WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2877/97 by Glenys KINNOCK to the Commission. Coherence of Commission policies with Council Resolution of 18 June 1992 on the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in third countries by Community-based manufacturers
Date: 1997-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, KINNOCK
Subjects: Bangladesh, Denmark, World Health Organisation, baby food, food industry, mother's milk, originating product, restriction on competition, substitute product

C 82/150

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 3. 98

Since the launching of the MEDIA II programme, the Commission has made sure that positive discrimination
measures  in  favour  of  projects  submitted  by  companies  registered  in  Member  States  with  a  low  audiovisual
production capacity are systematically applied. Furthermore, specific information and training sessions targeted
at  potential  applicants  from  those  Member  States  are  organised.  As  a  result  the  MEDIA  II  programme  has
received an increasing amount of proposals from Member States with a low audiovisual production capacity. It
should also be stressed that the relative percentage of projects selected is always higher than that of projects
submitted (on average 30% of selected projects as compared to 25% of applications). In the particular case of the
two  Member  States  mentioned  (i.e.  Greece  and  Portugal),  the  ratio  between  projects  submitted  to  projects
selected corresponds to the overall average for all Member States of 10 to 12%.

In accordance with the Council Decision, the selection criteria on the basis of which all projects are assessed are
those announced in the guidelines of each call for proposals, which in turn have been approved by the members
of the committee prior to publication.

In  order  to  ensure  fair  treatment  for  all  projects  submitted,  the  readers  or  assessors  involved  in  advising  the
Commission during the selection procedure are chosen on the basis of their knowledge and expertise to provide
quality assessments of the scripts submitted in their original language. As far as the experts serving on individual
panels of experts are concerned, these are chosen from lists submitted by members of the MEDIA committee to
the Commission and are consulted on a rotating basis.

(1)  OJ L 321, 30.12.1995.

(98/C 82/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2877/97

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1997)

Subject: Coherence  of  Commission  policies  with  Council  Resolution  of  18  June  1992  on  the  marketing  of

breastmilk substitutes in third countries by Community-based manufacturers

Can the Commission confirm that the Danish baby food company, MILCO, violated the WHO Code of 1981 on
the  marketing  of  breastmilk  substitutes  in  its  operations  in  Bangladesh,  and,  as  a  consequence,  has  acted
inconsistently with the Council Resolution of 18 June 1992 on the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in third
countries by Community-based manufacturers (1)?

Is  it  the  case  that  the  Commission  offers  tax  rebates  to  companies  such  as  MILCO,  promoting  breastmilk
substitutes outside the EU, even when these activities are in breach of the WHO Code of 1981 and the Council
Resolution of 18 June 1992?

If so, does the Commission not agree that its approach is wholly inconsistent with the International Code and the
Council Resolution, and that these tax rebates should be immediately stopped?

(1)  OJ C 172, 8.7.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 1997)

The Commission, in line with the Council Resolution of 18 June 1992, has instructed its delegations in third
countries to serve as contact points for the authorities in order that any complaints or criticisms with respect to
the marketing practices of a manufacturer based in the Community could be notified to them. No such complaints
have  been  received  to  date  from  Bangladesh.  The  Commission  therefore  cannot  confirm  any  statements  or
reports of inappropriate marketing practices by Community-based companies in this country.

Further the Commission would stress that in the absence of any such complaint on the subject, the case evoked
by the Honourable Member in the second part of her question is not applicable.