31. 12. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 343/19 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the 
Member States relating to claims made in the labelling, presentation and advertising of 
foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the 
European Communities No C 198 of 6 August 1981, page 4. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 5 May 1981 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic and 
Social Committee in accordance with Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
191st plenary session held in Brussels on 28 and 29 October 1981. 
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 
Article 100 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council of 
the European Communities on 5 May 1981 for an 
opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on 
the approximation of the laws of the Member States 
relating to claims made in the labelling, presentation 
and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate 
consumer, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its chairman 
on 18 May 1981, instructing the Section for 
Protection of the Environment, Public Health and 
Consumer Affairs to prepare an opinion on the 
matter, 
Having regard to the discussions held by the 
abovementioned Section at its 64th meeting on 
6 October 1981, 
Having regard to the report submitted by the 
rapporteur, Mr Jaschick, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 191st plenary 
session, held on 28 and 29 October 1981 (meeting of 
28 October 1981), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 1. General comments 
1.1. Subject to the observation set out below, the 
Committee approves the Commission's aim of giving 
consumers improved protection against misleading 
advertising claims. 
1.2. The Committee considers that the draft 
Directive should consist solely of a non-exhaustive 
list of claims within the meaning of Article 1, 'the use 
of which must in all circumstances be prohibited or 
restricted'. This would accord with the spirit of the 
Committee's comments in its opinion of 2 December 
1976 on Directive 79/112/EEC (*). 
1.3. The Committee welcomes the fact that the 
proposed instrument is a 'horizontal' Directive, 
which will thus in principle apply to all foodstuffs. 
The Committee would draw attention to the need to 
bring existing sectoral provisions (e.g. those 
governing eggs and wine) into line with the basic 
Directive. Attention will also have to be paid to 
avoiding discrepancies between the final versions, to 
be adopted by the Council, of the draft Directive 
under consideration and the draft Directive on 
misleading and unfair advertising. 
1.4. In the Committee's view it should be made 
clear that the burden of proof in respect of the 
objective and measurable facts on which an 
advertising claim is based rests with the advertiser. 
by 50 votes to 40: (') OJNoC285, 2. 12. 1976. 
No C 343/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 81 
The Committee recognizes that this stipulation would 
imply that the food sector was temporarily being 
made subject to much stricter conditions than those 
applying to the other sectors of the economy. The 
Committee points out that the criminal law 
provisions must, of course, remain unaffected. 
1.5. The Committee would stress the need to take 
account of cross-frontier advertising originating in 
non EEC countries. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 1(2) 
The Committee considers that the field of application 
of the draft Directive should be as wide as possible. It 
should therefore also cover indirect and abbreviated 
advertising claims when these are not sufficiently 
explicit. The Committee would point out that the 
reference to the aim of promoting sales could lead to 
a restictive application of the Directive. 
2.2. Article 2 (4), second indent 
The Committee considers that it would be a source of 
problems if authorization by the public authorities 
were to be required even for appropriate nutritional 
information provided by non-State bodies. The 
Committee is afraid that too rigorous an approach 
over this matter could restrict the provision of 
nutritional information. 
2.3. Article 3 (2) 
The Committee is in favour of extending the scope of 
this provision to include claims made in other 
advertising media besides the printed word. 
The Committee holds the view that where a claim 
relates to the absence of low content of a particular 
substance equal prominence should be given to the 
indication of any other ingredients used. 
2.4. Article 3 (3) 
The Committee stresses the need for the term 
'residue' to embrace also decomposition and 
interaction products. The various language versions 
of the draft Directive must also be aligned so that 
they all refer to 'pesticides'. 2.5. Article 3 (4) 
The Committee is pleased to note that the term 
'refrigerated' does not include deep-frozen 
products. 
It would also point out that the reference to a product 
being 'natural' may be taken as indicating that it is 
free from residues. 
The Committee wonders whether the delimitation of 
products obtained 'by a purely mechanical process' is 
not too narrow in the case of some food products and 
too broad in the case of others. Moreover, it cannot 
endorse the authorization of claims that the product 
is 'natural' in the case of products which may contain 
naturally occurring chemical substances. 
2.6. Article 3 (5) 
The Committee considers that some of the terms used 
here need clarification. 
2.6.1. The reference to a product as being 
'biological' or 'organic' may, for example, be 
misinterpreted as meaning that it is free from 
residues. The Committee considers the use of 
hormones for fattening animals and the use of certain 
types of fertilizer (e.g. sewage sludge) are 
incompatible with the advertising claims covered by 
subparagraph 5. In the Committee's view claims 
under subparagraph 5 must also meet the 
requirements set out under subparagraphs 3 and 4. 
The Committee also wonders whether sufficient 
guarantees are yet available in respect of the 
requirements to be met by biological cultivation. 
2.6.2. Difficulties may also arise in view of the fact 
that the expressions 'avoid environmental pollution' 
and 'essential characteristics' may not be sufficiently 
precise for the courts. 
2.6.3. The Committee draws attention to the fact 
that the term 'Verfahren' (processes) used in the 
German version of the text is more far-reaching than 
the equivalent terms in the English and French 
versions ('cultivation processes', 'procedes de 
culture'). All the language versions should use a term 
which also covers livestock production. 
2.6.4. In the Committee's view the terms 'biological' 
and 'organic' should refer not just to the processes 
but to the product itself. 
2.6.5. From an overall point of view, the Committee 
considers that there should be separate and more 
precise provisions in respect of biological or organic 
characteristics and even specific provisions for the 
different products, where necessary. 
31. 12. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 343/21 
suggests adding the requirement that the honours and 
awards must have been bestowed by officially 
recognized bodies. 
2.9. Article 3 (9) 
The Committee considers that the term 'Zubereitung' 
(preparation) in the German version should be 
replaced by 'Herstellungsverfahren' (manufacturing 
processes). 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
I. The following amendments were rejected during the discussions: 
Page 1, point 1.1: 
Add the following: 
'It would, however, express reservations over the approach adopted by the Commission which 
it does not consider to be in accordance with the mandate based on Article 2 (2) of Directive 
79/112/EEC on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs. Under this latter 
Directive the Council shall draw up "a non-exhaustive list of the claims within the meaning of 
paragraph 1 the use of which must at all events be prohibited or restricted"; general rules do 
not have to be introduced.' 
Reasons: 
Under Article 2 (2) of Directive 79/112/EEC the Council 'shall draw up a non-exhaustive list of 
the claims within the meaning of paragraph 1, the use of which must at all events be prohibited or 
restricted'. (Paragraph 2 covers claims which 'could mislead the purchaser' and claims which 
attribute to any foodstuff 'the property of preventing, treating or curing a human disease' or refer 
to such properties). 
Rather than drawing up such a list comprising concrete examples of claims which are to be 
prohibited or restricted, the Commission has submitted a draft Directive setting out general rules 
which are bound to give rise to serious difficulties in interpretation in the Member States. 
Result of the voting: 
For: 42, Against: 44, Abstentions: 1. 2.7. Article 3 (6) 
The Committee considers that difficulties might arise 
if the word 'new' were to be defined in terms of an 
uniform time limit for all food products. 
2.8. Article 3 (8) 
The Committee draws attention to the need to clarify 
the criteria in respect of honours and awards. It 
Done at Brussels, 28 October 1981. 
No C 343/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 81 
Page 6, point 2.7: 
Add the following at the end of this point: 
'In its view, a six-month time limit would normally seem preferable as it provides a better 
guide to the "newness" of the marketed product. In any event, the word "new" must 
presuppose a substantial change in the product.' 
Reason 
An 18-month time limit seems excessive, especially in the case of seasonal foodstuffs. Claims that a 
product is new should not be permitted in the case of an insignificant change in existing 
foodstuffs. 
Result of the voting: 
For: 39, Against: 52, Abstentions: 1. 
II. The following passages from the section's opinion were deleted as the result of amendments 
adopted during the discussions: 
Page 2, point 1.4: 
'In this connection it might perhaps have been better to wait for the latter Directive to be 
adopted and for the provisions of Directive 79/112/EEC to be fully incorporated into 
national law, before submitting the present proposal to the Council.' 
Result of the voting: 
For: 44, Against: 39, Abstentions: 0. 
Page 4, point 2.5, first sentence: 
'The Section would like the reference to refrigerated products to cover all products which are 
preserved by chilling or freezing.' 
Result of the voting: 
For: 53, Against: 29, Abstentions: 4. 
Page 5, point 2.5, second paragraph: 
'... only in so far as such substances have not been used deliberately' and change 'it can 
endorse' to 'it cannot endorse'. 
Result of the voting: 
For: 47, Against: 33, Abstentions: 3.