view of the clear need to guarantee the safety of all meat products entering the EU from third countries, can the Commission confirm that, in the case of poultrymeat, it is EU-veterinarians and not the authorities in the third countries themselves, who now have responsibility for inspecting and approving all processing plants before they can be approved to export to the EU? In this regard, can the Commission also indicate the exact number of poultrymeat processing plants in both Thailand and Brazil which are approved for export to the EU and indicate how many of these plants have been inspected by EU-veterinary inspectors within the last three years?