WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3184/97 by Riitta MYLLER to the Commission. Public health effects of the new school milk subsidy
Date: 1997-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, MYLLER
Subjects: EU aid, aid system, consumer behaviour, drinking milk, educational institution, free service, milk fat, public health, skimmed milk, whole milk

C 158/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25. 5. 98

(98/C 158/63)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3184/97

by Riitta Myller (PSE) to the Commission

(16 October 1997)

Subject: Public health effects of the new school milk subsidy

The Council has urged the Commission to add soured milk (Sw. filmjo¤lk, Fin. viili) to the list of products eligible
for the school milk subsidy. Under the Commission(cid:146)s proposal for an amendment to the regulation, only villi
made from whole milk would receive the subsidy. However, in Finland, for example, villi is never made from
whole milk, because consumers want lower-fat and thus healthier products.

How does the Commission justify its proposal to subsidise the use of fat? How does the Commission(cid:146)s proposal
for an amendment to the school milk subsidy promote public health in the EU(cid:146)s Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 1997)

In proposing the inclusion of the products (cid:145)viili/fil(cid:146) in the list of products eligible for the school milk subsidy
under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1842/83 of 30 June 1983 laying down general rules for the supply of milk
and certain milk products at reduced prices to schoolchildren (1), the Commission wished to ensure a position
similar to that of yoghurt, in view of the similarities of these products. Moreover, since the school milk scheme
was reformed in 1993, the programme has been centred on drinking milk, so as to improve the effectiveness of
the scheme and safeguard the position of this basic product. Schoolchildren wishing to reduce their consumption
of butterfat can therefore opt for semi-skimmed milk, which is also subsidised under the scheme.

(1)  OJ L 183, 7.7.1983.

(98/C 158/64)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3189/97

by Magda Aelvoet (V) to the Commission

(16 October 1997)

Subject: Building of a cafeteria in the Habitat area of (cid:145)De Demervallei(cid:146) (Flanders)

In view of the fact that:

1. 

the  Flemish  wetlands  area  of  (cid:145)De  Demervallei(cid:146)  is  a  nature  conservation  area  according  to  the  Flemish
Government(cid:146)s Decision of January 17, 1988, within the meaning of European Directive 79/409/EEC of April
2, 1979, concerning the protection of birds (1);

2.  Directive 92/43/EEC (2) incorporating Directive 79/409/EEC states that an environmental impact assessment

study must be carried out for development plans affecting nature conservation areas;

3. 

4. 

5. 

the  organization  Intercommunale  Schulens  Meer  (ISM),  which  has  a  concession  on  the  use  of  the  water
surface of the nature conservation area mentioned above) for leisure and sport activities has planned the
construction of a cafeteria costing about 40 million BEF in Lummen, at the water(cid:146)s edge;

for that purpose, ISM has obtained form the Flemish Government a building permit, which does not even
mention that the building would be situated in the nature conservation area, and ignores the strongly negative
opinion given by the Department of Nature Conservation of the Flemish Government itself;

ISM has applied for European funding to carry out this project, and has presented it as a (cid:145)nature education
centre(cid:146),  although  it  is  not  in  fact  any  kind  of  (cid:145)education  centre(cid:146)  (the  only  infrastructure  which  could  be
described as an (cid:145)education centre(cid:146) is an exhibition room even smaller than the lavatories!),

does the Commission intend to allow this project to be financed?