You are on page 1of 2

C 60/36 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 2.

98

2. Will gene maize and gene soya, already authorized for marketing, now be labelled under the Food
Labelling Directive 79/112 (2)and if so what detailed criteria will be applied?

3. Will the Commission confirm that under Article 8 of this regulation, the four separate labelling criteria
listed under paragraphs (a) to (d) will be applied individually and independently of each other so that the
foodstuff will be labelled if the conditions in any one of these subparagraphs are met?

4. What provisions are foreseen for prohibiting the use of novel ingredients and products in baby food as
recommended by the Scientific Committee on Food?

5. Will the molecular structure and the use of DNA-destroying enzymes in novel foods be indicated in product
applications and labels?

6. Will products or ingredients produced using gene technology or incorporating a GMO continue to be
classified as novel if a substantially equivalent item has previously been approved under EC 258/97?

7. Will gene food products and crops already approved under Community or national legislation be treated as
signifying previous use for human consumption to a significant degree within the Community?

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1.


(2) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 1.

Additional answer
given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(24 July 1997)

Further to its answer of 29 May 1997 will the Honourable Member please refer to the answers given by the
Commission, more particularly to his Oral Question No 0-65/97, during the joint discussion concerning novel
foods on the agenda for the plenary session held in June 1997. The Commission will take steps to answer the
more specific points not contained in the oral question referred to above in its forthcoming answers to the series
of questions recently put to it on this same subject.

(98/C 60/62) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1652/97


by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission
(5 May 1997)

Subject: Rice market

1. In the Commission’s view, what are the causes of the crisis on the rice market, and how does it arrive at this
conclusion?

2. Is the Commission aware that there is a fall in prices not only on the Indica rice market but also on the
Japonica rice market? How great is the fall in prices and what does the Commission think is the cause? Has
Japonica rice been imported into the Union in the last six months? What volume is involved, and where has it
been imported from?

3. What was the volume of production of Indica rice in the Union in the season just ended, how much has
already been sold and what quantity is still available? Given the shortage of Indica rice within the Union, does the
Commission see any justification for exemption measures?

4. What is the extent of the shortage of (Indica) rice within the Union and from where, and at what price, will it
be imported in order to meet the demand for consumption within the Union?

5. How does the Commission calculate the difference in price between rice originating in the OCT and
Community rice, and what was the price of Community rice compared with rice from the OCT in the season just
ended?

6. Can the Commission indicate the growth in OCT imports in comparison with the years 1995 and 1996, and
state how it arrives at these figures?
25. 2. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 60/37

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission


(28 May 1997)

1. The crisis in the Community's rice sector has been due, firstly, to the increase in Community production, in
particular because of Spain's re-entry into indica production after several years of drought, and, secondly, to the
rise in imports from the overseas countries and territories.

2. Prices for Italian japonica range currently between 90% and 95% of the intervention price. This is due to the
following factors:
− a structural surplus of japonica in the Community;
− production of japonica in 1996/97 was 15% higher than in 1995/96 because of good weather and the
conversion from indica to japonica in Italy;
− since the beginning of the 1996/97 marketing year, almost 15 000 tonnes of milled japonica equivalent have
been imported, in particular from the OCT.

3. Community indica production in 1996/97 is put at 632.045 tonnes of paddy rice. In Italy, 73% of the harvest
has been sold while in Spain, which represents the most important market for this type of rice, a major share
remains unsold (the Commission does not have exact figures for Spain) and is being offered into intervention.

The safeguard measures that have been taken are entirely justified because, in spite of the deficit in indica in the
Community, imports are considerably in excess of the Community's internal needs, preventing Community rice
from finding an outlet on the market. Among the imports, the impact of rice from the OCT is the most significant.

4. The Community's deficit in indica is almost 300 000 tonnes of milled rice equivalent. The main supplier
countries are the OCT, the United States and Thailand. Import prices vary considerably according to origin,
quality, type of rice and processing stage.

5. When the first activation of the safeguard clause took place in January 1996, the import price plus cost and
freight for semi-milled rice originating in the Netherlands Antilles was approximately ECU 460/tonne, compared
with a price for Spanish indica paddy rice of around ECU 324/ tonne.

6. Imports from the OCT in 1995 were close to 270 000 tonnes of husked rice equivalent; in 1996 this went up
to over 350 000 tonnes.

(98/C 60/63) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1701/97


by Ulf Holm (V) to the Commission
(20 May 1997)

Subject: Transport of live animals

In connection with EU subsidies for exports of live animals, will the Commission specify which countries live
animals are exported to?

1. How many animals are exported to each of those countries?

2. What have the trends been as regards exports of live animals from EU Member States to other countries
over the past 15 years?

3. How much subsidy per animal does the Community pay?

4. Do rules exist on the conditions in which the animals may be transported and, if so, who monitors such
transport operations?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission


(15 July 1997)

1. With the exception of day-old chicks, the only live animals exported with the benefit of export refunds from
the Community to third countries are cattle. 497 491 animals were exported in 1996. The main countries of