22. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 328/5
2.15.2. The Committee would once again stress the
need for the EEC Statistical Office to carry out more
effective surveys and analyses of the tourist sector and
the enterprises operating in this field so as to provide
a uniform basis of fundamental information on which
to elaborate a reliable policy.
2.16. Annex III
The Committee as stated at the outset approves the
three Commission proposals, subject to the qualifi-
cations set out above.
Done at Brussels,. 17 September 1986.
The Chairman
of the Economic and Social Committee
Gerd MUHR
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States concerning food additives authorized for use in foodstuffs intended for human
consumption (l)
(86/C 328/02)
On 29 April 1986 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above-
mentioned proposal.
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 De Grave.
At its 239th plenary session (meeting of 17 September 1986), the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously:
1. General comments
1.1. Up until now it has been possible to harmonize
only four lists of additives at Community level. For
more than 12 years, i.e. since the adoption of Directive
74/329/EEC(2), the Council has not issued any Direc-
tives on additives, except for amendments to the four
existing Directives, and no progress has been made on
these four Directives as regards conditions of use.
1.2. This shows the need for a more flexible
approach. On several occasions the Economic and
Social Committee has advocated the adoption of direc-
tives by a majority rather than a unanimous vote.
1.3. During this time the Commission itself has been
able to put forward only a few new proposals on
account of the complexity of the subject and insufficient
staff. The Committee fears that the Commission will
not be in a position to speed up its work and hence to
(!) OJ No C 116, 16. 5. 1986, p. 2.
(2) OJ No L 189, 12. 7. 1974.
implement the programme it has set itself. At all events
such accelerated progress must not prejudice the due
attention required by this difficult subject.
1.4. Thus the proposed new procedure could give
rise to considerable difficulties in an area as sensitive
as additives.
1.5. The general criteria for the use of food additives,
as summarized in Annex II, should be reduced to the
following two points:
— possible effect on public health (toxicity, nutritional
aspects, hypersensitivity, etc.),
— technological need,
to which should be added the fairness of commercial
transactions.
To ensure that each of these aspects is adequately
examined, the directive should provide for the manda-
tory consultation of:
— the Scientific Committee for Food and,
subsequently,
— the Advisory Committee on Foodstuffs.
No C 328/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 12. 86
1.6. It must be possible to publish the opinions of
these two committees.
1.7. In a difficult area where there is frequently
controversy, not only between consumers and manufac-
turers, but also between manufacturers themselves, and
even between scientists, it is necessary to ensure that
the parties concerned are consulted and kept informed
to the fullest possible extent.
The Committee therefore suggests that the Commission
make public its proposed directive by requesting the
opinion of the Economic and Social Committee before
it is voted on in the Standing Committee. In this way
the Economic and Social Committee would retain the
possibility of putting across the views of the parties
concerned in an area which has always been of great
concern to manufacturers and consumers.
1.8. In addition, the Committee suggests that
observers representing the parties concerned be admit-
ted to the preparatory work of the Standing Committee
for Foodstuffs, as is the case for cosmetics.
2. Specific comments
2.1. The Committee considers it essential that where
powers are delegated to the Commission the matter in
question be defined more precisely so as to avoid any
legal uncertainty.
Thus, some substances are on the borderline between:
— additives and foodstuffs,
— additives and pesticides,
— additives which do or do not fall under this Direc-
tive,
— additives and processing aids.
This is the case with, for instance, ethylene oxide,
saffron, sorbitol, enzymes, modified starch, foodstuff
extracts (soya protein concentrate, casein, gelatine,
fibres, albumin, etc.). Products for treating foodstuffs
after harvesting are regarded sometimes as additives,
sometimes as pesticides, ripening agents, sprout inhibi-
tors, fungicides, etc. Some fungicides when used on
citrus fruits are classified as additives (e.g. diphenyl),
but become pesticides when used on other foodstuffs.
Moreover, some fungicides used instead of diphenyl are
listed as pesticides (e.g. benomyl).
All products used for treating crops after harvesting
should be regrouped in a single list of additives.
2.2. Article 2 (2)
2.2.1. Multi-purpose additives should continue to
appear in multiple lists of additives.
2.3. Article 3 (2)
2.3.1. In the Committee's view, the existing specific
directives can only be amended in respect of the addi-
tives included in one of the four Community lists; those
categories of additives still covered by national law
and not evaluated at Community level would thus be
excluded.
2.4. Article 3 (3)
2.4.1. A subparagraph (g) should be added covering
instructions for use (Article 5 (1) (d)).
2.4.2. In addition, the final sentence should be
amended so as to provide for mandatory consultation
of the Advisory Committee on Foodstuffs and the Scien-
tific Committee.
2.5. Article 4
2.5.1. The same consultation procedure should be
followed as for Article 3.
2.6. Article 5 (1) (c)
2.6.1. This should read as follows: 'any special stor-
age conditions and/or conditions of use'.
2.7. Article 5 (1) (d)
2.7.1. This should read as follows: 'instructions for
use'.
2.7.2. Additives may be used by numerous firms,
including small and medium-sized enterprises, which
are not always familiar with the conditions of use.
2.8. Article 9
2.8.1. The Committee would refer (a) to the general
comments above and (b) to the ESC's opinion on the
completion of the internal market: Community legis-
lation on foodstuffs.
2.9. Annex 1
2.9.1. This list should be entitled 'Categories of tech-
nological functions of food additives'. This title is more
in line with the requirements of Article 2 wich refers to
'any technological function described and defined' in
Annex I.
22. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 328/7
2.9.2. The Committee considers that the inclusion in
this list of categories of additives which are not author-
ized in the majority of Member States should not have
any influence on their subsequent authorization (e.g.
firming agents, flouring treatment agents). If necessary
these additives should be excluded from the delegation
of powers to the Commission.
2.9.3. It would also draw attention to substances the
handling of which is particularly dangerous, especially
for the health of children and adolescents. This is the
case with sequestrants which can mitigate shortcomings
in the manufacturing process. The definition should
specify whether the Commission takes 'sequestrants' to
be the same as 'chelating' additives.
2.9.4. The term 'sweetener' should be split into two
categories: 'artificial sweeteners' and 'natural sweet-
eners'.
2.9.5. The term 'agent de traitement de la farine'
(flour treatment agent) should be replaced by the men-
tion of one or more technological functions so as not
to be all-embracing (e.g. bleaching).
2.9.6. 'Enzyme', which is not a technological func-
tion, should also be deleted from Annex I; enzymes
used as additives should be included in the category to
which they belong (antioxidant, stabilizer, etc.).
2.9.7. The Committee is surprised at the omission of
'emulsifying salts', a category covered by the labelling
Directive.
2.9.8. The terms 'antimoussant' (antifoaming agent)
and 'agent moussant' (foam stabilizer) do not cor-
respond in the different language versions. In fact the
different versions of the Annex do not correspond in
general.
2.9.9. The Committee wonders whether all the terms
in this Annex should not be defined so as to avoid any
misunderstanding.
2.10. Annex 11
2.10.1. The Committee notes that this Annex sum-
marizes other texts. As this is a legal text, it would
prefer to see the full text included in this Annex rather
than a summary.
Done at Brussels, 17 September 1986.
2.10.2. The Committee notes that point 1 covers
both the toxicological evaluation (to be carried out
by the Scientific Committee) and the evaluation of
technological need (to be carried out by the Advisory
Committee on Foodstuffs in particular). It considers
that, which very specific exceptions, it is not the Scien-
tific Committee which is competent to decide individu-
ally on the need for an additive in a foodstuff. Hence
point 1 should not mix these two aspects.
2.10.3. On the other hand, the various health aspects
(toxicity, hypersensitivity, nutritional quality) are dealt
with in different places (points 1, 5 (a), etc.) of Annex
II.
2.10.4. The drafting should therefore be revised and
the comments on health separated from those on tech-
nological need.
2.10.5. Greater emphasis should be given to a third
criteria on which producers and consumers have long
been agreed: the fairness of commercial transactions.
2.10.6. The beginning of point 2 should be amended
as follows: 'Only those food additives may be author-
ized which'. The present wording is ambiguous and
does not take account of the criterion of technological
need. If necessary this point 2 could be deleted as it
duplicates point 1. If it is retained, the wording will
require further amending to provide that an additive
may not be authorized if 'the toxicological evidence
presently available' is inadequate.
2.10.7. The Committee urges that point 5 (a), which
also seems to be inconsistent with point 5 (c), be amend-
ed to provide that the additive may not reduce the
nutritional value of the food unless it is necessary for
the production of foods for groups of consumers having
special dietary needs.
2.10.8. The words 'as far as possible' in the first line
of point 6 (c) should be deleted. The concept of an
'acceptable daily intake' loses all meaning if qualified
in this way.
The Chairman
of the Economic and Social Committee
Gerd MUHR
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy