WRITTEN QUESTION E-1141/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority.
20. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 53 E/81 Should the regulatory bodies, i. e. the committees with representatives of the Member States, be obliged to account for their decisions if such decisions depart from scientific advice? If so, how does the Commission feel they should account for their actions? If not, why does the Commission not feel it necessary for the regulatory committees to account for public decisions? (2001/C 53 E/098) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1128/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (11 April 2000) Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety. The White Paper gives three reasons why risk management is not included in the Authorityís mandate (section 33). There is an implicit assumption that the current decision-making process provides a high degree of accountability and transparency. This claim does not tally with reality. In most Member States there is little democratic control of decision-making in regulatory committees. In most cases no agendas, meeting documents or minutes are available of the meetings of the committees. In other words, current decision-making is not transparent. Will the Commission take initiatives to enhance democratic control of the regulatory committees? If so, what initiatives? If not, why is it opposed to democratic control of the regulatory committees? (2001/C 53 E/099) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1140/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (11 April 2000) Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety. Existing legislation is not consistent. The Commission says there is a need to review food legislation (section 64). Observers say that existing food legislation has largely been adopted in response to the single market. A review of legislation needs to be based on unambiguous principles. Is the Commission prepared to draft a general EU foodstuffs law covering the entire food chain? If not, why, and on what grounds, does the Commission reject a general EU foodstuffs law? Otherwise, when can such a law come into being? (2001/C 53 E/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1141/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (11 April 2000) Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety. C 53 E/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 Proposals are made for creating a general framework in areas where no specific harmonised rules are applicable (and where mutual recognition currently applies). Will the Commission propose new horizontal mutual recognition of products, despite the intensive and time-consuming procedures? legislation? If not, is existing legislation satisfactory for (2001/C 53 E/101) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1142/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (11 April 2000) Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety. The principles of food safety must also apply to animal feed (section 69). Incidents in recent years justify regarding the animal feed sector as part of the food chain. The raw materials for producing animal feed, including animal by-products, need to be clearly defined. A list of permitted raw materials is preferable, but the procedure this requires is complex and time- consuming. In the short term, accordingly, the negative list is to be extended. The Commission is committed to drawing up a positive list in the medium term. Legislation will be amended in such a way that cadavers and condemned material may not be used in animal feed. Only material from healthy animals may be used in animal feed. Has the procedure for drawing up a positive list already started? If not, when will the Commission 1. start the procedure? 2. What procedures does the Commission follow, or will it follow, in drawing up the positive list? (2001/C 53 E/102) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1143/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (11 April 2000) Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety. A clear distinction is needed between the different groups of products used in animal feed. Grey areas are undesirable. In the long term no antibiotics may be used as growth promoters in the EU if they are used as medicines for humans and animals. In contrast to other antibiotics, can antibiotics which are not used for therapeutic purposes for 1. humans and animals be used in animal feed? 2. Will the Commission carry out, or arrange to be carried out, additional research into the risk of using antibiotics in animal feed? 3. Will the Commission seek at international level to harmonise the rules on antibiotics in view of the effect they have in distorting competition? If not, what policy will the Commission pursue if European producers experience disadvantages because they are not allowed to used certain products?