12. 9. 88 - Official Journal of the European Communities No C 237/43 
3. With the introduction of the harmonized system, 
'cooked eggs in shell' and 'cooked eggs not in shell' 
(called moulded egg products) which were classified 
under CCT heading 21.07 until 31 December 1987 and 
were therefore not considered Annexe II products, are 
now classified under headings 4.07 and 4.08. They are thus subject to the levies provided for in Regulation 
(EEC) No 2771/75. It is appropriate and logical to 
classify cooked eggs in shell and cooked eggs not in 
shell as other preserved eggs in shell and not in shell. 
This classification means that these products will also 
have to be covered by Regulation (EEC) No 2771/85. 
Done at Brussels, 6 July 1988. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations 
and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the labelling of tobacco 
products (*) 
(88/C 237/15) 
On 22 February 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 100 A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned 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 
7 June 1988. The rapporteur was Mr Noordwal. 
At its 257th plenary session (meeting of 7 July 1988) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by 42 votes for, 20 against and 14 abstentions (vote recorded). 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The purpose of the Commission proposal is to 
ensure that when all barriers to trade are removed 
in 1992 the remaining differences in the labelling of 
tobacco products are also eliminated. 
1.2. The Commission is also seeking to meet the 
requirements of Article 100 A (3) of the Single Act 
which stipulates that 'The Commission, in its proposals 
(...) concerning health, safety, environmental protection 
and consumer protection, will take as a base a high 
level of protection.' 
1.3. Having dealt at length with the existing labelling 
requirements for cigarettes in the Member States, the 
(!) OJ No C 48, 20. 2. 1988, p. 8. Commission covers cigarillos, cigars, pipe and chewing 
tobacco with a brief reference to France, Ireland and 
Spain. 
1.4. In general, the Committee endorses the pro­
posal, subject to the following comments. 
1.5. The usefulness of the Commission proposal for 
products other than cigarettes and rolling tobacco is 
not clearly demonstrated, particularly in view of the 
heavy costs for cigars and pipe tobacco, which occupy 
a small and decreasing segment of the market. 
1.6. The Committee has reservations about the har­
monized labelling, e.g. for cigarette packets, proposed 
by the Commission. In countries with two or more 
No C 237/44 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 9. 88 
official languages the proposed labels will take up too 
much of the packets' two main surface areas. 
Greater attention should be paid to the problems of 
designing packets so that the warnings required by law 
are adequately displayed and yet do not spoil esthetic 
appeal. Design research into the practical implications, 
as well as the effectiveness, of the situation of warnings, 
the use of colour and of symbols is urgently needed. 
1.7. The Committee also considers inadequate the 
current cursory assessment of the effects of the proposal 
on small tobacco manufacturers and we question the 
Commission's contention that lower sales of tobacco 
products will be compensated for by the ECUs spent 
by former smokers on other products. This inadequacy 
arises because DG V is the prime guardian of public 
health whereas DG VI, under Article 39 (1) of the 
Treaty is pursuing a totally different policy, namely 
the promotion of tobacco production in the EC. The 
Committee therefore stresses the need for a single con­
sistent tobacco policy which would attempt to reconcile 
proposals for the encouragement and maintenance of 
personal and public health with the need to find ways 
of supporting tobacco sector workers whose jobs and 
incomes are adversely affected by this labelling Direc­
tive. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee questions whether sufficient 
thought has been given to the legal implications of the 
proposal. In particular the fact that the proposal is 
based on Article 100 A, paragraph 3, of the Treaty 
rather than Article 100, paragraph 1, raises doubts in 
our minds. The fact that exporters are subject to the 
language laws of the importing country and to that 
country's choice of health warning is undoubtedly an 
obstacle to free trade between the Member States. The 
Committee also believes that the power to make adap­
tations to technical progress (see Articles 5 and 6 of the 
proposal) rests with the Council of Ministers, and not 
with the Commission. 
2.2. Cigarettes and rolling tobacco account for more 
than 90% of the market for tobacco products. The 
market share of other tobacco products—such as cigars 
and pipe tobacco—is small and decreasing. The level 
of differentiation of these products and the small quan­
tities in which they are exported mean that the 
additional costs resulting from the proposal will be 
disproportionately high. This is particularly true in the 
case of cigars which are sometimes sold to the consumer 
individually. The purpose of the Commission proposal ('the objective 
of better labelling is to reduce the consumption of 
tobacco products') has already been achieved in struc­
tural terms for cigars and pipe tobacco. Furthermore 
up until now nine of the twelve Member States have 
not felt the need for a health warning on these products. 
If the Commission is intending to include these products 
in an overall anti-smoking policy, general health warn­
ings displayed at the point of sale might be an effective 
approach. 
The purpose of this proposal is to reduce the consump­
tion of tobacco products. Labelling of all tobacco prod­
ucts must therefore be systematically and regularly 
evaluated so that the extent of its effectiveness in achiev­
ing a reduction is apparent. 
2.3. Though the Committee continues to stress that 
health and safety are of prime importance, it believes 
that the Commission has not assumed sufficient 
responsibility for the economic and commercial reper­
cussions of the proposal. 
The Commission is providing a high and rapidly rising 
level of support to Community tobacco production 
(ECU 782 million in 1986 rising to ECU 940 million in 
1988). This support is increasingly being channelled to 
tobacco products for which there is a demand from 
Community consumers. 
The main tobacco-growing countries in the Community 
are France, Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal. A total 
of 210 000 ha is given over to tobacco cultivation in 
these countries. Tobacco growing employs 900 000 
people in the Community in the equivalent of 300 000 
full-time jobs. Tobacco processing absorbs 140 000 
man/years, whilst the distribution sector provides 1,8 
million people with some 200 000 man/years of work. 
In view of the importance of tobacco the Committee 
feels that the Commission, in presenting a proposal 
designed to reduce consumption, cannot absolve itself 
of responsibility for the impact of its proposals on 
business and employment with a largely irrelevant refer­
ence to small firms. Proposals will be needed as to ways 
of supporting those who stand to lose their jobs and 
incomes as a result of the Directive. 
2.4. The Committee has reservations about the 
method of implementing the proposal. Does the Com­
mission appreciate that requiring health warnings to be 
printed in the official language(s) of the country and in 
letters of at least 3 mm will mean using an unacceptably 
large proportion of the packets' two main surfaces? 
The reference to 2 % of the total surface suggests that 
12. 9. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 237/45 
the Commission has overlooked the fact that some 
Member States have two or more official languages, 
neither/none of which can be omitted because of their 
political sensitivity. 
Health warnings should, where possible, be printed on 
the sides of packets in line with current practice in the 
vast majority of those Member States which already 
require a health warning. 
2.5. Although none of the Member States has a 
health warning in the form of a pictogram—and the 
subject does not therefore arise as a possible basis for 
harmonization—the Committee nonetheless wonders 
whether a pictogram might offer a solution to the 
problems of surface area and barriers to trade. 
It would therefore ask the Commission to look into 
the possibility of using a pictogram—and by this it 
definitely does not mean a skull and crossbones—as a 
health warning which does not impede the free move­
ment of goods in the Community. 
All the available means should be tried to find a solution 
to the problem of surface area on packets, in addition 
to the organization of a competition intended to pro­
duce an effective pictogram. 
As an additional source of information the pictogram 
could be accompanied by a warning (if necessary in 
several or even all the official languages of the Com­
munity) printed on a brightly-coloured card for inser­
tion into the cigarette packet. This is common practice 
with other products, e.g. the instructions that go to­
gether with photographic film. 
3. Comments on specific Articles 
Article 1 
The phrase 'tobacco products' should be replaced by 
'cigarettes and rolling tobacco'. This would reflect the 
realities of tobacco consumption in the Community 
without in any way lessening the impact of the proposal. 
Article 2 et seq. 
The definition of tobacco products in 1) should be 
deleted, and wherever the words 'tobacco products' 
occur in the proposal they should be replaced by 'ciga­
rettes and rolling tobacco'. 
Article 1 and 2 
If all tobacco products are to be covered by the pro­
posal, thought should be given to requiring a general 
warning against smoking to be displayed at points of 
sale. Article 3 (1) 
The Committee fears that fairly large disparities will 
result if different methods of measurement are allowed. 
Each method allows a tolerance of between 15 and 
20 % on either side of the figure on the packets. More­
over there are considerable disparities in the results 
produced by the various methods. It would therefore 
be better to specify one method, e.g. ISO standard 8453 
(the electrostatic method) (!). 
Article 4 
If a pictogram were adopted, then the whole text of 
this Article would need to be dropped and replaced by 
suitable new wording. The Annex would also need to 
be amended accordingly. 
If there are insuperable objections to a pictogram health 
warning, the Committee would wish to make the fol­
lowing comments on Article 4. 
Article 4 (1) 
It should be made clear that health warnings are 
required by national or supranational authorities, e.g. 
by specifying the authority in question or the law which 
requires the warning to be displayed. 
Article 4 (1),4 (2) and 4 (3) 
At any event, the combination in the present proposal 
of two warnings, several languages and a letter height 
of 3 mm is an unreasonable demand to place on the 
tobacco processing industry. Moreover, the require­
ments of 3 mm minimum letter size and 2% cover of 
the surface area are clearly not consistent with each 
other. Sub-paragraph (3) could be deleted. Sub-para­
graph (4) is clearly enough. Finally, the warnings for 
cigarettes should where possible be aligned on current 
practice in the vast majority of those Member States 
which already require a health warning and placed on 
the sides of the packet. 
Article 5 
The Committee wonders if the Commission is legally 
entitled to lay down Articles of this kind in a direc­
tive—which could circumvent the normal legislative 
procedure for measures to be taken in the future. 
Article 145 of the EEC Treaty confers the decision­
making power on the Council, which can in turn del­
egate to the Commission the implementation of the 
(') ISO: International Organization for Standardization. 
No C 237/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 9. 88 
rules adopted. Article 10 of the Single Act is worded in Article 7 
the same terms. This aspect should be looked at more 
closely, so as to avoid legal problems later. See comments on Article 5. 
Article 6 
Bearing in mind Article 3 (1), the committee referred Annex 
to here should be made up of experts in this field from 
the Member States, and not primarily of represen- Substitute 'smoking causes' with 'smoking can cause' 
tatives/officials, unless they also happen to be experts in I (a) and (b) and II (a) and (e); add 'can' after 
in the field. 'smokers' in II (g). 
Done at Brussels, 7 July 1988. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
APPENDIX 1 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Voting on the Opinion as a whole 
The following members, present or represented, voted for the Opinion: 
Mr/Miss/Mrs Aparicio-Bravo, Arets, Beltrami, Beretta, Bos, Ceyrac, Coyle, van Dam, Donck, Eulen, Gardner, 
Geuenich, Giacomelli, Glesener, Goris, Horsken, Kaaris, Kazazis, Kroger, Luchetti, Masprone, Meyer-Horn, 
Muhr, Neto Da Silva, Nierhaus, Nieuwenhuize, Noordwal, de Nordmann, Pardon, Pearson, Pelletier, 
Petersen, Proumens, Riera-Marsa, Rolao-Goncalves, Rouzier, Schmitz, Schopges, Spijkers, Tukker, Wagner, 
Whitworth. 
The following members, present or represented, voted against the Opinion: 
Mr/Miss/Mrs Ataide-Ferreira, Bento-Goncalves, Lobo-Brandao R. Cal, Calvet-Chambon, Campbell, Alves-
Conde, Dodd, Dos Santos, van Eekert, Etty, Hilkens, Houthuys, Jaschick, Mantovani, Morales, Moreland, 
Orsi, Proenca, Silva, Vidal. 
The following members, present or represented, abstained: 
Mr/Miss/Mrs Aspinall, Cavazzuti, Dunet, Flum, Hancock, Lojewski, Nielsen B., Nielsen P., Poeton, Rea, 
Roseingrave, Speirs, Tixier, Vercellino. 
12. 9. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 237/47 
APPENDIX 2 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following amendments, which were supported by at least a quarter of the votes cast, were defeated 
during the debate: 
Point 1.5. 
Delete. 
Reasons 
The aim of the Commission proposal is to supply the user, the consumer, with the necessary information. 
The Commission proposes doing this for all tobacco products. It does not seem sensible, whatever the 
reasons, to leave out a particular type of tobacco. 
Voting 
For: 18, against: 35, abstentions: 7. 
Point 1.6. 
Amend to read as follows: 
'The Committee endorses the Commission's proposals for clear and legible labelling for all tobacco products.' 
Reasons 
It must be ensured that the consumer can be given clear information on tobacco products. To this end the 
Commission has put forward careful proposals which must not be cut down in such a way that hardly any 
information is left. 
Voting 
For: 25, against: 36, abstentions: 9. 
Point 2.1. 
Delete the following sentence: 
'The fact that exporters are subject to the language laws of the importing country and to that country's 
choice of health warning is undoubtedly an obstacle to free trade between the Member States.' 
Reasons 
Self-evident. 
Voting 
For: 23, against: 31, abstentions: 9. 
Point 2.2. 
Delete. 
Reasons 
The aim of the Commission proposal is to give consumers information on smoking. There is no sense in 
excluding particular products, as recommended in the Section Opinion. The fall in consumption of certain 
types of tobacco is not a sufficient reason for this. 
Voting 
For: 21, against: 36, abstentions: 9. 
No C 237/48 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 9. 88 
Point 2.4. 
Delete. 
Reasons 
Point 1.6 indicates that the Committee agrees with the Commission proposals regarding effective labelling. 
This does not accord with point 2.4 in the Opinion. Experience has also shown that where products have to 
be presented in several national languages, no problems have arisen with regard to the messages to be 
conveyed. 
Voting 
For: 17, against: 36, abstentions: 12. 
Point 2.5. 
Amend this point to read: 
'The Committee suggests that the Commission consider the possibility of supplementing the necessary verbal 
labelling with a pictogram used as a health warning. In addition, it is worth considering a more detailed 
leaflet to be inserted into the cigarette packet, so that tobacco users are provided with the fullest possible 
information.' 
Reasons 
Self-evident. 
Votmg 
For: 18, against: 46, abstentions: 7. 
Point 3 
Suppress comments on Article 1 and Article 2 et seq. 
Reasons 
There is enough evidence to suggest that all tobacco products can be harmful in different ways and concern 
exists about the possible emergence of new products (chewing tobacco) which would be just as dangerous. 
Voting 
For: 18, against: 35, abstentions: 17. 
Appendix 
Delete. 
Reasons 
The Commission text is clearer and there is no point in introducing the idea of 'can'. 
Voting 
For: 17, against: 42, abstentions: 10.