WRITTEN QUESTION E-0887/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium.
C 46 E/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 (2001/C 46 E/073) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0882/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (22 March 2000) Subject: Fraud investigation at the Stockholm office is happening in the investigation into the allegations of What the European Parliament information office in Stockholm? How is the investigation progressing? Will the case or the evidence be handed over to the Swedish police and the Public Prosecutorís Office for further proceedings within the Swedish judicial system? fraud at Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (16 May 2000) The Honourable Member is referred to the answer which the Commission gave to Oral Question H-712/99 by Mr Schori during question time at Parliamentís part session in December 1999 (1). With regard to the Commission Office in Stockholm (Sweden), the Commission does not yet have a report, drawn up in accordance with Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (2), on the action to be taken within the meaning of Article 9(4) of the Regulation. (1) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1999). (2) OJ L 136, 31. 5. 1999. (2001/C 46 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0887/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (22 March 2000) Subject: Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium The dioxin crisis in Belgium once again demonstrated how vulnerable the food chain, and checks on it, are. An assessment such as that made by the Dioxin Committee of the Chamber of Representatives can help to eliminate problems. Both the European Union and the fifteen Member States have an important role to play in this. The 14-page final conclusion of the Dioxin Committee contains a number of references to the conduct of the European Union during the dioxin crisis in the Belgian Federation: As regards the composition of feedingstuffs and of contaminants, the European Union does not have a sufficiently effective regulatory framework. The rules on compulsory notification of the EU authorities are inadequate. The EU added to the chaos which marked the development of the crisis. í Does the Commission accept that áas regards the composition of feedingstuffs and of contaminants, the European Union does not have a sufficiently effective regulatory frameworkí, as claimed in the report of the Dioxin Committee? (a) (b) If not, what arguments are there to show that, contrary to the statement by the Dioxin Committee, the EUís regulatory framework for the composition of feedingstuffs and contaminants is effective? If so, will the Commission amend the regulatory framework for the composition of feedingstuffs and contaminants in order to make it more effective? 13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/71 Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (23 May 2000) The current Community regulatory framework for feedingstuffs contains in general sufficient requirements to guarantee the safety of feed materials. The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that strict rules are established regarding the marketing and labelling of feed materials and feedingstuffs, the presence in feed of undesirable substances and products, the conditions to be met by feed manufacturers and the controls to be carried out to ensure that the feedingstuffs are safe. It goes without saying that these requirements have to be properly implemented to be effective, and also that legislation, unless properly implemented, will never prevent all incidents or fraudulent activities affecting the safety of the feed and food chain. Lack of internal controls (good manufacturing practice, own-checks, contingency plans) and lack of mechanisms for traceability allow contamination to develop and expand throughout the whole food chain. It is therefore necessary to set up appropriate requirements and controls allowing for early detection of problems and speedy corrective action. It has become clear that the feed manufacturing and supplying industry should be subjected to more rigorous requirements and controls, including official approval of all feed producing plants. Also the provisions concerning the official controls at national and Community level, the requirements concerning feed materials which can be used in animal nutrition and the limits and controls for undesirable substances need to be reinforced. This non-exhaustive list of possibilities for improvement of the current legislative framework is now being addressed in the context of the follow-up to the white paper on food safety (1). (1) COM(1999) 719 final. (2001/C 46 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0889/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (22 March 2000) Subject: Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium The dioxin crisis in Belgium once again demonstrated how vulnerable the food chain, and checks on it, are. An assessment such as that made by the Dioxin Committee of the Chamber of Representatives can help to eliminate problems. Both the European Union and the fifteen Member States have an important role to play in this. In the nine pages concerning the shortcomings, the most striking sentence is this: notification system for Member States of feedingstuffs is not clearí. áthe compulsory the European Union in the event of contamination of Does the Commission agree with the Dioxin Committee that the rules on compulsory notification of the EU authorities are inadequate? (a) If not, what arguments are there to suggest that, contrary to the statement by the Dioxin Committee, the rules on compulsory notification are adequate? (b) If so, will the Commission amend the rules on compulsory notification in order to improve crisis prevention and/or management?