WRITTEN QUESTION E-1507/02 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Ban on use of antibiotics in small doses.
Date: 2002-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal nutrition, antibiotic, health policy, livestock farming, veterinary legislation

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/163

(2002/C 301 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1503/02

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Erasmus/Socrates grants

It has come to my attention that the level of financial assistance for students taking part in an Erasmus/
Socrates programme varies considerably in respect of students of different origin. For example, a student
from Italy receives a grant of EUR 720 for a six-month period of study in Würzburg, whereas a Czech or
Finnish student receives EUR 2 100 for a period of study of the same duration at the same university.

Therefore the following questions:

(cid:1) What

factors are taken into account when the amount of an Erasmus/Socrates grant

is being

calculated?

(cid:1) How can such striking financial disparities be explained, when both the place of study and the

students’ place of origin (Finland, in this instance) are in EU Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2002)

The Commission’s grant contribution toward Erasmus student mobility in the 18 countries (Member States
+ 3 European Economic Area (EEA) countries) is allocated on the basis of an agreed standard calculation
which includes factors such as: number of students, cost of living and travel distance. The contribution to
the candidate countries is derived by the application of a mathematical formula to the 18 contributions.

The amount of grant offered to students in any particular instance is a decision that is made entirely by the
participating country which has to find a balance between offering as large a grant as possible from very
restricted budgets and achieving the participation of the maximum possible number of students. The
Commission specifies a maximum amount which may be awarded to students from the Commission
contribution.

However, countries may continue financial support to which a student is already deemed entitled, and in
quite a few countries a national ‘top-up’ grant is paid by the government to students going abroad on
mobility programmes. In many cases, higher education institutions award co-funding to their Erasmus
students. This would explain the differences in the mobility grants paid to students from different countries
at the same host university.

The average Erasmus grants from Community funds are given in a table which is sent direct to the
Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

(2002/C 301 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1507/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Ban on use of antibiotics in small doses

(29 May 2002)

An EU decision banned the use of antibiotics in small doses for breeding animals, both for preventive
purposes and as growth promoters (e.g. bacitracin). Could the Commission state whether there is a
confirmed belief that this ban ended up facilitating checks on residues in food of animal origin or,
whether, on the other hand, its effects included an increase in cases of illness among animals, a rise in
treatment, excessive use of medicinal products etc.?

C 301 E/164

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2002)

The prohibition of the use of five antibiotic feed additives in 1997 and 1998 (Avoparcin, Bacitracin zinc,
Spiramycin, Virginiamycin and Tylosin phosphate), which were authorised as growth promoters, was a risk
management decision which was taken following the concerns raised by the international scientific
community.

The scientific opinion showed that it was necessary to take into account that anti-microbial resistance can
spread to other microbial populations and that some microbial agents of diseases have become resistant to
standard anti-microbial treatment.

In 2001 the Scientific Steering Committee recommended that the use of antibiotics as growth promoting
agents from classes that are or may be used in human or veterinary medicine should be phased out as
soon as possible and ultimately abolished.

The measures only concerned the use of antibiotics as growth promoters, that is, additives given in feed to
a group of animals irrespective of their health status with the aim of achieving an improvement in their
performance. This policy led to the decrease in the total amount of antibiotics used as feed additives from
1600 tonnes in 1997 to 786 tonnes in 1999.

These measures did not interfere with authorisations and use of antibiotics for therapeutic or prophylactic
applications in animals.

There is no obligation for Member States to communicate to the Commission the occurrence of the most
significant bacterial diseases in farmed animals that are currently controlled by antibiotic treatment. The
Commission is not aware of any evidence suggesting that its policy regarding the use of antibiotics as
growth promoting feed additives led to a decrease in the health status of animals in the Union.

(2002/C 301 E/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1509/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Evolution of agricultural income in 2001

The Commission has published data compiled by Eurostat on the evolution of agricultural income, which
state that in 2001 agricultural income in the EC rose by 3,3 %, thanks to a 1,2 % rise in production and a
2 % fall in the number of farmers.

Nonetheless, there are variations between Member States in the pattern of agricultural incomes. In Spain
income rose by only 2,6 %, while in other Member States the increase was four times greater. The figures
for Denmark, Austria and Germany were 12,3 %, 10,9 % and 9,9 % respectively. Portugal and Ireland
scored 11,8 % and 7,8 % respectively.

Can the Commission provide specific information on the evolution of agricultural income in Galicia in
2001?

What is the Commission’s interpretation of the fact that the application of the CAP gives rise to these
disparities in the evolution of agricultural income? What does the Commission believe to be the reasons
for the circumstance that the rise in incomes has been four times greater in certain Member States
(Denmark, Austria, Portugal and Germany) than in Spain?