WRITTEN QUESTION E-2130/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Compliance with Directive 91/321/EEC on infant formulae.
Date: 2001-07-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, application of EU law, baby food, competition law, marketing, sales promotion

C 350 E/238

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

considered this issue at its two recent meetings, recalling the importance of the Single Sky initiative at
G(cid:246)teborg on 15 and 16 June 2001.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/themes/air/ses_en.pdf.
(2) Report A5-0141/2000, 26.5.2000.

(2001/C 350 E/271)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2115/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Future of the Common Fisheries Policy

Given the recent EU Green Paper on reform of the Common Fisheries Policy which accepts the need for
radical change of the Common Fisheries Policy, and the fact that the current 6 and 12 mile derogations do
not adequately protect the sustainability of the shellfish resource, does the Commission plan to extend
national jurisdiction over fish resources to the 12 mile limit in order to protect the inshore fishery?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2001)

In the Green Paper the Commission suggested strengthening coastal States(cid:146) competence for resource
management and in particular local conservation measures within their territorial waters. The current
arrangements for limiting access to the 12-mile zone also seem perfectly in line with the need to protect
inshore fishing.

(2001/C 350 E/272)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2130/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 July 2001)

Subject: Compliance with Directive 91/321/EEC on infant formulae

The Commission says that (cid:145)it does not see, from the information supplied by the Honourable Member, in
how far the promotional measures described could distort competition between hospitals and suppliers(cid:146)
(P-1229/01) (1). Yet the Belgian Minister for Consumer Affairs, Public Health and the Environment, Magda
Aelvoet, has said in answer to a request for clarification from Senator Sabine de Bethune that the sales
promotion campaigns by infant formulae manufacturers violate the relevant decree (Thursday, 22 March).

Infant formulae manufacturers are distributing free samples of infant formulae in Belgian maternity wards
as a way of advertising these products. This approach is not only illegal. It also contravenes the EC Treaty
the WHO Code, namely that
(by distorting competition) and is contrary to the key objective of
breastfeeding should be encouraged in the interests of health. Moreover,
it is clear that the national
authorities, in this case the Belgian Federation, are failing to tackle the problem.

Will the Commission take action in response to the national authorities(cid:146) failure to ensure that (cid:145)the
legislation in force is respected by all interested parties(cid:146) in the Belgian Federation? If so, what will the
Commission do to ensure that manufacturers of infant formulae cease to distribute free samples in Belgian
maternity wards in order to advertise these products? If not, on what grounds does the Commission

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/239

consider the free distribution of infant formulae by manufacturers and vendors in maternity clinics to be in
accordance with Directive 91/321/EEC (2) on infant formulae?

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 227.
(2) OJ L 175, 4.7.1991, p. 35.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question P-1229/01 (1).

That answer is still valid.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 227.

(2001/C 350 E/273)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2355/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: EU-Kingdom of Morocco relations

(6 August 2001)

During their recent official visits to the Kingdom of Morocco in June 2001, the Commissioners responsible
for external relations, Chris Patten, and for trade, Pascal Lamy, formally stated their desire to improve and
expand existing co-operation between the EU and Morocco. In the words of Commissioner Patten, (cid:145)our
partners on the southern flank of the Mediterranean have a privileged place in our external relations(cid:146).
However, no reference was made in official speeches at any stage of those visits to the failure of
negotiations between the EU and Morocco on establishing a new framework for bilateral co-operation with
a view to the renewal of the fisheries agreement between the EU and Morocco, which collapsed owing to
the intransigence of the Moroccan negotiators, leading to the expulsion of more than 400 European vessels
from Moroccan fishing grounds, i.e. directly affecting 4 300 European fishermen who previously supplied
the EU market (cid:129) which can now be supplied by third countries (cid:129) and creating an extremely worrying
economic and social situation in some EU regions which depend heavily on fishing.

Does the Commissioner responsible for the EU(cid:146)s external relations consider the Kingdom of Morocco(cid:146)s
rejection of co-operation with the EU in the field of fishing to be of no significance in the context of the
EU(cid:146)s relations with Morocco?

Will Morocco(cid:146)s refusal to co-operate with the EU in matters of interest for the EU itself not have any effect
on bilateral relations, which are to be maintained and apparently expanded in matters of interest to
Morocco?

On 18 July 2001 the Commission adopted a proposal for a specific plan aimed at mitigating as far as
possible the serious economic and social situation affecting workers in the fleet which used to fish under
the agreement with Morocco. Will the EU reward Morocco with increased co-operation with the EU
insignificant (cid:129) financial effort which the EU must bear as a consequence of the
despite the (cid:129) still
intransigence and lack of co-operation shown by (cid:145)our partners on the southern flank of
the
Mediterranean(cid:146)?

Can the Commission explain why the serious social and economic impact on the EU of Morocco(cid:146)s
inflexible opposition to the renewal of fisheries co-operation with the EU will have absolutely no negative
repercussions on bilateral relations between the EU and Morocco and why, according to Commissioner
Patten, the Commission is even seeking to improve such co-operation?