You are on page 1of 2

11. 3.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 76/41

(98/C 76/118) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1547/97


by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council
(5 May 1997)

Subject: Phosphate ester poisoning due to the use of Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen

The flea-repellant Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen can be administered in different
forms. Tiguvon 10 is intended for cats over 2 kg in weight. The use of Tiguvon 20 is recommended for dogs
weighing between 3 and 10 kg, while dogs with a body weight of more than 10 kg should be treated with Tiguvon
20 G. People who have repeatedly treated their pets with Tiguvon (Fenthion) have suffered serious phosphate
ester poisoning. As the Commission was unable to answer my Question E-1470/96 (1) on the same subject, I
would ask the Council to answer the following questions as a matter of urgency:

When will the burden of proof at last be reversed throughout Europe where injury is suffered as a result of the
marketing of these and similarly dangerous products, the dubious benefit of which bears no relation to the risk
they entail?

(1) OJ C 345, 15.11.1996, p. 76.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1533/97, E-1535/97, E-1537/97,
E-1539/97, E-1541/97, E-1543/97, E-1545/97 and E-1547/97
(25 September 1997)

The Council has to date not received any proposal from the Commission directly concerning the multiple
problems raised by the Honourable Member. However, the Council would draw the Member’s attention to the
fact that at this stage there is not yet any Community harmonization of the status of these products which are
treated, depending on the evaluation of Member States, in particular as medicinal or biocidal products. Bearing
this in mind, as regards certain aspects of the questions put by the Honourable Member, the Council would point
out that:
− following the 19th adaptation to technical and scientific progress (1) of Annex 1 to Directive 67/548/EEC on
the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification,
packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, the Annex lists FENTHION under No 015-048-00-8 in the
index (2);
− under the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a future Directive concerning the
placing of biocidal products on the market (3), Annex V to which covers antiparasitics, these products may
be marketed only after their active substances have been entered on a positive Community list and after a
detailed assessment of the risks they might entail notably for human health.

(1) OJ L 258, 11.10.1993, p. 29.


(2) OJ L 258A, 16.10.1993, p. 212.
(3) Common position of the Council of 20.12.1996, OJ C 69, 5.3.1997, p. 13.

(98/C 76/119) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1628/97


by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE)
to the Council (14 May 1997)

Subject: Use of fishing licences

What view does the Council take of the anti-Common Market statements made by the British Conservative Prime
Minister, John Major, in Cornwall during the electoral campaign, in which he threatened to hold up the
Intergovernmental Conference if the latter did not put a stop to the buying and selling of fishing licences from the
quota of one Member State by companies from other Member States?

Does the Council not believe (as the Court of Justice has held on a number of occasions in the past) that the
principles of non-discrimination and the free movement of persons, services, goods and capital are basic
principles of the internal market and the common fisheries policy?
C 76/42 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 11. 3. 98

Answer
(25 September 1997)

It is not for the Council to give its views on the statements referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Council entirely subscribes to the fundamental principles of the internal market and of the common fisheries
policy. Furthermore, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is for the Court of Justice to
interpret the provisions of the Treaty.

(98/C 76/120) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1688/97


by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission
(20 May 1997)

Subject: Implementation of Agenda 21 (export subsidies)

Five years ago, in 1992, the international community meeting at the UNCED Conference in Rio agreed on the
objectives of Agenda 21. Part I, chapter 2, of the Agenda attaches considerable importance to removing the
existing distortions in international trade. To achieve this, it says, a massive and continuing phasing out of
subsidies and aid for agriculture is required.

As the example of export subsidies for beef to South Africa has shown, five years after the adoption of Agenda 21
the EU’s subsidies policy is a threat to the development of the countries of the South. How does the EU think it
can comply with the obligations of Agenda 21 in this respect? Has the Commission subjected its export subsidy
policy to a thorough review in this respect? What conclusions has it drawn? Has it already published its studies
on this matter, or does it intend to do so?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission


(4 July 1997)

The Community has played a leading role in the United Nations conference on environment and development
conference in Rio in 1992 and in the follow-up concerning the implementation of Agenda 21. Both the Member
States and the Commission seek to ensure that the United Nations general assembly special session later this year
will further stimulate the world-wide implementation of Agenda 21.

The agricultural part of Agenda 21 was further considered in the third session of the commission for sustainable
development (CSD) in 1995 which issued a balanced set of recommendations concerning agriculture and rural
development in relation to Agenda 21. They ranged from food security, poverty and community development,
land-use planning, attention to small farmers on marginal lands, protection of resources, research, energy and
genetic resources.

Specifically concerning trade in agricultural commodities, the CSD viewed the full implementation of the
Uruguay round as an important contribution to an undistorted sectoral and economy-wide policy framework for
sustainable development while the impact of trade liberalisation should be monitored. The Community has
adopted the legislation necessary to ensure the correct implementation of the reduction commitments under the
Uruguay round.

In addition, the 1992 reform of the common agricultural policy helped bring balance to agricultural markets and
reduce the need for export subsidies while also taking environmental protection requirements into account. The
reform, which has been fully implemented, reduced price supports and introduced decoupled income support,
hence reducing public incentives for intensive production. Since 1992 there has been further progress on
reforming the common market organisations for agricultural products. The market organisation for fruits and
vegetables was recently changed to a more market-oriented approach. Further development may be expected,
extending the 1992 reforms where they have not yet been introduced and deepening them where they need to go
further. The instrument of price support is thereby likely to decrease in importance. This can also help farmers to
take advantage of new opportunities on the world market. The Community is committed to the full