WRITTEN QUESTION E-3139/02 by Gordon Adam (PSE) to the Commission. Genetic susceptibility of individuals to specific foodstuffs within Framework Programme 6.
Date: 2002-11-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, allergy, genetics, health policy, nutritional disease, product safety, public health, research policy

12.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137 E/163

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2002)

Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/82/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the
Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (1) allows Member States to permit exemptions
from marketing authorisation requirements in respect of veterinary medicinal products intended solely for
certain categories of species. This includes homing pigeons. The Commission’s recent proposal (2) to amend
the Directive adds ferrets and pet rabbits to the respective category of species.

However, exempted products can not contain substances the use of which requires veterinary control.
Member States permitting exemptions have to apply adequate measures to prevent unauthorised use of
these products for other animals.

Article 67 of Directive 2001/82/EC lays down minimum requirements regarding the dispensing of
veterinary medicinal products without prejudice to stricter Community or national rules. Member States
may therefore require stricter conditions, to be applied under national law.

(1) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.
(2) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.

(2003/C 137 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3139/02

by Gordon Adam (PSE) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: Genetic susceptibility of individuals to specific foodstuffs within Framework Programme 6

The European Commission is finalising arrangements for Framework Programme 6 which will establish the
research strategy for the next five years. Although very helpful, the analysis of the Expressions of Interest
(EoI) for FP6 remain somewhat unclear as to which areas will be supported.

With this in mind, would the Commission please clarify what priority will be given to an assessment of the
genetic susceptibility of
individuals to specific foodstuffs and food components within Framework
Programme 6?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 2002)

The Commission invited the scientific community to submit expressions of interest (EoIs) in order to
assists its services to prepare the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) work programmes and to define the
scope of the first calls for proposals. For the Thematic Priority ‘Food Quality and Safety’, the EoIs were
analysed by external experts, who came up with a list of 53 research topics considered ready for
implementation and of the highest relevance to Europe. This list has been published on the website http://
www.cordis.lu/fp6/eoi-analysis.htm. Based on the 53 topics given in the EoI report, the work programme
for Thematic Priority 5 ‘Food Quality and Safety’
is currently being drafted. Publication of the work
programme is foreseen for mid-December 2002.

The Commission considers the issue of genetic susceptibility of
individuals to foodstuffs and food
component as an important one. As a matter of fact, under the headings ‘Epidemiology of food-related
‘Impact of food on health’ and ‘Environmental health risks’, many of the topics
diseases and allergies’,
retained offer the possibility for researchers to include aspects of genetic susceptibility of individuals to
specific foodstuffs into their research proposals: gene-nutrient interaction; epidemiology of food allergy;
lipid metabolism and chronic diseases; influence of nutrition and lifestyle on healthy ageing; functional
genomics in relation to food, nutrition and health; microbes and gut health; programming effects of early
nutrition on long-term health; healthy ageing through diet; risk-benefit analysis of phyto-estrogens, as an

C 137 E/164

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

12.6.2003

important class of bio-active compounds, on human health; integrated strategies to prevent obesity and
associated diseases; dietary fatty acids: optimised supply and response; environmental health risks,
particularly in relation to sensitive groups, that are linked to the food chain.

(2003/C 137 E/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3144/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: Privatisations in Bulgaria

As part of the Bulgarian Government’s privatisation programme, Bulgartabac, one of the largest tobacco
companies in eastern Europe, is being privatised. However, it is alleged that several of the tendering and
privatisation conditions were breached during the procedure for the sale of the undertaking.

The company was sold to Tobacco Capital Partners (TCP), although serious doubts exist as to whether that
company’s bid was the most advantageous. Amongst other things, the company was unable to submit
‘proof of funds’ to guarantee the funding of the purchase, and its financial offer was well below the tenders
submitted by other bidders. What is more, it is alleged that the founder members of TCP are the lawyers
who had previously drawn up the legal privatisation analysis for the government.

What information does the Commission have about this matter?

What value does the European Commission ascribe to transparent privatisation programmes in the
applicant countries?

Have any similar problems recently occurred in privatisation proceedings in applicant countries?

What measures will the Commission take if it is proved that tendering and privatisation conditions were
breached?

Can the Commission guarantee that similar problems will not arise when projects funded from EU pre-
accession aid schemes such as Sapard, ISPA or PHARE are selected?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

There have been several allegations related to the privatisation procedure of Bulgartabac from the three
rejected bidders who subsequently appealed before the Court on the Bulgarian privatisation agency
decision. The litigation procedure was initiated on 5 September 2002. On 29 October 2002, the Supreme
Administrative Court rendered a decision rejecting the appeals made by the rejected bidders on the overall
procedure. However, the Court also overruled the decision of the Bulgarian privatisation agency naming
the winning bidder. The privatisation agency, according to the Court, did not fully comply with all
procedures. An appeal was made against the decision of the Court, which was rejected on 16 December
2002.

The Treaty of Rome does not affect the rules in Member States governing the system of property
ownership (Article 295). Notwithstanding this, the sale of publicly owned companies may in certain
circumstances contain an element of State Aid.

When the privatisation is effected by way of the sale of shares on the stock exchange,
assumed to be on market conditions and not to involve aid.

it is generally