WRITTEN QUESTION P-1506/99 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. Application of Regulation 258/97 (novel foods and novel ingredients).
C 203 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18. 7. 2000 The Agreement having expired on 24 May last, there is consequently no rationale for the continuation of the tariff concessions. In the context of the elaboration of a new fisheries relationship with Argentina, it may be opportune to reintroduce tariff concessions. To envisage unilateral concessions at this stage, however, would weaken the Communityís negotiation strategy. Next year, we will again take stock of the progress in talks with Argentina and of the market situation for the products in question. (2000/C 203 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1506/99 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission (1 September 1999) Subject: Application of Regulation 258/97 (novel foods and novel ingredients) As the Commission will be aware, a number of products (including margarine, halvarine and cheese) to which stanols have been added to lower cholesterol levels have recently been placed on the market in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland under the trade name Benecolí. The manufacturer of these new products refers to the authorisation previously granted, and the marketing, in Finland of a it claims, Regulation 258/97 (1) margarine product also with added stanols, as a result of which, (novel foods and novel food ingredients) does not apply. 1. What is the content and scope of the Finnish authorisation of the original Benecol margarine product and does that authorisation relate to a product or an ingredient? 2. Is the composition of the product recently placed on the market in the abovementioned countries the same as that of the product which was marketed in Finland before Regulation 258/97 entered into force? 3. In assessing whether Regulation 258/97 applies to the original Benecol margarine product or the cholesterol-lowering ingredient, did the Commission have the abovementioned authorisation at its disposal and what information was included in the authorisation? 4. What quantitative criteria is the marketing of a given product required to meet in order for Regulation 258/97 not to apply because the product or ingredient has been used for human consumption áto a significant degreeí within the Community? 5. What qualitative criteria is a product required to meet in order that, by virtue of the previous marketing of a product, Regulation 258/97 does not apply to it? Is this product required to have the same composition as the product which has been marketed áto a 6. significant degreeí or may the composition be modified, and if so, to what extent? 7. May the ingredient occurring in the original product also be included in other products without Regulation 258/97 applying? 8. What criteria must be used in answering these questions? 9. Has the Commission investigated to what extent the margarine, halvarine and cheese products currently being placed on the market in the UK differ from the original margarine product? If not, what information on this matter does the Commission have at its disposal? 10. Has the Commission been asked ü formally or informally ü for an opinion on whether Regulation 258/97 does not apply to the new Benecol products? If so, what was this opinion and on what was it based? (1) OJ L 43, 14. 2. 1997, p. 1. 18. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 203 E/5 Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (8 November 1999) Regulation (EC) 258/97 concerns the placing on the market within the Community of novel foods or novel food ingredients. In discussions with Member States and on the basis of information provided by them it has been established that none of the products currently marketed under the trade name Benecolí contain a novel food ingredient since this was on the market to a significant degree before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) 258/97. Hence the Regulation does not apply. (2000/C 203 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1511/99 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission Subject: Creation of a landfill site at Komotini (1 September 1999) The Rodopi Regional Council has decided to cede an area of woodland in the Gratini-Stilario-Siderades region to the municipality of Komotini to create a landfill site. Many of the local residents are protesting against the decision on the grounds that the site is located among fields in which farmers grow tobacco and because there are plans to build a reservoir in the area ü intended to boost the development of agriculture and fish farming ü which would be jeopardised by the site. The project is also to receive funding from Community resources and protesting residents have been told that the work must be completed quickly if those resources are not to be lost. The Commission: ü is it aware of these facts and is it actually funding this project? ü what is its view of the inconsistency between this project and the present and future development of the region, which is, moreover, to be achieved by other projects funded by the Commission? ü can it take practical steps to help find a more realistic solution to the present problem of waste in the region, including recycling, which is a priority of Community policy? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (19 October 1999) There are no specific Community provisions on the siting of a landfill or, more generally, of a waste treatment or disposal facility. The recently adopted Directive 1999/31/EC (1) on landfills provides for some aspects to be taken into consideration as regards the siting of a landfill (Annex I). However, these provisions do not provide for any minimum distance from residential areas or any other similar requirements. Where a landfill is to contain hazardous waste, an environmental impact assessment is mandatory before planning permission is granted (Directive 85/337/EEC (2), Annex I, No 9). In other cases, the Member States may decide on such an environmental impact assessment. The siting of landfills should be in accordance with the waste management plans, which Member States are obliged to prepare under Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (3). So far, though, the Commission has not yet been informed that a waste management plan for the Department of Rhodope has been drawn up