30. 8. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 204/21 
4.6. Subject  to the  general  and  specific  comments 
set out  above,  the Committee  endorses  the objective 
pursued  by the  Commission.  It calls  for  certain changes  on points  of detail  and  stresses  that  this 
Directive  should  have  more  of  a provisional 
character. 
Done  at Brussels,  30 June  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
ANNEX 
to the opinion  of the Economic  and Social  Committee 
The original  text  of a passage  in the opinion  of the Section  which  was  amended  in Committee: 
Paragraph  3.9.1. 
'The Section  considers  that  the  requirements  under  this  Article  are particularly  onerous, 
and would  like  to see them  simplified  from  the technical  point  of view,  in particular  by 
combining  several  classes  of insurance  into  groups.' 
Voting 
for: 36, 
against:  29, 
abstentions:  18. 
Opinion  on the  amended  proposal  for  a Council  Directive  on the  approximation  of 
the laws  of the Member  States  concerning  mayonnaise,  sauces  derived  from  mayonnaise 
and the other  emulsified  condiment  sauces 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  No C 54 of 
8 March  1976,  page  1. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 27 November  1975  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. 
No C 204/22 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 30. 8. 76 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
140th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 30 June  and  1 July  1976. 
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  for an opinion  made 
by the  Council  of the  European  Communities  on 
27 November  1975, 
Having  regard  to the  decision  taken  by its Bureau 
on 25 November  1975,  instructing  the  Section  for 
Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts  and  Services  to draw  up 
an opinion  and  a report  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the  oral  report  made  by  the 
rapporteur,  Mr Bourel, 
Having  regard  to the opinion  issued  by the Section 
for Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts  and  Services  at its 
meeting  on 2 June  1976, 
Having  regard  to the discussion  at its 140th  plenary 
session,  held  on 30 June  and  1 July  1976  (meeting 
of 30 June  1976), 
HAS  UNANIMOUSLY  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING 
OPINION: 
The Committee  endorses  the  amended  proposal, 
subject  to the comments  set out below: 
1. Introductory  comments 
1.1. On  22 April  1970,  the  Committee  delivered 
an opinion  on a proposal  for  a Council  Directive 
relating  to the approximation  of laws  of the Member 
States  concerning  mayonnaise,  sauces  derived  from 
mayonnaise  and  the  other  emulsified  condiment 
sauces  (1). The  proposal  was  reviewed  following  the 
enlargement  of the Community.  In the course  of this 
(») OJ No C 108,  26. 8. 1970,  p. 25. review,  the  Commission  consulted  the  three  new 
Member  States  and  made  a number  of amendments 
to its original  proposal.  This  has  now  led  to the 
publication  of an amended  proposal. 
1.2. The  Committee  has  mainly  concentrated  on 
examining  and  commenting  on the  points  on which 
the new  draft  differs  from  the  original  version 
published  in December  1969.  Comments  on the other 
provisions  are to be found  in its opinion  of 22 April 
1970. 
2. General  comments 
2.1. Type  of harmonization 
2.1.1.  The  chief  amendment  to the December  1969 
proposal  is that  the Directive  is now  to be based  on 
'optional  harmonization'.  The  Committee  has 
reservations  about  this  change.  The  reason  given  by 
the Commission,  namely  that  the  present  range  of 
goods  available  to the consumer  in the EEC  should 
not be restricted,  is not  convincing.  In view  of the 
differences  between  the  laws  of the  Member  States, 
the consumer  must  be protected  against  errors  or 
misunderstandings  caused  by  the  presentation  of 
products.  It is also  in the  industry's  and  trade's 
interest  for  uniform  rules  on  the  labelling  and 
composition  of the products  to apply  throughout  the 
EEC,  so as to rule  out distortions  of competition. 
2.1.2.  The  Committee  therefore  prefers  'total 
harmonization',  which  was  the  basis  for  the  1969 
draft.  It does  not fail to recognize  that  these  products 
differ  greatly  in composition  from  one  Member  State 
to another  and  that  trade  in  these  products 
throughout  the  EEC  is slight  when  compared  with 
their  importance  on domestic  markets.  Nevertheless, 
the Committee  considers  the  'total  harmonization' 
of laws  to be possible,  and  would  propose  that  such 
'harmonization'  be introduced  at least  for mayonnaise. 
As for the other  products  covered  by the Directive, 
the Commission  should  consider  applying  'optional 
harmonization'  for  just  a transitional  period,  after 
which  'total  harmonization'  should  be phased  in. 
30. 8. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 204/23 
2.2. Use  of synthetic  acetic  acid 
As regards  the problem  of using  synthetic  acetic  acid 
in the products  covered  by the Directive,  the Com-
mittee  would  refer  to 2 (a) in its opinion  of 22 April 
1970.  It regrets  that  no overall  solution  has  been 
found  as yet  to the  problem  of allowing  or 
prohibiting  the  use  of synthetic  acetic  acid  in the 
manufacture  of foodstuffs,  and  hopes  that  the 
Council  will  soon  reach  a decision  on this  matter. 
Otherwise,  trade  between  Member  States  will 
continue  to be hampered;  some  Member  States  could, 
in fact,  ban  the  marketing  of products  bearing  the 
'E' mark  if they  contained  synthetic  acetic  acid. 
2.3. Classification  of products  into  categories 
In view  of the  large  number  of products  involved, 
the Committee  thinks  that  there  should  be more  than 
three  categories  in Annex  I, Chapter  1. It proposes 
that the  products  be further  subdivided  by creating 
a third  group  for those  with  a fat content  of 25 to 
50%  and  a fourth  group  for those  with  a fat content 
of less  than  25%.  This  is also  in the  interest  of 
consumers,  for  it would  permit  a more  accurate 
classification  of these  kinds  of sauces.  Industry's 
interests  are served,  too,  for greater  allowance  would 
be made  in this  way  for the varying  composition  of 
the various  kinds  of sauces. 
2.4. Labelling 
The labelling  provisions  must  enable  the  consumer 
to obtain  clear  and  adequate  information  about  the 
composition  and  true  value  of  the  products. 
Accordingly,  the  Committee  cannot  accept  the 
provision  in the Directive  (Article  7) that  allows  one 
and the same  name  to be used  in the Community  for 
differently-composed  products,  even  if the  'E' mark 
appears  on the  label.  It is also  in the  interest  of 
industry  and  trade  for the free  movement  of goods 
in the Community  to be made  easier  by the use  of 
unequivocal  labelling. 
2.5. Additives 
With  regard  to Annex  II (Permitted  additives),  the 
Committee  would  point  out  that,  in the case  of all 
additives  in foodstuffs,  there  is the problem  of the 
acceptable  daily  intake.  It urges  that  the  tables  in 
Annex  II, and  especially  the one  on colouring  matter, 
be re-examined  from  this point  of view. 2.6. Horizontal  Directives 
The Committee  thinks  that  this  Directive  will  not 
fulfil  its objective  and  lead  to free  trade  in the prod-
ucts in question  unless  it can be backed  up by various 
horizontal  Directives  on labelling,  packaging,  etc. The 
Committee  would  point  out  that  it is absolutely 
necessary  for such  horizontal  Directives  to be adopted 
without  delay. 
3. Specific  comments 
3.1. Article  1 (scope) 
3.1.1.  Article  1 talks  about  the 'characteristics'  of 
the products,  whereas  Annex  I, Chapter  1 is headed 
'General  definition  ... of sauces'.  The  Committee 
thinks  there  is a contradiction  here,  and  considers 
that Annex  I must  contain  product  specifications 
with  which  products  will  have  to comply  if they  are 
to be allowed  to bear  the proposed  name. 
3.1.2.  The  Committee  also  thinks  that  if 'total 
harmonization'  were  the ultimate  aim,  the use of the 
'E' mark  could  be dispensed  with. 
3.2. Article  4 (bacteriology) 
3.2.1.  The  Committee  would  point  to the need  for 
uniform  methods  for  sampling  and  analysing  the 
products.  Failing  this,  there  would  be a danger  of 
competition  being  distorted.  Some  thought  should  be 
given  to laying  down  bacteriological  standards  for all 
the products  in question  in a horizontal  Directive.  In 
addition,  further  bacteriological  characteristics  for 
certain  products  might  be  specified  in vertical 
Directives.  It is obvious  that,  from  this  point  of view, 
the sampling  methods  and  procedures  must  clearly 
be 'harmonized'. 
3.3. Article  6 (labelling) 
3.3.1.  With  regard  to subparagraph  (d)  (declar-
ation  of net weight),  the Committee  thinks  it would 
be better  to indicate  the net volume  rather  than  the 
net weight  of certain  liquid  sauces  packed  in certain 
types  of container.  The  Committee's  opinion  of 
22 April  1970  also  refers  to this  matter. 
3.3.2.  In  subparagraph  (e) (i) (permitted  colouring 
matter,  etc.),  the word  'permitted'  should  be omitted 
in each  instance.  Only  harmless  substances  are listed 
in the  horizontal  Directives  on additives,  and  there 
would  appear  to be no need  to refer  to this  fact  on 
products'  labels. 
No C 204/24 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 30. 8. 76 
3.3.3.  With  regard  to subparagraph  (e) (ii) (indi-
cation  of milk/vegetable  protein),  the  Committee 
endorses  the  proposed  indication  on the  label  but 
wonders  whether  it is necessary  to indicate  this 
emulsifier  'in characters  of the same  size'.  If this  were 
so, the consumer  might  wrongly  assume  that,  due  to 
the admixture  of milk/vegetable  protein,  the  prod-
ucts contained  more  protein  than  other  emulsified 
sauces  in which  egg  yolk  was  used  as an emulsifier. 
In actual  fact,  however,  it is merely  proposed  to 
name  the  emulsifier  used.  This  should  be indicated 
in the same  way  as the other  information  listed  under 
(b) and  (c),  which  is to appear  'in  characters 
uniform  as to size  and colour'. 
3.4. Article  7 (naming  of sauces) 
3.4.1.  The  Committee  would  refer  to its general 
comments  on the subject  of 'optional  harmonization'. 
It thinks  that,  above  all,  confusion  is bound  to be 
caused  by each  Member  State  being  free  to 'lay down 
names  for the products  set out in Annex  I, Chapter  2. 
3.5. Article  8 (misleading  labelling) 
3.5.1.  With  regard  to subparagraph  (a) (indication 
of egg  yolk),  the Committee  thinks  it is possible  to 
delete  the  final  phrase  ('except  when  equal 
prominence  is given  to a precise  statement  of the 
percentage  of pure  egg  yolk  actually  used').  If less 
than roughly  2% egg  yolk  is used  in the manufacture 
of products,  it should  not be indicated  separately.  As 
the text  stands  at the moment,  even  a minute  quantity 
of egg yolk  might  be indicated. 
3.6. Article  9 (1) (b) (use  of synthetic  acetic  acid) 
3.6.1.  The  Committee  would  refer  in  this 
connection  to its general  comments  on the  use  of 
synthetic  acetic  acid  in foodstuffs. 
3.7. Article  12 (transitional  period) 
3.7.1.  In  connection  with  Article  12 (1),  the Com-
mittee  thinks  that  the  one-year  deadline  for  the amendment  of the laws  of the Member  States  should 
be charged  into  a two-year  deadline. 
3.7.2.  With  regard  to Article  12 (2), the Committee 
considers  that  the Member  States  should  be obliged 
to communicate  to the  Commission  any  national 
laws  concerning  the  products  governed  by  the 
Directive.  Therefore,  not  only  the  'main'  provisions 
of law  should  be communicated.  The  Committee 
therefore  suggests  the  following  wording  for 
Article  12.(2): 
'Member  States  shall  communicate  to the  Com-
mission  the texts  of national  laws  adopted  in the 
field  governed  by this  Directive.' 
3.8. Annex  I, Chapter  1 (classification  of products) 
3.8.1.  The  section  would  refer  to its  general 
comments,  where  it proposes  the further  subdivision 
of the products  into  four  categories. 
3.9. Annex  I, Chapter  2 (particular  definitions) 
3.9.1.  As  regards  item  1 (mayonnaise),  the Com-
mittee  would  point  out  that  at least  the  laws 
governing  this  product  should  be 'totally  harmonized' 
without  delay.  This  is considered  to be a quality 
product  in all Member  States,  and  it is in the 
consumer's  interest  that  this  product  in particular 
should  retain  its traditional  quality. 
3.10.  Annex  II (permitted  additives) 
3.10.1.  The  Committee  would  refer  to its general 
comments  on the  need  to reconsider  all additives  in 
the light  of the  acceptable  daily  intake.  Additives 
should  not  be allowed  unless  they  are  a necessary 
part of the manufacturing  process  and  are  vital  for 
the product's  quality. 
3.10.2.  The  expression  'harmless  flavours'  used 
under  item  1 in Table  F (aroma  substances)  should 
be checked  to see  whether  it is likely  to cause 
misunderstandings.  A clearer  expression  should  be 
found. 
Done  at Brussels,  30 June  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE