WRITTEN QUESTION P-1509/01 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Antibiotic Research.
Date: 2001-05-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: industry-research relations, law relating to information, medical research, pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceutical product

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/245

indicates who commissioned the investigations and when the results were notified, or when they are
expected, and send me copies of results of investigations which have already been received?

The European Court of Auditors has apparently drawn the Commission(cid:146)s attention to problematic issues in
the milk and dairy products sector in a number of (cid:145)sectoral letters(cid:146).

Can the Commission forward to me a complete list of these sectoral letters from the past five years and,
where appropriate, make available to me its correspondence relating to these sectoral letters with the Court
of Auditors and the Member States concerned?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2001)

I would draw the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to the answer given by the Commission to her Written
Question E-3241/00 (1). The only potential health risks arising from the adulterated butter case that have
been brought to the Commission(cid:146)s attention were set out in two press releases issued by the Naples Public
Prosecutor(cid:146)s Office in July 2000 and December 2000.

The Commission has no knowledge of official communications or minutes of meetings in which
representatives of the affected Member States gave their views on possible health risks resulting from the
adulterated butter, although certain Member States have asked to be kept informed of developments in this
case. However, as already stated in the reply to Written Question E-3241/00, results of analysis carried out
by one Member State indicate that there were no chemical compounds which could present a health risk,
such as polychlorobiphenyls (PCBs), organo-chlorine compounds or heavy metals.

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has
the Member States(cid:146)
administrative investigations (in Belgium and Germany) and judicial investigations (in Italy and France).
None of these investigations have as yet been concluded.

it will monitor

indicated that

None of the DAS cases reported (Statement of Assurance), nor the special reports of the Court of Auditors,
nor sector letters, contain specific information, which would, at the time, or even with the benefit of
hindsight, have allowed the Commission to make a connection with the (cid:145)adulterated butter(cid:146) case or with
the possible existence of fraud.

The Court of Auditors during the course of its special inquiry on butterfat discovered a number of control
and administrative shortcomings, but did not find any incidence of possible fraud or similar irregularity. It
is difficult to see how, given the evidence of absence of any such comment in its reports and sector letters,
the Court had therein signalled to the Commission its concerns regarding
it can be claimed that
(cid:145)adulterated butter(cid:146).

The Court of Auditors sectoral letters are provisional audit documents sent by the Court to the bodies
audited on a confidential basis. The Commission may therefore not divulge them. The Court of Auditors
publishes all its final conclusions in its special or annual reports.

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001.

(2001/C 318 E/270)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1509/01

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 May 2001)

Subject: Antibiotic Research

There is a growing problem of resistance to antibiotics in many EU countries. In order for laboratory based
research to be carried out, academics must have access to antibiotic powder. In many cases, however,
pharmaceutical companies will only provide antibiotic powder to researchers if the researchers give
a written undertaking not to public their research results without prior permission from the phar-

C 318 E/246

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

maceutical company. This restriction may have significant public health implications if the research results
were unfavourable towards the pharmaceutical product. Given the public health and consumer welfare
issues that are involved in this issue, could the Commission please outline its views on this matter and
specifically point out how it aims to ensure that the pharmaceutical industry will not seek to restrict access
to antibiotic material necessary for research in this way?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The issue of antimicrobial resistance forms an inherent part of the Community(cid:146)s health strategy and
comprises actions in all the relevant sectors, public health, veterinary and phytosanitary. The Commission
is currently finalising a communication which will set out a Community strategy against antimicrobial
resistance from this multisectoral perspective.

With respect to the specific question on access to antibiotic powder for laboratory research, and having
contacted several companies who may be concerned, the Commission is not aware that the pharmaceutical
industry seeks to restrict access to antibiotic material for laboratory research purposes. It is however
standard practice to request undertakings from the researchers to ensure that the research is legitimate and
appropriate and to request sight of the results in advance of publication. Availability of specific antibiotics
and the particular undertakings requested are likely to be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on
whether the antibiotic concerned is already available on the market, or whether it is still at an early stage
of development. The Commission considers that the manner in which the pharmaceutical industry supplies
antibiotic material for academic research is, in general, appropriate, but is not in a position to comment on
individual contractual arrangements between a specific company and a specific academic institution.

(2001/C 318 E/271)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1634/01

by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Execution of Commission initiatives over the period 1994-1999

The Community initiatives created in 1989 enable the Commission to play a more active role, on the
supposition that
the Member States. The
Commission has, in these Community initiatives, a leading role in dealing with specific problems affecting
the EU as a whole.

it has an overall vision allegedly lacking at

the level of

Over the programming period 1994-1999 13 initiatives were adopted, with a total budget of € 13 450
million. These initiatives were characterised by a (cid:145)value added(cid:146) element vis-(cid:224)-vis the other measures
financed by the Structural Funds, since they were aimed at encouraging transnational, crossborder and
interregional cooperation,
local economic and social agents, and aid to real
cooperation among all interested parties.

the participation of

In view of all the above, the Commission and the Member States may logically be expected to have made
efforts to execute, in their entirety, the resources allocated to each of the 13 initiatives for the period
1994-1999.

Can the Commission state the real execution level of the appropriations earmarked for this set of initiatives
over the period 1994-1999?

What was the real execution level for each of the initiatives (Interreg II, Leader II, REGIS II, NOW, Horizon,
Youthstart, Integra, ADAPT, Rechar II, Resider II, Konver, RETEX, SME, URBAN and PESCA)?

What is the Commission(cid:146)s assessment of the execution percentage? Why were the remaining funds
earmarked for each initiative not executed?