WRITTEN QUESTION E-0320/00 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Biosafety Protocol Conference and the decision-making process.
21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/123 (2000/C 330 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0319/00 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission (11 February 2000) Subject: Environmental pollution and health Considering the close relationship between environmental pollution and public health, how does the Commission see coordination between these two areas developing? For instance, is the Commission satisfied that the Commission for the Environment still retains control of releases of genetically modified organisms? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (28 March 2000) The link between environmental problems and public health has been and remains a strong factor in both Community environment and public health policies. The two services involved are each in the process of preparing medium ü and longer range policy plan proposals to be adopted by the Commission later this year. Directorate general Environment is preparing a proposal for the sixth environment action programme. Directorate general Health and consumer protec- tion is preparing a Community strategy in the field of public health, including action programmes in the field of Environment and healthí. In the preparatory work of these environmental and public health policy programmes, both services are particularly concerned that inter-service discussion and co-ordination safeguards the link between environment and health. The existing regulatory framework in relation to genetically modified organisms aims to ensure protection of human health and the environment. It is founded on Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (1) and Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (1), as amended by Council Directive 98/81/EEC of 26 October 1998 (2). Other aspects of GMOs, such as novel food, fall under the responsibility of the member of the Commission responsible for health and consumer protection, with whom there is a continuing and close collaboration. The Commission continues to ensure that these aspects are correctly co-ordinated among the services involved. (1) OJ L 117, 8. 5. 1990. (2) OJ L 330, 5. 12. 1998. (2000/C 330 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0320/00 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission (11 February 2000) Subject: Biosafety Protocol Conference and the decision-making process How does the Commission decide what stance the European delegation should take in fora such as the Biosafety Protocol Conference in Montreal, when European legislation on genetic engineering (in particular Directive 90/220/EEC (1) is still mired in controversy? (1) OJ L 117, 8. 5. 1990, p. 15. C 330 E/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (14 March 2000) The Community managed to reach an agreement with all (133) governments present on the adoption of the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety on 28 January 2000. This is a major international achievement, integrating environment, trade and development concerns in a balanced way with the full support of the developing nations. The Communityís negotiation position was based on the Council conclusions of 13 December 1999. The Protocol addresses the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) that may have an adverse effect on biodiversity with a specific focus on transboundary movements. It establishes an advance informed agreement (AIA) procedure for imports of LMOs intended for introduction into the environment, an alternative procedure for LMOs intended for food, feed and processing (LMO commod- ities) and detailed information and documentation requirements. It specifically incorporates the precau- tionary principle in the operative part of the Protocol. The Protocol also contains provisions regarding confidential information and information-sharing, capacity-building, and financial resources, with special attention to the situation of developing countries and those without domestic regulatory systems as well as an enabling provision for a future liability regime. The Protocol gives the option of applying domestic procedures or the minimum provisions under the Protocol. The latter option is provided as assistance for developing countries without adequate adminis- trative and legislative measures in place for the protection of their biodiversity. This means that the Community will continue to apply its own procedures consistent with the objective and provisions of the Protocol. (2000/C 330 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0321/00 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission (11 February 2000) Subject: Food safety Short-term scientific evidence led to problems such as BSE and Thalidomide. Such occasions have dramatically affected the health of humans and animals for the worst and shaken the consumer confidence it in food safety. Will the precautionary principle be applied by the new Authority, and how will interrelate with other institutions such as the World Trade Organisation? The cost of such problems in terms of human misery, not to mention the financial loss, is incalculable. How does the Commission intend determining who bears responsibility and sanctions for not fulfilling that responsibility? Or is the Commission satisfied with the Product Liability Directive being drawn up in a discussion with the European Parliament? Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (7 April 2000) The Commission adopted a Communication on the precautionary principle with the aim, inter alia, of outlining the Commissionís approach to it and establishing Commission guidelines for its application, as well as providing an input to the debate on this issue, both within the Community and internationally. The Commission considers that applying the precautionary principle is a decision relating to risk manage- ment. The new European food authority will be entrusted with risk assessment and risk communication whereas risk management would remain the preserve of the Commission, Parliament and Council, as appropriate