WRITTEN QUESTION E-1070/00 by Gianfranco Fini (UEN) and Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission. Objective 2 funding for Viterbo and the surrounding province.
C 46 E/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (19 June 2000) The Commission is aware of the lawsuit which a number of organisations in the United States have filed against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concerning assessment of genetically modified food. The specific product mentioned by the Honourable Member has not been subject to any request for authorisation or notification in the Community and can therefore not be legally marketed in the Community. It is up to the Member States to do the controls. The Commission is always prepared to ask the scientific committee on food (SCF) to evaluate new scientific findings which cast doubts on the safety of genetically modified organism (GMO) derived products authorised or notified in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 Janaury 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1) to be on the European market. In the light of the results of the feeding experiments on rats with the Flavr Savr salad tomato, the Commission has asked the SCF for complementary information with respect to its opinion concerning the safety of products derived from genetically modified processing tomatoes for which the company Zeneca has applied for authorisation. The Community legislation on novel foods and novel food ingredients ensures that a safety assessment is carried out prior to the placing on the market in the Community of GMO food and food ingredients. Article 12 of the Novel Food Regulation (1) also provides for the possibility to revise or revoke any decision on specific products in the light of new findings. (1) OJ L 43, 14. 2. 1997. (2001/C 46 E/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1070/00 by Gianfranco Fini (UEN) and Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission Subject: Objective 2 funding for Viterbo and the surrounding province (4 April 2000) As a result of the delay on the part of the Italian Government and the Lazio region in presenting the Commission with the list of eligible zones under Objective 2, the territory of Viterbo and its province have been prevented from receiving Community assistance in the current year. Would the Commission redefine the areas fulfilling the Objective 2 requirements with a view to reintroducing the excluded territory of Viterbo and its province into the list? Will the Commission also verify as a matter of urgency the proposal by the Italian authorities regarding the zones defined as eligible under Objective 2 of the structural funds? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (24 May 2000) The Italian authorities sent the Commission their Objective 2 zoning proposal on 1 October 1999. The Commission rejected this on 11 October on the grounds that it did not comply with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1). This requires areas meeting the criteria set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of that Article to account for at least 50 % in population terms of the Objective 2 zones. 13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/117 The Commission accordingly asked Italy to send as soon as possible an amended proposal which complies with the Council Regulation by adding new areas meeting those criteria and dropping others which do not. The Province of Viterbo in fact meets the criteria set out in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999. The Commission regrets that no new proposal has yet been received. It has reminded Italy several times of the need to send a proposal urgently so that the regions in question are not penalised. Italy is the only Member State where the Objective 2 zoning has not been adopted. (1) OJ L 161, 26. 6. 1999. (2001/C 46 E/126) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1072/00 by Salvador JovØ Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (29 March 2000) Subject: Reform of the system of aid for cotton Under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1553/95 (1), before the start of the 1999/2000 marketing year the Commission is required to present a report on the operation of the system of aid for cotton and to submit a reform proposal only if the report shows it to be necessary. However, the Commission has submitted a reform proposal directly without first presenting a report. In its explanatory memorandum, the Com- mission acknowledges that áthis requirement was partly anticipated by the Report from the Commission to the Council on Greek requests in the cotton sector (COM(1998) 10 final)í. Nonetheless it states that the said report ádoes not in any way replace the report provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1553/95í and consequently ácannot be regarded as an investigation of the economy of the sector in generalí. Despite the fact that Protocol 4 annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece to the Community recognises its áspecifically agricultural natureí, cotton has never been listed in Annex II of the Treaty and is thus excluded from the majority of horizontal measures under the CAP. For instance, cotton is not covered by the environmental and rural development measures adopted with Agenda 2000 or the general regulations on producer groups. Given the status of cotton under the CAP as a whole, it would be advisable to offset the inadequacies in the regulations governing it in the report provided for under Regulation (EC) No 1553/95. Why has the Commission not presented the report required under Regulation (EC) No 1553/95 prior to submitting its reform proposal? Is it aware of its failure to honour obligations set out in a Council Regulation? Does it still intend to present the report in question and amend its reform proposal in line with the reportís conclusions? Does it believe it possible to introduce environmental restrictions for cotton, seeing that cotton is not covered by the environmental framework established under Agenda 2000? (1) OJ L 148, 30. 6. 1995, p. 45. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 April 2000) Paragraph 11 of Protocol 4 on cotton annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece was amended by Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1553/95 (1) and states that the Commission is to send the Council a report on the operation of the system of aid for cotton. So the report does not set out to investigate the economy of the sector in general but seeks to carry out an examination of the scheme, which was to focus on four specific points in line with the Councilís wishes in June 1998 (2)