22. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 328/23
Opinion on the Commission communication to the Council and to the European Parliament
entitled 'Completion of the Internal Market: Community Legislation on Foodstuffs'
(86/C 328/10)
On 20 November 1985 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Commit-
tee on the abovementioned Commission communication.
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which
was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on
1 and 2 September 1986 in the light of the report by Mr Hilkens.
At its 239th plenary session (meeting of 17 September 1986) the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by a majority vote, two votes against and nine
abstentions:
1. General comments
1.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission's
intention of speeding up the establishment of the inter-
nal market in foodstuffs. The Committee is thus in
accord with its previous opinion on the completion of
the internal market (x). The Committee regrets that it
has taken so long to develop a coherent Community
policy on foodstuffs.
1.2. The Committee shares the Commission's view
that the creation of the common market in foodstuffs
poses particular problems which call for specific
solutions.
1.2.1. Particular care thus needs to be taken to ensure
that there are no negative consequences for human
health or existing food quality expectations.
1.2.2. To this end a high level of protection will have
to be ensured in the harmonization of food laws, which
will have to be based on the most advanced standard.
1.2.3. The Committee has. commented in several
opinions on the link between diet and health, e.g. the
opinion on the Programme of Action on Cancer Preven-
tion (OJ No C 101, 28. 6. 1986, p. 22 et seq.).
1.2.4. The Commission's communication is based on
the assumption that as far as health and food quality
are concerned, the Member States' food laws already
operate satisfactorily.
1.2.4.1. In view of the major differences in foodstuffs
legislation between the Member States, the Committee
considers that it is impossible to make any statement
as to whether levels of protection are equivalent. Very
considerable differences in the enforcement of legis-
lation have for example already been noted and these
differences naturally have a considerable effect on the
actual level of protection. The Committee, therefore,
considers it essential that the Commission submit a
comparative study making clear the disparities between
Member States' food laws.
2. Health
2.1. The Committee has noted with satisfaction the
Commission's intention of introducing Community
legislation on health protection and safety.
The Committee considers that a directive should be
issued defining the requirements for health protection
and safety. This would also make it possible to elimin-
ate any barriers to trade. Without sufficient clarity in
the area of health and safety there can be no internal
market in foodstuffs.
2.2. Additives
The Commission's plan to complete the positive list
of approved additives is in principle welcomed. The
Committee points out that it must also be possible to
adapt these lists in the future. The use of additives on
the positive list should be permitted only if these addi-
tives do .not pose any risk to human health and are
technically necessary.
2.3. Plant protection products and veterinary prep-
arations
The Committee would draw attention to the fact that
residues of plant protection products (e.g. DDT) and
veterinary preparations (such as hormones or anti-
biotics) in food pose a threat to health. Strict rules
should apply here; the Committee therefore regrets that
the Commission has not gone into this point.
2.4. Hygiene rules
(!) OJ No C 344, 31. 12. 1985.
The Committee regrets that the Commission does not
envisage any further proposals on the harmonization
of the rules on hygiene in respect of foodstuffs, one of
the most important problems in the field of public
health.
No C 328/24 Official Journal of the
3. Consumer protection and labelling
3.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission's
intention to supplement the existing Directive on label-
ling, presentation and advertising. The Committee
would like to stress here that an effective system of
informative labelling in combination with systematic
consumer education is absolutely necessary if the pro-
posed internal market in foodstuffs is not to be estab-
lished at the consumer's expense.
3.2. A labelling directive should lay down a clear and
comprehensible labelling system mandatory throughout
the Community, to protect the consumer from mislead-
ing information on labels.
4. Competition and foodstuff quality
4.1. Assuming that consumption in the Community
remains constant, the increased competition resulting
from the creation of the internal market in foodstuffs
may alter the sales pattern of the various suppliers.
Such a change in the structure of supply carries with it
the danger of distortion of competition and reduced
quality.
4.2. The Committee points out that existing national
legislation will come under pressure if local industry
has to comply with (national) standards which are more
stringent than those applicable to imports.
4.3. The establishment of minimum standards is
probably unavoidable, if the quality of foodstuffs is to
be guaranteed and distortion of competition prevented.
One could envisage directives on the composition of
groups of products and well established specialities, as
well as quality seals and other quality marks and the
clear marking of imitation products. Consideration
should also be given to codes of conduct drawn up
jointly by industry and consumers' organizations.
4.4. The Committee feels that the issue of further
vertical framework directives on foodstuffs will be
unavoidable in a limited number of cases. The Commit-
tee welcomes the Commission's statement that the exist-
ing vertical directives will remain in force.
4.5. Better supervision of competition is needed if
local and regional quality products are to be preserved.
Consideration should be given to compositional rules
and binding minimum standards which would make it
easier to supervise and curb distortions of competition.
4.6. In this regard the Commission's generally dis-
missive attitude towards compositional rules is difficult
to understand, particularly in the light of the judgments
of the European Court of Justice to which the Com-
uropean Communities 22. 12. 86
mission refers. In case 120/78 and subsequent judgments
concerning the interpretation of Article 30 et seq. of
the EEC Treaty, the European Court of Justice has
expressly and increasingly recognized that the Member
States may retain national measures that restrict the
free movement of goods in the Community, if these
measures are necessary in order to meet essential
requirements, including fair trading and consumer
protection.
5. Official inspection
5.1. The Committee agrees with the Commission
that official inspection for the protection of health is by
its very nature a matter for legislation. The Committee
stresses the need for the harmonization of national
inspection provisions.
5.2. The Committee recommends that the Com-
mission's planned new draft directive should provide
for the possibility of checks at all relevant points (par-
ticularly at the places of production or cultivation, in
processing plants, and in the wholesale and retail trade).
53. To enable the inspection authorities to deal
directly with the actual producer, the origin of the
goods should be indicated on the package at least by a
code number; this information should be given on the
bulk container in the case of goods sold loose. In
addition to the producer, processing firms should be
subject to inspection and liability.
5.4. Arrangements should be made for a direct
exchange of information between the supervisory
bodies of the Member States by means of modern
information techology (the Commission's IRIS Pro-
gramme). This should enable the relevant local bodies
to inform each other without administrative delay
whether a 'foreign' product complies with national
requirements. In addition steps should be taken to
make possible the exchange of test data concerning
constituents of foods that have already been analyzed.
5.5. The Committee would also suggest that con-
sideration be given to a division of labour and cooper-
ation amongst the national authorities of the Member
States whereby:
— decisions taken by an approved laboratory in one
Member State would be valid in the other Member
States — this would reduce the risk of duplication
of checks at borders,
— specialization by the various authorities would be
encouraged.
5.6. The Committee would also recommend that a
Community inspectorate be set up with responsibility
for spot checks on foodstuffs at points of sale of the
ultimate consumer.
22. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 328/25
6. Division of legislative powers between the Council
and the Commission; New procedure
6.1. The Committee approves the Commission's pro-
posal in so far as it envisages a speedier and simpler
procedure for the adoption of foodstuff directives
within the framework of the establishment of the inter-
nal market by 1992, subject to the following comments.
6.2. The Committee notes that the original proposal
of the Commission (COM(85) 603 final), on which it
has been asked to give an opinion, has been modified
as a result of the 'Single Act'.
6.3. While the framework foodstuff directives will
still be submitted to the Council, under the new con-
sultative procedure the Commission would be empow-
ered to adopt specific implementing Directives after
consultation of the Scientific Committee for Food on
health questions and the Standing Committee for Food-
stuffs in all cases, without the necessity for voting in
the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs which has been
required hitherto. The Commission can also consult
the Advisory Committee on Foodstuffs as it has done
so far.
6.4. The Committee does not agree with the intro-
duction of the aforementioned new procedure as it
would give too much power to the Commission without
Done at Brussels, 17 September 1986.
guaranteeing adequate and appropriate consultation.
Such a procedure is insufficiently transparent.
6.5. The Committee would take this opportunity to
express its regret that the Commission has not
adequately defined the spheres of competence and
methods of working of the various foodstuffs commit-
tees in its proposals.
6.6.1. The Committee insists that it be consulted by
the Commission in the future. In this connection it
calls for Commission proposals to be made public.
The views of the Advisory Committee on Foodstuffs
(mandatory in all cases) and of the Scientific Committee
for Food (in health matters) should be appended to the
dossier referred to the Economic and Social Committee
for an opinion.
6.6.2. In the Committee's view the principle of voting
within the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs must be
retained. In the interests of rapid establishment of the
internal market, the Committee proposes that the
Standing Committee for Foodstuffs vote by a qualified
majority.
6.7. Finally, the Committee feels that the Com-
mission ought to draw up an annual report on imple-
menting directives for the European Parliament.
The Chairman
of the Economic and Social Committee
Gerd MUHR
L ^ O L ^ D ^ C^ttici^l]onrn^otrh^Enron^nC^ornrnunih^ ^ 1 ^ ^
The following amendments were reiected by the Committee in the course of the discussions^
^age t
tnser tanew point t . t ^aM^ read as follows^
The Commission proposal givesareview of the current situation regarding the harmonization of legislation
on foodstuffs.
This review is incompleted omitting for example the following OirectivesB^egulations^
— rapeseedoil
^ preserved mill^ directive ^ m t ^ ^ C ^
— pesticide residues ^vegetables'
— meat^ residues which are undesirable for consumption ^hormones^ antibiotics^ etc.^
— water content of poultry
— ban on ionizing treatment ^meat^
— labelling of wine
— labelling of fruit and vegetables duality standards^
— labelling of eggs ^freshness^size^ packing date^
— fat content of butter
— fresh mil^^fat contents etc.^.
Civen these omissions^ one may reasonably asl^ what is the real scope of the powers sought by the Commission
and of its proposal on labelling.
t s i t aques t ion of harmonization of legislation on all foodstuffs or only some; of labelling of all foodstuffs
oronlysome^andifso^which^
^delegation of power to the Commission cannot be discussed when its scope is so unclear and will produce
legal uncertainty.
The amendement^ which was accepted by the rapporteur at both section and study group levels is selfD
explanatory.
r ^ o r ^ ^ A g a i n s t ^ ^ Abs ten t ions^ .
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy