11.5.  77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 114/27 
directive  given  in the  first  sentence  that  project  priority  should  be based  on the  relation 
between  coal-burn  and  the amount  of grant  applied  for'. 
Reasons  for the above  amendments 
In the first  sentence  of Article  5, it is stated  that  the Commission  'is to be guided',  but in the 
second  it says  that  'priority  is to be given'.  The  latter  wording  would  tie the  Commission's 
hands  and  cancel  out  the  'guidance'  criterion  given  in the  first  sentence.  This  could  lead  to 
some  projects  being  given  priority  although  their  coal-burn/grant  ratio  was  lower  than  that 
of others.  Moreover,  it should  be remembered  that  the Commission's  representatives  told  the 
Section  that  the  Commission  was  considering  another  solution  that  was  completely  different 
from  the one  advocated  in the present  version  of Article  5. 
Voting  (amendments  taken  together) 
For: 9, against:  59, abstentions:  11. 
Points  1.2.5,  2.2.1  and  2.2.2. 
Delete. 
Reasons 
Cost  differences  were  already  taken  into  account  when  the fixed  rate  of aid was  set.  A variable 
rate would  lead  to complications  and,  in some  cases,  distortion  of competition. 
Voting 
For: 28, against:  41, abstentions:  12. 
Point  2.1.1. 
Replace  by: 
'The Committee  considers  that  if Community  aid  were  granted  only  to projects  that  had 
been  begun  after  the Regulation  had  been  approved  by the  Council,  this  would  penalize 
schemes  that  fitted  in with  the  Commission's  objectives  but  had  been  started  before 
adoption  of the Regulation,  and  would  hold  up diversification. 
The Committee  therefore  proposes  that  the last  paragraph  of Article  1 should  be re-worded, 
so as to make  eligible  for aid all projects  completed  after  the Regulation  is adopted'. 
Reasons 
No reasons  given. 
Voting 
For: 23, against:  29, abstentions:  17. 
Opinion  on the  proposal  for  a Council  Decision  on the  acceptance  of certain  Codex 
standards  for sugars  intended  for human  consumption 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of  the 
European  Communities  No  C 292  of 11 December  1976,  page  3. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 2 December  1976  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in  accordance  with  Articles  43  and  100  of the  Treaty 
establishing  the  European  Economic  Community. 
No C 114/28 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 11. 5. 77 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
147th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 30 and  31 March  1977. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in particular, 
Articles  43 and  100  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the  request  for  an opinion  made 
by the  Council  of the  European  Communities  on 
2 December  1976, 
Having  regard  to the  Decision  taken  by its Bureau 
on 14 December  1976,  instructing  the  Section  for 
Agriculture  to draw  up an opinion  and  report  on the 
matter, 
Having  regard  to its previous  work  on the matter,  in 
particular  its opinion  of 28  June  1972  on  the 
proposal  for a Directive  on the approximation  of the 
laws  of the Member  States  on confectionery  (*), 
Having  regard  to the  report  submitted  by Mr  de 
Grave,  rapporteur, 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by the Section 
for Agriculture  at its meeting  on 3 March  1977, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its plenary  session 
held on  30  and  31  March  1977  (meeting  of 
30 March), 
Whereas  no changes  in Community  rules  on sugar  are 
proposed  — merely  ratification  of Codex  standards 
'subject  to specified  derogations', 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION: 
(J) OJ  No C 89, 23. 8. 1972. 
Done  at Brussels,  30 March  1977. 1. The  Economic  and  Social  Committee  favours  an 
international  approach  to the  issues  involved  and 
therefore  endorses  the proposed  Decision. 
2. The  Committee  notes  that  the  sulphur  dioxide 
levels  authorized  by Community  rules  are lower  than 
those  in the Codex  and  significantly  higher  than  those 
which  are  in practice  observed  for  Community-
manufactured  sugar.  The  Member  States  are  at 
liberty  to authorize  sulphur  dioxide  levels  of 400  mg/ 
kg for glucose  syrup  and  150  mg/kg  for dried  glucose 
syrup  not  intended  for final  consumption.  This  can 
lead to high  levels  in final  products,  particularly 
confectionery.  The  Committee  would  point  out  that 
on 28 June  1972  it observed  that  it was  necessary 
(a) to harmonize  national  rules  on confectionery  and 
(b) to restrict  the  use  of sulphur  dioxide  to the 
absolute  minimum. 
3. The  lack  of Community  standards  on sugar 
contaminants  is a further  argument  for  continuing 
work  on vertical  harmonization,  particularly  in view 
of the fact  that  the  Codex  standards  permit  a lead-
level  of 2 mg/kg.  It is therefore  reasonable  to assume 
that such  high  levels  can  in fact  exist. 
4. The  Committee  agrees  with  the  Commission 
that current  refining  standards  are satisfactory. 
5. The  Committee  finally  wonders  how  Treaty 
Articles  43 and  100  have  been  invoked  in this  case. 
Article  43 provides  for  Regulations,  Directives  and 
Decisions  but Article  100  provides  only  for Directives. 
This  instrument,  addressed  to the Member  States,  is 
not the  best  way  of communicating  with  non-
Member  States.  Be that  as it may,  the  Committee 
wishes  to be consulted  on such  proposals  in the 
future,  irrespective  of their  legal  basis. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI