WRITTEN QUESTION E-2034/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council. Genetically modified crops.
C 280 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (21 February 2000) The Greek authorities have informed the Commission that between July 1998 and July 1999 the independent quality control body ESPEL carried out 339 systematic checks on road projects part-financed in Greece under the second Community support framework (1994-99 programming period). The results were: 34 % of the projects were in order or suffered from minor shortcomings that would be corrected by the contractors (first category); 61 % suffered from major shortcomings without safety implications but entailing additional maintenance costs that would be deducted from the payments to the contractors concerned (second category); 18 projects suffered from serious shortcomings that could not be corrected and rebuilding would have to be effected at the contractorsí expense (third category). A list of these projects, the files for which have been sent to the public prosecutor by the Ministry for Economic Affairs, is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliamentís Secretariat. For motorways the situation was: for the Egnatia, of 21 contracts checked 16 fell into the first and 5 into the second category; for PATHE, of 12 contracts checked 8 fell into the first, 3 into the second and 1 into the third category. The Commission has no detailed information at the moment on the outcome of all these cases. The Greek authorities have told it that in a number of instances the defects have already been corrected or payment for the work in question reduced, and that the checking carried out by the abovementioned inspectors would serve to update the list of public works contractors not conforming with the correct procedures. The Commission intends asking the Greek authorities for a full review of the situation and detailed information on the penalties to be imposed and their budgetary impact. (2000/C 280 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2034/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council (11 November 1999) Subject: Genetically modified crops 1. What measures does the Council plan to ensure that protection is given to farmers, both organic and conventional, who want to grow crops that are free from contamination from GE pollen from neighbour- ing crops? 2. Will the Council ensure European consumers have the option of consuming food that is free of all genetically modified ingredients, including genetically modified derivatives? Reply (13 March 2000) As regards organic production, the Council would refer the Honourable Member to Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 (1). In adopting this Regulation the Council recognised the principle that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and products derived therefrom are not compatible with the organic production method and that, in order to maintain consumer confidence in organic production, GMOs, parts thereof and products derived therefrom should not be used in products labelled as stemming from organic production. Furthermore, this Regulation creates the framework for the subsequent adoption of implementation measures, in accordance with scientific evidence or technical progress, for applying the ban on the use of GMOs and GMO derivatives, in particular with regard to a de minimis threshold for unavoidable contamination which must not be exceeded. 3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/7 As regards conventional agriculture, it is recalled that, at its meetings in November and December 1998, the Agriculture Council addressed the general issue of the assessment of genetically modified crops in the context of the adoption of a Council Directive on seeds (2). At the time of the adoption of that Directive, the Commission undertook to examine the concept of an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages resulting from the use of seed of genetically modified plant varieties in respect of established agricultural practices, and the possible impact thereof on Community law on agricultural matters. The Council would draw attention to the existence of Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. A proposal for an amendment to that Directive has been forwarded by the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. The proposal, which has been modified in response to the amendments put forward by the European Parliament in plenary session, provides for a strengthening of the administrative controls laid down by the Directive. The Council would point out that the approval application calls for an evaluation of environmental risks. Such evaluation is based on field tests and on parallel research into the possible release of genetically modified plants or parts thereof into surrounding crop areas. A condition of the approval decision may also make it compulsory to monitor the cultivation and possible release into the environment of GMOs over a number of years and, if need be, to reconsider the situation. The Council agrees with the Honourable Member that it is of the utmost importance that consumers should have the option of consuming food that is free of all genetically modified ingredients, including genetically modified derivatives. It might be useful in this respect to make reference to the Environment Council meeting on 24/25 June 1999, at which a common position was reached on the amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, and at which the following issues were highlighted: ü the requirement for the clear and unambiguous labelling of such products at all stages of the marketing process; ü the need for provisions other than on labelling in order to ensure that GMOs which are placed on the market can be easily traced by the competent authorities. Finally, the measures to be taken with regard to labelling are regarded as supplementing those laid down by Regulation (EC) No 258/97 ( Novel foodsí) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 on the labelling of certain types of maize and soya. (1) OJ L 222, 24. 8. 1999, p. 1. (2) Council Directive 98/95/EC of 14 December 1998 amending, in respect of the consolidation of the internal market, genetically modified plant varieties and plant genetic resources, Directives 66/400/EEC, 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 66/403/EEC, 69/208/EEC, 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC on the marketing of beet seed, fodder plant seed, cereal seed, seed potatoes, seed of oil and fibre plants and vegetable seed and on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species. (2000/C 280 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2074/99 by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE) to the Commission (12 November 1999) Subject: Market transparency in agriculture In some respects the internal market does not function at all or functions poorly where the operating resources and inputs needed in agriculture are concerned. This is due partly to the lack of market transparency and partly to the absence or total inadequacy of European Community rules. Commission research (Eudramat) shows that, as national certification procedures continue to exist, identical drugs are sold at very different prices in the various Member States. A study based on this research indicates a potential saving for health insurance funds, consumers and farmers in Austria of about