WRITTEN QUESTION E-1101/00 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission. Food safety and probiotics in poultry.
20. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 53 E/73 The proposed allocations for Kosovo take into account the following three considerations: ü the priority which the Community gives to countries near Europe; ü the poverty focus of the programmes; for example increases for the programmes in Asia have been maintained as they have a high poverty focus; ü past and present performance of the different programmes in terms of absorption capacity and evolution. The proposed total for Heading 4 represents an increase for 2000-2006 as compared to the previous period 1993-1999. (2001/C 53 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1101/00 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (7 April 2000) Subject: Food safety and probiotics in poultry In the last two years, a major project carried out at Leahurst Veterinary Field Station, University of Liverpool, has shown that it is possible to reduce significantly the major pathogens of concern to humans by making use of the probiotic product, Protexin. This work was partly funded by the Commission through the UK Department of Trade and Industry. At the moment, the Commission cannot look into the effects of Protexin because of its judgment that probiotic poducts should not contain more than two strains of micro-organisms. Would the Commission be able to reconsider this rule in the interests of not ruling out, without due investigation, the potential benefits of probiotic products containing more than two strains of micro- organisms? Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (7 July 2000) Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970, concerning additives in feedingstuffs (1) requires that a Community authorisation be granted prior to the use and marketing of an additive in feedingstuffs. The Protexin dossiers were first evaluated under Council Directive 93/113/EC of 14 December 1993, concerning the use and marketing of enzymes and micro-organisms in animal nutrition (2). The objective of the Directive was to list the enzyme and micro-organism products which were used in the Member States with no formal approval, to evaluate the corresponding dossiers and to authorise those products which complied with the requirements of Directive 70/524/EEC and of Council Directive 87/153/EEC of 16 February 1987, fixing guidelines for the assessment of additives in animal nutrition (3), last amended by Commission Directive 94/40/EC of 22 July 1994 (4). The Protexin dossiers were evaluated in the course of 1996. According to the group of national experts in charge of the assessment, none of the 9 Protexin products complied with the prerequisites of Articles 2 and 7 of Directive 70/524/EEC and none of the dossiers followed the requirements of Directive 87/153/ EEC. The members of the standing committee for animal nutrition formally endorsed the conclusions of the group of experts on 6 May 1997. C 53 E/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 Assuming the sponsoring company prepares a Protexin dossier which complies with Council Directive 70/ last amended by Council Directive 96/51/EC of 23 July 1996 (5), and which demonstrates a 524/CEE, beneficial effect on animal production or on animal products, the dossier will be evaluated on its own merits, provided it is submitted to the Commission and the Member States according to the provisions of Article 4, paragraph 1 and 2 of Directive 96/51/EC. (1) OJ L 270, 14. 2. 1970. (2) OJ L 334, 31. 12. 1993. (3) OJ L 64, 7. 3. 1987. (4) OJ L 208, 11. 8. 1994. (5) OJ L 235, 17. 9. 1996. (2001/C 53 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1103/00 by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission Subject: Implementation of Directive 96/62 on packaging (7 April 2000) Directive 94/62/EC (1), of 20 December 1994, on packaging and packaging waste, states in its Article 6(1) that, no later than 10 years from the date by which it must be implemented in national law, a percentage of packaging waste will be recovered and recycled, which will have to be determined by the Council áwith a view to substantially increasing the targets mentionedí. Article 6(3)(b) of the same directive states that, no later than six months before the end of the first five- year phase the Council shall, acting by qualified majority and on a proposal from the Commission, fix targets for the second five-year phase. How is it that the Commission has not yet made a proposal in accordance with the instructions given to it in this connection by the European Parliament and Council directive? (1) OJ L 365, 31. 12. 1994, p. 10. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (5 June 2000) The obligation to revise substantially the recovery and recycling targets is provided in Article 6. 3(b) and Article 6. 1(c) of the Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, adopted in 1994. The compromise reached by the Parliament and the Council, after lengthy discussions in the conciliation committee, consisted of a first range of quantified targets for recovery and recycling, to be achieved by mid-2001 and a commitment by the Community legislator to increase these targets significantly in a second phase to be concluded by mid-2006. There are a large number of parties involved in the packaging chain including economic operators, consumers, environmental organisations and authorities. They have a wide variety of different interests. This makes it necessary to set up a framework for dialogue in order to ensure a balanced approach. This process is, however, enabling the Commission to evaluate the situation correctly and to develop possible solutions with the aim to make the Directive more effective. Several options have been presented to and discussed with those concerned and the Member States, but the measures to be finally proposed by the Commission are still under consideration internally