EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/564

(2004/C 88 E/0575)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1069/04

by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject: Inconsistency of the Commission's position on wine

In late March, the Commission approved a series of campaigns designed to provide information about, and to promote consumption of, agricultural products in third countries. The products concerned are wine, fruit, olive oil, cheese and organic produce.

The Member States submitted to the Commission, for consideration, six promotion and information programmes. The five programmes accepted are aimed at the United States, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, Russia, Brazil and China.

The contribution from the European Union budget is estimated at about EUR 3 million (50 % of the cost of the programmes).

However, the Commission is proposing to apply rules governing nutritional and health claims made on food in order to exclude any promotional campaigns for wine.

On the one hand, the Commission is using appropriations from the EU budget to encourage the promotion of wine, an agricultural product, in third countries (in order to boost the sector). On the other hand, however, in its proposal for a regulation (1), it precludes any promotion of a moderate consumption of wine on the territory of the European Union, although it has been scientifically proved that such consumption forms a beneficial part of the Mediterranean diet.

Can the Commission justify the inconsistency between its campaign to promote the consumption of wine outside the EU and its campaign to prohibit such consumption inside the EU?

Since the Commission has claimed for itself sole power to undertake ‘good’ promotion campaigns, could it not, within the established regulatory framework, of course, allow wine producers to promote their wares?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

1. The Commission in its Proposal for a Regulation on the use of nutrition and health claims made on foods has not proposed a ban on all promotion of wine, nor of any other food or drink. However, the Commission is of the opinion that alcoholic beverages should not be promoted and advertised on the basis of any nutritional and health benefits they may have, as the over-consumption of these products leads to well-known serious health and social problems which the Commission is actually trying to fight. In the Council Conclusions of 5 June 2001 on a Community strategy to reduce alcohol related harm (2) it is emphasised that alcohol is one of the key health determinants in the Community and that scientific work has clearly shown that high consumption of alcohol in the population substantially increases the risk of alcohol-related morbidity and of all-cause mortality. Furthermore, there is concern about the way in which alcoholic beverages are designed and promoted to appeal in particular to children and adolescents. Therefore, the Commission deems it appropriate to envisage the prohibition of nutrition and health claims in the labelling, presentation and advertising of alcoholic beverages. The promotion of wine, and of any other alcoholic beverage, under any other aspect but that of its possible nutrition and health benefits is in no way banned or limited by the Proposal for a Regulation on the use of nutrition and health claims made on food.

2. In the framework of the EU regime on information and promotion actions for agricultural products and foodstuffs on both the internal market and in third countries, covered by Council Regulations (EC) No 2826/2000 of 19 December 2000 (3) and (EC) No 2702/1999 of 14 December 1999 (4) respectively, the EU currently co-finances several programmes set up by relevant professional or inter-professional organisations for certain wine categories, and not only in third countries but also on the internal EU market. In particular, for the internal market, the EU has co-financed, in the period 2001-2003, eight programmes in the wine sector for a total amount of EUR 5,2 million.

(1) COM(2003) 424 final.

(2) OJ C 175, 20.6.2001.

(3) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000.

(4) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.