WRITTEN QUESTION E-3076/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Community aid for dairy cattle farmers.
Date: 2000-10-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, dairy cow, farmer

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/57

Pricing and reimbursement negotiations are the responsibility of the Member States concerned. The
procedures adopted for these negotiations need to respect the terms of the (cid:145)Transparency Directive(cid:146),
Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating
the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health
insurance systems (2) and to bear in mind the single market dimension of the European pharmaceutical
market.

(1) OJ L 178, 17.7.2000.
(2) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

(2001/C 151 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3076/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Community aid for dairy cattle farmers

Knowing that:

(cid:129) under EC Regulation 1257/1999 (1), the European Union grants financial contributions of up to ITL
190 000 per hectare of grazing land to farmers breeding their own cattle who put them out to pasture
for at least 180 days a year rather than keeping them in the cowshed;

(cid:129) some breeds (such as Piedmontese cattle) are progressively being replaced by others (such as Friesian

and Simmental cattle) with a high milk yield;

(cid:129) these cattle are ill-suited to grazing in the heat of the day, particularly throughout the long, hot,

summer days of southern European countries;

(cid:129) the rules are, on the other hand, appropriate for northern European countries (such as France, the
Netherlands, Belgium and Germany) where the climate and environmental factors make it possible for
cattle to graze in the open;

(cid:129) certain proposals put forward to remedy this disparity would require a change in the Community rules
to enable farmers in all the Member States to qualify for this aid, even if the grass used to feed the
animals was cut and brought into the cowshed;

(cid:129) to improve the quality of milk and derived products it is necessary to improve the diet of dairy cattle

by increasing their intake of grass and hay:

(cid:129) insisting that cattle must spend at least 180 days per year outdoors rather than in the cowshed is an

arbitrary requirement which might actually have the effect of encouraging fraud.

Does the Commission intend to consider the above-mentioned proposals, and what action does it intend to
take to enable all European cattle farmers to qualify on an equal footing for the financial aid available
under the above-mentioned regulation, which aid is supposed to ensure both that grazing land is preserved
and that the quality of dairy products and their derivatives is improved?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2000)

The Commission would point out that Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on
support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and
amending and repealing certain Regulations (1) contains no provisions for aid to support milk production
or dairy farmers.

C 151 E/58

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

However, the agri-environmental measures in Articles 22 to 24 of that Regulation do provide for support
to be granted to farmers who give agri-environmental commitments for at least five years concerning
methods of agricultural production which protect the environment and preserve the landscape. The aid
paid to the farmer in return for the agri-environmental service rendered is based on the income foregone
and the additional costs arising from the commitments.

Agri-environmental support is intended primarily to encourage the management of low-intensity pasture
land. To do this, some of the rural development programmes drawn up by the Member States and
approved by the Commission include agri-environmental premiums for the upkeep of alpine pasture. This
traditional method of stock breeding entails keeping the animals (cattle, sheep or horses) on mountain
pasture for a period which varies considerably (from 80 to 180 days) depending on the area where the
measure is being applied and local conditions. This highly extensive practice is considered by all concerned
as essential to maintain the environmental balance of mountain areas, which are very fragile ecosystems
from an environmental point of view. The maintenance of alpine pasture imposes additional costs on
farmers and so this technique attracts a premium, which again varies considerably depending on the area
where the measure is being applied and local conditions.

It should be noted that this support is in no way either production aid or direct aid to the beef/veal sector
such as that provided under the market organisation in question.

The Commission does not therefore consider that there is any need to amend the existing rules to take
account of the points raised in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 151 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3077/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Sale over the Internet of substances for human consumption which are regarded as harmful in

America

Is the Commission aware of a report published by Associated Press on 7 September and reproduced,

1.
inter alia, on the website (cid:145)Discovery Health: Health News(cid:146) on:

http://www.discoveryhealth.com/DH/ihtIH/EMDSC000/333/333/296934.html

under the title (cid:145)FDA Cracks Down on Laetrile Resurgence(cid:146), which refers to a product distributed in America
under the names (cid:145)Laetrile(cid:146),
(cid:145)Amygdalin(cid:146) and (cid:145)Vitamin B 17(cid:146) by organisations with such names as (cid:145)World
Without Cancer Inc.(cid:146), (cid:145)Health World International Inc.(cid:146) and (cid:145)Health Genesis Corp.(cid:146)?

Can the Commission confirm that the ingredients of Laetrile include apricot stones, which according
2.
to a long-standing popular belief can prevent cancer? Does the Commission have an opinion on the extent
to which apricot stones can prevent or cause cancer? To what extent are these characteristics of apricot
stones affected for better or for worse by other substances contained in Laetrile?

3.
Is the Commission aware of the efforts of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
combat trade in Laetrile, on the assumption that this substance is carcinogenic and can also cause cyanide
poisoning? Does the Commission have an opinion concerning the arguments for and against this adverse
assessment and about the resultant ban on the substance(cid:146)s sale in the United States?

4.
The sale of Laetrile is now continuing over the Internet, so that it is increasingly becoming available
on the European market. Other substances for human consumption whose benefits or harmful effects have
not been ascertained are likewise being sold in this way. Does the Commission share the concern of the
FDA, and does it therefore consider such substances harmful to European consumers?