EFFL 2|2017 European Parliament: MEP’s Questions & Answers 199
European Parliament: MEP’s Questions &
Answers
(December 2016–March 2017*)
12 January 2017 – Emmanuel Maurel – Did the Commission consult its trading partners
[E-000132-17] – Subject: Free trade before it presented its method for defining endocrine
negotiations and endocrine disrupters1: disrupters in June last year?
In June 2016 the Commission unveiled its new risk Answer given by Mr Andriukaitis on behalf of the
assessment method for endocrine disrupters. Commission (28 February 2017):
On 13 July of that year the Health and Food Safe- “In line with the Better Regulation guidelines, be-
ty Commissioner, Vytenis Andriukaitis, met the tween 26 September 2014 and 16 January 2015, the
Canadian, US, Argentine, Brazilian, and Uruguayan Commission carried out a public consultation on
ambassadors to the EU. the different options for defining criteria to iden-
According to the European media platform EurAc- tify endocrine disruptors (ED) that were analysed
tiv – which got hold of a confidential record of the in the impact assessment. Over 27,000 responses
meeting – the representatives of Canada and the were received and trading partners, as well as non-
United States, countries with which the Commission governmental organizations, industry, farmers,
is negotiating free trade agreements, apparently Member States authorities and academics were
pressured the Commission into adopting a narrow amongst the respondents to this consultation. The
definition (based on a risk assessment method) of majority of the responses (responses where confi-
what constitutes an endocrine disrupter, the idea be- dentiality was not requested) were published on 2
ing to facilitate trade between the EU and those coun- February 2015 on the Commission's website. The
tries. report on the consultation was published on 24 Ju-
The compatibility of this risk-based approach ly 20152. The Commission acts in all transparency
with the precautionary principle laid down in the on this issue and the record of the meeting of the
European Treaties has been widely called into ques- Commissioner for Health & Food Safety with non-
tion. EU countries has been released by the Commis-
sion in response to an access to documents request
submitted under Regulation 1049/20013.
The criteria endorsed by the Commission on 15
June 2016 maintain the hazard-based approach
* Non-exhaustive list of MEP’s Questions & Answers compiled by
Luis González Vaqué () taking into ac- foreseen in the Plant Protection Products (PPP)
count their relationship with food and feed law, without any legislation4: an active substance identified as an
political or party preference.
ED will not be approved at EU level. The draft
1 See also http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef
=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2016-009533+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. amendment to point 3.6.5 of Annex II to the PPP
2 https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/endocrine_disruptors/ Regulation would, if adopted, update, in light of
docs/2015_public_consultation_report_en.pdf.
scientific evolution, the foreseen derogations for
3 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European such substances (change from ‘negligible expo-
Parliament, Council and Commission documents. sure’ to ‘negligible risk from exposure’).
4 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of The precautionary principle, on which both the
the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market, OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1. Biocidal Products Regulation5 and the PPP Regu-
5 Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of lation are based, is fully maintained and will con-
the Council concerning the making available on the market and tinue to be applied in cases where ‘scientific un-
use of biocidal products, OJ L 167, 27.6.2012, p. 1.
6 Communication from the Commission on the precautionary
certainties preclude a full assessment of the
principle, COM/2000/0001 final. risks’6.”
, 200 European Parliament: MEP’s Questions & Answers EFFL 2|2017
12 January 2017 – Dubravka Šuica – 11 January 2017 – Ivo Belet – [E-000097-17] –
[E-000134-17] – Subject: Risk posed by Subject: Reducing calories in food:
Salmonella infantis in chicken:
On 22 February 2016, the EU Member States, the food
In a June 2016 scientific report on the public health industry and various health organisations signed the
risk posed by Salmonella infantis in chicken the Croa- ‘Roadmap for action on food product improvement’.
tian food agency notes that this salmonella serovar The aim was to reduce the quantities of salt, saturat-
is not mentioned in the 2005 Commission regulation. ed fat and added sugars (calories) in food products.
The samples inspected have been taken both from The ‘roadmap’ calls on the Commission to draw up
Croatian domestic production and from imports, and guidelines for public-private cooperation, to share
home-produced chicken meat has been found in- good examples of reformulation of food and to draw
creasingly frequently to be contaminated with sal- up criteria for food products in relation to the maxi-
monella of this type. Salmonella infantis can make mum quantities of sugars and fats in food. The Com-
people ill (cases have, indeed, been confirmed in mission was also called upon to adopt criteria for the
Croatia) and, if it is in fresh poultrymeat, can consti- use of logos and for food advertising aimed at children.
Permission granted to user:
tute a public health hazard. Even though, in Commis- In Belgium, the food industry has already respond-
sion Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November ed to the call to reduce the number of calories. In
2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, Sal- June 2016, it concluded an agreement with the Bel-
monella infantis is not mentioned in connection with gian Government to reduce the number of calories
food safety criteria, poultrymeat that has it is consid- by 5% from the 2012 level by the end of 2017.
ered harmful to human health. How does the Commission intend to act on the
Given that Salmonella infantis is a public health five calls addressed to it in the roadmap?
hazard, will the Commission include it in Regulation
(EC) No 2073/2005 and in that way improve salmo- Answer given by Mr Andriukaitis on behalf of the
nella control? Commission (24 February 2017):
“The Commission supports Member States' action
Answer given by Mr Andriukaitis on behalf of the to address reducing calories in foods under the
Commission (17 January 2017): Strategy on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity-re-
“Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 on microbiologi- lated health issues10 and the Health Programme11,
cal criteria for foodstuffs7 lays down Salmonella and through the High Level Group on Nutrition
food safety criteria for several foods of animal ori- and Physical Activity12 and the EU Platform for
gin. These criteria cover all Salmonella, including Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health13.
S. infantis, and require removal from the market
in case of non-compliance.
7 Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November
The Salmonella criterion for fresh poultry meat is 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs (OJ L 338,
limited to S. enteritidis and S. typhimurium, as they 22.12.2005, p. 1).
represent the main risk for public health (70% of 8 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and ECDC (European
Centre for Disease Prevention and Control), 2015. The European
human cases, as opposed to the 2.5% caused by S. Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses,
infantis8). Other Salmonella serotypes are also af- zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2014. EFSA Journal
2015; 13(12):4329, 190 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4329. Avail-
fected by the measures taken to control S. enteri- able at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4329.
tidis and S. typhimurium (biosecurity at farm, 9 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of
the Council on 28 January 2002 laying down the general princi-
slaughter hygiene). ples and requirements of food law, establishing the European
Whether food other than those covered by the Sal- Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in case of food
safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).
monella food safety criteria and containing S. in-
10 http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_determinants/life_style/
fantis should be considered unsafe and therefore nutrition/documents/nutrition_wp_en.pdf.
not placed on the market, this should be assessed 11 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:
on a case-by-case basis in accordance with Article 32014R0282&from=EN.
14 of Regulation (EC) No 178/20029. 12 http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/high_level
_group/index_en.htm.
The Commission is currently not considering ad- 13 http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/platform/
ditional specific requirements for S. infantis.” index_en.htm.
European Parliament: MEP’s Questions &
Answers
(December 2016–March 2017*)
12 January 2017 – Emmanuel Maurel – Did the Commission consult its trading partners
[E-000132-17] – Subject: Free trade before it presented its method for defining endocrine
negotiations and endocrine disrupters1: disrupters in June last year?
In June 2016 the Commission unveiled its new risk Answer given by Mr Andriukaitis on behalf of the
assessment method for endocrine disrupters. Commission (28 February 2017):
On 13 July of that year the Health and Food Safe- “In line with the Better Regulation guidelines, be-
ty Commissioner, Vytenis Andriukaitis, met the tween 26 September 2014 and 16 January 2015, the
Canadian, US, Argentine, Brazilian, and Uruguayan Commission carried out a public consultation on
ambassadors to the EU. the different options for defining criteria to iden-
According to the European media platform EurAc- tify endocrine disruptors (ED) that were analysed
tiv – which got hold of a confidential record of the in the impact assessment. Over 27,000 responses
meeting – the representatives of Canada and the were received and trading partners, as well as non-
United States, countries with which the Commission governmental organizations, industry, farmers,
is negotiating free trade agreements, apparently Member States authorities and academics were
pressured the Commission into adopting a narrow amongst the respondents to this consultation. The
definition (based on a risk assessment method) of majority of the responses (responses where confi-
what constitutes an endocrine disrupter, the idea be- dentiality was not requested) were published on 2
ing to facilitate trade between the EU and those coun- February 2015 on the Commission's website. The
tries. report on the consultation was published on 24 Ju-
The compatibility of this risk-based approach ly 20152. The Commission acts in all transparency
with the precautionary principle laid down in the on this issue and the record of the meeting of the
European Treaties has been widely called into ques- Commissioner for Health & Food Safety with non-
tion. EU countries has been released by the Commis-
sion in response to an access to documents request
submitted under Regulation 1049/20013.
The criteria endorsed by the Commission on 15
June 2016 maintain the hazard-based approach
* Non-exhaustive list of MEP’s Questions & Answers compiled by
Luis González Vaqué () taking into ac- foreseen in the Plant Protection Products (PPP)
count their relationship with food and feed law, without any legislation4: an active substance identified as an
political or party preference.
ED will not be approved at EU level. The draft
1 See also http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef
=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2016-009533+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. amendment to point 3.6.5 of Annex II to the PPP
2 https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/endocrine_disruptors/ Regulation would, if adopted, update, in light of
docs/2015_public_consultation_report_en.pdf.
scientific evolution, the foreseen derogations for
3 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European such substances (change from ‘negligible expo-
Parliament, Council and Commission documents. sure’ to ‘negligible risk from exposure’).
4 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of The precautionary principle, on which both the
the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market, OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1. Biocidal Products Regulation5 and the PPP Regu-
5 Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of lation are based, is fully maintained and will con-
the Council concerning the making available on the market and tinue to be applied in cases where ‘scientific un-
use of biocidal products, OJ L 167, 27.6.2012, p. 1.
6 Communication from the Commission on the precautionary
certainties preclude a full assessment of the
principle, COM/2000/0001 final. risks’6.”
, 200 European Parliament: MEP’s Questions & Answers EFFL 2|2017
12 January 2017 – Dubravka Šuica – 11 January 2017 – Ivo Belet – [E-000097-17] –
[E-000134-17] – Subject: Risk posed by Subject: Reducing calories in food:
Salmonella infantis in chicken:
On 22 February 2016, the EU Member States, the food
In a June 2016 scientific report on the public health industry and various health organisations signed the
risk posed by Salmonella infantis in chicken the Croa- ‘Roadmap for action on food product improvement’.
tian food agency notes that this salmonella serovar The aim was to reduce the quantities of salt, saturat-
is not mentioned in the 2005 Commission regulation. ed fat and added sugars (calories) in food products.
The samples inspected have been taken both from The ‘roadmap’ calls on the Commission to draw up
Croatian domestic production and from imports, and guidelines for public-private cooperation, to share
home-produced chicken meat has been found in- good examples of reformulation of food and to draw
creasingly frequently to be contaminated with sal- up criteria for food products in relation to the maxi-
monella of this type. Salmonella infantis can make mum quantities of sugars and fats in food. The Com-
people ill (cases have, indeed, been confirmed in mission was also called upon to adopt criteria for the
Croatia) and, if it is in fresh poultrymeat, can consti- use of logos and for food advertising aimed at children.
Permission granted to user:
tute a public health hazard. Even though, in Commis- In Belgium, the food industry has already respond-
sion Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November ed to the call to reduce the number of calories. In
2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, Sal- June 2016, it concluded an agreement with the Bel-
monella infantis is not mentioned in connection with gian Government to reduce the number of calories
food safety criteria, poultrymeat that has it is consid- by 5% from the 2012 level by the end of 2017.
ered harmful to human health. How does the Commission intend to act on the
Given that Salmonella infantis is a public health five calls addressed to it in the roadmap?
hazard, will the Commission include it in Regulation
(EC) No 2073/2005 and in that way improve salmo- Answer given by Mr Andriukaitis on behalf of the
nella control? Commission (24 February 2017):
“The Commission supports Member States' action
Answer given by Mr Andriukaitis on behalf of the to address reducing calories in foods under the
Commission (17 January 2017): Strategy on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity-re-
“Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 on microbiologi- lated health issues10 and the Health Programme11,
cal criteria for foodstuffs7 lays down Salmonella and through the High Level Group on Nutrition
food safety criteria for several foods of animal ori- and Physical Activity12 and the EU Platform for
gin. These criteria cover all Salmonella, including Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health13.
S. infantis, and require removal from the market
in case of non-compliance.
7 Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November
The Salmonella criterion for fresh poultry meat is 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs (OJ L 338,
limited to S. enteritidis and S. typhimurium, as they 22.12.2005, p. 1).
represent the main risk for public health (70% of 8 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and ECDC (European
Centre for Disease Prevention and Control), 2015. The European
human cases, as opposed to the 2.5% caused by S. Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses,
infantis8). Other Salmonella serotypes are also af- zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2014. EFSA Journal
2015; 13(12):4329, 190 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4329. Avail-
fected by the measures taken to control S. enteri- able at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4329.
tidis and S. typhimurium (biosecurity at farm, 9 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of
the Council on 28 January 2002 laying down the general princi-
slaughter hygiene). ples and requirements of food law, establishing the European
Whether food other than those covered by the Sal- Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in case of food
safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).
monella food safety criteria and containing S. in-
10 http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_determinants/life_style/
fantis should be considered unsafe and therefore nutrition/documents/nutrition_wp_en.pdf.
not placed on the market, this should be assessed 11 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:
on a case-by-case basis in accordance with Article 32014R0282&from=EN.
14 of Regulation (EC) No 178/20029. 12 http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/high_level
_group/index_en.htm.
The Commission is currently not considering ad- 13 http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/platform/
ditional specific requirements for S. infantis.” index_en.htm.
