25.4.85 Official journal of the European Communities ^oC104B17 
Opinion on the proposal foraCouncil Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member 
States relating to ^uicl^fro^en foodstuffs for human consumption (n 
(85^C 104^09) 
On50ctober 1984 theCouncil decided,inaccordancewithArticlelOOoftheTreatyestablishingthe 
European Economic Community, to consult the Economic and Social Committee on the 
abovementioned proposal 
The Committee's work waspreparedbytheSectionforProtectionoftheEnvironment, Public 
Idealth and Consumer Affairs, which adopted its opinion on 5 February 1985 (rapporteurs 
Mrs Williams) 
At its 224th plenary session (meeting of 27 Eebruaryl985) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the opinion with ^8 votes for, none against and nine abstentions' 
The Committee approves the proposal of the Commission subject to the following comments^ 
1. general observations 
1.1. The Committee is in favour of the harmonization of 
foodlegislationthroughouttheCommunityasitbelievesthat 
this will lead to greater freedom of movement of goods, and 
greater choice and better duality of food es well as increased 
protection for the consumer. 
1.2. The Committee considers that harmonization is 
particularly necessary in respect of quickDfro^en goods, 
because, as the Commission points out, although the 
quick^fro^enmarketisgrowinginindividualMember States, 
^the wallingoff of the quick^fro^en market is almost 
watertight'. 
im5 The Committee points out that such harmonization 
is inlinewithaninternational trend,and will infactmean the 
translation into Community regulations of the code of 
practice on quickDfro^en foods adopted by the Codex 
Alimentarius Commission (jointEAO^HOprogrammeon 
food standards). However, in some Member States certain 
aspects of the Commission'sproposal are less stringent than 
the rules currently in operation. 
t.4. The Committee maintains that the protection of the 
consumer is the primary consideration and accepts that this 
can best be achieved with the temperature norms set out in 
the proposal,based onastandard of ^18 ^C(O^E).The 
Committee is aware of the argument that trade interests in 
the Member States which do not at presentuseatemperature 
norm as cold as this may be obliged to incur increased energy 
costs,but does not consider thisavalid objection,both for 
the safety reason already stated, and because with modern 
technology this isaproblem which can be surmounted. 
1.5. The Committee is aware that once a product is 
defrosted it is strictly speakingnolongeraquick^fro^en food 
^)o^oe^7,^mom^4,D^ and might not technically fall within the scope of the 
proposed Directive. The Committee considers this 
interpretation too facile, and in order to protect the 
consumer proposes that, if defrostedproducts are puton 
sale, they should be clearly marked as such and inscribed 
with the warning that defrosted products must not be 
refro^en. 
1.D5 The Committee notes that as the quick^fro^en food 
industry is labour intensive at both the production and 
distribution levels, increased tradein quickfro^en foods 
should lead to increased employment. 
1.7. Recognising that quickDfro^en goods arearelatively 
new factor in the history of food production and processing, 
the Committee stresses the need for^ 
— training of distribution and retail personnel, 
— consumer information and education. 
Provision of the latter isafunction of industry,government, 
local authorities and consumer organisations. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. ^^^^B^^^^^^ 
Thephrase^temperaturesto be adhered to in the installations 
andappliancesforstorage,handlingand distribution'should 
be extended to include transportation'.. 
2.2. Ar^^^^ 
Itshould bemadeclear that^quick^fro^enfoodstuffs'as 
defined for the purposes of this Directive only conform to 
that definition provided they remain frozen. 
NoC 104/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 4. 85 
2.3. Article 3 (2), last phrase 2.7. Article 7 
It is not sufficiently clear simply to say that the quick-freezing 
operation must take place immediately after preparation of 
the product, as it is not always technically possible or 
desirable to undertake this operation that quickly, given that 
a wide variety of different products is involved. 
The Committee would prefer a phrase such as 'as quickly as 
possible in conformity with good manufacturing practice'. With regard to the appropriate packaging for quick-frozen 
foodstuffs the Committee notes that 'sweating' constitutes a 
well-known problem, and requests the Commission to 
examine what further action may be required to solve it. 
2.8. Articles 8 and 9 
2.4. Article 4 
The Committee observes that the proposed list of authorized 
cryogenic fluids should be drawn up as quickly as possible in 
order to anticipate the introduction of divergent national 
legislation on this matter. 
2.5. Article S 2.8.1. The Committee understands that Article 8 covers 
foodstuffs for retail sale (i.e. the domestic consumers) and 
Article 9 covers foodstuffs not for retail sale (i.e. to the 
catering trade), but notes that the 'ultimate consumer' 
referred to is in Article 8(2) which covers only the domestic 
consumer in his home. 
2.8.2. The Committee considers that this definition of the 
ultimate consumer is inadequate, and that the proposal 
should be amended to take account of 'ultimate consumers' 
of an institutional nature (e.g. hospitals). 
2.5.1. The Committee emphasizes that the initial quality 
of quick-frozen foods can only be guaranteed if the cold chain 
is maintained throughout, and affirms the need to impose 
strict temperature levels rather than to adapt the rules to fit 
inappropriate equipment. 
2.5.2. The Committee is concerned with the possible 
consequences of an interruption in the cold chain, 
particularly of any breakdown at retail level. It considers that 
the provisions of this Article do not adequately protect the 
consumer, and as it appears that in spite of several 
experiments (for example with time-temperature monitoring 
devices which produce a colour change indicating an 
undesirable temperature increase) no satisfactory 
breakdown monitoring system exists at present, requests the 
Commission to encourage appropriate research to find a 
speedy solution to this problem. 2.9. Article 8 
2.9.1. The Committee notes that the use of the 'star' 
system sponsored by CEN of marking compartments in 
household refrigerators, frozen-food storage cabinets, food 
freezers, as well as the corresponding inclusion of 'stars' in 
the labelling of quick-frozen foods, is at present utilized on a 
voluntary basis by refrigerator manufacturers and food 
processors. 
The Committee proposes that the current proposal contain 
provisions making a uniform 'star' system based on the CEN 
standards obligatory throughout the Community. 
2.9.2. The Committee notes that the information it is 
proposed to give the domestic consumer is not as detailed as 
that to be given to the non-retail consumer and suggests that 
for the domestic consumer the Commission examine whether 
the consumption limit date should be added in addition to the 
date of manufacture, and whether a recommended manner of 
defrosting be specified. 
2.6. Article 6 
2.6.1. In this Article which covers random official 
checks, the Committee notes that the 'burden of proof to 
show that the Directive is being contravened lies on the 
official carrying out the inspection. 2.9.3. Provision should also be made for the warning 
'never refreeze a defrosted product'. It should be clearly 
inserted indelibly in a prominent place on refrigerators 
etc., as well as on the packaged food, as proposed in 
paragraph 1.5. 
2.6.2. The Committee considers that provision should be 
made for maintaining and checking retail display cabinets in 
respect of the 'load line', i.e. the level in open cabinets below 
which goods must be stocked to maintain the required 
temperature. 2.10. Article 11 
The Committee notes the proposals regarding sampling and 
analysis and draws attention to its general opinion on this 
subject (ref. CES 1167/84) which recommended the 
harmonization of Community regulations in this field. 
25. 4. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 104/19 
2.11. Article 13 
The Committee considers that the limit dates mentioned in 
this Article should be re-examined, as the dates for compliance of 1 May 1985 and 1 May 1986 seem too early, 
and that of 1 January 1995 proposed as the limit date for 
deferrals is too far ahead and should be 1 January 1990. 
Done at Brussels, 27 February 1985. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Rejected amendment 
The following amendment, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, was rejected by the Committee 
during plenary session discussions: 
Paragraph 2.11: 
This paragraph should be revised to read as follows: 
'Article 13 
The Section considers that the limit dates for compliance with the proposed Directive of 1 May 1985 and 1 May 
1986 seem too early, but approves the proposal that Member States may defer the entry into force of Article 5 (2) 
(b) until 1 January 1995.' 
Reasons 
Unless the latest limit date (1 January 1995) suggested in the proposal is adopted many retailers (especially smaller 
ones) would be unable to absorb the higher costs involved in capital re-equipment in such a short period of time 
envisaged in the draft opinion. This would result in the abandonment of the sale of quick-frozen food products by 
many retailers which would not be in the interests of consumers. 
Voting: 
For: 29. Against: 42. Abstentions: 2.