Commission staff working document accompanying the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy and (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) in order to set up a School Fruit Scheme - Impact Assessment summary {COM(2008) 442 final} {SEC(2008) 2225}
Date: 2008-07-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU action, common organisation of markets, food hygiene, fruit, health education, impact study, nutrition, public awareness campaign

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.7.2008 
SEC(2008) 2226 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying the 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing 
of the common agricultural policy and (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common 
organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural 
products (Single CMO Regulation) in order to set up a School Fruit Scheme 

Impact Assessment summary 

{COM(2008) 442 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2225} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

WHY A SCHOOL FRUIT SCHEME? 

In  September  2007,  when  the  European  Union  adopted  a  reform  of  the  Fruit  and  Vegetable 
regime, a key objective was to reverse the declining consumption of fruit and vegetables. 

When  approving  the  reform,  the  Council  invited  the  Commission  "In  light  of  the  dramatic 
increase in obesity amongst schoolchildren […] to come forward with a proposal for a school 
fruit scheme as soon as possible based on an impact assessment of the benefits, practicability 
and administrative costs involved." 

The  importance  of  fruit  and  vegetables  as  part  of  a  healthy  diet  is  advocated  by  the 
Commission White Paper on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity, which stresses the need for 
coherent action at European level. It states that “a School Fruit Scheme would be a step in the 
right direction”. 

In its report on the EU's 2008 draft general budget, the European Parliament "re-emphasises 
its  strong  commitment  to  the  proper  budgetary  endowment  of  funds  for  school  fruit  and 
vegetables" and "calls on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal…". 

•  Falling consumption 

In recent years the consumption of fruit & vegetables has been falling in the EU. As most fruit 
and vegetables are highly perishable, the level of waste is high; the per capita consumption of 
fruit  and  vegetables  is  therefore  very  difficult  to  measure  and  is  estimated  on  the  basis  of 
production and trade data. 

Average daily per capita consumption in EU-27 in 2006 is estimated at 380 g net; it will fall 
to 360 g net per day by 2010 if the current downward trend continues. The figures relate to the 
population as a whole independent of age. 

Consumption  varies  considerably  between  Member  States.  In  general,  major  producing  MS 
record  higher  consumption  rates,  but  a  negative  trend  has  recently  been  seen  even  in 
Mediterranean countries. Further the situation is particularly worrying among children. There 
has  been  an  important  change  in  the  diet  of  the  young  population,  and  consumption  of  fruit 
and vegetables is significantly lower than what it used to be. One of the factors responsible for 
the low consumption by children is the apparent lack of produce availability. 

Consequently,  the  majority  of  Europeans  and  in  particular  children  fail  to  meet  the 
recommended by the World Health Organisation minimum net intake of 400 g per day. 

•  The health issue 

Weight  problems  and  obesity  are  increasing  in  the  EU,  especially  among  children:  an 
estimated  22  million  children  are  overweight;  5.1  million  of  these  are  obese  (EU-25).  This 
child  obesity  figure  is  expected  to  rise  by  400 000  per  year,  leading  to  a  range  of  health, 
psychological  and  social  problems  with  a  high  cost  to  society  (see  point  3.3  of  the  Impact 
Assessment Report). 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
•  Social and economic aspects 

There is a strong link between low income, social factors and insufficient intake of fruit and 
vegetables. The lower the income, the lower the level of consumption of fruit and vegetables. 
Data suggest that the new MS would benefit most from increasing their consumption. Cardio-
vascular  disease,  in  particular,  is  more  prevalent  there  and  has  an  earlier  onset  than  in  the 
EU-15.  This  is  one  of  the  many  health  problems  linked  with  a  low  intake  of  fruit  and 
vegetables (point 3.4). 

2. 

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE 

Studies show that, as long as certain conditions are met, SFS are an effective tool to durably 
increase the consumption of fruit and vegetables. In particular, it is proven that a School Fruit 
Scheme should not only (some say even not mainly) concentrate on the provision of fruit and 
vegetables  at  educational  establishments  (schools)  but  also  include  a  set  of  accompanying 
measures aimed at awareness raising (point 4). 

Improving  the  eating  habits  of  children  and  adolescents  is  an  important  task  for  improving 
public  health,  and  reducing  the  long-term  risk  of  strokes  and  cancer,  as  well  as  chronic 
diseases  such  as  diabetes.  Actions  targeting  healthy  nutrition  need  to  occur  in  childhood  or 
adolescence,  to  prevent  or  reverse  the  adverse  health  effects  of  overweight  and  poor  eating 
habits.  

Studies show that healthy eating habits are formed in childhood: high consumers of fruit and 
vegetables  in  childhood  remain  high  consumers;  low  consumers  in  childhood  remain  low 
consumers as adults with negative consequences for their own children. 

Educational establishments are the best setting for reshaping and influencing the eating habits 
of children at the stage when they are formed. 

The conditions for a SFS successful implementation are underlined in the report (point 5.3). 
Studies show that, to be effective, it is important that produce is distributed free of charge. 

3. 

CURRENT SITUATION 

Initiatives  focused  on  increasing  fruit  and  vegetable  consumption  among  school  children 
already exist at EU level and in certain MS at national or local level. 

The fruit and vegetable reform increased the budget for co-funded information and promotion 
measures for these products by €6 million. For pr omotion campaigns aimed at school children 
the Community’s financial contribution is 60%. 

Other  EU  programmes  aim  to  improve  physical  and  mental  health  and  reduce  health 
inequalities  throughout  the  Community,  while  substantial  EU  funds  have  gone  into  obesity-
related research and projects on the beneficial effects of fruit and vegetables. 

In the MS, different models exist (point 5.2) which main limitations are: often small-scale and 
local; no assured continuity; few in the new MS, where consumption is generally lowest; not 
all  schemes  include  accompanying  measures,  which  are  essential  to  ensure  the  scheme's 
efficiency. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
4. 

OBJECTIVES (POINT 7) 

The overall aim of an EU SFS is to provide a policy and funding framework for Member State 
initiatives, to durably increase the share of fruit and vegetables in the diets of children, at the 
stage when their eating habits are formed. This represents an investment, which would in the 
future help reduce public health costs resulting from poor diet. 

The  main  specific  aims  would  be  to  arrest  declining  consumption  of  fruit  and  vegetables, 
increase long-term consumption among children, foster healthy eating habits that continue into 
adulthood;  enable  a  significant  number  of  schoolchildren  to  eat  fruit  and  vegetables,  so 
providing equal opportunities for all children in the EU and contributing to social cohesion. 

5. 

POLICY OPTIONS (POINT 8) 

The  four  options  explored  are  not  mutually  exclusive;  some  elements  could  be  combined. 
Impact  on  the  consumption  of  fruit  and  vegetables  and  consequent  health  benefits  would 
depend on the scale of implementation and the programme's long-term continuity. 

Option 1 – Status Quo 

No new initiative at European level. 

Option 2 – Networking 

Community intervention limited to supporting Member State SFS under three main headings: 
informing  the  public  (webpage,  brochures…);  providing  tools  for  action  (portal  for  SFS 
projects, expert database …); large-scale annual conference. 

Option 3 – Supporting initiatives 

EU  support  for  initiatives  promoting  fruit  and  vegetable  consumption  in  educational 
establishments,  but  excluding  funding  of  product  purchases.  Measures  could  include  those 
aimed  at  changing  children's  eating  habits,  such  as  training  and  awareness-raising,  the 
production of promotional material and site visits. 

Implementation  would  be  modelled  roughly  on  current  promotion  programmes,  with  an  EU 
contribution of 60%. Co-financing would be compulsory and proposing  organisations  would 
also have to fund part (e.g. 20%) of the programme's cost. 

Option 4 – Driving initiatives 

A single, flexible EU SFS framework, with voluntary participation by MS. 

The  EU  would  distribute  the  budget,  using  as  common  objective  criteria  the  number  of 
children in 6–10 core age group. Participating MS would then draw up a strategy, to include 
three elements: free distribution in educational establishments; accompanying measures such 
as promotion campaigns and awareness raising; monitoring and evaluation. 

The  purchase  of  fruit  &  vegetables  (including  logistics  and  distribution)  would  be  50%  co-
financed  by  the  European  Union,  except  in  convergence  regions  (75%).  An  annual  financial 
ceiling of €90M could be supplemen ted by MS and/or private funding. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Accompanying  measures  would  usually  be  funded  by  MS  but,  where  possible  under  the 
existing legal framework, could be supported under the EU promotion of agricultural products. 

6. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

•  Economic (point 9.1 and Annex 8) 

Increased  demand  arising  from  an  EU  SFS  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  fruit  and 
vegetable market. 

Options 1 and 2 would have no measurable impact on demand or consumption. Option 3 is 
likely to have a stronger effect. 

Option  4 could lead to the development of new, tasty,  ready-to-eat products for  children. A 
direct increase of 97 500 tonnes of fruit and vegetables per year could be the result, based on a 
daily portion of 120 grams for 30 weeks. Studies show a lasting increase in the intake of fruit 
and  vegetables  of  between  0.4  and  1.1  portions  per  day.  Assuming  an  average  increase  of 
0.7 portions consumed daily by children, this would result in approximately 800 000 tonnes of 
additional fruit and vegetables consumed yearly. 

Monitoring and evaluation is important to assess long-term impacts. Studies suggest that SFS 
can be an efficient way to sustainably increase consumption of fruit and vegetables. 

•  Budgetary (point 9.2 and Annex 13) 

Option 1 would have no effect on the EU or MS budgets. 

Option 2 would require an annual EU budget of €1.3  M. There would be no cost to Member 
States. 

Option  3:  the  fruit  and  vegetable  CMO  reform  includes  an  increase  of  the  EU  promotion 
budget by €6 million, which could be used to la unch an EU SFS. Member States would have 
to provide co-financing, in addition to obligatory private financing. 

Option 4 could be launched at an EU budget cost of €90 million for the provision of fruit and 
vegetables, including logistical costs. It is assumed that produce is given free of charge once a 
week throughout the school year (average 30 weeks) at an average cost of €0.20 per day per 
child  to  all  26  million  children  in  the  6–10  core  age  group.  Member  States  would  have  to 
finance  half  the  produce  cost  (25%  in  convergence  regions)  and  accompanying  measures. 
Total budget: €156 million of which 90 EU and 66 national budget. 

Healthcare savings and on avoiding lost hours at work could be substantial in the long term 
based on figures from the Netherlands and Denmark. 

•  Social (point 9.3) 

Public health and cohesion (Annex 9) 

The  aim  is  to  foster  healthy  eating  habits  among  schoolchildren,  so  contributing  to  a  lasting 
improvement in health and a decline in obesity: maintaining healthy body weight; reducing the 
risk of chronic non-communicable diseases. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Option 1 would not a have the desired impact. 

Options 2 and 3 could have a limited impact on the cohesion aspect; exchange of experience 
could help improve the effectiveness of current schemes. 

Option  4  could  have  the  strongest  impact,  as  it  provides  for  free  distribution  of  fruit  and 
vegetables. 

Promoting equal opportunities (Annex 10) 

The aim is to facilitate access to school fruit schemes by children in poorer regions and among 
disadvantaged sections of the population.  

Free  provision  of  fruit  and  vegetables  can  contribute  to  better  nutrition  and  may  have  a 
positive influence on learning ability, which is known to be affected by poor nutrition. This is 
more prevalent in children from deprived backgrounds. SFS can combat poor nutrition and can 
help lessen diet inequalities among socio-economic groups. 

Because  it  provides  for  the  free  distribution  of  fruit  and  vegetables,  Option  4  would  have  a 
much greater impact than Option 3. 

Employment and job creation 

Increased production is expected to imply some extra labour. Further new jobs could be linked 
to innovation and research. Option 4 would have a stronger impact than Option 3. 

•  Closer links with EU citizens 

By helping reconnect urban citizens with food and its producers, Option 4 would do most to 
positively  influence  public  perceptions.  Information  provision  under  Options  2  and  3  could 
also have a positive impact. 

•  Environmental impact 

As  the  management  of  any  scheme  would  be  decentralised, the  environmental impact of the 
different options would depend on how they are implemented. 

•  Administrative impact (point 9.6 and Annex 14) 

Option 2: no significant extra burden on either Member States or the Commission. 

Option 3: additional administrative burden at Member State level, which could be significant 
with a significant increase of EU funding. 

Option 4: additional resources needed at Member State level; two full-time officials needed at 
EU level, at least in the first years of implementation. 

•  Impact on third countries and international relations 

An EU SFS would have to be in full accordance with the EU international trade obligations. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
•  Proportionality and EU Value Added (point 6 and 9.8) 

Options 2 and 3 represent "traditional" EU actions, whose value is proven; the limited budget 
and "soft measure" character would, however, limit their impact. 

Option 4, with its bigger budget, can offer a greater added value; compulsory accompanying 
measures would strengthen its effect. 

An EU SFS is not a panacea for low fruit and vegetable consumption by children or the related 
health  problems.  Option  4  would  contribute  to  combating  these  problems,  with  a  potentially 
significant multiplier effect. 

•  Impact on stakeholders 

Options  2,  3  and  4  represent  an  improvement  as  compared  with  the  status  quo,  even  if  the 
scale of improvement differs significantly between them. 

Taxpayers  should  benefit  from  the  expected  reduction  of  national  health  expenditure  that 
should be seen in the years following implementation of the scheme.  

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION (POINT 11) 

It is anticipated that minimum evaluation standards for Member States would be included in 
the implementing rules of a possible Council Regulation for a SFS.  

8. 

CONCLUSIONS (POINT 12) 

To achieve the goal of increased consumption, a more intensive use of existing Commission 
instruments  is  possible  and  would  be  a  positive  step.  This  applies,  in  particular,  to 
communication  activities  under  Options  2  and  3  based  on  the  information  and  promotion 
measures for agricultural products. 

Option 4 is the most effective way of achieving the objectives of increasing consumption and 
improving health, if its implementation strictly respects the subsidiarity principle and national 
competences,  in  particular  on  health  and  education.  Its  effectiveness  would  be  increased  if 
complemented by Options 2 and 3. 

In  this  context  it  is  proposed  to  set  up  a  School  Fruit  Scheme  which,  for  maximum 
effectiveness,  brings  together  the  3  options  in  a  mutually  supportive  package.  It  would 
comprise the following elements: 

– 

free  distribution  of  fruits  and  vegetables  in  schools.  Community  aid  should  be 
granted to co-finance the supply of fruit and vegetables to pupils of the 6-10 core age 
group  in  educational  establishments  (schools),  the  related  logistics  and  monitoring 
and evaluation. For this purpose, it is proposed to provide for a budgetary allocation 
of  a  total  amount  of  EUR 90 million  under  Title  I  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1234/2007. It would allow for the extension of existing SFS in some Member States, 
and the establishment of programmes in MS without such programmes, often due to 
limited budgetary means. 
The  Community  co-financing  rate  would  be  at  the  level  of  50%  and  75%  in 
convergence regions; 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
– 

– 

– 

– 

accompanying  measures.  An  obligation  for  Member  States  to  develop  a  national 
strategy  in  consultation  with  public  health  and  education  authorities,  industry  and 
interested stakeholders. The strategy should lay down in which manner a School Fruit 
Scheme could be best implemented and integrated into the school curriculum. As part 
of the implementation it would be an obligation to highlight the EU involvement. The 
accompanying measures would primarily be nationally financed; 

networking  activities,  in  order  to  motivate  the  exchange  of  information  and 
knowledge  among  SFS  actors  and  stimulate  public  awareness  (as  presented  in 
Option 2 "networking"). This allocation should amount to €1.3 million; 

promotion of agricultural products, which could be supported in the framework of 
the  EU  promotion  of  agricultural  products  (as  presented  in  Option  3  "supporting 
initiatives").  In  particular,  MS  could  use  this  framework  to  carry  out  the  necessary 
accompanying measures aimed ad raising awareness on the beneficial effects of fruit 
and  vegetables  consumption.  The  recent  fruit  and  vegetables  reform  increased  the 
indicative budget for the promotion of these products by €6 million; 

monitoring  and  evaluation.  With  the  purpose  of  establishing  solid  data  for  further 
research on the effectiveness of a School Fruit Scheme in its different variants and for 
the exchange of "best practices", monitoring and evaluation should form an integral 
part of an EU scheme.  

All schemes would consequently include the three elements: 

•  the free distribution of fruit and vegetables in educational establishments (schools), 
•  a series of accompanying measures, 
•  monitoring and evaluation. 

Option 4 entails a significant budgetary cost, both for the EU and the Member States. For the 
SFS  to  be  effective  and  efficient,  products  should  be  distributed  free  of  charge  to  the  core 
target  group  (all  children  between  6  and  10)  for  a  sufficient  number  of  weeks  over  a  long 
enough period. 

A  total  annual  budget  of  €156  million  is  need ed.  Experience  will  show  if  this  budget  is 
appropriate to achieve the set objectives. The EU participation of €90 M w ould have to fit into 
the agricultural financial perspectives. 

EN 

8 

   EN