Special Report No 10/2011 ‘Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?’
Date: 2011-10-26
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU programme, fruit, milk, nutrition, school life

EUROPEAN
COURT OF AUDITORS

4
3
8
0
-
1
3
8
1
N
S
S

I

1
1
0
2

0
1
o
N

t
r
o
p
e
R

l

a
i
c
e
p
S

ARE THE SCHOOL MILK AND 
SCHOOL FRUIT SCHEMES 
EFFECTIVE?

EN

 
 
 
 
Special Report No 10 

 2011

ARE THE SCHOOL MILK  
AND SCHOOL FRUIT  
SCHEMES EFFECTIVE?

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1
Fax +352 4398-46410
E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu

Special Report No 10 

 2011

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 

It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011

ISBN 978-92-9237-289-7

doi:10.2865/84517

© European Union, 2011

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

CONTENTS

3

Paragraph

I–VIII	

SUMMARY

1–12	

INTRODUCTION

1–4	

TWO	SIMILAR	NUTRITIONAL	SCHEMES	IN	SCHOOLS

5–12	

OVERVIEW	OF	THE	TWO	SCHEMES’	ADMINISTRATIVE	ARRANGEMENTS

6–8 

MILK PRODUCTS

9–12 

FRUIT AND VEGETABLES

13–19	

AUDIT	SCOPE	AND	APPROACH

13–18	

	A	COMBINED	AUDIT	OF	THE	EFFECTIVENESS	OF	BOTH	SCHEMES	…

19	

…	AND	A	REGULARITY	REVIEW

20–81	

OBSERVATIONS

20–23	

24–37	

	THE	MILK	SCHEME	WAS	SEVERELY	CRITICISED	IN	A	1999	EVALUATION,	YET	NO	REAL	CHANGES	
HAVE	BEEN	MADE	SINCE

	ANTICIPATED	IMPACT	LIMITED	BY	MODEST	SPENDING	AND	NO	MECHANISM	FOR	TARGETING	
PRIORITY	NEEDS

24–26 

 NO SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS

27–32 

VERY MODEST SPENDING ON THE SCHEMES’ OBJECTIVES

33–37 

NO MECHANISM FOR TARGETING NUTRITIONAL PRIORITIES

38–64	

	DESIGN	PROBLEMS	RESTRICT	WHAT	THE	MILK	SCHEME	CAN	ACTUALLY	ACHIEVE.	HOWEVER,	
SOLUTIONS	EXIST.

38–45 

 THE MILK SCHEME IS RELATIVELY UNAT TRACTIVE

46–52 

53–64 

 THE IMMEDIATE IMPACT OF SPENDING UNDER THE MILK SCHEME IS COMPROMISED BY A SIGNIFICANT 
DEADWEIGHT EFFECT

 SOLUTIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN INTRODUCED BY THE COMMISSION (FRUIT) AND SOME  
MEMBER STATES (MILK)

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

4

65–81	

EDUCATIONAL	GOALS	TO	BE	CONSOLIDATED

66–76 

 EDUCATIONAL GOALS NOT WELL TAKEN UP BY THE MILK SCHEME, THUS LIT TLE LIKELIHOOD OF A 
SIGNIFICANT LONG-TERM IMPACT

77–81 

BET TER TAKE-UP OF EDUCATIONAL GOALS UNDER THE FRUIT SCHEME

82–87	

CONCLUSIONS	AND	RECOMMENDATIONS

ANNEX	I	 —	 COMPARISON	OF	THE	SCHOOL	MILK	SCHEME	AND	THE	SCHOOL	FRUIT	SCHEME

ANNEX	II	 —	 SUMMARY	OF	OBSERVATIONS	SENT	TO	THE	COMMISSION	CONCERNING	THE	

REGULARITY	OF	EXPENDITURE

ANNEX	III	 —	 SUMMARY	OF	THE	2005	EXTERNAL	EVALUATION	IN	THE	UK	OF	THE	NATIONAL	

TOP-UP	TO	THE	EU	SCHOOL	MILK	SUBSIDY	IN	ENGLAND

ANNEX	IV	 —	 A	HESITANT	START	TO	THE	FRUIT	SCHEME

REPLY	OF	THE	COMMISSION

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

	
	
	
	
55

SUMMARY

I.
U n d e r   t h e   C A P,   t h e   E u r o p e a n   U n i o n   h a s 
t wo similar instruments specifically target -
in g children :

—  the S chool M ilk S cheme,  through which 
g r a n t s   h a v e   b e e n   a v a i l a b l e   s i n c e   1 9 7 7 
fo r   t h e   s a l e   o f   re d u ce d - ra te   m i l k   p ro d -
uc ts in  sc hools;

—  th e S c hool Fr uit  S c he me,  wh ic h has co -
f i n a n c e d   t h e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   f r u i t   a n d 
vegetables in schools since the 2009/10 
sch ool year.

II.
B o t h   s c h e m e s   u s e   t h e   s a m e   b a s i c   s t rate g y 
( t h e   p r o v i s i o n   o f   a   p r o d u c t   i n   s c h o o l s )   t o 
pursue t he sam e t wo objec t ives :

( a)  t o   h e l p   s t a b i l i s e   t h e   m a r k e t   ( t h e  ‘m a r -

k et ’ obj ec t ive);

( b)  t o   p r o m o t e   h e a l t h y   e a t i n g   ( t h e   ‘n u t r i -

tion  an d h ealth’ obj ec tive) .

Fo r   t h e   M i l k   S c h e m e   i n   p a r t i c u l a r,   w h i c h 
w a s   o r i g i n a l l y   c o n c e i v e d   o f   a s   a   w a y   o f 
d i s p o s i n g   o f   s t o c k s ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s 
grad ually  come to prese nt  be tte r  n ut r it ion 
as t he m ain objec tive.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

6

SUMMARY

III.
Both schemes also aim to achieve a t wofold 
impac t:

(a)  i n   t h e   s h o r t   t e r m ,   t o   i n c re a s e   o r   m a i n -
tain the consumption of these produc ts 
by young people by mak ing them avail-
able in s cho ol s;

VI.
Te n   y e a r s   a f t e r   t h e   C o u n c i l ’s   d e c i s i o n   t o 
m a i n t a i n   t h e   S c h o o l   M i l k   S c h e m e   d e s p i t e 
its being rated ver y negatively and despite 
a ter mination proposal by the Commission, 
t h e   C o u r t   f o u n d   t h a t   t h e   s c h e m e   h a s   n o t 
b e e n   s i g n i f i c a n t l y   m o d i f i e d   a n d ,   a t   b e s t , 
still h as ver y  lim ited impac t. 

(b)  in the long term, to have an educational 

influ ence on eat ing h ab it s.

IV.
T h e   Co u r t   h a s   c a r r i e d   o u t   a   j o i n t   a u d i t   o f 
t h e   e f fe c t i v e n e s s   o f   b o t h   s c h e m e s .   G i v e n 
the ver y recent nature of the Fruit S cheme, 
t h e   a u d i t   f o c u s   w a s   o n   s c h o o l   m i l k ,   s u p -
p l e m e nte d   by   a   co m p a rat i ve   re v i e w   o f   t h e 
system  now  bein g set  u p  for f ru it. 

V.
To   a   l a r g e   e x t e n t ,   b o t h   s c h e m e s   a r e   n o w 
g r o u n d e d   i n   t h e   h y p o t h e s i s   t h a t   t h e r e   i s 
a   p o s i t i ve   l i n k   b e t we e n   p u b l i c   h e a l t h   a n d 
c o n s u m p t i o n   o f   t h e s e   s u b s i d i s e d   p r o d -
u c t s.  Th e   a u d i t   d i d   n o t   s e t   o u t   to   te s t   t h at 
hy p o t h e s i s,   b e c a u s e   t h e   Co u r t   i s   n o t   m a n -
d a t e d   t o   d o   s o.   H o w e v e r,   t h e   C o u r t   f i n d s 
t h a t   t h e   h y p o t h e s i s   i s   n o t   u n i v e r s a l l y 
accepted.

( a)  R e g a r d i n g   t h e   a n t i c i p a t e d   s h o r t -
t e r m   i m p a c t   ( t h e   p r o v i s i o n   o f   m i l k 
i n   s c h o o l s ) ,   t h e   C o u r t   f i n d s   t h a t   t h e 
sch eme is achievin g ve r y litt le: 

( i)  O w i n g   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   to   t h e   l ow   s u b -
s i d y   r a t e ,   t h e   s c h e m e   c o n t i n u e s   t o 
b e   r e l a t i v e l y   u n a t t r a c t i v e   a n d ,   a s 
a result, generally has no more than 
a   d e a d we i g ht   e f fe c t.   I n   m o s t    c a s e s, 
t h e   p r o d u c t s   s u b s i d i s e d   e i t h e r 
w o u l d   h a v e   b e e n   i n c l u d e d   i n   c a n -
t e e n   m e a l s   a n y w a y   o r   w o u l d   p r o b -
ably have been bought by the bene -
ficiar ies  e ven  wit hout  the s ubsidy. 

( ii)   The audit showed that, while the de -
c i s i o n   b y   c e r t a i n   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o 
organ ise distr ibut ion f ree  of  c harg e 
h a s   r e s u l t e d   i n   a   m o r e   s a t i s f a c t o r y 
i m p a c t ,   t h i s   fo r m   o f   d i s t r i b u t i o n   i s 
at present covered by costly nation-
a l   s c h e m e s   t o   w h i c h   t h e   C o m m u -
n i t y   b u d g e t   m a k e s   o n l y   a   m a r g i n a l 
contr ibution .

( b)  R e g a r d i n g   t h e   a n t i c i p a t e d   l o n g - t e r m 
impac t (education), the Cour t finds that 
at present the scheme takes insufficient 
account of the stated educational goals. 
I n   par t icular,  dist r ibution   is  n ot   always 
made  in a visible man ner,  an d n o  oth er 
s p e c i f i c   e d u c a t i o n a l   m e a s u r e s   h a v e 
been  introduce d. 

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

7

SUMMARY

V II.
O n   t h e   o t h e r   h a n d,   t h e   Co u r t   d i d   f i n d   t h at 
m o s t   o f   t h e   w e a k n e s s e s   t h a t   w e r e   i d e n -
t i f i e d   i n   r e s p e c t   o f   s c h o o l   m i l k   h a d   b e e n 
n o t e d   a n d ,   a t   l e a s t   i n   p a r t ,   t a k e n   i n t o 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n   b y   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i n   i t s 
p l a n n i n g   o f   t h e   F r u i t   S c h e m e .   T h e   m a i n 
co n s e q u e n ce s   we re   t h e   a d o p t i o n   o f   a   s i n -
g l e   m o d e l   fo r   d i s t r i b u t i o n ,   w h i c h   i s   m a d e 
f r e e   o f   c h a r g e   a n d   o u t s i d e   t h e   c a n t e e n s , 
a n d   t h e   i n t ro d u c t i o n   o f   t o o l s   t o   f a c i l i t a t e 
t h e   e d u c a t i o n a l   g o a l s .   H o w e v e r,   t h e s e 
i m p r o v e m e n t s   c o m e   a t   a   h i g h   c o s t ,   a   s i g -
n i f i c a nt   p a r t   o f   w h i c h   i s   b o r n e   by   n at i o n a l 
and local budgets. While it is still too ear ly 
t o   c o m e   t o   a n y   d e f i n i t i v e   c o n c l u s i o n s 
about the new scheme’s ultimate effec tive -
ness, it does nonetheless appear consider-
a b l y   m o r e   l i k e l y   t o   a c h i e v e   i t s   s h o r t -   a n d 
l o n g - t e r m   o b j e c t i v e s .   A s   s u c h ,   i t   o f f e r s 
some indication as to how the M ilk S cheme 
might  be improved.

V III.
The Cour t has drawn up the following main 
recomme ndat ion s:

(a)  G i v e n   t h e   v e r y   l i m i t e d   i m p a c t   o f   t h e 
M i l k   S c h e m e,   t h e   m at te r   o f   w h e t h e r   o r 
n o t   t o   re t a i n   i t   s h o u l d   b e   m a d e   c o n d i -
t i o n a l   o n   t h e   p o s s i b i l i t y   o f   t h o r o u g h 
r e f o r m s   t o   r e m e d y   t h e   w e a k n e s s e s 
th at h ave be en identified. The d e c isi on 
s h o u l d ,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r,   t a k e   a c c o u n t   o f 
t h e   p r o d u c t ’s   r e c o g n i s e d   n u t r i t i o n a l 
v a l u e   i n   t h e   l i g h t   o f   t h e   p u b l i c   h e a l t h 
o b j e c t i v e s .   I f   t h o r o u g h   r e f o r m s   a r e   t o 
be under taken, they should be based on 
th e co nsiderat io ns set  ou t b el ow.

( b)  I f  th e  M ilk   S ch eme  is   to  have  a  rea l  im-
pac t on the volume of milk consumed in 
s c h o o l s,   t h e   s u b s i d y   p a i d   p e r   k i l o gra m 
s h o u l d   b e   i n c r e a s e d   v e r y   s i g n i f i c a n t l y 
t o   a   l e ve l   w h e re   m i l k   c a n   b e   d i s t r i b u t-
ed f ree of charge. However, th is recom -
m e n d a t i o n   w o u l d   n o t   e n t a i l   i n c r e a s e d 
E U   s p e n d i n g ;   o n   t h e   co nt ra r y,   i t   wo u l d 
mean  focusing  resources  o n a nar rower 
targ et populat ion , wh ich  could  also  e f-
fe c t i v e l y   c o n t r i b u t e   t o   a d d r e s s i n g   t h e 
problem of deadweight. The population 
to  be  targ eted  would  have  to  be  de ter-
m i n e d   i n   t h e   l i g h t   o f   a   s c a l e   o f   n u t r i -
tion al ne eds.

( c)   W h e r e   t h e   M i l k   S c h e m e   i s   c o n c e r n e d , 
s te p s   s h o u l d   b e   t a k e n   to   l i m i t   t h e   s p e -
c ific d eadweig ht effec t associate d wi th 
d i s t r i b u t i o n   t h r o u g h   c a n t e e n s ,   w h i l s t 
tak in g  care  to  e nsure  m aximum   vi s ibil-
it y for  th e sc heme.

( d)  W h e r e   t h e   e d u c a t i o n a l   o b j e c t i v e s   a r e 
c o n c e r n e d ,   t h e   t w o   s c h e m e s   s h o u l d 
a d o p t   a   m o r e   h a r m o n i s e d   a s s e s s m e n t 
o f   t h e   r o l e   a n d   i m p o r t a n c e   o f   a c c o m -
pany ing  measures. I f th e impo r t ance  of 
th ese m easures is confir med, t he  de si r-
a b i l i t y   o f   m a k i n g   t h e m   e l i g i b l e   f o r   E U 
co - finan cing  could be recon side red.

( e)  More generally, there should be greater 
co o rd i n at i o n   a n d   s y n e rg y   b e t we e n   t h e 
t w o   s c h e m e s   i n   o r d e r   t o   e n s u r e   t h a t 
they present a har monised approach to 
n ut r ition  and are managed  e ff ic ie nt ly.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

INTRODUCTION

8

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/tasty-bunch/index_en.htm

T W O 	 S I M I L A R 	 N U T R I T I O N A L 	 S C H E M E S 	 I N	
S C H O O L S

1.	

‘ E at   i t,   D r i n k   i t,   M ove   i t ! ’ Th i s   wa s   t h e   s l o g a n   o f   t h e   Co m m i s -
sio n’s   2 009-10  pub l ic it y  campaign   to  prom ote   he alt hy   e ati n g 
by  c hildre n  in  t he  EU. This  c ampai gn,   wh ic h   was   f un de d  f rom 
the   EU’s  agr icul tu ral   b u dget,   aim ed   to  e n coura ge   ch il dre n   to 
a d o p t   b e t t e r   e a t i n g   h a b i t s .  T h e  ‘ Ta s t y   B u n c h’  c a m p a i g n   w a s 
l a u n c h e d   by   m e a n s   o f   a   t rave l l i n g   ex h i b i t i o n   a n d   wa s   e s s e n-
tially channelled through the following t wo schemes for mak-
in g fo o d pro duc t s  avail ab l e in sc h ools :

(a ) T h e   S c h o o l   M i l k   S c h e m e 1  h a s   m a d e   g r a n t s   a v a i l a b l e 
s i n c e   1 9 7 7   f o r   t h e   s a l e   o f   r e d u c e d - r a t e   m i l k   p r o d u c t s   t o 
sc ho ol c hil dren .

(b) T h e   S c h o o l   Fr u i t   S c h e m e 2  w a s   s e t   u p   i n   t i m e   fo r   t h e   s t a r t 
o f   t h e   2 0 0 9 / 1 0   s c h o o l   ye a r.   I t   o f fe r s   co - f i n a n c i n g   towa rd s 
t he co st s of  dis tr ibut ing fruit an d  ve g et able s  in  s ch oo ls.

1  Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 657/2008 of 10 July 2008 

laying down detailed rules for 

applying Council Regulation 

(EC) No 1234/2007 as regards 

Community aid for supplying 

milk and certain milk products 

to pupils in educational 

establishments (OJ L 183, 

11.7.2008, p. 17).

2  Council Regulation (EC) 
No 13/2009 (OJ L 5, 9.1.2009, 

p. 1) and Commission Regulation 

(EC) No 288/2009 of 7 April 2009 

laying down detailed rules for 

applying Council Regulation 

(EC) No 1234/2007 as regards 

Community aid for supplying 

fruit and vegetables, processed 

fruit and vegetables and 

banana products to children in 

educational establishments, in 

the framework of a School Fruit 

Scheme (OJ L 94, 8.4.2009, p. 38).

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

9

2.	

Th e   c u r re n t   s i t u a t i o n   i s   t h e re fo re   t h a t ,   s i n ce   2 0 0 9 ,   t h e   Co m-
m i s s i o n   h a s   h a d   t w o   s i m i l a r   i n s t r u m e n t s,   o n e   c o v e r i n g   m i l k 
p r o d u c t s   a n d   t h e   o t h e r   f r u i t   a n d   v e g e t a b l e s   ( s e e   t h e   c o m-
parative table of the t wo schemes in A nnex I). They target the 
same beneficiaries and have broadly comparable budgets (see 
Gra ph  1).

3.	

B ot h sc hem es p ursu e the s ame t wo  obje c ti ves :

(a ) to  he lp  s tab il is e t he mar ket ( th e ‘m ar ke t ’ o bj ec t ive ) 3;

3  Recital 43 of Council Regulation 
(EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 

2007 establishing a common 

organisation of agricultural markets 

and on specific provisions for certain 

agricultural products (Single CMO 

Regulation) (OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1): 

‘To contribute to balancing the milk 

market and to stabilise the market 

prices for milk and milk products’. 

Recital 2 of Council Regulation (EC) 

No 13/2009: ‘[…] the School Fruit 

Scheme would meet the objectives 

(b) t o   p r o m o t e   h e a l t h y   e a t i n g   ( t h e   ‘ n u t r i t i o n   a n d   h e a l t h ’ 

of the CAP, including the promotion 

o bj ec t ive) 4.

Fo r   t h e   M i l k   S c h e m e   i n   p a r t i c u l a r,   w h i c h   w a s   o r i g i n a l l y   i n -
t e n d e d   a s   a   m e a s u r e   t o   d i s p o s e   o f   s t o c k s ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n 
h a s   g r a d u a l l y   c o m e   t o   p r e s e n t   b e t t e r   n u t r i t i o n   a s   t h e   m a i n 
ob jec tive  (se e B ox   1).

of earnings in agriculture, the 

stabilisation of markets and the 

availability of both current and future 

supplies’.

4  Recital 2 of Regulation (EC) 
No 657/2008: ‘In the light of the 

fight against obesity, and in order to 

provide children with healthy dairy 

products […]’. 

Recital 4 of Regulation (EC) 

No 13/2009: ‘The clear health benefits 

of a School Fruit Scheme […]’.

G R A P H   1

E U 	 S P E N D I N G 1	 O N 	T H E 	 S C H O O L 	 M I L K 	 S C H E M E 	 A N D 	 S C H O O L 	 F R U I T 	 S C H E M E	
( I N   M I L L I O N   E U R O )

100

80

60

40

20

0

2008

2009

2010

2011

School milk

School fruit

Source: EU budget.

1	 For	2008,	2009	and	2010,	actual	
expenditure,	for	2011,	forecast	
expenditure	in	the	draft	2011	general	
budget.	
For	the	Fruit	Scheme,	see	Annex IV	
for updated	forecasts.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

	
10

4.	

B a s e d   o n   t h i s   s t r a t e g y,   t h e   t wo   s c h e m e s   t a rg e t   a n   i m p a c t   a t 
t wo  l evel s:

5  Recital 4 of Regulation (EC) No 
657/2008: ‘[…] the educational 

(a ) in the shor t term, to increase or maintain the consumption 
o f  t hese   p rod uc ts  by  youn g  pe opl e  by   m ak in g   t he m   avail-
ab l e in  scho o ls;

purpose of the scheme’. 

Recital 2 of Regulation (EC) 

No 13/2009: ‘[…] by durably 

increasing the share of fruit 

and vegetables in the diets of 

(b) in the long term, to have an educational influence on eating 

children at the stage when their 

hab it s 5.

eating habits are being formed 

[…] bring young consumers to 

appreciate fruit and vegetables 

and thus enhance future 

consumption’.

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/index_fr.htm

B O X   1

T H E 	 N U T R I T I O N A L 	 A N D 	 E D U C AT I O N A L 	 O B J E C T I V E S 	 O F 	T H E 	 M I L K 	 S C H E M E

In an internal note of 1990, the Commission said ‘The School Milk Scheme has not been designed 
as a means for the disposal of surplus milk […]. Instead it is a true educational measure that is 
primarily intended to maintain or promote in schools the consumption of milk and milk products. 
The scheme also has a nutritional aspect in that the milk products distributed could supplement an 
insufficient or unbalanced diet. It undeniably has the secondary effect of ensuring the consumption 
of a significant volume of milk products which would otherwise be added to the milk surplus and 
disposed of under other measures.’

Source: The Commission, 1990.

‘The School Milk Scheme has both nutritional and educational character and contributes to the 
fight against obesity and to providing essential elements for children’s growth and health.’

Source: Press release by Commissioner Fischer Boel, 2008.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

11

5.	

6.	

7.	

O V E R V I E W 	 O F 	T H E 	T W O 	 S C H E M E S’	
A D M I N I S T R AT I V E 	 A R R A N G E M E N T S	

B ot h for ms o f su p p or t are paid di re c tly  to s c h ools  or  to ot h er 
a p p l i c a n t s ,   w h i c h   m a y   b e   e d u c a t i o n   a u t h o r i t i e s   ( g e n e r a l l y 
a  lo c al   co uncil) ,  s upp l iers   o r  inte r m ed iar y   bodi es   s e t  up  s pe -
c i f i c a l l y   f o r   t h a t   p u r p o s e 6.   O n c e   a p p r o v e d ,   a p p l i c a n t s   h a v e 
operational responsibilit y for the supply procedure (purchase, 
sto ra ge, dist r ibutio n and  ad min is trat ion ).

M I L K 	 P R O D U C T S

Aid comes in the form of a fixed-rate EU subsidy of 18,15 euro 
fo r   1 0 0   k g   o f   m i l k 7,   w i t h   n o   o b l i g a t i o n   fo r   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o 
contr ib ute.

Each establishment decides whether or not to par ticipate, and 
t h e   E U   c o n t r i b u t i o n   i s   c a l c u l a t e d   o n   t h e   s u m   o f   t h e   e l i g i b l e 
applications that are received. No budgetar y ceiling has been 
d e f i n e d   b y   t h e   r e g u l a t i o n .   H o w e v e r,   t h e   l a t t e r   p r o v i d e s   f o r 
a  m aximu m  sub sidisab l e  qu antit y   of  0 , 2 5   li tre  pe r   sc h ool  day 
a n d   p e r   p u p i l   i n   r e g u l a r   a t t e n d a n c e   a t   t h e   e s t a b l i s h m e n t 8, 
a ceil ing t hat  is no t us ual l y  reach e d by   th e  applica nt s.

6  As some Member States 
have opted to narrow the range 

of bodies that may apply, the 

schemes are managed in very 

different ways. For example, 

authorisation to receive milk 

has been granted to over 

11 000 schools and local councils 

in France, around 40 suppliers 

in Spain and just four producers’ 

organisations in Italy.

7  This is the rate established in 
Regulation (EC) No 657/2008. In 

the case of other eligible milk 

products (cheese, yoghurt, etc.), 

the regulation provides a scale 

by category for conversion into 

kilogram equivalents of milk.

8  Article 5 of Regulation (EC) 
No 657/2008.

G R A P H   2

S C H O O L 	 M I L K 	 — 	 R E L AT I V E 	 S H A R E 	 O F 	T H E 	 D I F F E R E N T 	 M O D E L S 	 I N 	T H E	
M E M B E R 	 S TAT E S 	V I S I T E D

Distributed
free of charge
23 %

Sold at a
reduced rate
33 %

Source: Member States visited.

Canteens
44 %

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

12

8.	

Although the scheme may take any number of different forms, 
t h re e   m o d e l s   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   we re   e n c o u n te re d   i n   t h e   M e m b e r 
States  t hat  were vis ited (s ee Gra ph  2 an d B ox  2) :

(a ) s u b s i d i e s   f o r   m i l k   p r o d u c t s   i n c l u d e d   i n   c a n t e e n   m e a l s 9 

(m ainl y Fra nce, I tal y  and Swede n );

(b) m i l k   s o l d   a t   a   r e d u c e d   p r i c e   o u t s i d e   c a n t e e n s   ( G e r m a n y, 
Po lan d (se condar y s ch ools)  and th e Un ited  K in g do m ( c hi l-
dre n ab ove 5 ye ars o f ag e)) ;

(c) mil k  d ist r ib ute d  f ree  o f  c harge  outs i de   ca nte en s 10  ( mainly 
Po l a n d   ( p r i m a r y )   a n d   t h e   U n i te d   K i n g d o m   ( c h i l d re n   u p   to 
5 ye ars o f ag e)).

F R U I T 	 A N D 	V E G E TA B L E S

9.	

EU aid accounts for between 50 % and 75 % 11 of the cost of the 
fruit and vegetables distr ibuted, including cer tain associated 
c h a r g e s ,   w i t h   t h e   r e m a i n d e r   u s u a l l y   b e i n g   f i n a n c e d   b y   t h e 
M e mb er St ate s.

9  Milk products ‘used in the 
preparation of meals within the 

premises of the educational 

establishment and which do 

not involve heat treatment may 

benefit from the aid’ (Article 5(4) 

of Regulation (EC) No 657/2008).

10  As the EU aid only covers a 
fraction of costs, distribution 

free of charge is mainly thanks 

to the national budgets. See 

paragraphs 61 and 63.

11  The percentage varies 
between Member States, given 

the higher rate available in 

convergence and outermost 

regions.

B O X   2

T Y P I C A L 	 E X A M P L E S 	 O F 	 M I L K 	 P R O D U C T S 	T H AT 	 A R E 	 S U B S I D I S E D 	 I N 	T H E	
M E M B E R 	 S TAT E S 	V I S I T E D	

 ο France: portions of cheese or yoghurt as a dessert (canteens)

 ο Italy: parmesan on a serving of pasta or mozzarella in a salad (canteens)

 ο Sweden: self-service milk fountains during meals (canteens)

 ο United Kingdom and Poland: cartons of milk sold at a reduced rate or distributed free of charge 

to younger children, mainly with help from the national budget

 ο Germany: cartons of flavoured milk sold at a reduced rate in school shops

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

13

10.  

11.  

The regulation sets an overall budget ceiling of 90 million euro, 
shared among the par ticipating M ember States. Each M ember 
S t a te   i s   f re e   to   d e c i d e,   t h ro u g h   i t s   n a t i o n a l   s t r a te g y,   h ow   to 
divide  its natio nal  al l o cat ion  amon g  potenti al  applic ant s.

Suppor t for the distribution of fruit is conditional on the man -
d a t o r y   a d o p t i o n   o f   a c c o m p a n y i n g   e d u c a t i o n a l   m e a s u r e s   t o 
e n s u re   t h a t   t h e   s c h e m e   i s   a   s u c c e s s.   A l t h o u g h   i n e l i g i b l e   fo r 
E U   f u n d i n g,   t h e s e   m e a s u re s   a re   c o n s i d e re d   a   c r u c i a l   p a r t   o f 
the  sc heme.

12.   All of the fruit that the auditors saw being distributed was free 

of  charg e and sup p l ied o ut side m ea lti me s.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH

14

A 	 CO M B I N E D 	 AU D I T 	 O F 	T H E 	 E F F E C T I V E N E S S 	 O F	
B OT H 	 S C H E M E S 	…

13.  

The audit was mainly concer ned with the effec tiveness of the 
S c h o o l   M i l k   a n d   Fr u i t   S c h e m e s.   I t   wa s   fe l t   t h at   t h e   l a u n c h   o f 
the Fruit Scheme in 2009, using a model similar to that already 
i n   p l a c e   fo r   t h e   M i l k   S c h e m e,   w a s   t h e   r i g h t   t i m e   fo r   s u c h   a n 
an al ysis.   B e cau se  o f  t his  t imin g,   th e   audi t  l arg ely   focus ed   on 
t h e   M i l k   S c h e m e,   s u p p l e m e n t e d   b y   a   c o m p a r a t i ve   r e v i e w   o f 
the  system  n ow  b eing s et  up for  f r uit.

14.  

The audit questions asked in respect of the schemes’ effec tive -
ne ss  were:

(a ) Is par ticipation sufficiently encouraged (assessment of any 
disincentives to par ticipate) and is it enough for the objec-
t ives  to  be  ac hieved?

(b) D o e s   s p e n d i n g   h a v e   a   d i r e c t   i m p a c t   o n   t h e   b e n e f i -
c i a r i e s ’  c o n s u m p t i o n   o f   t h e   p r o d u c t s   d i s t r i b u t e d ?  
(Deadweight effec t: would the produc ts be consumed if no 
aid were  availab l e? )

(c) Are the schemes likely to meet their educational objec tives 

and  infl ue nce fu tu re eating  habit s?

G R A P H   3

S C H O O L 	 M I L K 	 — 	2009	 PAYM E N T S 	 BY 	 M E M B E R 	 S TAT E

Others
19 %

Italy
4 %

Finland
6 %

Germany
9 %

Poland
19 %

France
18 %

United Kingdom
10 %

Sweden
15 %

Source: European Commission.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

15

15.  

16.  

17.  

To  a  l arge  ex tent,  b ot h  sc hemes  a re  now  grounde d  in  th e   hy-
p o t h e s i s   t h a t   t h e r e   i s   a   p o s i t i v e   l i n k   b e t w e e n   p u b l i c   h e a l t h 
a n d   c o n s u m p t i o n   o f   t h e s e   s u b s i d i s e d   p r o d u c t s 1 2.   T h e   a u d i t 
d i d   n o t   s e t   o u t   to   te s t   t h a t   hy p o t h e s i s,   b e c a u s e   t h e   Co u r t   i s 
not  m and ated  to  do  s o.  H owever, th e  Cour t fi n ds  t hat  t he  hy-
pot hesis  is  n ot  universal l y accepte d.

12  See paragraph 3(b) and Box 1.

13  North Rhine-Westphalia and 
Bavaria.

Th e  au dit  l o oke d  at  the  2008/09   a nd  2 0 0 9 /1 0  s c ho ol  ye ar s.   I t 
a l s o   e x a m i n e d   t h e   p r e p a r a t i o n s   t h a t   we r e   m a d e   fo r   t h e   t wo 
r e g u l a t i o n s   c u r r e n t l y   i n   f o r c e   a n d ,   f o r   t h e   M i l k   S c h e m e ,   a s -
ses sed  the mo st recent eval uation  res ul ts. 

The audit was carried out at the Commission and in Germany 13, 
Fran ce, I tal y,  Po l and, Sweden an d  th e  Un ite d K i n gd om. Th e se 
six M ember States (the last t wo were par ticipating in the M ilk 
S cheme only) accounted for 75  % of M ilk S cheme payments in 
2009 and 63 % of the budget estimate for the first year of the 
Fr uit  S c heme  (see G ra p hs   3 a nd 4) .

G R A P H   4

S C H O O L 	 F R U I T 	 — 	2009/10	 B U D G E T 	 BY 	 M E M B E R 	 S TAT E

Others
30 %

Spain
7 %

Poland
10 %

Source: European Commission.

Germany
23 %

Italy
17 %

France
13 %

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

16

18.  

19.  

The auditors examined the procedures set up by the Commis-
sion and the Member States for implementing and monitoring 
the  sc hemes. They  al so vis ited 3 1  appli c ants  re ce iv in g  ai d on 
b e h a l f   o f   o ve r   4 0   0 0 0   e d u c a t i o n a l   e s t a b l i s h m e n t s   a n d   s o m e 
2   m i l l i o n   c h i l d re n .   Fu r t h e r   v i s i t s   we re   m a d e   t o   5 6   e s t a b l i s h -
m e nt s   ( at te n d e d   by   ove r   1 6   0 0 0   c h i l d re n )   p a r t i c i p a t i n g   i n   at 
lea st  o ne of  t he s ch emes.

…	 A N D 	 A   R E G U L A R I T Y 	 R E V I E W

The audit also included a regularit y review of key aspec ts that 
we re   m o s t   l i k e l y   to   h ave   a   d i re c t   e f fe c t   o n   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   a n d 
p o l i c y   e f fe c t i ve n e s s.   Pro b l e m s   —   a m o n g s t   o t h e r   t h i n g s   w i t h 
re g a rd   to   t h e   i nte r p re t at i o n   o f   t h e   r u l e s   i n   fo rce   —   we re   d e -
t e c t e d   i n   t h e   v a r i o u s   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t h a t   w e r e   v i s i t e d ,   a n d 
w e r e   r a i s e d   i n   a   c o m m u n i c a t i o n   t o   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a n d   t h e 
M e m b e r   St ate s   co n ce r n e d.   Fo r   f u r t h e r   i n fo r m at i o n ,   t h e s e   a s-
pe c ts  are su mmar ised  in  A n n ex  II.

Source: http://agriculture.gouv.fr/un-fruit-pour-la-recre

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

OBSERVATIONS

17

20.  

21.  

T H E 	 M I L K 	 S C H E M E 	WA S 	 S E V E R E LY 	 C R I T I C I S E D	
I N 	 A  1999	 E VA LUAT I O N ,	Y E T 	 N O 	 R E A L 	 C H A N G E S	
H AV E 	 B E E N 	 M A D E 	 S I N C E

In 1999 the School M ilk Scheme was the subjec t at Community 
level of an ex ternal evaluation 14. The evaluation was ex tremely 
c r i t i c a l   o f   t h e   s c h e m e   a n d   i t   re co m m e n d e d   te r m i n a t i o n   o f   i t 
b e c a u s e   o f   i t s   l ow   e f fe c t i ve n e s s   a n d   p o o r   co s t – b e n e f i t   r a t i o 
(see  B ox   3).

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   r e a c t e d   b y   p r o p o s i n g   t h a t   t h e   s c h e m e   b e 
wo u n d   u p   —   a   p ro p o s a l   t h a t   w a s   re j e c te d   by   t h e   Co u n c i l.   I n 
resp o nse to  this p ol itic al  d ecis ion ,  t h e Com mis s ion  th en  sub -
mitted new proposals with a view to reducing the Communit y 
contribution to the scheme. These were only par tially accepted 
(see  B ox   4).

14  ‘Evaluation of the School 
Milk Measure’, finalised in 

February 1999 by CEAS 

Consultants (Wye) Limited — 

Centre for European Agricultural 

Studies, and the Institute for 

the Management of Dairy 

Companies at Technische 

Universität München. 

Available on the Commission’s 

website at http://ec.europa.

eu/agriculture/eval/reports/

schoolmilk/.

B O X   3

19 99	 E VA LUAT I O N 	 — 	 CO N C LU S I O N 	 A N D 	 F I N A L 	 R E CO M M E N D AT I O N

‘[…] Judged purely against the current, stated documented objectives of the measure (maintaining and 
increasing consumption of milk products),	the measure has had a marginal positive impact and repre-
sents poor value for money. This suggests that the Commission should give serious consideration to 
withdrawing the measure. The main implications of such action would be to place the onus for continu-
ing to provide any form of subsidised milk to schoolchildren on Member State governments. Whilst it is 
impossible to predict the outcome of such an action it is likely that the net effect of such action would 
undoubtedly lead to decreased availability of milk products and decreased consumption in schools. 
However, the evidence presented in this report suggests that the impact would probably be very limited.

[…] As the main recommendations given above focus on discontinuation of the measure and use 
of resources for alternative, more effective measures, no further recommendations relating to im-
proving the efficiency of the existing measure are made. The authors consider that the focus of 
any change should seek to address the fundamental weaknesses of the measure in achieving its 
objectives. Whilst making recommendations for improving the efficiency of the existing measure 
could be offered, these would not significantly address the issues contributing to the very limited 
effectiveness of the measure.’

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

18

22.  

23.  

I n  2005 , ano ther  eval uation was  m ade  i n th e UK 15, re latin g to 
both the EU suppor t and the top -up from the national budget 
( s e e   p a r a g r a p h   8 ( b ) ) .   I t s   c o n c l u s i o n s   d e s c r i b e   t h e   m e a s u r e 
a s   i n e f fe c t i ve,   e x p e n s i ve   a n d   c h a r a c te r i s e d,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r,   by 
dispropor tionate management costs and low added value. The 
eva lu at io n reco m mends t hat t he U K g ove r n me nt  s hould ‘con-
s i d e r   d i s c u s s i n g   w i t h   t h e   E u r o p e a n   C o m m i s s i o n   t h e   i d e a   o f 
endin g t he EU  SMSS’.

15  ‘Evaluation of the National 
Top-Up to the EU School Milk 

Subsidy in England’, for the 

Department for Environment, 

Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), 

by London Economics in 

cooperation with Dr Susan New. 

Excerpts are given in Annex III, 

together with a link.

For   it s   pa r t,   t he   Co mm is s i on   h as  re gu la r ly   s ou g ht   s in ce   19 99 
t o   i m p rove   t h e   s c h e m e   b y   re wo r k i n g   i t s   i m p l e m e n t i n g   r u l e s 
(simp l ifying   t hem,   am ending  t he   li st   of   produc t s  a nd   th e   aid 
r a t e s   b y   c a t e g o r y,   e t c . ) .   H o w e v e r,   t h e s e   d e v e l o p m e n t s   h a v e 
remaine d ‘ma rginal ’ —  i. e.  they  h ave  n ot af fec te d t he  logic of 
the scheme or its main features. Although generally ack nowl -
e d g e d   to   b e   p o s i t i ve,   t h e re fo re,   t h e   a m e n d m e nt s   m a d e   h ave 
in no way responded to the fundamental criticisms concerning 
the  sc heme’s b asic  concep tion.

B O X   4

T H E 	 CO M M I S S I O N ’S 	 P R O P O S A L S 	 I N 	 R E S P O N S E 	TO 	T H E 	1999	 E VA LUAT I O N

‘Drawing on this recommendation, the Commission initially intended to propose the suppression 
of the scheme and presented its preliminary draft budget for 2000 based on this assumption […] 
all participants pleading in favour of maintaining the EU subsidy notably because of its nutritional 
merits […] In the light of this discussion, the Commission reconsidered its initial intention and is now 
proposing a co-financing of the school milk programme, on a 50/50 basis. […] In view of the tight 
budgetary framework and of the low cost/efficiency of the measure, the budget line for school milk 
cannot be maintained as its current level’ […] ‘The school milk programme is very often defended 
on the basis of broader health, nutritional or even social objectives.’ While the relevance of this argu-
ment is fully recognised, ‘[…] these objectives are too ambitious for a scheme that is part of the CMO 
for milk and dairy products. Again, […] when Member States invoke such objectives, they should be 
willing to share the responsibility for expenditure under the scheme.’ 

Source: Note from DG VI to the office of the Commissioner responsible for agriculture and rural development, 
March 2000.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

19

A N T I C I PAT E D 	 I M PAC T 	 L I M I T E D 	 BY 	 M O D E S T	
S P E N D I N G 	 A N D 	 N O 	 M E C H A N I S M 	 F O R	
TA R G E T I N G 	 P R I O R I T Y 	 N E E D S

N O 	 S AT I S FAC TO R Y 	 P E R F O R M A N C E 	 A S S E S S M E N T	
S YS T E M S

24.  

T h e   s c h e m e s ’  t w o   o b j e c t i v e s   –  ‘ m a r k e t ’  a n d  ‘ n u t r i t i o n   a n d 
h e a l t h’  –   a r e   d e f i n e d   v e r y   b r o a d l y   a n d   i n   q u a l i t a t i v e   t e r m s 
(see Box 5). They have not been expressed quantitatively, still 
les s  as ‘ SMA R T ’ ob jec tives 16.

25.   Where the Milk Scheme is concerned, in the absence of precise 
ob jec tive s  ag ainst   w hic h  to   as ses s  th e  poli c y ’s  ef fe c ti ve n es s, 
t h e   av a i l a b l e   i n d i c a t o r s   ( q u a n t i t i e s   d i s t r i b u t e d   b y   c a t e g o r y, 
a p p rox i m a t e   n u m b e r   o f   p a r t i c i p a t i n g   p u p i l s )   a re   a c t i v i t y   i n -
dicators that give no measure of polic y outcomes or impac t 17. 
The audit also highlighted the unreliabilit y of the information 
g at h e re d,   e s p e c i a l l y   t h e   f i g u re s   fo r   t h e   a p p rox i m ate   n u m b e r 
of  pa r t icip at ing  p up il s 18. 

16  Article 27(3) of Council 
Regulation (EC, Euratom) 

No 1605/2002 (OJ L 248, 

16.9.2002, p. 1) requires ‘specific, 

measurable, achievable, relevant 

and timed [SMART] objectives’ 

to be set ‘for all sectors of activity 

covered by the budget’.

17  As early as April 1996 an 
internal note at the Commission 

said: ‘The key factor in assessing 

effectiveness is the measure’s 

impact on the image of milk 

and consumption levels, but it is 

impossible for the departments 

in DG VI to appraise these areas 

or assess consumer response.’

18  For example, 7,3 million 
children — more than one 

third of all participants — were 

counted in France. However, 

these were pupils enrolled at participating establishments in France, whereas usually only those attending canteens actually benefit from the 

scheme. The figure given for beneficiaries in France was therefore inflated by approximately 3 million.

B O X   5

T H E 	 G E N E R A L 	 N AT U R E 	 O F 	T H E 	 M I L K 	 S C H E M E 	 O B J E C T I V E S

 ο ‘To contribute to balancing the milk market and to stabilise […] prices’ (recital 43 of Council 

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007)

 ο ‘… play a role within broader general and health, nutritional or social policy objectives’ (ex-
planatory memorandum on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) 
No 1255/1999)

 ο ‘It also plays an educational role by supporting the development of good eating and nutritional 

habits that will last a lifetime’ (Agriculture and Rural Development DG website)

 ο ‘The School Milk Scheme has both nutritional and educational character and contributes to the 

fight against obesity’ (press release by Commissioner Fischer Boel, 11 July 2008)

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

20

19  At the average EU co-
financing rate of around 58 %, 

the current budget ceiling of 

90 million euro translates into 

total expenditure (Commission 

and Member States) of some 

155 million euro.

20  Both schemes aim to go 
beyond the immediate impact 

of the distributed quantities by 

having a lasting educational 

impact on eating habits. 

This aspect is examined in 

paragraphs 66 et seq.

21  ‘The volume of milk and 
milk products supplied under 

the scheme is extremely small 

relative to the size of the EU 

market (0,3 % of total milk 

delivered to EU dairies in 

1996/97). It is also declining 

in relative importance. […] At 

best, any impact of the scheme 

has been very small relative to 

the context of the total market 

and the scheme’s primary 

objective. […] “as a measure 

to help expand the market for 

milk products” and as a “surplus 

disposal mechanism”, the 

scheme has been poor value for 

money.’

26.   N o   i n d i c a t o r s   h a v e   b e e n   s e t   fo r   t h e   Fr u i t   S c h e m e.   H o w e v e r, 
t h e   s c h e m e   d o e s   i n t r o d u c e   a   n u m b e r   o f   p r o v i s i o n s   t h a t   a r e 
conducive to the monitoring of per formance, from preparation 
of an initial strategy to the obligation for periodic evaluations 
i n   e a c h   M e m b e r   S t a te.   H owe ve r,   i t   i s   s t i l l   t o o   e a r l y   t o   a s s e s s 
t h e   e f fe c t i ve n e s s   o f   t h e s e   m e a s u re s,   w h i c h   a re   to   b e   f u r t h e r 
deve lo p ed.

V E R Y 	 M O D E S T 	 S P E N D I N G 	 O N 	T H E 	 S C H E M E S’	 O B J E C T I V E S

‘M a r k e t ’  o b j e c t i v e

27.   During talks prior to setting up the Fruit Scheme, the European 
Parliament had proposed a budget of 500 million euro per an-
num . I n t he en d,  at th e Comm is si on’s  s ug g e st ion , a cei li ng  of 
90 million euro was agreed. The Commission felt in par ticular 
t h at   t h e   p ro j e c t   h a d   to   p rove   i t s e l f   o n   a   s m a l l e r   s c a l e   b e fo re 
a la rg e r b u dge t  cou l d b e con side re d.

28.  

Th e   Co m m i s s i o n’s   a p p ro a c h   wa s   j u s t i f i e d   i n   h i n d s i g ht   by   t h e 
ver y hesitant star t to the scheme (see A nnex IV). Nonetheless, 
the effec t of this decision, even when national co -financing is 
fac tored in 19, was that the budget ceiling set in the regulation 
equ ate s  to   aro und  0, 3  %   of  t he  produc t ion   val ue   of  f r ui t  an d 
ve g et ab le s in  th e EU. A  s imilar  fi g ure is  obt ain e d for  th e  M ilk 
S cheme, which, to judge from the available figures, helped to 
f u n d   t h e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   a   l i t t l e   l e s s   t h a n   0 , 2 8   %   o f   t o t a l   E U 
pro du c t io n in 20 08 /09.

29.  

I n   b o t h   c a s e s,   e ve n   i f   t h e s e   a m o u n t s   we re   s p e n t   e f fe c t i ve l y, 
t h e   vo l u m e s   to   w h i c h   t h e y   co r re s p o n d   a re   n o t   l i k e l y   to   h ave 
a s ign ificant  d irec t imp ac t 20 on  mar ket equilibr ium.

30.   Where the M ilk S cheme is concer ned, this finding was already 

par t  o f th e 19 99  eval uation 21. 

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

21

‘N u t r i t i o N  a N d  h e a l t h’  o b j e c t i v e

31.   W h e n   d i v i d e d   b y   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   c h i l d r e n   i n   t h e   E u r o p e a n 
U n i o n ,   t h e   e x p e n d i t u r e   t h a t   i s   c u r r e n t l y   b u d g e t e d   f o r   e a c h 
sch eme give s b et ween  50 an d 8 0  cents  pe r  c hi ld pe r  ye ar.  On 
t h i s   s c a l e ,   i t   i s   a l s o   h a r d   t o   i m a g i n e   i t   h a v i n g   a   s i g n i f i c a n t 
i n f l u e n c e   o n   t h e   e a t i n g   h a b i t s   o f   t h e   t a r g e t   p o p u l a t i o n   a s 
a wh ol e.

32.  

I n   p ra c t i ce,   a s   s p e n d i n g   b e n e f i t s   fe we r   c h i l d re n 2 2  t h e   i m p a c t 
p e r   b e n e f i c i a r y   i s   p o te nt i a l l y   gre ate r.   H owe ve r,   t h e   s c h e m e s’ 
o v e r a l l   e f f e c t i v e n e s s   i n   t e r m s   o f   t h e   n u t r i t i o n   a n d   h e a l t h 
 o b j e c t i v e   d e p e n d s   v e r y   m u c h   o n   t h e   s u b - p o p u l a t i o n   t h a t   i s 
‘ch o sen’ to rece ive su p p or t.

N O 	 M E C H A N I S M 	 F O R 	TA R G E T I N G 	 N U T R I T I O N A L	
P R I O R I T I E S

33.  

Supplying milk to a child who ordinarily consumes far less than 
h i s   p e e r s,   o r   t h a n   re co m m e n d e d   a m o u nt s 2 3,   a d d s   m o re   va l u e 
than supplying the same quantity of milk to a child whose con-
s u m p t i o n   o f   m i l k   p ro d u c t s   i s   a l re a d y   a b ove   ave ra g e   o r   m o re 
than recommended amounts. For both schemes, therefore, the 
nutr ition and health objec tive means pr ior itising distr ibution 
in areas (by region, Member State, social categor y, etc.) where 
co n s u m p t i o n   i s   d e e m e d   to   b e   i n s u f f i c i e n t   o r   b e l ow   ave r a g e. 
The  k ey   aim  is  no t  s o  mu ch  to  in cre ase   averag e   con sumpti on 
as  to  e nabl e as many c hil dren  as pos si ble to att ain  a sat is fa c -
tor y m inimu m l evel  o f consumpt ion .

34.   W h e re   m i l k   i s   c o n c e r n e d,   s o m e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a ve   a l re a d y 
shown awareness of this situation. I n the United K ingdom, the 
2005 evaluation found that, to a large ex tent, the target popu-
l a t i o n   a l r e a d y   c o n s u m e d   s u f f i c i e n t   q u a n t i t i e s   o f   m i l k   p r o d -
uc t s 24,   and   it   re co mmended  foc using   on   a  numbe r   of   pr i or it y 
categ or ie s. I n  France, t he au th or it ie s h ave  ch ose n  to a lloc ate 
the national budget complement to less-favoured areas, which 
are deemed to represent the greatest nutr itional need 25. Such 
targeting could take many other forms, although some of them 
may invol ve ad ditional  cos ts.

22  The Commission’s working 
estimate (shown by the audit to 

be unreliable) is that 21 million 

children, or roughly 20 % of the 

target population, are benefiting 

from the Milk Scheme. For the 

first year of the Fruit Scheme, 

the Member States visited had 

opted to concentrate on primary 

schoolchildren.

23  Although there is no 
consensus on an exact figure 

the concept of a recommended 

amount is used in many 

countries.

24  ‘Children in schools that did 
not participate in the SMSS 

[School Milk Subsidy Scheme] 

on average drank an amount 

of milk sufficient to meet their 

recommended daily intake of 

calcium. This is consistent with 

the most recent national diet 

survey, which found that average 

calcium consumption was 

adequate at ages 4–10.’

25  At the same time, in France 
the EU aid is essentially paid 

to canteens, which have 

proportionally fewer users from 

less-favoured social categories. 

Statistically, therefore, the EU 

aid is addressed less to target 

groups which are prioritised by 

national governments.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

22

35.   However, neither of the EU schemes provides for resources to 
be  al lo c ated o n th e b as is o f a n utr iti on al- ne e ds  an alysi s.

36.  

37.  

The Fruit Regulation leaves it to the Member States’ discretion 
whether or not to incorporate this approach into their national 
strategies. H owever,  no s tate h as  yet  t ak e n  up t h is  opti on 26.

There is no such mechanism under the M ilk Scheme. An analy-
s i s   b y   M e m b e r   S t a t e   n o t   o n l y   r e v e a l s   t h a t   t h e   s c h e m e   d o e s 
not   t arg et  re sou rces  at   areas  of   greate st   n e ed,   i t  e ven   s h ows 
that, on the whole, the Member States receiving most from the 
sch eme  are   t ho se  w h ere  the  con s um pti on  of   mil k   produc ts   is 
alre ady  high est  and,  cons equent ly,  ne e ds   are   l es s  si gni f ic ant 
an d l es s pre ssing ( see B ox   6) .

26  It should be pointed out 
that, although the Fruit 

Regulation sets a higher co-

financing rate for convergence 

and outermost regions, this 

decision was not based on a 

nutritional-needs analysis, and, 

moreover, allocation of the EU 

contribution is still based solely 

on the criterion of the number of 

children between 6 and 10 years 

of age. 

B O X   6

CO M PA R I S O N 	 B E T W E E N 	 M E M B E R 	 S TAT E S 	 O F 	T H E 	 CO N S U M P T I O N 	 O F 	 M I L K	
P R O D U C T S 	 A N D 	 A I D 	 R E C E I V E D 	 I N 	2009	 U N D E R 	T H E 	 M I L K 	 S C H E M E

 ο The two Member States with the highest per capita consumption of milk products are also the 

two main per capita beneficiaries of aid.

 ο On average, the six Member States with the highest per capita consumption of milk products 
receive 3,5 times more Community aid per capita than the 10 states with the lowest consump-
tion rates.

 ο The six Member States receiving the most aid per capita already have an above-average per capita 

consumption of milk products.

 ο The 10 Member States with the lowest per capita consumption of milk products receive just 20 % 
of all aid. Nine of them receive two to five times less per capita than the average or are not even 
participating in the scheme.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

 
23

D E S I G N 	 P R O B L E M S 	 R E S T R I C T 	W H AT 	T H E 	 M I L K	
S C H E M E 	 C A N 	 AC T UA L LY 	 AC H I E V E .	 H O W E V E R ,	
S O LU T I O N S 	 E X I S T.	

T H E 	 M I L K 	 S C H E M E 	 I S 	 R E L AT I V E LY 	 U N AT T R AC T I V E

38.  

The level of spending on school milk is not set direc tly by the 
Co mm issio n but  is  the aggregate of  i n di vi dual c h oice s by  a p -
plicants and potential beneficiaries. The 74 million euro spent 
in 2009 accounts for less than 10 % of the potential maximum 
fo r   ex p e n d i t u re 2 7  u n d e r   t h e   s c h e m e.  Th u s   t h e   t a k e - u p   rate   i s 
low and the polic y relatively unattrac tive (see Boxes 7 and 8), 
to  a simil ar ex tent  to  w hat was  foun d  in  t he  pas t 28. 

39.  

Th e  au dit  reveal ed  t hat   t his   u nat trac t iven es s  was   larg e ly  t he 
result of the low level of aid combined with the dispropor tion-
ate  bu rden o f admin istratio n. 

M i l k  s o l d  a t   a  r e d u c e d  r a t e   o u t s i d e  c a N t e e N s

40.   At current aid levels, the EU subsidy is only sufficient to cover 
a small fraction of the cost of the produc ts distributed 29. In the 
abs ence  o f  o ther,  mu ch  mo re  subst anti al,   source s   of   fun di ng 
(see paragraph 60 et seq.), therefore, the EU scheme does not 
permit distribution free of charge but ex tends only to the sale 
of  mil k at  a re duced  rate.

27  As the regulation does not 
impose a ceiling on expenditure, 

the potential maximum 

(approximately 900 million euro) 

was calculated on the basis 

of 25 cl per schoolday (the 

maximum daily amount allowed 

by the regulation) for every child 

in attendance at an educational 

establishment.

28  From the 1999 evaluation: 
‘Scheme take-up across the 

EU in 1996/97 was equivalent 

to only 12 % of the maximum 

subsidy entitlement volume. This 

compares with 19 % in 1992/93. 

This suggests a relatively 

poor level of efficiency and 

effectiveness in reaching the 

target population […]’.

29  Especially in view of the 
scheme’s objective of subsidising 

not just a product but an entire 

service, which entails specific 

packaging and logistical costs 

(e.g., in the UK, the physical 

delivery of fresh milk every 

morning).

B O X   7

T H E 	 LO W 	 PA R T I C I PAT I O N 	 R AT E 	 A N D 	T H E 	 S C H E M E ’S 	 U N AT T R AC T I V E N E S S

A study made in Germany shows that, of the 56 % of establishments which offer milk or milk products 
to their pupils, just 21 % have applied for aid. 

Source: Bavarian Ministry of Agriculture.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

24

41.  

42.  

43.  

I n  Pol and, EU aid covers ju st on e quar te r  o f t he  direc t co st  of 
m i l k .   I n   G e r m a ny   a n d   t h e   U K ,   i t   c o v e r s   j u s t   1 0   %   t o   1 5   % .   I n 
Germany, for example, it allows car tons of flavoured milk to be 
so ld   fo r  35  rath er  than   4 0  cent s.  R ed uc t ion s   on   th is   sca le  are 
generally too small to trigger a purchase decision, all the more 
so as studies have revealed a low pr ice elasticit y of demand 30.

I n   m a n y   c a s e s   t h e   e s t a b l i s h m e n t   i t s e l f   c h o o s e s   n o t   t o   p a r -
t i c i p a t e .   U s u a l l y   g o o d w i l l   i s   n e e d e d   i f   t h e   s c h e m e   i s   t o   b e 
implemented at a school. However, organising milk to be sold 
i n   s c h o o l s   a t   a   re d u c e d   r a t e   o f t e n   n e c e s s i t a t e s   a   s i g n i f i c a n t 
am o unt o f wor k ( p urc has ing, s torag e, d is tr ibuti on , colle c t in g 
m o n e y   f ro m   re c i p i e nt s,   e tc. ) ,   w h i c h   c a n   b e   a   re a l   o b s t a c l e   to 
par t icip at io n 31.

I n some cases, the readiness of decision-makers to accept the 
wo r k l o a d   a s s o c i a t e d   w i t h   t h e   s c h e m e   i s   re d u c e d   by   t h e   f a c t 
that families show little interest in purchasing subsidised milk 
o r,   o n   o c c a s i o n ,   t h a t   t h e   r e l e v a n t   s t a f f   a r e   n o t   t h e m s e l v e s 
convinced o f th e sc heme’s   health  be n ef it s. 

M i l k  p r o d u c t s  i N c l u d e d  i N  c a N t e e N   M e a l s 

44.   Where the subsidy is paid for produc ts used in canteen meals, 
manag e ment   of  t he  s cheme  is   abs or be d  into  reg ular   c a nte en 
management duties, causing most of the administrative costs 
t o   d i s a p p e a r.  W h a t   t h i s   f i n d i n g   m e a n s,   w i t h o u t   p re j u d i c e   t o 
any negative assessment of the scheme’s effec tiveness in this 
form (see paragraphs 47 to 50), is that the only specific cost is 
the time requirement to apply for a grant. Paradoxically, even 
this solitar y administrative burden continues to be unwelcome 
an d m ay p rove proh ib it ive.

30  From the 1999 evaluation: 
‘Price does not appear to be a 

major factor influencing take-up 

of milk and milk products by 

consumers including school 

children. […] This suggests that 

the main delivery mechanism of 

the School Milk Measure (price 

subsidy) is targeted at a factor of 

minor influence in determining 

consumption of milk and milk 

products. Not surprisingly, this 

means that its net impact on 

consumption is likely to be very 

small.’
31  From the 1999 and 2005 
evaluations: 

—  ‘We also find that the EU 

School Milk Subsidy Scheme 

is an inefficient scheme. 

The combined SMSS and 

Top-Up spend around 

7,2 million pounds in England 

annually, and create an 

estimated 5 million pounds 

of administrative costs in 

schools plus 831 000 pounds 

of administrative costs in LEAs 

[local educational authorities] 

and the RPA [Rural Payments 

Agency]. […] We recommend 

such programmes provide 

free milk rather than milk at 

a price, since it is likely to be 

much cheaper to administer 

programmes that do not 

require teachers to track 

parents’ payments.’
—   ‘[…] the scheme’s 

administrative and financial 

requirements are considered 

by some to have acted as a 

disincentive to scheme take 

up at the school level. This 

stems mainly from the time 

commitments required to 

implement and administer 

school milk.’

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

25

45.   W h a t   m a k e s   t h e   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   p r o c e d u r e   s o   e x c e s s i v e   f o r 
m o s t   a p p l i c a n t s   —   e s p e c i a l l y   t h e   s m a l l e s t   —   i s   n o t   s o   m u c h 
i t s   c o m p l e x i t y   a s   t h e   f a c t   t h a t   s o   l i t t l e   a i d   i s   r e c e i v e d   ( s e e 
B ox   8 ) .  Th e   a b s o l u t e   v a l u e   o f   a i d   i s   p e rc e i ve d   a s   b e i n g   e ve n 
more insignificant because it is compared not with the cost of 
milk products but with the overall budget — of which it is only 
a   s m a l l   p a r t   ( u n d e r   1   %   fo r   c a n t e e n s,   a n d   f a r   l e s s   s t i l l   w h e n 
c o m p a r e d   w i t h   t h e   t o t a l   b u d g e t   o f   a n   i n d e p e n d e n t   p r i v a t e 
sch oo l  or a nu rser y) .

T H E 	 I M M E D I AT E 	 I M PAC T 	 O F 	 S P E N D I N G 	 U N D E R 	T H E	
M I L K 	 S C H E M E 	 I S 	 CO M P R O M I S E D 	 BY 	 A   S I G N I F I C A N T	
D E A D W E I G H T 	 E F F E C T 32

46.   Whatever form distribution takes, the milk subsidy is available 
f o r   a l l   e l i g i b l e   p r o d u c t s ,   a n d   t h e r e   i s   n o   m e c h a n i s m   f o r   r e -
stric ting payment for quantities which the beneficiaries would 
any way have purchased without aid. The audit found that the 
d e a d w e i g h t   e f fe c t   i s   d i f fe r e n t   a c c o r d i n g   t o   t h e   d i s t r i b u t i o n 
mo del  co ncer ned.

32  Deadweight occurs where 
a measure is used to support 

beneficiaries who would have 

made the same choice in the 

absence of aid. In such cases, the 

outcome cannot be attributed 

to the policy, and the aid paid 

to the beneficiary has had 

no impact. Thus the share of 

expenditure which generates 

deadweight is ineffective by 

definition, because it does not 

contribute to the objectives. It 

is necessarily very difficult to 

measure deadweight accurately, 

since this would mean 

evaluating a situation — non-

existence of the public subsidy 

— that is hypothetical.

B O X   8

T H E 	 U N AT T R AC T I V E N E S S 	 O F 	 A I D 	 F O R 	 C A N T E E N S

In France, some 70 % of the 11 000 applicants receive on average around 300 euro per year.

Many of the persons interviewed stated that aid on this scale was not enough to get them to change 
their habits. For example, one school Head said: ‘All I get is 200 euro a year and I have no intention 
of wasting my time reading a circular for such a small return.’

Although any canteen uses eligible milk products for which it could receive the minimum amount 
in aid simply by applying for it, only 60 % of establishments in France, and barely 15 % in Italy, 
submit an application.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

26

M i l k  p r o d u c t s  i N c l u d e d  i N  c a N t e e N   M e a l s 

47.  

T h e   a u d i t   s h o w e d   t h a t   t h e   p a y m e n t   o f   a i d   f o r   p r o d u c t s   i n -
cluded in canteen meals systematically generates deadweight. 
I n p ar t icul ar :

(a ) although a t ypical meal of ten includes milk produc ts (they 
m a y   e v e n   b e   c o m p u l s o r y ) ,   t h e r e   i s   a t   p r e s e n t   n o   w a y   o f 
p reve nt ing   c anteens   fro m  receivi n g  pay me nt  for   produc ts 
w hich  the y wou l d have s er ve d a ny way ;

(b) no  evid ence was  fo und that aid  h as  any  i n f lue nce  what so -
eve r o n the  vo l um e of  milk  produ c t s  in clude d  in  me n us ;

(c) vir tually all the persons responsible who were inter viewed 
st ated  expl icit l y  t hat   aid  in  n o  way   in flu en ce d  t he   volume 
o f m il k  p roduc t s th at they s er ve d to pupi ls  (s ee  B ox  9) .

B O X   9

S TAT E M E N T S 	 BY 	 C A N T E E N 	 M A N AG E R S 	 A B O U T 	T H E 	 M I L K 	 S C H E M E

‘The composition of our menus is not influenced by EU aid. […]	That isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact’ (Italy, 
manager of the catering company running the canteens in one of the country’s biggest cities)

‘I have never thought of the EU Milk Scheme when setting lunch menus’ (Sweden, representative of 
a catering company receiving aid for several schools in the same town)

‘The existence of EU aid in no way influences our menus’ (Italy, representative of an establishment 
receiving aid direct)

In France, the managers of a nursery awaiting authorisation explained that they were interested in 
obtaining the money to which their usual practice entitled them — namely for products they were 
in the habit of buying before learning of the scheme.

The person responsible for canteen menus at another applicant was not even aware that his estab-
lishment had been receiving aid for years.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

27

33  Over 90 % of schools receive 
aid, which is worth almost 120 cl 

per day for each child on the 

school rolls.

34  The scaling-back of 
subsidies in the wake of the 

1999 evaluation rendered the 

scheme still more ineffective, 

as it reduced still further its 

bearing on the decisions taken 

by applicants and potential 

beneficiaries.

48.  

I n   s h o r t ,   c a n t e e n s   a r e   r e c e i v i n g   a i d   f o r   m i l k   p r o d u c t s   t h a t 
they would be ser ving any way and the aid does not encourage 
the m  to   increase   t heir  u se  o f  mil k  produc t s.   Eve n  in   Swed en , 
w h e re   t h e   s i t u a t i o n   i s   a p p a re n t l y   m o s t   p o s i t i ve 3 3,   t h e   s u b s i -
dised scheme (chiefly in the form of self-ser vice milk fountains 
in canteens) existed well before EU suppor t became available. 
The high rate of milk consumption is a long-standing cultural 
h a b i t   t h at   c a n n o t   b e   a s c r i b e d   to   t h e   E U   s c h e m e,   w h i c h   d o e s 
no more than pay a contr ibution towards prac tices that it has 
not  inf l uenced. 

49.   A t   p r e s e n t ,   t h e r e f o r e ,   t h e r e   i s   n o   e a s i l y   p e r c e i v a b l e   i m p a c t 
o f   a i d   p ay m e n t s   t o   c a n t e e n s.  To   j u d g e   f ro m   t h e   o n - t h e - s p o t 
vis it s,  there  is at  b es t a t iny imp ac t on  t he  be n ef ici ar ies’ con -
sumption of milk produc ts. Despite the provisions in the regu-
l at i o n ,   m o re ove r,   t h e   s c h e m e’s   p o te nt i a l   i m p a c t   o n   t h e   p r i ce 
paid by families is often unverifiable (see Annex II), and in any 
case  it  wo u ld  be in sign ificant.

50.  

This finding also applies to nurseries, especially as, the young-
er th e c hil dren,  the greater  the  probabi lit y  t h at  th ei r  no rmal	
diet will include milk produc ts. For example, in the French sys-
tem of crèches (for children up to 3 years of age) milk produc ts 
are co nsidered  a  co mp u l so r y co mpon ent  of  th e  food s er ved.

M i l k  s o l d  a t   a  r e d u c e d  r a t e   o u t s i d e  c a N t e e N s

51.   Given the current low level of aid, it appears to have ver y little 
p o s i t i ve   i m p a c t .  T h e   s m a l l   re d u c t i o n   i n   t h e   s a l e   p r i c e   w h i c h 
i s   a t t r i b u t a b l e   to   t h e   E U   s c h e m e   ( s e e   p a r a g r a p h s   4 0   a n d   4 1 ) 
not  on ly  do es  lit tl e to  enco urag e par ti c ipat ion , i t also mai n ly 
b e n e f i t s   p e r s o n s   w h o   wo u l d   n o t   h ave   c h o s e n   a ny   d i f fe re nt l y 
e ve n   w i t h o u t   a i d.   A s   t h e   a i d   i s   i n s u f f i c i e n t   t o   i n f l u e n ce   p u r-
chase decisions in any real way 34 (see also Box 10), most pupils 
b e n e f i t i n g   f ro m   t h e   a i d   wo u l d   a l s o   h ave   b e e n   m o s t   l i k e l y   to 
buy t he  mil k even if u ns ub sidis ed.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

28

52.   What is more, these beneficiaries are also, by definition, most 
l i k e l y   t o   c o n s u m e   m i l k   p r o d u c t s   o u t s i d e   s c h o o l .   J u s t   a s   t h e 
an al ysis by  M em b er St ate s hows  t hat  ai d ten d s to g o wh ere i t 
i s   l e a s t   n e e d e d   ( s e e   p a ra gra p h   3 7 ) ,   s u c h   s m a l l   re d u c t i o n s   o n 
the sale price will mainly benefit children who are already like -
ly  to b e  con suming th e greatest  quanti ti es  of  mi lk  prod uc t s.

B O X   1 0

E XC E R P T S 	 F R O M 	T H E 	 E VA LUAT I O N 	 R E P O R T S 	 D E M O N S T R AT I N G 	T H E 	 L I M I T E D	
I M PAC T 	 O F 	 A I D 	 O N 	T H E 	V O LU M E S 	 CO N S U M E D 	 BY 	 B E N E F I C I A R I E S

United Kingdom evaluation, 2005: ‘Our survey of schoolchildren found only weak evidence that milk 
consumed in school was an addition to milk consumed elsewhere […]. Further, there were children 
who drank very little milk in both schools that did and did not participate in the SMSS. […] Our sur-
vey found weak evidence that schools’ participation in the EU School Milk Subsidy Scheme affects 
children’s total milk consumption. […] In both participating and non-participating schools, a minority 
of pupils drank very little milk. The available evidence suggests that the gains in milk consumption 
due to schools’ participation in the SMSS occurred particularly among children who would have 
consumed a considerable amount of milk had their school not participated.’

‘[ The] experiment with providing children with high-quality food showed that many parents who 
were unwilling to buy such foods in supermarkets were unwilling to pay for them in schools either. 
The same problem applies to milk that schools make available for parents to buy under the Top-Up.’

1999 evaluation: ‘In terms of impact of the scheme on milk product availability there is very limited 
evidence of impact. […] Whilst factors external to the scheme are the primary factors of influence 
for take up, the scheme itself contributes in a very limited way to increasing product availability.’

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

29

35  Recital 2 of Regulation (EC) 
No 288/2009: ‘So as to ensure 

the added value of School Fruit 

Schemes […], Member States 

should explain in their strategy 

how they will guarantee the 

added value of their scheme, 

especially where regular school 

meals are consumed at the same 

time as products financed under 

their School Fruit Scheme.’

S O LU T I O N S 	 H AV E 	 A L R E A DY 	 B E E N 	 I N T R O D U C E D 	 BY 	T H E	
CO M M I S S I O N 	 ( F R U I T ) 	 A N D 	 S O M E 	 M E M B E R 	 S TAT E S 	 ( M I L K )

p o s s i b l e  r e s p o N s e s  a l r e a d y  b u i l t  i N t o  t h e  c o M M i s s i o N’s  d e s i g N 
f o r  t h e f r u i t s c h e M e

53.   W h e n   p l a n n i n g   t h e   Fr u i t   S c h e m e,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   t o o k   i n t o 
consideration, at least in par t, the unattrac tiveness of the Milk 
S ch eme an d the r is k o f a deadwe ig ht  ef fec t.

o r g a N i s i N g  t h e  d i s t r i b u t i o N   o f  f r u i t  o u t s i d e  c a N t e e N s

54.   A s   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a d   i d e n t i f i e d   t h e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   s u b s i -
dised fruit at the same time as regular school meals as a risk to 
ad de d valu e 35,  th is mo de of d is tr ibut ion  was mad e subje c t to 
suc h re str ic t io ns  t hat  in  p rac t ice  i t was  exclud ed.  As a  res ult, 
n o t   o n e   M e m b e r   S t a t e   i n c l u d e d   t h i s   o p t i o n   i n   i t s   s t r a t e g y, 
t h u s   a l l   o f   t h e   f r u i t   t h at   wa s   o b s e r ve d   b e i n g   d i s t r i b u te d   wa s 
sup p l ied o ut side c anteens.

a  h i g h e r  l e v e l   o f  a i d  a N d  d i s t r i b u t i o N   f r e e   o f  c h a r g e

55.  

Th e   l e ve l   o f   E U   co - f i n a n c i n g   fo r   t h e   Fr u i t   S c h e m e   v a r i e s,   a c -
cording to Member State, from 50 % to 75 %. I t is therefore far 
hi gh er t han  for  sc ho ol  milk .

56.   On this basis, distribution free of charge has become the only 
m o d e l   e m p l oye d   fo r   t h e   Fr u i t   S c h e m e   ( a n d   t h e   Fr u i t   R e g u l a-
tio n of ten uses  the ter m ‘distr ibuti on’ wh e re th e  M ilk  R eg ula-
tio n sp eak s o f ‘su p p l y ’) .

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

30

57.  

58.  

Thus all fruit distribution schemes are free of charge to pupils, 
s o   t h a t   t h e re   i s   a l m o s t   u n i ve r s a l   p a r t i c i p a t i o n   by   t h o s e   w h o 
are offered free fruit. One effec t of this is to minimise the rela-
t i ve   d e a d we i g h t ,   b e c a u s e   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   i n c l u d e   c h i l d re n 
w h o   wo u l d   n o t   h ave   b e e n   p re p a re d   to   p u rc h a s e   t h e   p ro d u c t 
w i t h o u t   a   s u b s i d y.   A n o t h e r   e f fe c t   i s   t h a t   t h e   ro l e   o f   s c h o o l s 
is  eno r mou sly   simp l ified  by   th ei r   n o  l ong e r   h av in g   to  col lec t 
mo ney  fro m f amil ies.

I n  m os t M emb er St ates t he dist r i but io n of  f r uit  is als o f re e o f 
charge to schools, as the EU co -financing is complemented by 
a nat io nal  co nt r ib u tion p aid direc t ly  to s upplie r s. S c h ools  re -
ceive deliveries free of charge and without having to pay cash 
i n   a d v a n c e .   I n   I t a l y,   t h e   p r a c t i c e   o f  ‘a l l - i n c l u s i v e’  t e n d e r i n g 
(including the physical distr ibution of fruit in classrooms and 
t h e   o rg a n i s at i o n   o f   a cco m p a ny i n g   m e a s u re s )   h a s   e ve n   m a d e 
i t   p o s s i b l e   to   re m ove   a l l   a d m i n i s t r a t i ve   d u t i e s   f ro m   s c h o o l s. 
The on l y remaining l imit on sc hools’ pa r t ici pati on i s th e n t h e 
size o f  the avail ab l e b udg et.

59.  

I n   Fra n ce,   h owe ve r,   w h e re   t h e re   i s   n o   n a t i o n a l   co n t r i b u t i o n , 
t he   p a r t ic ip at i o n   o f   s c h o ol s   d ep e n d s  on   t h e i r   a bi l it y   to   ra i s e 
f i n a n ce   l o c a l l y.   As   t h i s   co n d i t i o n   h a s   ve r y   ra re l y   b e e n   m e t   i n 
prac tice, so far the number of applicants is ex tremely low (see 
A nn ex   IV).

s o M e M e M b e r s t a t e s  N o w  a l s o  d i s t r i b u t e  M i l k 

60.  

I n   Fr a n c e ,   a l t h o u g h   t h e   b u l k   o f   E U   s u p p o r t   i s   s t i l l   p a i d   t o 
canteens,  the   auth or it ies  have  opte d  to  alloc ate   t h e  nat ion al 
contr ib ut ion  to  free distr ibu tion  s c he me s  t hat  d o n ot invol ve 
canteens. This  was   exp l ic itl y   just if i ed   by   th e   wis h   for   th e   n a -
tio nal   comp l ement  to  have  a  real  i mpac t,   wh i ch  is   n ot   fe lt  to 
be  po ss ibl e in t he c ase o f cante en  s ubsi die s.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

31

61.  

62.  

I n   Po l an d  an d  t h e  United  K ing dom ,  E U  su ppor t   i s  us ed   in  a s -
sociation with national budgets, mak ing it possible to replace 
s u b s i d i s e d   s a l e   s c h e m e s   b y   t h e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   m i l k   f r e e   o f 
charg e  o ut side   c anteens   to  an  even   gre ater   num ber   of   ben e -
f i c i a r i e s   ( p r i m a r y - s c h o o l   p u p i l s   i n   Po l a n d ,   c h i l d r e n   o f   u p   t o 
5 years  o f age in the UK ) .

This model is far more attrac tive than that of subsidising sales, 
and it ensures far greater par ticipation (see Box 11). I n so do -
i n g,   i t   co n s i d e ra b l y   re d u ce s   t h e   p ro b l e m   o f   d e a d we i g ht   t h at 
at t a c h e s   to   t h e   s a l e   o f   m i l k   at   re d u ce d   p r i ce s,   a s   a l l   c h i l d re n 
c a n   b e   re a c h e d   r a t h e r   t h a n   j u s t   t h o s e   w h o   wo u l d   h ave   b e e n 
pre pare d to  pay any way.

B O X   1 1

T H E 	 I M PAC T 	 O F 	 D I S T R I B U T I O N 	 F R E E 	 O F 	 C H A R G E

 ο A UK study has shown that pupil participation declines sharply as soon as distribution stops 
being free of charge (source: the largest applicant in the UK for primary and secondary schools). 
The audit came across one establishment where participation in the Nursery Milk Scheme (or 
NMS, a free nationwide scheme for children up to 5 years of age) was extremely high but not one 
pupil was prepared to take part after the cut-off age. Other places refused to run a subsidised 
distribution scheme and limited their participation to those age groups that were eligible for 
distribution free of charge.

 ο In Poland, following the switch in 2007/08 to a system of distribution free of charge in primary 
schools, the number of participating schools more than doubled and the number of participat-
ing children rose more than fourfold.

 ο A German study shows that even substantial differences in sale price (30/35 cents rather than 
15 cents) have little impact on participation. It is only when distribution becomes free of charge 
that there is a real change in impact (see Graph 5).

G R A P H 	 5

R E L AT I O N S H I P 	 B E T W E E N 	 S A L E S 	 P R I C E 	 A N D 	 P U P I L 	TA K E - U P	 	
I N 	 PA R T I C I PAT I N G 	 S C H O O L S

0 cent

15 cents

25 cents

30/35 cents

74

38

38

30

0 %

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

Source: Government of North Rhine-Westphalia.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

32

63.  

In both Poland and the United Kingdom, however, distribution 
f r e e   o f   c h a r g e   d e p e n d s   o n   a   v e r y   l a r g e   n a t i o n a l   e f f o r t   ( s e e 
Graph 6), with the EU subsidy covering a ver y small frac tion of 
the   to t al  co st 36.   G iven  cur re nt  EU   aid  levels,   t he re fore,   di st r i -
butio n   f ree  o f  charge  can no t  be   direc t ly   att r i bute d  to  t h e  E U 
sch eme 37.  However,  t he situ ation in t he se t wo M em be r  St ate s 
dem ons t rates  jus t how  mu ch  f un di n g is  n e ces s ar y  in  ord er  to 
set  up  s uch d is tr ib u tion sc heme s. 

36  This is also true of free 
distribution schemes in France. 

Because, however, these are 

far smaller in scale the overall 

national budget is far more 

modest.

37  In the UK, until 2008 
distribution free of charge (NMS) 

was wholly financed by the 

Ministry of Health. It was only in 

2008 that the UK government 

took the decision to have the EU 

reimburse some of the costs of 

this national policy.

G R A P H   6

N AT I O N A L 	 B U D G E TA R Y 	 E F F O R T 	 BY 	T H E 	T W O 	 M A I N 	 M E M B E R 	 S TAT E S	
D I S T R I B U T I N G 	 M I L K 	 F R E E 	 O F 	 C H A R G E 	 ( I N 	 M I L L I O N 	 E U R O ;	2008/09	
AC A D E M I C 	Y E A R )

60

40

20

0

Poland

United Kingdom

Source: MS budget data.

EU support

National contribution

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

38  Outsourcing organisation to 
a contractor does not eliminate 

administrative costs but merely 

serves to externalise them. The 

UK authorities thus allow the 

company in question to charge 

twice as much as is received 

from the EU. Nonetheless, 

externalisation (i) very probably 

brings significant administrative 

economies of scale and 

(ii) relieves decision-makers of 

a task which might otherwise 

induce them to withdraw their 

schools from the scheme.

33

o t h e r  g o o d   p r a c t i c e s  i d e N t i f i e d  d u r i N g   t h e  a u d i t  w h i c h  h e l p  t o 
i M p r o v e   p a r t i c i p a t i o N  a N d  e f f e c t i v e N e s s

64.  

The audit also highlighted a number of local fac tors and deci-
s i o n s   w h i c h   m a d e   i t   p o s s i b l e   t o   re d u c e   a d m i n i s t r a t i ve   c o s t s 
an d  were  co ndu cive  to   imp roved  par ti c ipat ion   an d  ef fe c ti ve -
ne ss. I n p ar t icu lar : 

(a ) m a k i n g   u s e   o f   a n y   p o s s i b i l i t y   i n   t h e   r e g u l a t i o n   f o r   s i m -
p l i f y i n g   t h e   c o m p l e t i o n   a n d   v e r i f i c a t i o n   o f   a i d   a p p l i c a -
t i o n s   ( i n   p a r t i c u l a r   b y   e m p l o y i n g   f l a t - r a t e   c o e f f i c i e n t s   i n 
ca lc ul at io ns);

(b) c o n c e n t r a t i n g   o n   a p p l i c a n t s   o v e r   a   c r i t i c a l   s i z e   ( r e d u c e s 
the propor tion of administrative costs and may even allow 
significant  e con o mies  of s cale );

(c) e n g a g i n g   p r i v a t e - s e c t o r   p a r t n e r s   t o   t a k e   o n   s o m e   o r   a l l 
administrative and logistical tasks 38 while gaining a vested 
interes t in imp roving  p ar ticipati on.

E D U C AT I O N A L 	 G O A L S 	TO 	 B E 	 CO N S O L I D AT E D

65.   O v e r   a n d   a b o v e   t h e   i m m e d i a t e   i m p a c t   o f   d i s t r i b u t i o n ,   b o t h 
s c h e m e s   h ave   t h e   s a m e   e d u c a t i o n a l   g o a l   o f   i n f l u e n c i n g   e a t -
i n g   h a b i t s   i n   t h e   l o n g   t e r m .   H o we ve r,   t h i s   g o a l   i s   a d d re s s e d 
rat he r  diffe rentl y  in  t he  t wo   sch e me s,   an d  it  st ill   ne ed s  to  be 
con so lid ated.

E D U C AT I O N A L 	 G O A L S 	 N OT 	W E L L 	TA K E N 	 U P 	 BY 	T H E 	 M I L K	
S C H E M E ,	T H U S 	 L I T T L E 	 L I K E L I H O O D 	 O F 	 A   S I G N I F I C A N T	
LO N G - T E R M 	 I M PAC T

t h e  e d u c a t i o N a l  i M p a c t  o f  s u b s i d i s e d  d i s t r i b u t i o N   d e p e N d s  o N 
v i s i b i l i t y,  w h i c h  i s  s t i l l  N o t  g u a r a N t e e d

66.  

I n   p r i n c i p l e ,   t h e   v e r y   e x i s t e n c e   o f   a   s u b s i d i s e d   d i s t r i b u t i o n 
sch eme may h elp  to  convey a m es sag e  about  th e value  of t he 
produc t in question. For this to happen, however, the scheme 
mus t  be  vis ib le.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

34

67.   Most of the schemes that were obser ved for the distribution of 
mil k  o ut side   canteen s  met   th is  c r i te r i on .  I t   was  al so  sat is f ie d 
in Sweden by the use of milk fountains in canteens. I n cer tain 
other cases, however, neither the subsidy nor the produc t dis -
tr ib uted was  s uffic ient l y visible.

68.  

69.  

I n   G e r m a ny,   m i l k   fo r   s a l e   i n   s c h o o l   s h o p s   i s   n o t   s p e c i f i c a l l y 
promoted and suffers from the proximit y of other items (fizz y 
dr inks, cr isps and sweets). I t does not have the clear visibilit y 
that  com es fro m sing l e -p rod uc t  di st r i buti on.

I n   m u c h   t h e   s a m e   w a y,   w h e r e   s u b s i d i s e d   m i l k   p r o d u c t s   a r e 
i n c l u d e d   i n   c a n t e e n   m e a l s,   d i s t r i b u t i o n   a s   s u c h   i s   n o   l o n g e r 
t h e   r i g h t   t e r m   a n d   t h e   e d u c a t i o n a l   i m p a c t   d e c l i n e s .   H a v i n g 
explicitly identified this weak ness, the Commission has sought 
to restric t the deliver y of aid through canteens 39. While this is 
a  p o sit ive  d evelo p ment,   it   is  n ot  s uf f ic i ent   to  guarantee   th at 
the  edu cat ional  go als  of aid are  ach ie ved  i n prac ti ce.

39  Recital 4 of Regulation (EC) 
No 657/2008: ‘[…] this is not 

an effective way of attaining 

the educational purpose of 

the scheme. Therefore the 

preparation of meals should 

be restricted accordingly.’ 

Article 5(4) of the same 

regulation prohibits heat 

treatment so that milk products 

remain visible and can be 

recognised by pupils.

Menu	including	buttered	pasta	(Parmesan	sauce)	
subsidised	under	the	Milk	Scheme

Source: Italian canteen.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

35

70.  

71.  

72.  

73.  

Firstly, the produc t is not presented for what it is. I nstead, by 
definition, it is emphasised less than when specifically distrib -
u te d 4 0.   S e co n d l y,   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   a re   g e n e ra l l y   n o t   m a d e   awa re 
that  th e scheme exist s 41 o r,  he nce, th at  t he produc t  h as be e n 
a s s i g n e d   a   p a r t i c u l a r   s t a t u s .   I n   Fr a n c e   a n d   I t a l y,   t h e r e   w e r e 
even some school Heads who were unaware that their canteens 
we re b eing s ubs idis ed.

40  The 1999 evaluation noted 
in this regard that, ‘in cases 

where milk is consumed as a 

complementary product, the 

effectiveness of the subsidy 

scheme is even further 

diminished’.

l a c k  o f  a c c o M p a N y i N g  e d u c a t i o N a l  M e a s u r e s

Eve n   w h e re   t h e   v i s i b i l i t y   c r i te r i o n   i s   m e t ,   d i s t r i b u t i o n   i s   n o t 
felt to be enough, by itself, to achieve the educational goal in 
a s atis fac to r y man ner.

Th e 199 9 e valuation had al ready  emph asis ed  th e ed uc at ion al 
shor tcomings of a scheme which did no more than offer pr ice 
re d u c t i o n s,   to   t h e   exc l u s i o n   o f   p ro m o t i o n a l   a n d   e d u c at i o n a l 
m e a s u r e s 4 2.   T h e   2 0 0 5   U K   e v a l u a t i o n   p i c k e d   u p   o n   t h e   s a m e 
point 43. Many of those inter viewed during the audit confirmed 
t h i s   a n a l ys i s,   p o i nt i n g   o u t   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   t h at   t h e   m a i n   re a s o n 
why milk is not more widely consumed (at least as a dr ink) by 
ad o le scent s lies  in an im ag e proble m,  som et h in g  of wh i c h no 
accou nt is ta ken in the way  t he s ch em e i s  de si gne d.

I n spite of these findings, Regulation (EC ) No 657/2008 is con-
c e r n e d   o n l y   w i t h   t h e   a v a i l a b i l i t y   o f   m i l k   p r o d u c t s   a n d   d o e s 
not  requ ire or encou rage t he use of  a ccompa nyi n g  me as ures. 
Against this background, not one of the Member States visited 
had imposed an obligation of this sor t, and none of the estab -
lishments  visited  h ad  intro duced  or   was   ta k in g   ad vanta ge   of 
sp ecif ic acco mp any ing measure s.

41  The Milk and Fruit Regulations 
now require a poster to 

be displayed in the main 

entrance to each participating 

establishment. Without denying 

that this is a positive step, its 

impact is limited.

42  ‘… the measure has probably 
had negligible effect on 

improving knowledge of the 

nutritional qualities of milk 

products. This is, however, not 

surprising given that the School 

Milk Measure has no funding 

provision for promotional 

activities and is essentially a 

price subsidy measure only.’

43  ‘The School Milk Subsidy 
Scheme could provide useful 

information to parents and 

children. However, sending 

delivery trucks to schools every 

day and requiring teachers to 

track parents’ payments appears 

a costly method of providing 

information.’

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

36

74.  

T h e re   a re   u n d e n i a b l y   p ro m o t i o n a l   c a m p a i g n s   i n   a d d i t i o n   t o 
t h e   S c h o o l   M i l k   S c h e m e .   A s   w e l l   a s   t h e  ‘ Ta s t y   B u n c h’ 4 4,   t h e 
Co m m i s s i o n   c o - f i n a n c e s   p ro m o t i o n   m e a s u re s   u n d e r   Co u n c i l 
R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   3 / 2 0 0 8 4 5,   a   f e w   o f   w h i c h   r e l a t e   t o   m i l k 
pro du c t s and ta rget  chil dren 46. O the r example s found  in var i-
o u s   M e m b e r   St ate s   u n d e n i a b l y   h ave   a   p o s i t i ve   i m p a c t .   H ow -
ever,   as   they  are  n eit her   re quire d  n or   en courag ed   by   R e g ul a-
t i o n   ( E C )   N o   6 5 7 / 2 0 0 8 ,   m e a s u re s   o f   t h i s   s o r t   a re   s t i l l   l a rg e l y 
in dep ende nt  of  t he M il k S c heme  and  can n ot be  at tr ibute d  to 
its  infl ue nce.

N o  s i g N  o f  a  l o N g- t e r M   i M p a c t  o N  e a t i N g  h a b i t s 

75.  

I n the absence of specific tools, even af ter several decades of 
t h e   s c h e m e   t h e re   i s   s t i l l   n o   e v i d e n c e   t h a t   i t   h a s   h a d   a   l o n g -
ter m imp ac t  on its  b enefic iar ies’ eat in g  h abit s.  To quote  from 
t h e   2 0 0 5   U K   e v a l u a t i o n :  ‘i t   i s   n o t   c l e a r   t h a t   s c h o o l   m i l k   p ro -
gram mes  inc ul c ate a l astin g habi t  of m ilk  con sumpt ion’.

76.   On the contrar y, in those Member States where data are avail -
abl e it  c an b e seen,  al l  el se being  e qual,  th at  par t ic i pati on i n 
such programmes drops steeply with age. Use of the scheme in 
primar y schools does not have sufficient impact in the medium 
te r m   to   e n s u re   t h at   p a r t i c i p at i o n   re m a i n s   s at i s f a c to r y   i n   t h e 
following years. I t is all the more probable, given the scheme’s 
inabil it y to  re tain par ticipants for a mode rate t im e s pan,  t h at 
i t   w i l l   n o t   b e   l i k e l y   to   h ave   a   s i gn i f i c a nt   l o n g - te r m   i n f l u e n ce 
on  the ir nut r itio nal  hab it s. 

44  See http://ec.europa.eu/
agriculture/tasty-bunch/about/

index_fr.htm, where there is 

a link to the dedicated Milk 

Scheme site ‘Drink it up’ at 

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/

drinkitup/for_adults_fr.htm.

45  Council Regulation (EC) 
No 3/2008 of 17 December 

2007 on information provision 

and promotion measures for 

agricultural products on the 

internal market and in third 

countries (OJ L 3, 5.1.2008, p. 1) 

(budget heading 05 02 10 01).

46  We came across rare examples 
of explicit references to the 

School Milk Scheme. However 

exceptional, these marked 

progress compared with the 

total absence of any synergy 

found by the 1999 evaluation: 

‘The main finding of the research 

shows that the School Milk 

Measure has hardly figured in 

any milk product promotions 

across the EU’.

MILK POWER!

www.drinkitup.eu

Source: www.drinkitup.europa.eu

European Commission
Agriculture and Rural Development
EU School Milk Programme

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

37

B E T T E R 	TA K E - U P 	 O F 	 E D U C AT I O N A L 	 G O A L S 	 U N D E R 	T H E	
F R U I T 	 S C H E M E

77.   Wh il e  it   is  st il l  to o  ear ly   to   com ment  on   th e  l on g -te r m  e f fe c -
tive ness   of   th e  Fruit  S c heme,  its   approac h   d oes   appear   to  be 
mo re  con siste nt  w it h the ed uc at ion al g oal s.

47  Recital 5 of Regulation (EC) 
No 288/2009.

78.  

79.  

Fi r s t l y,   a l l   t h e   c a s e s   o f   f r u i t   d i s t r i b u t i o n   t h a t   we re   o b s e r ve d 
during the audit were highly visible, mak ing them all the more 
likely to have an educational impac t. This visibilit y was par tly 
due to enthusiasm about the novelty of the scheme, but it was 
als o  g u arante ed  by   the  fac t  t hat   dis tr ibut ion   was   spe c if ic al ly 
org anise d ou tside c anteens  (s ee paragraph  5 4 ) .

S e c o n d l y,   u n l i k e   t h e   M i l k   S c h e m e ,   f r o m   t h e   v e r y   s t a r t   t h e 
Fr u i t   S c h e m e,   t h a n k s   t o   a   s p e c i f i c   t o o l,   i n c o r p o r a t e d   t h e   re -
quisite educational dimension. The Fruit Regulation states that 
‘S c ho o l   Fr uit  S c hemes   req uire  accom pany in g   m ea sures   in   or-
der to be effec tive’ 47 and, although it does not specify funding 
fo r   t h e m ,   i t   m a k e s   a i d   c o n d i t i o n a l   o n   t h e   e x i s t e n c e   o f   t h e s e 
meas ure s.

B O X   1 2

E X A M P L E S 	 O F 	 ACCO M PA N Y I N G 	 M E A S U R E S 	 E X A M I N E D 	 D U R I N G 	T H E 	 AU D I T

 ο Travelling exhibition to educate pupils about fruit and vegetables

 ο Interactive information booth in a school entrance hall

 ο Discussions organised for parents with doctors and nutritionists

 ο Vegetable garden on school premises

 ο Educational support material for teachers

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

38

80.  

Fo r   t h e   s a m e   re a s o n ,   s y n e rg i e s   a re   e n c o u r a g e d   w i t h   p ro m o -
tion measures organised under R egulation (EC ) No 3/2008, by 
o f fe r i n g   a n   o p p o r t u n i t y   fo r   a d d i t i o n a l   c o - f i n a n c i n g 4 8  t h a t   i s 
not  availab le fo r mil k .

81.   N e ve r t h e l e s s,   t h e   a u d i t   s h owe d   t h a t ,   gi ve n   w h a t   i t   m ay   c o s t 
t o   s e t   u p   a c c o m p a n y i n g   m e a s u r e s ,   t h e   a b s e n c e   o f   s p e c i f i c 
finance and the difficult y of deter mining exac tly what consti-
tu tes a  s atisfac to r y acco mp anyin g  me asure  re sult  i n  ar ran ge -
ments  t hat  var y  in t heir am bit ious n es s (s ee  B ox 13) . I t there -
fore remains to be seen whether the educational programmes 
cu r rentl y  b eing  s et up  w il l  p rove to be  e ffe c ti ve.

48  ‘With regard to the promotion 
of fresh fruit and vegetables, 

particular attention shall be paid 

to promotion measures intended 

for children in schools’; ‘The 

percentage referred to in the first 

subparagraph shall be 60 % for 

measures for the promotion of 

fruit and vegetables intended 

specifically for children in 

schools of the Community’ 

(Articles 5(1) and 13(2) of 

Regulation (EC) No 3/2008).

B O X   1 3

T H E 	W I D E 	 R A N G E 	 O F 	 ACCO M PA N Y I N G 	 M E A S U R E S 	 I N 	 P L AC E 	 AT 	T H E 	T I M E 	 O F	
T H E 	 AU D I T

In Italy, under an ambitious system introduced during the first year, accompanying measures are 
provided regionally by the producers’ organisations which are responsible for distribution.

In Germany and France, the establishments visited had organised a number of accompanying edu-
cational activities on the themes of fruit and vegetables and food in general. However, given in 
particular that there were no control arrangements, these activities were still dependent, at that 
stage, on goodwill at local level.

In Poland, there were still no accompanying educational activities, or plans for such activities, at the 
establishments that were visited (under the transitional provisions in the regulation, such measures 
are optional during the scheme’s first year, but the Polish authorities had unilaterally undertaken to 
implement measures by this stage).

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

CONCLUSIONS AND  
RECOMMENDATIONS

39

82.  

I n  1999,  desp ite th e ver y negative co nc lu sio ns re ac h ed by  an 
ex te r n a l   e va l u at i o n ,   t h e   Co u n c i l   to o k   a   d e c i s i o n ,   co nt ra r y   to 
t h e   C o m m i s s i o n’s   i n i t i a l   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s ,   t o   m a i n t a i n   t h e 
S c h o o l   M i l k   S c h e m e   ( s e e   p a ra gra p h s   2 0   to   2 3 ) .  Te n   ye a r s   o n , 
a few improvements notwithstanding, the Cour t has found that 
n o   re a l   s o l u t i o n s   h ave   b e e n   a p p l i e d   t o   ove rco m e   t h e   f u n d a -
menta l  weak n esses  t hat  were ide nt if ie d  at t h e  tim e.

83.  

Th e M il k S cheme is  s t ill  larg e ly i ne f fec t ive  tod ay.

(a ) R e g a r d i n g   t h e   a n t i c i p a t e d   s h o r t - t e r m   i m p a c t   ( t h e   p r o v i -
sio n o f milk  in s cho ol s ),  th e Cour t fi n ds t hat  t he  sc he m e is 
ac hieving  ver y  lit tl e of note:

(i)  Owing in par ticular to the low subsidy rate, the scheme 
c o n t i n u e s   t o   b e   r e l a t i v e l y   u n a t t r a c t i v e   a n d ,   a s   a   r e -
su l t, g enera ll y has no more th an  a de adwe ig ht  ef fe c t. 
I n   m o s t   c a s e s ,   t h e   s u b s i d i s e d   p r o d u c t s   e i t h e r   w o u l d 
have been included in canteen meals any way or would 
p rob ab l y have  b een bought by t he  ben e fi ci ar i es  even 
w itho u t t he su b sidy  (paragraphs  3 8  to  5 2 ) .

(ii)  Th e   a u d i t   s h owe d   t h a t ,   w h i l e   t h e   d e c i s i o n   by   ce r t a i n 
M ember States to organise distr ibution free of charge 
h a s   re s u l t e d   i n   a   m o re   s a t i s f a c t o r y   i m p a c t ,   t h i s   fo r m 
of distribution is at present covered by costly national 
sc hem es  to   wh ich   the  Comm uni t y   bud g et  mak e s  on l y 
a m argin al co nt r ib ut ion  ( paragraph s  6 0  to  6 3 ) .

(b) R e g a rd i n g   t h e   a n t i c i p a t e d   l o n g - t e r m   i m p a c t   ( e d u c a t i o n ) , 
t h e   C o u r t   f i n d s   t h a t   a t   p r e s e n t   t h e   s c h e m e   t a k e s   i n s u f f i -
cient account of the stated educational goals. I n par ticular, 
d i s t r i b u t i o n   i s   n o t   a l w a y s   m a d e   i n   a   v i s i b l e   w a y,   a n d   n o 
other specific educational tool has been introduced (para-
grap hs 6 6 to  76 ).

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

40

84.   On the other hand, the Cour t does find that most of the weak-
n e s s e s   i d e n t i f i e d   i n   r e s p e c t   o f   s c h o o l   m i l k   w e r e   n o t e d   a n d , 
a t   l e a s t   i n   p a r t ,   t a k e n   i n to   co n s i d e r a t i o n   by   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n 
i n   i t s   p l a n n i n g   o f   t h e   Fr u i t   S c h e m e .   I n   p a r t i c u l a r,   t h e   n e w 
s c h e m e   u s e s   a   s i n g l e   m o d e l   fo r   d i s t r i b u t i o n ,   w h i c h   i s   m a d e 
free of charge and outside canteens (paragraphs 53 to 59), and 
s p e c i f i c   t o o l s   w e r e   i n t r o d u c e d   t o   f a c i l i t a t e   t h e   e d u c a t i o n a l 
g o a l s   ( p a r a g r a p h s   7 7   t o   8 1 ) .   H o w e v e r,   t h e s e   i m p r o v e m e n t s 
c o m e   a t   a   h i g h   c o s t ,   a   s i g n i f i c a n t   p a r t   o f   w h i c h   i s   b o r n e   b y 
nat ion al   and  l o cal   b u dgets. Wh ile   it   i s   s ti ll  too  e ar ly   to  come 
to any definitive conclusions about the new scheme’s ultimate 
e f fe c t i ve n e s s,   i t   d o e s   n o n e t h e l e s s   a p p e a r   co n s i d e ra b l y   m o re 
lik el y to  achie ve its sh or t- an d lon g- ter m obje c ti ves.  As  s uch, 
it o ffers so me in dicat ion  as  to h ow th e M ilk S c h e me  mi g ht  be 
im p roved.

85.   H o w e v e r,   t h e   C o u r t   f i n d s   t h a t   c u r r e n t   s p e n d i n g   u n d e r   b o t h 
schemes allows only for a limited impac t, especially as neither 
s c h e m e   h a s   a   m e c h a n i s m   fo r   t a r g e t i n g   p r i o r i t y   n e e d s   ( p a r a -
graphs 27 to 37). For the Fruit S cheme, an expenditure ceiling 
of 500 million euro had been proposed, rather than the 90 mil-
lion euro finally agreed, but the Commission felt in par ticular 
t h a t   t h e   p r o j e c t   f i r s t   h a d   t o   p r o v e   i t s e l f.   A s   t h e   s c h e m e   h a s 
o n l y   j u s t   b e e n   l a u n c h e d,   t h e re fo re,   i t   i s   s t i l l   t o o   s o o n   t o   re -
exam ine t his asp ec t ( see A n nex  IV) .

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

41

86.  

I n   t he  l ight  o f  thes e  find ings,  t h e  Cour t ’s   ma i n  recommen da-
tio ns are  as fol l ows:

49  This might mean returning 
to the idea of Member State or 

even industry co-financing.

(a ) Given the ver y limited impac t of the M ilk Scheme, the mat-
t e r   o f   w h e t h e r   o r   n o t   t o   r e t a i n   i t   s h o u l d   b e   m a d e   c o n d i -
tional on the possibility of thorough reforms to remedy the 
weak nesses that have been identified. The decision should, 
in p ar t icu lar, tak e accou nt of  th e produ c t ’s  re cogni s ed n u-
t r it io nal   val u e  in   the  l ig ht  of  th e   publ i c   h eal th   obj e c ti ves. 
I f   t h o ro u g h   re fo r m s   a re   to   b e   u n d e r t a k e n ,   t h e y   s h o u l d   b e 
b ase d o n the  considerat ion s s et  out   below.

(b) I f   t h e   M i l k   S c h e m e   i s   to   h ave   a   re a l   i m p a c t   o n   t h e   vo l u m e 
of milk consumed in schools, the subsidy paid per k ilogram 
should be increased ver y significantly to a level where milk 
c a n   b e   d i s t r i b u t e d   f re e   o f   c h a r g e 4 9.   H o we ve r,   t h i s   re c o m -
mendation would not entail increased EU spending; on the 
co nt ra r y,   i t   wo u l d   m e a n   fo c u s i n g   re s o u rce s   o n   a   n a r rowe r 
t arge t  p op u latio n,   wh ich  could  als o  effe c ti ve ly   contr ibu te 
to   ad dressing   t he  p rob l em  o f  dead wei ght.  Th e  populat io n 
to be targeted would have to be deter mined in the light of 
a s cal e o f nut r it ional  n eeds.

(c) Where the Milk Scheme is concerned, steps should be taken 
to limit the specific deadweight effec t associated with dis-
t r i b u t i o n   t h r o u g h   c a n t e e n s ,   w h i l e   t a k i n g   c a r e   t o   e n s u r e 
ma ximu m visibilit y fo r t he sch em e.

(d ) Wh e re   t h e   e d u c a t i o n a l   o b j e c t i ve s   a re   co n ce r n e d,   t h e   t wo 
s c h e m e s   s h o u l d   a d o p t   a   m o r e   h a r m o n i s e d   a s s e s s m e n t   o f 
the role and impor tance of accompanying measures. I f the 
imp o r tance   o f  t hes e  measure s  is   conf i r m e d,   th e  d es irabil-
i t y   o f   m a k i n g   t h e m   e l i g i b l e   fo r   E U   c o - f i n a n c i n g   c o u l d   b e 
reco nsid ered.

(e) There should be greater coordination and synergy bet ween 
t h e   t wo   s c h e m e s   i n   o rd e r   t o   e n s u re   a   g l o b a l l y   c o n s i s t e n t 
a p p ro a c h   to   n u t r i t i o n   a n d   t h a t   t h e   p ro gr a m m e s   a re   m a n -
ag ed  eff icient ly.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

42

87.  

Th e Co ur t  al so  has t he fol l owing  recomme ndat ion s:

(a ) G i ve n   t h e   l a c k   o f   a   s a t i s f a c t o r y   s y s t e m   fo r   m e a s u r i n g   t h e 
s c h e m e s’  p e r fo r m a n ce   ( s e e   p a ra gra p h s   2 4   to   2 6 ) ,   t h e   p e r -
f o r m a n c e   m o n i t o r i n g   m e c h a n i s m   s h o u l d   b e   i m p r o v e d   t o 
b e t t e r   r e f l e c t   t h e   p r o v i s i o n s   l a i d   d o w n   i n   t h e   Fi n a n c i a l 
R e g ul at io n.

(b) S i m p l i f i c a t i o n   m e a s u re s   s h o u l d   c o n t i n u e,   a n d   g o o d   p r a c -
tices facilitating implementation of the schemes should be 
en cou rag ed.

(c) I n   t h e   l i g h t   o f   t h i s   g o a l   o f   s i m p l i f i c a t i o n ,   a n d   w i t h   p a r -
t ic u lar  at tent io n  to   the  cost- ef fe c t iven e s s  of  co nt ro ls,   th e 
points raised in connec tion with the regular it y of expendi-
t ure  (see  A n nex  II) s ho ul d, as far  as possible,  be  res olved.

Th i s   re p o r t   w a s   a d o p te d   by   C h a m b e r   I ,   a t   a   m e e t i n g   c h a i re d 
by M r Ol avi A LA-NI SS I LÄ , M em ber  of  th e  Cour t  of Aud itor s,  i n 
Lu xem bo u rg  o n 1 3 Ju l y 2011.

Fo r  th e  Co u r t  o f  Audi to rs

Víto r  M anue l  da  S I LVA   C A L D E I R A
Presi den t

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

 
43

A N N E X 	 I

CO M PA R I S O N 	 O F 	T H E 	 S C H O O L 	 M I L K 	 S C H E M E 	 A N D 	T H E 	 S C H O O L	
F R U I T 	 S C H E M E

Eligible	products

Milk	and	milk	products	listed	in	the	regulation	(milk,	
flavoured	milk,	yoghurt,	cheese,	etc.)

Fruit	and	vegetables		(including	processed	foods	
without	added	sugar,	fat,	salt	or	sweeteners)

School milk

School fruit

Market

To	help	stabilise	the	market	/CAP	general	objectives

Objectives

Nutrition	
and	health

Short-term:	to	include	healthy	products	in	children’s	diets
Long-term:	educational,	to	promote	lasting	healthy	eating	habits

Structure	of	the	scheme

Financial	subsidies	for	the	sale	of	milk	at	a	reduced	rate	/	distribution	of	fruit	in	schools

Target	beneficiaries

Children	in	regular	attendance	at	an	educational	establishment

Recipients	of	aid

Educational	establishments,	suppliers,	education	authorities	or	intermediary	bodies	set	up	specifically	for	the	
purpose
These	applicants	must	be	approved	beforehand	by	the	responsible	national	authorities

Publicity

Posters	at	the	main	entrance	to	establishments

Level	of	aid/
eligible	expenditure

Scale	of	payments	by	product	category	(reference	
base	18,15	euro/100	kg	milk)

Co-financing	(50–75	%)	of	the	cost	of	distributed	
products	(+	certain	associated	costs)

Do	beneficiaries	
contribute?

EU	aid	is	only	sufficient	for	a	rebate	on	the	sale	price
Where	distribution	was	observed	to	be	free	of	charge	
it	was	dependent	on	additional	funding

How	are	products	made	
available	to	children?

Budget	ceiling

Sold	at	a	reduced	rate	in	classrooms	or	through	
a school	shop
Classroom	distribution	free	of	charge	
Milk	products	included	in	canteen	meals

No	budget	ceiling
Article	5	of	Regulation	(EC)	No	657/2008	stipulates,	
however,	a	maximum	subsidisable	quantity	of	
0,25 litre	per	school	day	and	per	pupil	in	regular	
attendance	at	the	establishment;	this	ceiling	is	not	
usually	reached	by	the	applicants

Conditions	for	participa-
tion	by	schools

No

Accompanying	measures

No

Regulation	suggests	but	does	not	require	distribution	
free	of	charge
No	observed	cases	of	sales	at	a	reduced	rate,	but	
parents	may	indirectly	finance	part	of	the	cost

Distribution	free	of	charge	outside	mealtimes
(distribution	authorised	in	canteens	only	if	the	Mem-
ber	State	can	demonstrate	added	value	–	in	practice	
no	cases	declared)

90	million	euro

MS	national	strategy

Compulsory,	stated	to	be	crucial
Organisation	and	financing	not	covered	by	the	
scheme

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

44

A N N E X 	 I I

S U M M A R Y 	 O F 	 O B S E R VAT I O N S 	 S E N T 	TO 	T H E 	 CO M M I S S I O N	
CO N C E R N I N G 	T H E 	 R E G U L A R I T Y 	 O F 	 E X P E N D I T U R E

S C H O O L 	 M I L K

P R O B L E M S 	 I N T E R P R E T I N G 	T H E 	 R E G U L AT I O N

1.	

2.	

E l i g i b i l i t y 	 o f 	 n u r s e r i e s :   o w i n g   t o   d i f f e r e n c e s   i n   t h e   w a y   t h e   r e g u l a t i o n 
wa s   t ra n s l ate d   a n d   i s   i nte r p re te d   i n   d i f fe re nt   l a n g u a g e s,   n u r s e r i e s   d i d   n o t 
b eco me  eligib l e in France until 2 00 8 1, are s till in eligible in I taly  and Pol and 
b ut  are  eligib l e in G er many,  Swede n  an d th e  Uni ted  K ing dom 2. 

Al tho u gh   nur ser ies  are   explic itly   allowe d  by   so me  lan gu age   ver sio ns,  t he ir 
e l i gi b i l i t y   d o e s   n o t   s q u a re   w i t h   t h e   re g u l at i o n’s   d e f i n i t i o n   o f   b e n e f i c i a r i e s 
as ‘pupils’ in attendance at ‘educational establishments’. Generally speak ing, 
in t he co u nt r ies  v is ited th es e te r ms  are   inappropr iate  fo r  n ur se r ies.

Approval 	 of 	 lo c a l	 a utho rities 	 as	‘edu c at ion	 aut horit ies’:   R eg ulation  ( E C ) 
N o   6 5 7 / 2 0 0 8   l i s t s   fo u r   c a t e g o r i e s   o f   e l i g i b l e   a p p l i c a n t s.   Lo c a l   a u t h o r i t i e s, 
w hich  are   an  indis p ensable  par t   of  th e   s ch eme   i n  many  M e mbe r   St ates,   are 
ap p roved u nder c ategor y (b). 

Although the French and I talian versions of the previous regulation defined 
t h i s   c a t e g o r y   i n   f a r   b r o a d e r   t e r m s   ( ‘ l e   p o u v o i r   o r g a n i s a t e u r   e f fe c t u a n t   l a 
d e m a n d e   d ’a i d e’  /  ‘ l ’a m m i n i s t r a z i o n e   r e s p o n s a b i l e’ ) ,   a   s t a n d a r d i s e d   t e r m 
(‘education authority ’) is used in Regulation (EC ) No 657/2008. However, this 
raises the question as to whether local authorities may legally be considered, 
in ever y  M emb er State,  to be  ‘educati on  auth or it ie s’. 

In the French version of the regulation, the earlier term ‘écoles maternelles’ (Article 2(1)(a) of Commission Regulation 

1 
(EC) No 2707/2000 (OJ L 311, 12.12.2000, p. 37)) has been replaced by ‘crèches ou autres établissements d’éducation préscolaire’ 

(Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 657/2008).

2 

In the other relevant language versions the term used has not been changed —  ‘nursery (school)’ (English), ‘scuola materna’ 

(Italian), ‘przedszkola’ (Polish), ‘Kindergarten’ (German), ‘förskola’ (Swedish). However, differences in what these terms mean have 

resulted in different applications/interpretations.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

 
 
45

A N N E X 	 I I

3.	

4.	

R e f l e c t i n g 	 t h e 	 l e ve l 	 o f 	 a i d 	 i n 	 c a n t e e n s : 	 t h e   r e g u l a t i o n   r e q u i r e s   M e m b e r 
States to ensure ‘that the amount of the aid is duly reflec ted in the price paid 
by  t he b e nef ic iar y ’ 3.  I t appeared esse ntial to inc lud e th is c laus e in  ord er  to 
g u a r a n t e e   t h a t   t h e   a i d   a c t u a l l y   re a c h e s   t h e   t a rg e t   b e n e f i c i a r i e s.   H owe ve r, 
where canteens and nurseries charge beneficiaries a fixed one -time fee there 
a re   i n   p ra c t i ce   n o   s p e c i f i c   c h e c k s   o n   t h i s   re q u i re m e n t ,   w h i c h   i s   ve r y   o f te n 
unver if ia ble.

O rg a n i s at i o n 	 o f 	 o n - t h e - s p o t 	 c h e c k s 	 by 	 t h e 	 M e m b e r 	 S t at e s :   a   l e g a l   p ro -
ced ure  has  b een  l aunched bet ween  th e Com m iss i on  an d on e M e m be r St ate 
ab o ut  its  inter pret at ion  of t he re qui re me nts  re lat in g  to  on- th e -sp ot  c he c ks 
(in p ar t ic ul ar th e no tion s of ex  ante an d ex  p ost chec ks).  However,  th e audit 
fou nd t hat  t he  o th er M ember St ates  d o no t a ll i nter pre t  th e se  p rovisi on s in 
t h e   s a m e   w a y.   I n   o r d e r   t o   e n s u r e   t h a t   a   s t a n d a r d   a p p r o a c h   i s   u s e d ,   t h e r e 
sh ou l d b e a co ns ul t ation proces s  i nvolv i ng  al l par ti es. 

Give n that the  t wo regulation s are  broa dly s i mi lar  in  t h is re spe c t,  t h e a rgu-
me nt  al so  ap p lies  to t he Fr uit  S c he m e.

S P E C I F I C 	 P R O B L E M S 	 D E T E C T E D 	 I N 	T H E 	 M E M B E R 	 S TAT E S 	T H AT 	W E R E	
V I S I T E D

5.	

S om e exam pl es o f p rob lem s h ig hl i ghte d  in  t he   var ious  M e mbe r   St ate s:

(a) The audit revealed deficiencies in one Member State’s system of controls. 
N o   d o c u m e n t s   c o u l d   b e   o b t a i n e d   fo r   c e r t a i n   c h e c k s,   i n   o t h e r   c a s e s   t h e 
i n s p e c t o r s’  w o r k   w a s   n o t   s u i t a b l e   fo r   d e t a i l e d   c h e c k s   o f   t h e   q u a n t i t i e s 
de cl ared,  and in o ne case the  qu ant it ie s  de c lare d  we re  n ot   ju st if ie d. 

(b) I n  an ot her  M ember  St ate,   the   le gal   basis   for   approval  of   t he   ma in  appli -
c a nt   re q u i re s   co n f i r m at i o n ,   a s   t h e   a p p l i c a n t   d o e s   n o t   d i re c t l y   m e e t   t h e 
for mal   conditio n s in th e regulat io n.

3  Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 657/2008.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

 
46

A N N E X 	 I I

(c ) I n   a  t hird  M emb er   State,  applicati on s   f rom   e st ablis h me nt s  a nd  loc al  au -
t h o r i t i e s   we re   o f te n   d raw n   u p   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   p u rc h a s e   s t at i s t i c s   w h i c h 
w e r e   u s u a l l y   n o t   v e r i f i e d   d u r i n g   c o n t r o l s .   I n   a d d i t i o n ,   q u a n t i t i e s   c o n -
s u m e d   b y   i n e l i g i b l e   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   w e r e   o f t e n   d e d u c t e d   i n   a   s u b j e c t i v e 
and  no t ea sily  ver if iable man ner.

(d)  I n   a   f i n a l   M e m b e r   S t a t e ,   s e v e n   o f   t h e   n i n e   e s t a b l i s h m e n t s   v i s i t e d   h a d 
no t ta ken th e tro u b le to put  up a n  in for mati on po ste r  as re qui red  by t h e 
reg u l at io n.

W O R K LO A D 	 I M P O S E D 	 BY 	 E X I S T I N G 	 CO N T R O L S

Und er  mo st   pre s ent  ar rangement s,   bot h  t he   auth or it ie s  and   applic ant s  are 
faced with a work load that is ver y significant when compared with the  of ten 
v e r y   s m a l l   a v a i l a b l e   a m o u n t s   ( s e e   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   p a r a g r a p h s   4 2   t o   4 5   a n d 
B ox   8).

Th e   p ro b l e m s   h i g h l i g hte d   m u s t   t h e re fo re   b e   re s o l ve d   b e a r i n g   i n   m i n d   t h e 
c o s t - e f f e c t i v e n e s s   o f   t h e   c o n t r o l s   a n d   r e q u i r e m e n t s   e s t a b l i s h e d   i n   t h e 
reg u l at io n.

S C H O O L 	 F R U I T

The first payments in M ember States under the Fruit S cheme were not made 
u n t i l   t h e   b e g i n n i n g   o f   2 0 1 0 ,   a n d   i t   i s   t h e r e fo r e   t o o   s o o n   t o   a s s e s s   t h e   e f -
fec tiveness of the monitoring and control system. Nonetheless, a number of 
s p e c i f i c   p ro b l e m s   we re   i d e nt i f i e d   i n   t h e   way   t h e   re g u l at i o n   i s   i nte r p re te d. 
Th ese  are se t o ut  in p aragraphs  9  to 1 1   bel ow.

Funding	of	accompanying	measures	that	are	par t	and	parcel	of	a	fruit	de -
liver y	contrac t: in one Member State the scheme was implemented through 
a single call for tenders, which included accompanying measures. Although, 
un der Ar t icle  5 o f R eg ulatio n (EC ) N o 2 88 /2 00 9 , t he se  me asu re s are  not  e li -
gible for EU co -financing, the audit found that they accounted for a substan -
t ial  share  of t he  tender value.

6.	

7.	

8.	

9.	

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

47

A N N E X 	 I I

10.   D i f f i c u l t y 	 i n 	 d e f i n i n g 	 w h a t 	 c o n s t i t u t e s 	 a 	 s a t i s f a c t o r y 	 a c c o m p a n y i n g	
m e a s u re, 	 b o t h 	 q u a nt i t at i ve l y 	 a n d 	 q u a l i t at i ve l y, 	 w i t h i n 	 t h e 	 m e a n i n g 	 o f	
t h e 	 re g u l at i o n :   n o t   o n e   o f   t h e   t h re e   o t h e r   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   v i s i t e d   h a d   ye t 
re s o l ve d   t h i s   m at te r   o r   d e c i d e d   o n   t h e   f ra m e wo r k   fo r   a   re l e va nt   s ys te m   o f 
co nt ro ls  an d sanc tion s.

11.   Co - f i n a n c i n g 	 o f 	‘co s t s’ :   t h e   re g u l a t i o n   p ro v i d e s   fo r   t h e   c o s t s   o f   p ro d u c t s 
delivered to schools to be co -financed. This clause is direc tly relevant where 
aid is  p aid to  t he p u rchaser ( sc h ool  or  lo c al co un ci l,  as in  Fran ce) .  Howe ver, 
where aid goes to the supplier (as in G er many, I taly and Poland), the notion 
of costs, as used in the regulation, is not direc tly relevant because the level 
o f   a i d   c a n   o n l y   b e   c a l c u l ate d   o n   t h e   s a l e   p r i ce,   w h i c h   n e ce s s a r i l y   i n c l u d e s 
a p ro fit  margin.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

48

A N N E X 	 I I I

S U M M A R Y 	 O F 	T H E 	2005	 E X T E R N A L 	 E VA LUAT I O N 	 I N 	T H E 	 U K 	 O F	
T H E 	 N AT I O N A L 	TO P - U P 	TO 	T H E 	 E U 	 S C H O O L 	 M I L K 	 S U B S I DY 	 I N	
E N G L A N D

1.	

2.	

3.	

In 2005 the United Kingdom carried out an evaluation of the National Top -Up 
to   t he  E U  S cho ol  M il k  Subs idy  in   E n g lan d. The   s cope   o f   t hi s  e va luat io n  wa s 
l imited   to  sal es   o f  mil k   at   a  re duce d  pr i ce   and  d id  n ot   in c lude   t he  nat io nal 
s c h e m e   fo r   d i s t r i b u t i n g   m i l k   f re e   o f   c h a r g e   t o   c h i l d r e n   a g e d   u n d e r   5   ( s e e 
p ara graphs 8 a nd 6 1) .

Th e   co n c l u s i o n s   o f   t h i s   s t u d y   we re   h i g h l y   c r i t i c a l   o f   t h e   m e a s u re   a s   b e i n g 
both inefficient and ineffec tive. I n par ticular, the evaluation highlighted the 
scheme’s low added value and high management costs, and the fac t that the 
su b sidis ed mil k cos ts  pupil s m ore   th an  t he  s upe r ma r k e t  pr ice.

T h e   re p o r t   c o n c l u d e d   t h a t   t h e   N a t i o n a l  To p - U p   w a s   p o o r   v a l u e   fo r   m o n e y 
and  recomme nded that the  gove r nm ent s h ou ld s top  payi ng  it :

‘ 1) […] Because the Top -Up creates high administrative costs and has appar-
ently small benefits for child health, the UK gover nment should consider 
end ing  it. [… ].

2)  I n  l ig ht  o f  t he  co sts  an d  be nefit s  of   th e  E U  S c h ool   M ilk   S u bsidy   S c h em e, 
a n d   t h e   we a k   ra t i o n a l e   fo r   a   p ro gr a m m e   to   m a k e   s u b s i d i s e d   m i l k   av a i l -
ab l e to s cho o ls, the UK gover nm e nt  s ho uld con si de r  dis c uss ing wit h  t h e 
Euro p ean Comm is sion  th e  idea  of   en din g  th e  E U  S MS S.   [ …]

[…] Were the Top -Up and per haps also the EU SMSS to end, the gover nment 
might be interested in other effor ts to promote young people’s consumption 
o f   m i l k .  We   fe e l   t h at   l a rg e - s c a l e   s c h o o l   m i l k   p ro gra m m e s   d o   n o t   re p re s e nt 
a   s e n s i b l e   u s e   o f   p u b l i c   f u n d s ,   b u t   t h a t   j u s t i f i c a t i o n   e x i s t s   f o r   n a r r o w l y -
t a rg e te d   p ro gra m m e s.  We   re co m m e n d   s u c h   p ro gr a m m e s   p rov i d e   f re e   m i l k 
rather than milk at a price, since it is likely to be much cheaper to administer 
p rogra mmes t hat  d o not  re quire  te ac h er s  to t rac k pare nt s’  paym e nt s.’

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

49

A N N E X 	 I I I

4.	

T h e   f u l l   t e x t   o f   t h e   e v a l u a t i o n ,   w h i c h   w a s   c a r r i e d   o u t   fo r   t h e   D e p a r t m e n t 
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (D efra) by London Economics in co -
o pe rat ion w it h D r Sus an  New, can  be  con sul ted  at :

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfar m/evaluation/school
milk/fullrepor t.pdf.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

 
50

A N N E X 	 I V

A 	 H E S I TA N T 	 S TA R T 	TO 	T H E 	 F R U I T 	 S C H E M E

L AU N C H 	 M U C H 	 M O R E 	 H E S I TA N T 	T H A N 	 E X P E C T E D 	 …

1.	

Com p ared wit h the initial targe t  o f  9 0 mi llio n euro in  t he  f ir st  sc h oo l ye ar 4, 
j u s t   3 3   m i l l i o n   e u ro   w a s   d i s b u r s e d   i n   2 0 0 9 / 1 0 .   O f   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t h a t 
w e r e   c h i e f l y   c o n c e r n e d ,   o n l y   I t a l y   w a s   a b l e   t o   i m p l e m e n t   t h e   s c h e m e   a s 
de scr ib ed in it s  strategy ( see Gra ph) .

CO M PA R I S O N 	 B E T W E E N 	 B U D G E T 	 A L LO C AT I O N 	 A N D 	 E X P E N D I T U R E	
I N C U R R E D 	 F O R 	T H E 	2009/10	 S C H O O L 	Y E A R 	 ( I N 	 M I L L I O N 	 E U R O )

25

20

15

10

5

0

DE

IT

FR

PL

ES

RO

PT

Others

Budget allocation

Expenditure incurred

Source: European Commission.

4  The 2010 budget was based on the assumption that the entire available amount would be spent (two thirds of it in the 2010 
financial year).

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

51

A N N E X 	 I V

2.	

3.	

4.	

5.	

These initial results show both that the Commission was being realistic when 
it recommended reducing the budget proposed by the European Parliament 5, 
and  th at  its ow n forec asts for  th e laun ch  pha s e were s t ill f ar  too  o pt im i st ic.

O f t he co u nt r ies  that were visited :

(a) I n  Po l and   t he  del ays  were   c aused   by  adm ini s trati ve   h old- ups  and  by  t h e 
f a c t   t h a t   t h e   n a t i o n a l   i m p l e m e n t i n g   r u l e s   i n i t i a l l y   m a d e   i t   h a rd   t o   f i n d 
su p pl ie rs wil ling  to  make deliver i es.

(b) I n   G e r m a ny,   t h e   l a u n c h   w a s   d e l aye d   by   t a l k s   b e t we e n   n a t i o n a l   g ove r n -

me nt  and t he regions on th e topi c  of  co - f i nan ci ng.

(c ) I n   Fr a n c e   t o o   t h e   v e r y   s l o w   s t a r t   w a s   d u e   t o   d i f f i c u l t i e s   i n   f i n d i n g   c o -
financing. In the absence of a national contribution, each establishment ’s 
par ticipation is dependent on local funding (usually from the local coun -
cil ).  Ob taining t his local complem e nt  h as  so f ar   prove d pro ble m at i c.

…	 B U T 	 I N T E R E S T 	 I N 	T H E 	 S C H E M E 	 R E M A I N S 	 H I G H

I n   t h e   U n i te d   K i n g d o m ,   t h e   m a i n   re a s o n   fo r   n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n   i s   t h a t   a   f a r 
mo re  amb itio u s  n atio nal  sc h em e  of   f re e   di s tr i buti on   is  alre ady   op erat i on al 
(wo r t h  44  mill io n p o u nds p er  ye ar  i n  En gl an d  alon e ). 

T h e   h u g e   d e l a y s   e x p e r i e n c e d   v i r t u a l l y   e v e r y w h e r e   a p p e a r   t o   h a v e   b e e n 
c a u s e d   b y   a n   i m b a l a n c e   b e t w e e n ,   o n   t h e   o n e   h a n d ,   p o l i t i c a l   s u p p o r t   a n d 
e n t h u s i a s m   fo r   a   r a p i d   p ro j e c t   l a u n c h   a n d,   o n   t h e   o t h e r,   t h e   v a r i o u s   p a r t -
n e r s’  p r a c t i c a l   i n a b i l i t y   to   o rg a n i s e   t h e   l a u n c h   o n   s c h e d u l e.  Th e   t i m e t a b l e 
ado p ted by t he Comm iss ion did n ot allow th e  M embe r  State s to  k now what 
t h e i r   2 0 0 8 – 0 9   b u d g e t a r y   a l l o c a t i o n   w a s   u n t i l   J u l y   2 0 0 9 ,   w h e re a s   o n c e   t h e 
s c h e m e   i s   r u n n i n g   s m o o t h l y   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   d e c i s i o n   w i l l   b e   t a k e n   b y   3 1 
M arch o f t he p revious   ye ar.

5  The Parliament had initially proposed a budget of 500 million euro. In the end it was the Commission’s proposal of just 
90 million euro that was agreed. The Commission felt in particular that the project first had to prove itself on a smaller scale.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

52

A N N E X 	 I V

6.	

7.	

A l t h o u g h   t h e s e   d e l ays   h ave   t h e re fo re   a l s o   p o s t p o n e d   t h e   s c h e m e’s   a n t i c i -
pated impac t, this does not mean that there is no interest. Where the scheme 
is operational the first positive echoes are being received, and 14 of the par-
ticipating Member States have increased their budget forecasts for 2010/11 6. 

I n  all   p ro b abilit y,   p ar t ic ipat ion  will  soon  be  lim ite d  only   by   t he   ava ilabilit y 
o f re so urces  from  t he EU  or  n ati ona l bud ge ts.

6  Nonetheless, as Member States were unable to assess their needs for the first year, it is not yet possible to determine whether these 
new requests will prove to have been more realistic.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

5353

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

SUMMARY

I –II I.
T h e   E u r o p e a n   S c h o o l   M i l k   S c h e m e   ( S M S ) 
a n d   t h e   S c h o o l   Fr u i t   S c h e m e   ( S F S )   a i m   t o 
e n c o u r a g e   c o n s u m p t i o n ,   a m o n g   c h i l d re n , 
o f   h e a l t hy   d a i r y   p ro d u c t s   a n d   o f   s u f f i c i e nt 
a m o u n t s   o f   f r u i t   a n d   v e g e t a b l e s .   B e y o n d 
t h i s   n u t r i t i o n a l   c h a r a c t e r   t h e y   a l s o   h a v e 
a n   e d u c a t i o n a l   c h a r a c t e r,   e n c o u r a g i n g 
a   h e a l t h y   w a y   o f   l i v i n g   a n d   s o u n d   e a t -
i n g   h a b i t s   a t   a n   e a r l y   a g e ,   w h i c h   s t u d -
i e s   s h o w   t e n d   t o   b e   c a r r i e d   o n   i n t o   l a t e r 
l i f e .   B y   d o i n g   s o,   b o t h   p r o g r a m m e s   c o n -
t r i b u t e   a l s o   t o   t h e   f i g h t   a g a i n s t   o b e s i t y 
a m o n g   c h i l d r e n .   I n   a d d i t i o n ,   b y   p r o m o t -
i n g   c o n s u m p t i o n ,   t h e y   a l s o   c o n t r i b u t e   t o 
i m p r o v e   m a r k e t   b a l a n c e   fo r   t h e   p r o d u c t s 
conce r ne d.

T h e   S M S   w a s   r e v i s e d   i n   2 0 0 8   a n d   2 0 0 9 
a m i d   a   w i d e   c o n s u l t a t i o n   i n v o l v i n g   a l l 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s,   t h e   E u ro p e a n   Pa r l i a m e n t , 
t h e   C o u n c i l   a n d   d i f f e r e n t   s t a k e h o l d e r s , 
i n c l u d i n g   o t h e r   Co m m i s s i o n   s e r v i c e s,   t h e 
i n d u s t r y,   d i f fe r e n t   c o m p a n i e s   i nv o l v e d   i n 
the scheme, and also teachers, parents and 
pupils. The consultation gave r ise to useful 
s u g g e s t i o n s   fo r   i m p rov i n g   t h e   ove ra l l   e f f i -
c i e n c y   o f   t h e   s ys te m   t h a t   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n 
took on board when reviewing the scheme. 

T h e   s u c c e s s   o f   t h i s   c o n s u l t a t i o n   a n d   t h e 
ove r a l l   re v i e w   o f   t h e   S M S   h i g h l i g h t e d   t h e 
widespread interest that all relevant ac tors 
h ave   i n   t h i s   m e a s u re   a s   we l l   a s   t h e   s t ro n g 
suppor t it en joys  from M em ber  State s. 

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

54

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

Th e   s a m e   i s   t r u e   a s   re g a rd s   t h e   S F S .   I n   i t s 
r e s o l u t i o n   o f   8   M a r c h   2 0 1 1   o n   r e d u c i n g 
health inequalities in the EU 1 the European 
Pa r l i a m e n t   s h a re d   t h i s   b ro a d   s u p p o r t   a n d 
c a l l e d   o n   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   ‘ [ … ]   t o   m a k e 
g r e a t e r   u s e   o f   t h e   e f f e c t i v e   p r o g r a m m e s 
e s t a b l i s h e d   u n d e r   t h e   C A P   ( f r e e   d i s t r i b u -
t i o n   o f   m i l k   a n d   f r u i t   i n   s c h o o l s   [ … ] ) ’  s o 
as to encourage a varied, high- qualit y diet.

V.
A s   r e g a r d s   t h e   S M S ,   t h e   l i s t   o f   e l i g i b l e 
d a i r y   p r o d u c t s   h a s   b e e n   e x t e n d e d   i n   t h e 
2 0 0 8   re v i s i o n   o f   t h e   s c h e m e   fo l l ow i n g   d i s -
c u s s i o n s   w i t h   h e a l t h   a u t h o r i t i e s.   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s   a r e   f r e e   t o   c h o o s e   f r o m   t h e   l i s t   o f 
eligible p ro duc ts.

A s   fo r   t h e   S F S ,   t h e   e l i g i b l e   p ro d u c t s   h a ve 
t o   b e   a g re e d   w i t h   t h e   i nvo l ve m e n t   o f   t h e 
nat iona l heal t h au tho r ities.

VI.
Va r i o u s   r e v i s i o n s   o f   t h e   S M S   h a v e   t a k e n 
p l a c e   o v e r   t h e   l a s t   d e c a d e ,   t h e   l a t e s t 
o n e s   i n   2 0 0 8   a n d   2 0 0 9   a i m e d   i n   p a r t i c u -
lar to increase its effec tiveness. The public 
c o n s u l t a t i o n   c a r r i e d   o u t   i n   t h e   c o n t e x t   o f 
t h e s e   re v i s i o n s   h a s   s h o w n   a   w i d e   g e n e r a l 
i n t e r e s t   f r o m   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a n d   s t a k e -
h o l d e r s   f o r   t h e   s c h e m e ,   d e s p i t e   t h e   r e l a -
tively  low l evel o f the aid.

1  European Parliament resolution of 8 March 2011 on reducing 
health inequalities in the EU (2010/2089(INI), point 63.

( a)  T h e   S M S   e n c o u r a g e s   t h e   p a r t i c i p a t i o n 
of Member States and highlights the nu-
tr itional value of the produc ts. Fur ther-
more, eve n if limited,  th e EU aid  c a n  be 
topped up by national contributions, as 
it is already the case in several M ember 
States. 

The Commission  does n ot share  t h e ex-
tent of  t he deadweight  ef fec t ob se r ved 
by  th e Cour t. 

The  Commission  con sider s  t hat   t he   lat-
est   revision   of   th e  sch em e  h as   red uce d 
the r isk related to the produc t distr ibu -
tion  in  the cantee ns.

( b)  I n   l i n e   w i t h   t h e   s u b s i d i a r i t y   p r i n c i p l e , 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a ve   t h e   re s p o n s i b i l i t y 
t o   i m p l e m e n t   t h e   s c h e m e   w i t h i n   t h e 
f ra m e wo r k   s e t   at   E U   l e ve l.   E x a m p l e s   o f 
e d u c at i o n a l   a n d   p ro m o t i o n a l   a c t i v i t i e s 
related to the SMS can be found in many 
of th em.

I n   a d d i t i o n ,   t h e   re v i s i o n   c a r r i e d   o u t   i n 
2 0 0 8   h a s   m o d i f i e d   t h e   r e l e v a n t   p r o v i -
s i o n s   c o n c e r n i n g   s o m e   u s e s   o f   m i l k 
and milk produc ts in the preparation of 
m e a l s ,   t h e   o b j e c t i v e   b e i n g   t h a t   p r o d -
uc ts remain visible and recognisable for 
the pupils, so that the scheme does not 
lose its  educational ch arac ter.

Fu r t h e r m o r e ,   a   p o s t e r   m u s t   b e   p l a c e d 
at   t h e   m a i n   e nt ra n ce   o f   t h e   e d u c at i o n -
a l   e s t a b l i s h m e n t s   p a r t i c i p a t i n g   i n   t h e 
sc he me. 

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

 
 
 
 
VII.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
overall positive conclusions with regard to 
th e S FS.

I n   2 0 1 2 ,   t h e   o u t c o m e   o f   t h e   e v a l u a t i o n 
o f   t h e   S c h o o l   Fr u i t   S c h e m e   w i l l   b e   a v a i l -
a b l e   a n d   t h e   e va l u at i o n   o f   t h e   S c h o o l   M i l k 
S cheme wil l  b e lau nched.

VIII.	(a)
The Commission does not share the Cour t ’s 
a s s e s s m e nt   o f   t h e   m a gn i t u d e   o f   t h e   we a k-
nesses it  ide nt if ied  in  rel atio n to  t h e  SM S. 

As   a l re a d y   m e nt i o n e d   a b ove,   t h e   S M S   wa s 
r e v i s e d   i n   2 0 0 8   a n d   2 0 0 9 .   T h e   w i d e   p u b -
l i c   co n s u l t at i o n   l a u n c h e d   o n   t h i s   o cc a s i o n 
gave r ise to useful suggestions for improv-
ing th e overal l  effic ienc y of t he  s ys te m. 

T h e   s u c c e s s   o f   t h i s   c o n s u l t a t i o n   a n d   t h e 
ove r a l l   re v i e w   o f   t h e   S M S   h i g h l i g h t e d   t h e 
widespread interest that all relevant ac tors 
h ave   i n   t h i s   m e a s u re   a s   we l l   a s   t h e   s t ro n g 
suppor t it  enjoys fro m M emb er St ate s. 

VIII.	(b)
T h e   f r e e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   m i l k   a n d   m i l k 
p r o d u c t s ,   w h i l e   o b v i o u s l y   i n c r e a s i n g   t h e 
uptake, is not a guarantee for an increased 
effec tivene ss of  t he sc heme. 

I mposing a targeting on all M ember States 
w o u l d   r i s k   i n c r e a s i n g   t h e   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 
b u r d e n   l i n k e d   t o   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f 
t h e   s c h e m e   a n d   c o u l d   l e a d   t o   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s   d r o p p i n g   o u t   o f   t h e   s c h e m e ,   t h u s 
reducin g co nsid erab ly  its effec t i ve ne ss. 

5555

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

V II I.	(c )
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t   t h e   r e v i -
s i o n   o f   t h e   S M S   i n   2 0 0 8   h a s   a l r e a d y 
r e d u c e d   t h e   r i s k   o f   d e a d w e i g h t   e f f e c t 
linked to canteens by excluding some uses 
o f   m i l k   a n d   m i l k   p ro d u c t s   i n   t h e   p re p a r a -
tion  of meals.

E x c l u d i n g   t h e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   t h e   s u b s i -
d i s e d   p ro d u c t s   i n   t h e   c a nte e n s,   e s p e c i a l l y 
i n   ce r t a i n   M e m b e r   St ate s   w h e re   t h e   d i s t r i-
bution traditionally occurs that way, could 
re s u l t   i n   a   d e c re a s e   i n   t h e   p a r t i c i p at i o n   i n 
th e S MS .

I n   a d d i t i o n ,   a s   to   t h e   v i s i b i l i t y   o f   t h e   S M S , 
A r t i c l e   1 6   o f   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   6 5 7 / 2 0 0 8 
re q u i re s   a   p o s te r   to   b e   p l a ce d   at   t h e   m a i n 
e n t r a n c e   o f   t h e   e d u c a t i o n a l   e s t a b l i s h -
m e n t s   p a r t i c i p a t i n g   i n   t h e   s c h e m e .   T h e 
same  is tr ue for  t he Fruit S c he me.

V II I.	(d )
The evaluation of the SFS foreseen in 2012 
w i l l   g i v e   t h e   o p p o r t u n i t y   t o   a s s e s s   t h e 
e f fe c t i ve n e s s   o f   t h i s   p ro gra m m e   a n d   o f   i t s 
a cco m p a ny i n g   m e a s u re s.   An   e va l u at i o n   o f 
t h e   S M S   i s   a l s o   p l a n n e d   to   b e   l a u n c h e d   i n 
2 01 2.

V II I.	(e)
S y n e r g i e s   i n   t h e   m a n a g e m e n t   o f   t h e   t w o 
s c h e m e s   a r e   a l r e a d y   p o s s i b l e   a t   M e m b e r 
State level. 

Fu r t h e r m o r e ,   t h e   e v a l u a t i o n s   o f   t h e   t w o 
program me s  may   show  whe th er   ot he r   s yn-
ergies are possible and oppor tun e. 

INTRODUCTION

3 .
The t wo objec tives of the SMS, mar ket sta-
b i l i s a t i o n   a n d   n u t r i t i o n a l ,   g o   t o g e t h e r   a s 
fo re s e e n   i n   t h e   re c i t a l s   o f   t h e   re l e v a n t   E U 
regulations.

B ox	 1
S ee  th e reply  to point  3.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

56

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

AUDIT	SCOPE	AND	APPROACH

15.
I n   t h e   2 0 0 8   re v i s i o n   o f   t h e   S M S ,   t h e   l i s t   o f 
e l i gi b l e   d a i r y   p ro d u c t s   h a s   b e e n   ex te n d e d 
fo l l ow i n g   d i s c u s s i o n s   w i t h   h e a l t h   a u t h o r -
i t i e s .   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a r e   f r e e   t o   c h o o s e 
from the list  o f el igib l e p rodu c t s.

A s   fo r   t h e   S F S ,   t h e   e l i g i b l e   p ro d u c t s   h a ve 
t o   b e   a g re e d   w i t h   t h e   i nvo l ve m e n t   o f   t h e 
nat iona l heal t h au tho r ities.

19.
Th e   o b s e r v a t i o n s   re fe r re d   to   by   t h e   Co u r t 
i n   A n n e x   I I   h a v e   b e e n   a d d r e s s e d   o r   a r e 
b e i n g   a d d r e s s e d   b y   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s e r -
vices. S ee t he det ail ed rep l ies in   An nex  II.

OBSERVATIONS

20.
Since the 1999 evaluation the M ilk S cheme 
h a s   b e e n   re v i s e d   s e ve r a l   t i m e s.  Th e   l a t e s t 
r e v i s i o n s   o f   2 0 0 8   a n d   2 0 0 9   a i m e d   i n   p a r -
t i c u l a r   t o   i n c r e a s e   i t s   e f f e c t i v e n e s s .   T h e 
following  main c hang es were int ro d uce d:

—  T h e   l i s t   o f   e l i g i b l e   p r o d u c t s   w a s   w i d -
ened,  so   t hat   p up il s   wo u ld  have   acce ss 
to a larger variety of healthy dair y prod-
u c t s .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   t o o k   o n   b o a r d 
M e m b e r   S t a te s’  re q u e s t s   a n d   a l s o   to o k 
i n t o   a c c o u n t   c e r t a i n   h e a l t h   r e q u i r e -
ments (for example a maximum level of 
added s ug ar co ntent was s et).

—  S e c o n d a r y   s c h o o l s   w e r e   g r a n t e d   t h e 
same r ight to par ticipate in the scheme 
a s   o t h e r   e d u c a t i o n a l   e s t a b l i s h m e n t s 
(before they could be excluded from the 
schem e).

—  Restric tions in the produc t use in meals 
we re   i n t ro d u ce d :   p ro d u c t s   s h o u l d   s t ay 
c l e a r l y   v i s i b l e   a n d   r e c o g n i s a b l e   f o r 
pupils.

—  A d m i n i s t r a t i v e   r e q u i r e m e n t s   r e l a t e d 
t o   t h e   a p p l i c a t i o n   p r o c e d u r e   w e r e 
simplifie d.

—  Procedures for checks were clarified and 

simplifie d.

—  Th e   re q u i re m e nt   fo r   a   s c h o o l   m i l k   p o s -
t e r   w a s   i n t r o d u c e d ,   s o   t h a t   t h e   p u b l i c 
w o u l d   b e   a w a r e   o f   t h e   E U   s u b s i d y   a n d 
th e sc h eme itse lf.

A   n e w   e va l u at i o n   o f   t h e   S M S   i s   p l a n n e d   to 
be launc h ed in 2 01 2.

2 2.
T h e   re p o r t   m e n t i o n e d   b y   t h e   Co u r t   re fe r s 
t o   s a l e s   a t   r e d u c e d   p r i c e   a n d   t h e   t o p -
u p - r e l a t e d   p a r t   o f   t h e   s c h e m e   i n   E n g l a n d 
w h e re   t h e   a d m i n i s t rat i ve   b u rd e n   d e p e n d s 
a l s o   o n   n a t i o n a l   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .   I n   s p i t e 
of the conclusion of the evaluation, the UK 
d e c i d e d   t o   c o n t i n u e   p a r t i c i p a t i n g   i n   t h e 
E U sc he me.

2 3.
Th e   S M S   wa s   l a s t   re v i s e d   i n   2 0 0 8   a n d   2 0 0 9 
a m i d   a   w i d e   c o n s u l t a t i o n   i n v o l v i n g   a l l 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s,   t h e   E u r o p e a n   Pa r l i a m e n t , 
t h e   C o u n c i l   a n d   d i f f e r e n t   s t a k e h o l d e r s , 
i n c l u d i n g   o t h e r   Co m m i s s i o n   s e r v i c e s ,   t h e 
i n d u s t r y,   d i f fe r e n t   c o m p a n i e s   i nv o l v e d   i n 
the scheme, and also teachers, parents and 
pupils. The consultation gave r ise to useful 
s u g g e s t i o n s   fo r   i m p rov i n g   t h e   ove ra l l   e f f i-
c i e n c y   o f   t h e   s ys te m   t h a t   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n 
took on board when reviewing the scheme. 
S ee  th e reply  to point  20  for  mo re  de tai ls.

T h e   s u c c e s s   o f   t h i s   c o n s u l t a t i o n   a n d   t h e 
o ve r a l l   re v i e w   o f   t h e   S M S   h i g h l i g h t e d   t h e 
widespread interest that all relevant ac tors 
h ave   i n   t h i s   m e a s u re   a s   we l l   a s   t h e   s t ro n g 
suppor t it en joys  from M em ber  State s. 

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

5757

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

T h e   E u r o p e a n   P a r l i a m e n t   h a s   a l s o 
expressed its suppor t for the SMS (and the 
S F S ) .   I n   i t s   r e s o l u t i o n   o f   8   M a r c h   2 0 1 1   o n 
re d u c i n g   h e a l t h   i n e q u a l i t i e s   i n   t h e   E U   t h e 
E u r o p e a n   Pa r l i a m e n t   c a l l e d   o n   t h e   C o m -
m i s s i o n  ‘ [ … ]   t o   m a k e   g r e a t e r   u s e   o f   t h e 
e f f e c t i v e   p r o g r a m m e s   e s t a b l i s h e d   u n d e r 
th e  C AP  (f ree  dist r ib ut io n  o f  mil k   and   f r ui t 
i n   s c h o o l s   [ … ] ) ’  s o   a s   t o   e n c o u r a g e   a   v a r -
ied, high- qua lit y  diet.

24– 26.
As   re g a rd s   t h e   S M S ,   t h e   i m p a c t   o f   t h e   p o l-
ic y concerns both the shor t- and long-term 
additional consumption of produc ts. Ac tiv-
i t y   i n d i c a t o r s   h e l p   m e a s u r i n g   t h e   i m p a c t 
o n   t h e   s h o r t   t e r m .   T h e s e   i n d i c a t o r s   a r e 
s i m p l e   a n d   e f f e c t i v e   b y   p r o v i d i n g   u s e f u l 
and essential  info r mat io n on the  f un c t io n-
i n g   o f   t h e   s c h e m e .   A s   r e g a r d s   t h e   l o n g -
t e r m   e f fe c t s,   i n d i c a t o r s   s h o u l d   b e   a b l e   t o 
m e a s u r e   t h e   a d d i t i o n a l   c o n s u m p t i o n   o f 
p r o d u c t s   o f   t h e   p u p i l s   i n v o l v e d   f o r   s e v -
eral years beyond their age of eligibilit y to 
t h e   s c h e m e.   Pu t t i n g   i n   p l a c e   s u c h   i n d i c a -
to r s   i s   o f te n   co s t l y   w h i l e   t h e   o u tco m e,   fo r 
their nature, remains rather uncer tain. The 
Co m m i s s i o n ,   o n ce   s o l i d   e v i d e n ce   f ro m   t h e 
e x p e r i e n c e   a c q u i r e d   fo r   t h e   S F S   b e c o m e s 
ava i l a b l e,   m ay   re f l e c t   o n   w h e t h e r   to   c a r r y 
o u t   a n   a s s e s s m e n t   o f   l o n g e r - t e r m   i n d i c a-
tors for th e SM S.

M o re o ve r,   t h e   S c h o o l   M i l k   S c h e m e   a l l o w s 
t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   t o   d e c i d e   t h e   f o r m   a n d 
c o n t e n t   o f   t h e   n o t i f i c a t i o n s   r e q u i r e d   b y 
t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ;   e . g.   i n   2 0 0 9 / 1 0   M e m-
b e r   S t a t e s   h a v e   b e e n   a s k e d   t o   p r o v i d e   a 
d e s c r i p t i o n   o f   t h e i r   e d u c a t i o n a l   a n d   p r o -
mot ional ac t ivities.

Fi n a l l y,   i t   s h o u l d   b e   n o t e d   t h a t   a n   e v a l u -
ation of the SMS is planned to be launched 
in 2012 .

With regard to the SFS, the outcome of the 
evaluation to be made in 2012 will contrib -
u t e   t o   a d d r e s s   t h e   i s s u e   o f   m e d i u m - t e r m 
indic ators. 

M e a nw h i l e,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   p ro v i d e d 
g u i d e l i n e s   f o r   t h e   a n n u a l   m o n i t o r i n g 
repor ts from M ember States, which include 
o u t p u t   i n d i c a t o r s ,   a n d   f o r   t h e   e v a l u a t i o n 
of th eir  sc hemes.

M o r e o v e r,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a l r e a d y   m a d e 
t h e   e x c h a n g e   o f   b e s t   p r a c t i c e s   p o s s i -
b l e   t h r o u g h   t h e   a n n u a l   S F S   s t a k e h o l d -
e r s’  m e e t i n g s   o f   2 6   Fe b r u a r y   2 0 1 0   a n d   2 4 
M a rc h   2 0 1 1   ( co m p o s e d   o f   re p re s e n t a t i ve s 
f r o m   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ,   t h e   A d v i s o r y 
G ro u p   o n   Fr u i t   a n d  Ve g e t a b l e s   a n d   e x t e r -
n a l   ex p e r t s )   b o t h   w i t h   a   s e s s i o n   o n   e va l u-
at i o n   a n d   o n   p o te nt i a l   m e d i u m / l o n g - te r m 
in dicator s.

I n   a d d i t i o n ,   t h e   gro u p   o f   ex p e r t s   fo r   te c h-
n i c a l   a d v i c e   e s t a b l i s h e d   i n   D e c e m b e r 
2 0 0 9 2  w i l l   b e   i nv i te d   to   gi ve   t h e i r   o p i n i o n 
on  this  subj ec t.

2 8–3 2 .
The impac t of the scheme goes beyond the 
d i re c t   e f fe c t s   o n   t h e   b a l a n c e   o f   t h e   i n t e r -
nal mar ket and encompasses especially the 
p e d a g o gi c a l   e f fe c t   o n   f u t u re   co n s u m p t i o n 
h abits of th e pupils. 

Th e   ex i s te n ce   o f   t h e   E U   a i d   a n d   t h e   d i s t r i -
bution of the produc ts highlight the nutr i -
tional value of the produc ts and encourage 
t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   d e v o t e   a d d i t i o n a l 
n ation al  re sources. 

W i t h   r e g a r d   t o   t h e   Fr u i t   S c h e m e ,   a   m o r e 
s i g n i f i c a n t   i m p a c t   c o u l d   b e   a t t a i n e d   a t 
‘c r u i s i n g   s p e e d ’  w h e r e ,   o n   o n e   h a n d ,   t h e 
e n t i r e   a v a i l a b l e   b u d g e t   w o u l d   b e   u s e d 
a n d ,   o n   t h e   o t h e r   h a n d ,   t h e   p r o g r a m m e 
wo u l d   h ave   h e l p e d   c h a n g e   t h e   n u t r i t i o n a l 
h abits of families.

T h e   e v a l u a t i o n   o f   t h e   S F S   i n   2 0 1 2   w i l l 
ass ess th e bud getar y  aspec t.

2  Commission Decision 2009/986/EU of 18 December 2009 estab-
lishing the group of experts for technical advice on the School Fruit 

Scheme

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

58

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

3 8–3 9 .
D espite th e ack n owled ged low le ve l of  th e 
aid  per   un it  of  prod uc t,  M e mbe r   St ates   are 
stron gly  in favour of th e  SM S. 

As   m e nt i o n e d   by   t h e   Co u r t   ( s e e   p o i nt   2 3 ) , 
s e v e r a l   i n i t i a t i v e s   h a v e   b e e n   c a r r i e d   o u t 
i n   o rd e r   to   s i m p l i f y   t h e   a p p l i c a t i o n   o f   t h e 
s c h e m e .   T h e   c h a n g e s   i n t r o d u c e d   i n   t h e 
reviews  of  200 8   an d  2 00 9  were   ex te ns i ve ly 
d i s c u s s e d   a n d   a n a l y s e d   w i t h   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s   a n d   d i f f e r e n t   s t a k e h o l d e r s .   O t h e r 
r e f l e c t i o n s   a r e   c u r r e n t l y   o n g o i n g   o n   h o w 
to f ur th er simplify  th is sc he me. 

B ox	 7
S ee  th e reply  to point s 3 8–3 9.

4 0–4 3 .
A l t h o u g h   t h e   l e v e l   o f   t h e   E U   a i d   i s   r a t h e r 
l i m i te d   w h e n   co m p a re d   to   t h e   p r i ce   o f   t h e 
p ro d u c t   a n d   co s t s   o f   d i s t r i b u t i o n ,   t h e   s i m -
p l e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   t h e   s u b s i d i s e d   p ro d u c t 
c a n   i n   p r i n c i p l e   p ro m o te   a n d   gi ve   va l u e   to 
the produc t (see point 66 of the Cour t) and 
s e r v e   a s   a n   i n c e n t i v e   f o r   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
t o   c o n t r i b u t e   t o   i t .   I n   t h i s   s e n s e,   M e m b e r 
St ate s   h ave   t h e   p o s s i b i l i t y   to   a d d   n at i o n a l 
f i n a n c i a l   r e s o u r c e s   t o   m a k e   t h e   d i s t r i b u -
tion  of milk free.

Wi t h   r e g a r d   t o   t h e   r e l a t e d   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 
b u rd e n ,   a s   a l re a d y   m e nt i o n e d   b e fo re,   s i m-
p l i f i c at i o n   h a s   a l re a d y   b e e n   c a r r i e d   o u t   i n 
t h e   p r e v i o u s   r e v i s i o n s   o f   t h e   s c h e m e   a n d 
r e f l e c t i o n s   a r e   c u r r e n t l y   o n g o i n g   o n   h o w 
to f ur th er simplify  th e SM S.

4 4–4 5 .
S ee  th e reply  to point s 3 8–3 9.

B ox	 8
S ee  th e reply  to point s 3 8–3 9.

33– 35.
S o m e   ex a m p l e s   s h ow   t h at   M e m b e r   St ate s, 
e s p e c i a l l y   w h e n   n a t i o n a l   r e s o u r c e s   a r e 
a d d e d   to   t h e   E U   a i d,   c a n   d e s i gn   t h e   d i s t r i -
b u t i o n   o f   p r o d u c t s   i n   a   w a y   t h a t   r e f l e c t s 
m o r e   e f f e c t i v e l y   t h e i r   s p e c i f i c   n a t i o n a l 
situ ation  and co nsu mp tion p atter ns.

36.
A l t h o u g h   d u r i n g   t h e   f i r s t   y e a r   o f   i m p l e -
m e n t a t i o n   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a v e   n o t   f o r e -
s e e n   a n   a l l o c a t i o n   o f   r e s o u r c e s   o n   t h e 
b a s i s   o f   n u t r i t i o n a l   n e e d s,   n o t h i n g   wo u l d 
prevent them from doing this in the future. 
The setting of such cr iter ia by the Commis-
s i o n   w o u l d   f u r t h e r   c o m p l i c a t e   t h e   i m p l e -
m e n t a t i o n   o f   t h e   S F S .   G i v e n   t h e   d i v e r s i t y 
o f   t h e   n a t i o n a l   s i t u a t i o n s ,   t h i s   s h o u l d   b e 
d o n e   m o re   c o nve n i e n t l y   a t   M e m b e r   S t a t e 
level.

37.
T h e   f a c t   t h a t   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   w i t h   a 
h i g h   c o n s u m p t i o n   p e r   i n h a b i t a n t   a re   a l s o 
t h e   m a i n   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   o f   t h e   s c h e m e   d o e s 
n o t   p r o v e   t h a t   t h e   s c h e m e   i s   n o t   e f f e c -
t i v e.   I n   t h e s e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ,   t h e   s c h e m e 
c o n t r i b u t e s   t o   m a i n t a i n i n g   a   g o o d   l e v e l 
o f   co n s u m p t i o n .   I t   i s   n o r m a l   t h a t   M e m b e r 
States which consider milk consumption as 
a   n u t r i t i o n a l   p r i o r i t y   h a v e   a l s o   t h e   h i g h -
est   u ptak e  (e sp ecial l y  wh en  t hes e   M embe r 
States are also the ones granting the high -
e s t   to p - u p) ,   w h i l e   t h e   p e n e t rat i o n   i s   m o re 
d i f f i c u l t   i n   M e m b e r   S t ate s   w h e re   t h e   re l a -
tive impor tance attr ibuted to milk is lower.

B ox 	6
S ee t he rep l y to  p oint 3 7. 

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

5959

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

46.
A s   re g a rd s   s p e c i f i c a l l y   t h e   g e n e r a l   e v a l u -
a t i o n   o f   t h e   C o u r t   o n   t h e   d e a d w e i g h t 
e f fe c t s,   i t   s h o u l d   b e   n o te d   t h a t ,   w h i l e   t h e 
concept is theoretically attrac tive, in prac -
t i ce   i t   c a n n o t   b e   m e a s u re d   a s   n o b o d y   c a n 
k n ow   w h at   wo u l d   h ave   b e e n   t h e   re fe re n ce 
s ce n a r i o   ( s ce n a r i o   w i t h   n o   p o l i c y )   a g a i n s t 
w h i c h   t h e   s ce n a r i o   w i t h   t h e   p o l i c y   s h o u l d 
be compared.

47– 50.
T h e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   t h e   m i l k   i n   t h e   c a n -
t e e n s ,   a s   s t a t e d   b y   t h e   C o u r t ,   h a s   s o m e 
a d v a n t a g e s ,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   i n   t e r m s   o f 
l o w e r   d i s t r i b u t i o n   c o s t s .  T h e   d e a d w e i g h t 
linked to this t ype of distr ibution has been 
a c t u a l l y   r e d u c e d   b y   t h e   2 0 0 8   r e v i s i o n 
b y   e x c l u d i n g   s o m e   u s e s   o f   m i l k   a n d   m i l k 
produc ts  in th e p rep arat io n o f m e a ls. 

51– 52.
I n   m a n y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   w h e r e   t h e 
s c h e m e’s   s o c i a l   c h a ra c te r   i s   s t ro n g e r,   e ve n 
a   s m a l l   d i f fe r e n c e   i n   t h e   p r i c e   c a n   h a v e   a 
re a l   i m p a c t   o n   w h e t h e r   t o   b u y   o r   n o t   b u y 
th e produc t s. 

B ox 	10
S ee reply to  p oint  2 2.

60– 63.
D e s p i t e   t h e   l o w   l e v e l   o f   t h e   E U   a i d ,   t h e 
s c h e m e   i s   w i d e l y   f a v o u r e d   b y   t h e   M e m -
b e r   S t a t e s .   I t   p r o v i d e s   a n   i n c e n t i v e   f o r 
t h e   m o b i l i s a t i o n   o f   a d d i t i o n a l   f i n a n c i a l 
r e s o u r c e s   f r o m   t h e   n a t i o n a l   a u t h o r i t i e s , 
a s   s h ow n   by   t h e   ex a m p l e s   re p o r te d   by   t h e 
Cour t. I n some M ember States the distr ibu-
t i o n   o f   t h e   p ro d u c t s   i s   fo r   f re e   a n d   c a n   b e 
o r g a n i s e d   i n   a   w a y   t o   e n s u r e   h i g h e r   p e r -
for man ce and effec tivenes s.

W i t h   r e g a r d   t o   t h e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   s u b s i -
d i s e d   p ro d u c t s   i n   t h e   c a n te e n s,   i n   ce r t a i n 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t h i s   i s   t h e   w a y   t h e   d i s t r i -
bution  trad it ion ally  t akes place. E s pe c i all y 
i n   t h o s e   c a s e s,   e xc l u d i n g   t h i s   t y p e   o f   d i s -
t r i b u t i o n   co u l d   re s u l t   i n   a   d e c re a s e   i n   t h e 
par t icipat ion  in th e SM S.

I n   t h e   c a s e   o f   F r a n c e   m e n t i o n e d   b y   t h e 
C o u r t   i n   p o i n t   6 0 ,   i t   i s   w o r t h   u n d e r l i n -
i n g   t h a t   i t   i s   i n c u m b e n t   u p o n   t h e   M e m -
b e r   S t a t e s   w h e t h e r   t o   p a r t i c i p a t e   i n   t h e 
s c h e m e   a n d   u p o n   t h e   e d u c a t i o n a l   e s t a b -
l i s h m e n t   to   d e c i d e   h ow   to   u s e   t h e   E U   a i d, 
w h e t h e r   fo r   d i s t r i b u t i o n   i n   o r   o u t s i d e   t h e 
canteen s.

6 4.
T h e   c o s t s   a n d   t h e   e f f e c t i v e n e s s   o f   t h e 
s c h e m e   d e p e n d   to   a   ce r t a i n   ex te nt   o n   t h e 
d e c i s i o n s   t a k e n   f o r   i t s   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n 
o n   t h e   g r o u n d .  T h e   m a r g i n   o f   m a n o e u v r e 
a v a i l a b l e   t o   t h e   l o c a l / n a t i o n a l   a u t h o r -
i t i e s   o n   h o w   t o   r u n   t h e   s c h e m e   i s   q u i t e 
b r o a d .   T h e   o p t i o n s   l i s t e d   b y   t h e   C o u r t 
a r e   s o m e   e x a m p l e s .   N e v e r t h e l e s s ,   a s   t h e 
c h o i c e   o n   h o w   t o   m a n a g e   t h e   s c h e m e   i s 
l o c a l -  s p e c i f i c ,   i t   w o u l d   n o t   b e   o p p o r t u n e 
t o   r e s t r i c t   a t   E U   l e v e l   s u c h   m a n a g e m e n t 
options.

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   m a y   r e f l e c t   o n   h o w   t o 
e n c o u r a g e   e x c h a n g e   o f   i n f o r m a t i o n   o n 
rele vant n at ion al be st prac t ices.

6 6–7 0 .
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   s h a re s   t h e   Co u r t ’s   a s s e s s -
m e n t   t h a t   t h e   s c h e m e ,   i n   p r i n c i p l e ,   c a n 
c o n t r i b u t e   t o   d e l i v e r   a   m e s s a g e   o n   t h e 
n u t r i t i o n a l   v a l u e   o f   t h e   p r o d u c t   a n d   t h a t 
v i s i b i l i t y   i s   a s s u r e d   i n   m o s t   o f   t h e   c a s e s 
with  distr ibution  out of the  c ante e ns. 

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

60

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

A s   r e g a r d s   t h e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   t h e   p r o d -
u c t   i n   t h e   c a nte e n s,   a s   p o i nte d   o u t   by   t h e 
Cour t in paragraph 69 and footnote 39, the 
r e v i s i o n   c a r r i e d   o u t   i n   2 0 0 8   h a s   m o d i f i e d 
t h e   r e l e v a n t   p r o v i s i o n s   c o n c e r n i n g   s o m e 
uses of milk and milk produc ts in the prep -
a r a t i o n   o f   m e a l s,   t h e   o b j e c t i ve   b e i n g   t h a t 
p ro d u c t s   re m a i n   v i s i b l e   a n d   re c o g n i s a b l e 
for the pupils, so that the scheme does not 
lose  its  educ at io n al  charac ter.

I n   c e r t a i n   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t h e   d i s t r i b u -
t i o n   t r a d i t i o n a l l y   t a k e s   p l a c e   i n   t h e   c a n -
te e n s.   E s p e c i a l l y   i n   t h o s e   c a s e s,   exc l u d i n g 
t h i s   t y p e   o f   d i s t r i b u t i o n   c o u l d   r e s u l t   i n   a 
decreas e in t he p ar t icip atio n in  t he  S MS .

F i n a l l y ,   A r t i c l e   1 6   o f   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C ) 
N o   6 5 7 / 2 0 0 8   i nt ro d u ce s   a   re q u i re m e nt   fo r 
a poster to be placed at the main entrance 
o f   t h e   e d u c a t i o n a l   e s t a b l i s h m e n t s   p a r -
t i c i p a t i n g   i n   t h e   s c h e m e .   T h e   r e g u l a t i o n 
r e c o m m e n d s   t o   e m p h a s i s e   o n   t h i s   p o s t e r 
n u t r i t i o n a l   b e n e f i t s   a n d   n u t r i t i o n a l   g u i d e -
lin es for childre n. 

73– 74.
As   m e n t i o n e d   a b ove   t h e   re g u l a t i o n   i n t ro -
d u c e s   a   r e q u i r e m e n t   f o r   a   p o s t e r   t o   b e 
p l a ce d   at   t h e   m a i n   e nt ra n ce   o f   t h e   e d u c a-
t i o n a l   e s t a b l i s h m e n t s   p a r t i c i p a t i n g   i n   t h e 
s c h e m e .   T h e   r e g u l a t i o n   r e c o m m e n d s   t o 
emphasise on this poster nutr itional bene -
fits and nutr itional guidelines for children. 

I n   l i n e   w i t h   t h e   s u b s i d i a r i t y   p r i n c i p l e , 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a v e   t h e   r e s p o n s i b i l i t y   t o 
i m p l e m e n t   t h e   s c h e m e   w i t h i n   t h e   f r a m e -
w o r k   s e t   a t   E U   l e v e l .   E x a m p l e s   o f   e d u c a -
t i o n a l   a n d   p r o m o t i o n a l   a c t i v i t i e s   r e l a t e d 
to th e SMS  can b e fou nd  in many  o f  th em .

T h e   m e r e   a p p l i c a t i o n   o f   t h e   s c h e m e   a t 
n a t i o n a l   l e v e l   e n c o u r a g e s   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
c a r r y i n g   o u t   e d u c at i o n a l   a n d   p ro m o t i o n a l 
a c t i v i t i e s   f o r   m i l k   a n d   m i l k   p r o d u c t s ,   t o 
a s s o c i a t e   t h e s e   a c t i v i t i e s   t o   t h e   S M S ,   a t 
l e a s t   f o r   t h e   a i m   o f   e x p l o i t i n g   p o t e n t i a l 
sy ne rgies.

7 5–7 6 .
A s   p o i n t e d   o u t   i n   t h e   re p l y   t o   p a r a g r a p h s 
2 4 – 2 6 ,   p u t t i n g   i n   p l a c e   l o n g - t e r m   i n d i -
c a t o r s   o n   t h e   p e d a g o g i c a l   i m p a c t   o f   t h e 
s c h e m e   wo u l d   b e   ve r y   co s t l y.   S u c h   i m p a c t 
g o e s   f a r   b e y o n d   t h e   a g e   o f   e l i g i b i l i t y   o f 
p u p i l s   to   t h e   s c h e m e   a n d   m ay   a l s o   i nvo l ve 
t h e i r   f a m i l i e s.   I n d i c ato r s   o r   e va l u at i o n s   o f 
s u c h   a   s o r t   wo u l d   re q u i re   a   d i s p ro p o r t i o n -
a t e   a m o u n t   o f   r e s o u r c e s   w h i l e   d e l i v e r i n g 
a n   o u t c o m e   w h i c h   w o u l d   b e   i n e v i t a b l y 
unce r tain . 

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n ,   o n c e   s o l i d   e v i d e n c e 
f r o m   t h e   e x p e r i e n c e   a c q u i r e d   f o r   t h e   S F S 
becomes available, may reflec t on whether 
to   c a r r y   o u t   a n   a s s e s s m e nt   o f   l o n g e r- te r m 
in dicator s for  the S MS .

T h e   f a c t   t h a t   t h e   p a r t i c i p a t i o n   i n   t h e 
s c h e m e   g o e s   d o w n   a s   t h e   c h i l d r e n   g e t 
o l d e r   d o e s   n o t   i n   i t s e l f   e v i d e n c e   a   l a c k   o f 
m e d i u m / l o n g - t e r m   i m p a c t   o f   t h e   s c h e m e. 
To   a   g re a t   e x t e n t ,   t h e   p a r t i c i p a t i o n   i n   t h e 
s c h e m e   d o e s   n o t   d e p e n d   o n   t h e   d e c i s i o n 
o r   p r e f e r e n c e   o f   t h e   p u p i l s   b u t   m o r e   o n 
th e admin istrat ive bodies involved.

8 1.
Th e   e va l u at i o n   o f   t h e   S F S   i n   2 0 1 2   w i l l   gi ve 
t h e   o p p o r t u n i t y   to   a s s e s s   t h e   a cco m p a ny -
i n g   m e a s u re s.  Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   i s   c u r re nt l y 
w o r k i n g   o n   i m p r o v i n g   t h e   p r o v i s i o n s   o f 
R e g u l at i o n   ( E C )   N o   2 8 8 / 2 0 0 9   i n   re l at i o n   to 
th ose meas ures.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

CONCLUSIONS	AND	
RECOMMENDATIONS

82.
V a r i o u s   r e v i s i o n s   o f   t h e   S c h o o l   M i l k 
S c h e m e   ( S M S )   h a v e   t a k e n   p l a c e   o v e r   t h e 
l a s t   d e c a d e .   T h e   l a t e s t   o n e s   i n   2 0 0 8   a n d 
2 0 0 9   a i m e d   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   t o   i n c r e a s e   i t s 
e f f e c t i v e n e s s   a n d   w e r e   a c c o m p a n i e d   b y 
a   w i d e   c o n s u l t a t i o n   i nvo l v i n g   a l l   M e m b e r 
States, the European Par liament, the Coun -
cil a nd different st akehol ders. 

T h e   c o n s u l t a t i o n   g a v e   r i s e   t o   u s e f u l   s u g -
g e s t i o n s   f o r   i m p r o v i n g   t h e   o v e r a l l   e f f i -
c i e n c y   o f   t h e   s y s t e m   t h a t   t h e   C o m m i s -
s i o n   t o o k   o n   b o a r d   w h e n   r e v i e w i n g   t h e 
s c h e m e.  Th e   fo l l ow i n g   m a i n   c h a n g e s   we re 
introdu ced:

—  T h e   l i s t   o f   e l i g i b l e   p r o d u c t s   w a s   w i d -
ened,  so   t hat   p up il s   wo u ld  have   acce ss 
to a larger variety of healthy dair y prod-
u c t s .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   t o o k   o n   b o a r d 
M e m b e r   S t a te s’  re q u e s t s   a n d   a l s o   to o k 
i n t o   a c c o u n t   c e r t a i n   h e a l t h   r e q u i r e -
ments (for example a maximum level of 
added s ug ar co ntent was s et).

—  S e c o n d a r y   s c h o o l s   w e r e   g r a n t e d   t h e 
same r ight to par ticipate in the scheme 
a s   o t h e r   e d u c a t i o n a l   e s t a b l i s h m e n t s 
(before they could be excluded from the 
schem e).

—  Restric tions in the produc t use in meals 
we re   i n t ro d u ce d :   p ro d u c t s   s h o u l d   s t ay 
c l e a r l y   v i s i b l e   a n d   r e c o g n i s a b l e   f o r 
pupils.

—  A d m i n i s t r a t i v e   r e q u i r e m e n t s   r e l a t e d 
t o   t h e   a p p l i c a t i o n   p r o c e d u r e   w e r e 
simplif ied.

6161

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

—  Procedures for checks were clarified and 

simplifie d.

—  The requirement for a school milk post -
e r   w a s   i n t r o d u c e d ,   s o   t h a t   t h e   p u b l i c 
wo u l d   b e   a w a r e   o f   t h e   E U   s u b s i d y   a n d 
th e sc h eme itse lf.

T h e   s u c c e s s   o f   t h i s   c o n s u l t a t i o n   a n d   t h e 
ove r a l l   re v i e w   o f   t h e   S M S   h i g h l i g h t e d   t h e 
widespread interest that all relevant ac tors 
h ave   i n   t h i s   m e a s u re   a s   we l l   a s   t h e   s t ro n g 
suppor t it en joys  from M em ber  State s. 

T h e   E u r o p e a n   P a r l i a m e n t   h a s   a l s o 
ex p re s s e d   i t s   s u p p o r t   to   t h e   S M S   ( a n d   t h e 
S c h o o l   Fr u i t   S c h e m e   ( S F S ) ) .   I n   i t s   r e s o l u -
t i o n   o f   8   M a r c h   2 0 1 1   o n   r e d u c i n g   h e a l t h 
i n e q u a l i t i e s   i n   t h e   E U 3  t h e   E u r o p e a n   Pa r -
l i a m e n t   c a l l e d   o n   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   ‘ [ … ]
t o   m a k e   g r e a t e r   u s e   o f   t h e   e f f e c t i v e   p r o -
g r a m m e s   e s t a b l i s h e d   u n d e r   t h e   C A P   ( f re e 
d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   m i l k   a n d   f r u i t   i n   s c h o o l s 
[ … ] ) ’  s o   a s   t o   e n c o u r a g e   a   v a r i e d ,   h i g h -
qualit y d ie t.

8 3.	(a)
A l t h o u g h   t h e   E U   a i d   i s   l i m i t e d ,   n a t i o n a l 
co nt r i b u t i o n s   c a n   b e   a d d e d,   a s   i s   t h e   c a s e 
i n   s e v e r a l   M e m b e r   S t a t e s .   T h e   e x i s t e n c e 
o f   t h e   s c h e m e ,   d e s p i t e   t h e   r e l a t i v e l y   l o w 
l e ve l   o f   a i d,   e n c o u r a g e s   t h e   p a r t i c i p a t i o n 
of M ember States and highlights the nutr i -
tion al value of  t he produc t. 

T h e   e x t e n t   o f   t h e   d e a d w e i g h t   e f f e c t 
obser ved by the Cour t is not shared by the 
C o m m i s s i o n .   I t   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t   t h e   r e c e n t 
r e v i s i o n   o f   t h e   s c h e m e   h a s   r e d u c e d   t h e 
r i s k   i n   r e l a t i o n   t o   t h e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   i n   t h e 
canteen s.

European Parliament resolution of 8 March 2011 on reducing 

3 
health inequalities in the EU (2010/2089(INI), point 63.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

62

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

83.	(b)
I n   l i n e   w i t h   t h e   s u b s i d i a r i t y   p r i n c i p l e , 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a v e   t h e   r e s p o n s i b i l i t y   t o 
i m p l e m e n t   t h e   s c h e m e   w i t h i n   t h e   f r a m e -
w o r k   s e t   a t   E U   l e v e l .   E x a m p l e s   o f   e d u c a -
t i o n a l   a n d   p r o m o t i o n a l   a c t i v i t i e s   r e l a t e d 
to th e SMS  can b e fou nd  in many  o f  th em .

Fu r t h e r m o re,   Ar t i c l e   1 6   o f   R e g u l at i o n   ( E C ) 
N o   6 5 7 / 2 0 0 8   i nt ro d u ce s   a   re q u i re m e nt   fo r 
a poster to be placed at the main entrance 
o f   t h e   e d u c at i o n a l   e s t a b l i s h m e nt s   p a r t i c i-
pating in t he  s ch eme.

84.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
overall positive conclusions with regard to 
th e S choo l Fru it  S c heme.

I n   2 0 1 2 ,   t h e   o u t c o m e   o f   t h e   e v a l u a t i o n 
o f   t h e   S c h o o l   Fr u i t   S c h e m e   w i l l   b e   a v a i l -
a b l e   a n d   t h e   e va l u at i o n   o f   t h e   S c h o o l   M i l k 
S cheme wil l  b e lau nched.

T h e   C o u r t   s u g g e s t s   t o   i n t r o d u c e   s o m e 
m e a s u r e s   o f   t h e   f r u i t   s c h e m e   i n   t h e   m i l k 
s c h e m e   i n   o r d e r   t o   i n c r e a s e   i t s   e f fe c t i v e -
n e s s .   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a v e   t h e   p o s s i b i l i t y 
to apply accomp any ing meas ure s  a l re ady. 

85.
A more signific ant  imp ac t o f t he  SF S coul d 
b e   a t t a i n e d   a t  ‘c r u i s i n g   s p e e d ’  w h e r e ,   o n 
o n e   h a n d ,   t h e   e n t i r e   a v a i l a b l e   b u d g e t 
would be used and, on the other hand, the 
programme would have helped change the 
nutr itional  hab its  o f famil ies.

T h e   e v a l u a t i o n   o f   t h e   S F S   i n   2 0 1 2   w i l l 
assess t he b udg et ar y as p ec t.

A l t h o u g h   d u r i n g   t h e   f i r s t   y e a r   o f   i m p l e -
m e n t a t i o n   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a v e   n o t   f o r e -
s e e n   a n   a l l o c a t i o n   o f   r e s o u r c e s   o n   t h e 
b a s i s   o f   n u t r i t i o n a l   n e e d s,   n o t h i n g   wo u l d 
prevent them from doing this in the future. 
The setting of such cr iter ia by the Commis -
s i o n   w o u l d   f u r t h e r   c o m p l i c a t e   t h e   i m p l e -
m e n t a t i o n   o f   t h e   S F S .   G i v e n   t h e   d i v e r s i t y 
o f   t h e   n a t i o n a l   s i t u a t i o n s ,   t h i s   s h o u l d   b e 
d o n e   m o r e   c o nv e n i e n t l y   a t   M e m b e r   S t a t e 
level.

8 6.	(a)
The Commission does not share the Cour t ’s 
a s s e s s m e nt   o f   t h e   m a gn i t u d e   o f   t h e   we a k -
n esses  it identified in relat ion  to th e S MS .

T h e   S M S   w a s   r e v i s e d   i n   2 0 0 8   a n d   2 0 0 9 
a m i d   a   w i d e   c o n s u l t a t i o n   i n v o l v i n g   a l l 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s,   t h e   E u r o p e a n   Pa r l i a m e n t , 
t h e   C o u n c i l   a n d   d i f f e r e n t   s t a k e h o l d e r s , 
i n c l u d i n g   o t h e r   Co m m i s s i o n   s e r v i c e s ,   t h e 
i n d u s t r y,   d i f fe r e n t   c o m p a n i e s   i nv o l v e d   i n 
the scheme, and also teachers, parents and 
pupils. The consultation gave r ise to useful 
s u g g e s t i o n s   fo r   i m p rov i n g   t h e   ove ra l l   e f f i-
c i e n c y   o f   t h e   s ys te m   t h a t   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n 
took on board when reviewing the scheme. 

T h e   s u c c e s s   o f   t h i s   c o n s u l t a t i o n   a n d   t h e 
o ve r a l l   re v i e w   o f   t h e   S M S   h i g h l i g h t e d   t h e 
widespread interest that all relevant ac tors 
h ave   i n   t h i s   m e a s u re   a s   we l l   a s   t h e   s t ro n g 
suppor t it en joys  from M em ber  State s. 

T h e   n e x t   e v a l u a t i o n   o f   t h e   s c h e m e   i s 
p l a n n e d   t o   b e   l a u n c h e d   i n   2 0 1 2 .  T h e   o u t-
c o m e   m a y   s h o w   w h i c h   c h a n g e s   w i l l   b e 
oppor tune. 

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

6363

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

86.	(b)
T h e   f r e e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   o f   m i l k   a n d   m i l k 
p r o d u c t s ,   w h i l e   o b v i o u s l y   i n c r e a s i n g   t h e 
uptake, is not a guarantee for an increased 
effec tivene ss of  t he sc heme. 

I mposing a targeting on all M ember States 
w o u l d   r i s k   i n c r e a s i n g   t h e   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 
b u r d e n   l i n k e d   t o   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f 
t h e   s c h e m e   a n d   c o u l d   l e a d   t o   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s   d r o p p i n g   o u t   o f   t h e   s c h e m e ,   t h u s 
reducin g co nsid erab ly  its effec t i ve ne ss. 

86.	(c)
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t   t h e   r e v i -
s i o n   o f   t h e   S M S   i n   2 0 0 8   h a s   a l r e a d y 
r e d u c e d   t h e   r i s k   o f   d e a d w e i g h t   e f f e c t 
linked to canteens by excluding some uses 
o f   m i l k   a n d   m i l k   p r o d u c t s   i n   t h e   p r e p a -
r a t i o n   o f   m e a l s .   T h e   o b j e c t i v e   i s   t h a t   t h e 
p ro d u c t s   re m a i n   v i s i b l e   a n d   re c o g n i s a b l e 
for the pupils, so that the scheme does not 
lose  its  educ at io n al  charac ter.

8 6.	(e)
S y n e r g i e s   i n   t h e   m a n a g e m e n t   o f   t h e   t w o 
s c h e m e s   a r e   a l r e a d y   p o s s i b l e   a t   M e m b e r 
S t a t e   l e ve l.     Fu r t h e r m o re,   t h e   e v a l u a t i o n s 
of the t wo programmes may show whether 
o t h e r   s y n e r g i e s   a r e   p o s s i b l e   a n d   o p p o r -
tun e (s ee also t he reply  to 86( d) .

8 7.	(a)
E x i s t i n g   i n d i c a t o r s   f o r   m e a s u r i n g   t h e 
i m p a c t   o n   t h e   s h o r t   t e r m   a r e   e f f e c t i v e , 
p r o v i d e   u s e f u l   i n f o r m a t i o n   o n   t h e   f u n c -
t i o n i n g   o f   t h e   S M S   a n d   m e e t   t h e   r e q u i r e -
ments  set in  the Finan cial R e gulat io n.

Ad d i t i o n a l   l o n g - t e r m   i n d i c a t o r s   wo u l d   b e 
co s t l y   w h i l e   t h e   o u tco m e   wo u l d   b e   ra t h e r 
unce r tain .

With regard to the SFS, the outcome of the 
evaluation to be made in 2012 will contrib -
u t e   t o   a d d r e s s   t h e   i s s u e   o f   m e d i u m - t e r m 
in dicator s. 

I n   a d d i t i o n ,   A r t i c l e   1 6   o f   R e g u l a t i o n 
( E C )   N o   6 5 7 / 2 0 0 8   r e q u i r e s   a   p o s t e r   t o   b e 
p l a ce d   at   t h e   m a i n   e nt ra n ce   o f   t h e   e d u c a-
t i o n a l   e s t a b l i s h m e n t s   p a r t i c i p a t i n g   i n   t h e 
scheme. 

M e a nw h i l e,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   p ro v i d e d 
g u i d e l i n e s   f o r   t h e   a n n u a l   m o n i t o r i n g 
repor ts from M ember States, which include 
output indicators and for the evaluation of 
th eir  sch emes.

86.	(d)
The evaluation of the SFS foreseen in 2012 
w i l l   g i v e   t h e   o p p o r t u n i t y   t o   a s s e s s   t h e 
e f fe c t i ve n e s s   o f   t h i s   p ro gra m m e   a n d   o f   i t s 
accompanying  measu res.

A n   e v a l u a t i o n   o f   t h e   S M S   i s   a l s o   p l a n n e d 
to be lau nc hed in 20 12 .

I n   a d d i t i o n ,   t h e   gro u p   o f   ex p e r t s   fo r   te c h-
nical advice established in D ecember 2009 
will be invited to give their opinion on this 
subje c t.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

64

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

ANNEX	II

87.	(b)
S e v e r a l   s i m p l i f i c a t i o n   i n i t i a t i v e s   a r e 
a l r e a d y   o n g o i n g .   H o w e v e r,   m o s t   o f   t h e 
m a r g i n   f o r   s i m p l i f y i n g   t h e   m a n a g e m e n t 
o f   t h e   s c h e m e   r e m a i n s   w i t h   t h e   M e m b e r 
States and l o cal  bo dies.

1 .
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   c o n f i r m s   t h e   e l i g i b i l i t y 
o f   n u r s e r i e s   t o   a i d   u n d e r   t h e   S c h o o l   M i l k 
S c h e m e   ( S M S ) .   A n   i n t e r p re t a t i ve   n o t e   h a s 
b e e n   d i s t r i b u te d   to   M e m b e r   S t a te s   i n   t h i s 
sen se.

I n   t h e   S F S   t h e   exc h a n g e   o f   g o o d   p ra c t i ce s 
is possible through the SFS website, at the 
a n n u a l   m e e t i n g s   o f   t h e   S F S   s t a k e h o l d e r s 
and thanks to the opinions of the group of 
exper ts for te ch nic al advice.

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   m a y   r e f l e c t   o n   h o w   t o 
e n c o u r a g e   f u r t h e r   e x c h a n g e   o f   i n f o r m a -
tion on  rel evant national  bes t p rac ti ces.

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   r e g u l a r l y   m o n i t o r s   t h e 
o p e r a t i o n   o f   t h e   S F S ,   i n c l u d i n g   i s s u e s 
relating to the simplification and improve -
m e n t   o f   t h e   s c h e m e   a t   m e e t i n g s   o f   t h e 
M a n a g e m e nt   Co m m i t te e   a n d   d u r i n g   b i l at-
eral meetings with M ember States. I n addi -
t i o n ,   c h a n g e s   t o   t h e   i m p l e m e n t i n g   r u l e s 
we re   m a d e   by   R e g u l at i o n   ( E U )   N o   3 4 / 2 0 1 1 
a n d   o t h e r   c h a n g e s   a r e   p o s s i b l e   i n   t h e 
future.

87.	(c)
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   c u r r e n t l y   e x a m i n -
i n g   t h e   p o s s i b i l i t y   o f   f u r t h e r   s i m p l i f y i n g 
t h e   p r o c e d u r e s   r e l a t i n g   t o   t h e   c o n t r o l s . 
 N e v e r t h e l e s s ,   t h i s   p a r t   o f   t h e   S F S   i m p l e -
m e n t i n g   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   2 8 8 / 2 0 0 9 
reproduces the existing procedures for the 
m i l k   p r o g r a m m e ,   l o n g   k n o w n   b y   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s .   T h i s   r e g u l a t i o n   s t i p u l a t e s   a   m i n i -
m u m   o f   r u l e s   t o   e n s u r e   t h e   r e g u l a r i t y   o f 
EU expenditu re. 

2 .
T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   d i s t r i b u t e d   a n   i n t e r -
p r e t a t i v e   n o t e   t o   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   s t a t i n g 
t h a t   c o m m u n e s   c a n   b e   a p p l i c a n t s   u n d e r 
t h e   S M S .  T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   h owe ve r   a g re e s 
t h a t   t h i s   p o i n t   s h o u l d   b e   f u r t h e r   c l a r i f i e d 
a n d   w i l l   l o o k   i n t o   i t   d u r i n g   t h e   n e x t   r e v i -
sion  of the  s ch eme.

9 .
I f   c o n f i r m e d ,   t h e   C o u r t ’s   f i n d i n g s   c o n -
c e r n i n g   t h e   f i n a n c i n g   o f   t h e   S F S   a c c o m -
p a n y i n g   m e a s u r e s   w i l l   b e   f o l l o w e d   u p   i n 
t h e   c o n t e x t   o f   t h e   c l e a r a n c e   o f   a c c o u n t s 
procedure.

1 0.
T h e   g r o u p   o f   e x p e r t s   fo r   t e c h n i c a l   a d v i c e 
e s t a b l i s h e d   i n   D e c e m b e r   2 0 0 9   w i l l   a s s e s s 
t h i s   i s s u e .   I n   a d d i t i o n ,   t h e   e x c h a n g e   o f 
b e s t   p r a c t i c e s   w i l l   h e l p   p r o g r e s s   i n   t h i s 
domain .

1 1.
This issue has been addressed by the Com-
miss ion  audit ser vices.

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

65

European Court of Auditors

Special	Report	No	10/2011

Are	the	School	Milk	and	School	Fruit	Schemes	effective?

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2011 — 64 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9237-289-7

doi:10.2865/84517

Special Report No 10/2011 – Are the School Milk and School Fruit Schemes effective?

How	to	obtain	EU	publications

Free	publications:

• 

• 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

at the European Union’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details 
on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Priced	publications:

• 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced	subscriptions	(e.g.	annual	series	of	the	Official Journal of the European Union	and	reports	
of	cases	before	the	Court	of	Justice	of	the	European	Union):

• 

via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

 
 
Q
J
-
A
B
-
1
1
-
0
0
9
-
E
N

-
C

FOR  OVER  30  YEARS  THE  EU  HAS  BEEN  SUBSIDING  THE  PRICE  OF  MILK 

 PRODUCTS IN SCHOOLS. RECENTLY IT LAUNCHED A SECOND SCHEME, THIS 

TIME FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF FRUIT.

THE COURT HAS CARRIED OUT A JOINT AUDIT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF 

BOTH SCHEMES.

IN THIS REPORT, THE COURT NOTES THE VERY LIMITED EFFECTIVENESS OF 

THE SCHOOL MILK SCHEME, WHICH IS MAINLY IMPAIRED BY A SIGNIFICANT 

DEADWEIGHT EFFECT AND A POORLY EXPLOITED EDUCATIONAL STRATEGY. 

HOWEVER, THE REPORT DRAWS ON OBSERVATION OF A NUMBER OF GOOD 

PRACTICES, AND ON THE PROMISING START MADE BY SCHEMES TO DISTRIB-

UTE FRUIT FREE OF CHARGE, TO SHOW THAT SOLUTIONS ARE AVAILABLE.

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS