22. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 328/23 
Opinion on the Commission communication to the Council and to the European Parliament 
entitled 'Completion of the Internal Market: Community Legislation on Foodstuffs' 
(86/C 328/10) 
On 20 November 1985 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Commit­
tee on the abovementioned Commission communication. 
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 
1 and 2 September 1986 in the light of the report by Mr Hilkens. 
At its 239th plenary session (meeting of 17 September 1986) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following opinion by a majority vote, two votes against and nine 
abstentions: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission's 
intention of speeding up the establishment of the inter­
nal market in foodstuffs. The Committee is thus in 
accord with its previous opinion on the completion of 
the internal market (x). The Committee regrets that it 
has taken so long to develop a coherent Community 
policy on foodstuffs. 
1.2. The Committee shares the Commission's view 
that the creation of the common market in foodstuffs 
poses particular problems which call for specific 
solutions. 
1.2.1. Particular care thus needs to be taken to ensure 
that there are no negative consequences for human 
health or existing food quality expectations. 
1.2.2. To this end a high level of protection will have 
to be ensured in the harmonization of food laws, which 
will have to be based on the most advanced standard. 
1.2.3. The Committee has. commented in several 
opinions on the link between diet and health, e.g. the 
opinion on the Programme of Action on Cancer Preven­
tion (OJ No C 101, 28. 6. 1986, p. 22 et seq.). 
1.2.4. The Commission's communication is based on 
the assumption that as far as health and food quality 
are concerned, the Member States' food laws already 
operate satisfactorily. 
1.2.4.1. In view of the major differences in foodstuffs 
legislation between the Member States, the Committee 
considers that it is impossible to make any statement 
as to whether levels of protection are equivalent. Very 
considerable differences in the enforcement of legis­
lation have for example already been noted and these 
differences naturally have a considerable effect on the 
actual level of protection. The Committee, therefore, 
considers it essential that the Commission submit a 
comparative study making clear the disparities between 
Member States' food laws. 2. Health 
2.1. The Committee has noted with satisfaction the 
Commission's intention of introducing Community 
legislation on health protection and safety. 
The Committee considers that a directive should be 
issued defining the requirements for health protection 
and safety. This would also make it possible to elimin­
ate any barriers to trade. Without sufficient clarity in 
the area of health and safety there can be no internal 
market in foodstuffs. 
2.2. Additives 
The Commission's plan to complete the positive list 
of approved additives is in principle welcomed. The 
Committee points out that it must also be possible to 
adapt these lists in the future. The use of additives on 
the positive list should be permitted only if these addi­
tives do .not pose any risk to human health and are 
technically necessary. 
2.3. Plant protection products and veterinary prep­
arations 
The Committee would draw attention to the fact that 
residues of plant protection products (e.g. DDT) and 
veterinary preparations (such as hormones or anti­
biotics) in food pose a threat to health. Strict rules 
should apply here; the Committee therefore regrets that 
the Commission has not gone into this point. 
2.4. Hygiene rules 
(!) OJ No C 344, 31. 12. 1985. The Committee regrets that the Commission does not 
envisage any further proposals on the harmonization 
of the rules on hygiene in respect of foodstuffs, one of 
the most important problems in the field of public 
health. 
No C 328/24 Official Journal of the 
3. Consumer protection and labelling 
3.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission's 
intention to supplement the existing Directive on label­
ling, presentation and advertising. The Committee 
would like to stress here that an effective system of 
informative labelling in combination with systematic 
consumer education is absolutely necessary if the pro­
posed internal market in foodstuffs is not to be estab­
lished at the consumer's expense. 
3.2. A labelling directive should lay down a clear and 
comprehensible labelling system mandatory throughout 
the Community, to protect the consumer from mislead­
ing information on labels. 
4. Competition and foodstuff quality 
4.1. Assuming that consumption in the Community 
remains constant, the increased competition resulting 
from the creation of the internal market in foodstuffs 
may alter the sales pattern of the various suppliers. 
Such a change in the structure of supply carries with it 
the danger of distortion of competition and reduced 
quality. 
4.2. The Committee points out that existing national 
legislation will come under pressure if local industry 
has to comply with (national) standards which are more 
stringent than those applicable to imports. 
4.3. The establishment of minimum standards is 
probably unavoidable, if the quality of foodstuffs is to 
be guaranteed and distortion of competition prevented. 
One could envisage directives on the composition of 
groups of products and well established specialities, as 
well as quality seals and other quality marks and the 
clear marking of imitation products. Consideration 
should also be given to codes of conduct drawn up 
jointly by industry and consumers' organizations. 
4.4. The Committee feels that the issue of further 
vertical framework directives on foodstuffs will be 
unavoidable in a limited number of cases. The Commit­
tee welcomes the Commission's statement that the exist­
ing vertical directives will remain in force. 
4.5. Better supervision of competition is needed if 
local and regional quality products are to be preserved. 
Consideration should be given to compositional rules 
and binding minimum standards which would make it 
easier to supervise and curb distortions of competition. 
4.6. In this regard the Commission's generally dis­
missive attitude towards compositional rules is difficult 
to understand, particularly in the light of the judgments 
of the European Court of Justice to which the Com-uropean Communities 22. 12. 86 
mission refers. In case 120/78 and subsequent judgments 
concerning the interpretation of Article 30 et seq. of 
the EEC Treaty, the European Court of Justice has 
expressly and increasingly recognized that the Member 
States may retain national measures that restrict the 
free movement of goods in the Community, if these 
measures are necessary in order to meet essential 
requirements, including fair trading and consumer 
protection. 
5. Official inspection 
5.1. The Committee agrees with the Commission 
that official inspection for the protection of health is by 
its very nature a matter for legislation. The Committee 
stresses the need for the harmonization of national 
inspection provisions. 
5.2. The Committee recommends that the Com­
mission's planned new draft directive should provide 
for the possibility of checks at all relevant points (par­
ticularly at the places of production or cultivation, in 
processing plants, and in the wholesale and retail trade). 
53. To enable the inspection authorities to deal 
directly with the actual producer, the origin of the 
goods should be indicated on the package at least by a 
code number; this information should be given on the 
bulk container in the case of goods sold loose. In 
addition to the producer, processing firms should be 
subject to inspection and liability. 
5.4. Arrangements should be made for a direct 
exchange of information between the supervisory 
bodies of the Member States by means of modern 
information techology (the Commission's IRIS Pro­
gramme). This should enable the relevant local bodies 
to inform each other without administrative delay 
whether a 'foreign' product complies with national 
requirements. In addition steps should be taken to 
make possible the exchange of test data concerning 
constituents of foods that have already been analyzed. 
5.5. The Committee would also suggest that con­
sideration be given to a division of labour and cooper­
ation amongst the national authorities of the Member 
States whereby: 
— decisions taken by an approved laboratory in one 
Member State would be valid in the other Member 
States — this would reduce the risk of duplication 
of checks at borders, 
— specialization by the various authorities would be 
encouraged. 
5.6. The Committee would also recommend that a 
Community inspectorate be set up with responsibility 
for spot checks on foodstuffs at points of sale of the 
ultimate consumer. 
22. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 328/25 
6. Division of legislative powers between the Council 
and the Commission; New procedure 
6.1. The Committee approves the Commission's pro­
posal in so far as it envisages a speedier and simpler 
procedure for the adoption of foodstuff directives 
within the framework of the establishment of the inter­
nal market by 1992, subject to the following comments. 
6.2. The Committee notes that the original proposal 
of the Commission (COM(85) 603 final), on which it 
has been asked to give an opinion, has been modified 
as a result of the 'Single Act'. 
6.3. While the framework foodstuff directives will 
still be submitted to the Council, under the new con­
sultative procedure the Commission would be empow­
ered to adopt specific implementing Directives after 
consultation of the Scientific Committee for Food on 
health questions and the Standing Committee for Food­
stuffs in all cases, without the necessity for voting in 
the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs which has been 
required hitherto. The Commission can also consult 
the Advisory Committee on Foodstuffs as it has done 
so far. 
6.4. The Committee does not agree with the intro­
duction of the aforementioned new procedure as it 
would give too much power to the Commission without 
Done at Brussels, 17 September 1986. guaranteeing adequate and appropriate consultation. 
Such a procedure is insufficiently transparent. 
6.5. The Committee would take this opportunity to 
express its regret that the Commission has not 
adequately defined the spheres of competence and 
methods of working of the various foodstuffs commit­
tees in its proposals. 
6.6.1. The Committee insists that it be consulted by 
the Commission in the future. In this connection it 
calls for Commission proposals to be made public. 
The views of the Advisory Committee on Foodstuffs 
(mandatory in all cases) and of the Scientific Committee 
for Food (in health matters) should be appended to the 
dossier referred to the Economic and Social Committee 
for an opinion. 
6.6.2. In the Committee's view the principle of voting 
within the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs must be 
retained. In the interests of rapid establishment of the 
internal market, the Committee proposes that the 
Standing Committee for Foodstuffs vote by a qualified 
majority. 
6.7. Finally, the Committee feels that the Com­
mission ought to draw up an annual report on imple­
menting directives for the European Parliament. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
L^OL^D^ C^ttici^l]onrn^otrh^Enron^nC^ornrnunih^ ^1^^ 
The following amendments were reiected by the Committee in the course of the discussions^ 
^aget 
tnsertanew point t.t^aM^ read as follows^ 
The Commission proposal givesareview of the current situation regarding the harmonization of legislation 
on foodstuffs. 
This review is incompleted omitting for example the following OirectivesB^egulations^ 
— rapeseedoil 
^ preserved mill^ directive ^mt^^C^ 
— pesticide residues ^vegetables' 
— meat^ residues which are undesirable for consumption ^hormones^ antibiotics^ etc.^ 
— water content of poultry 
— ban on ionizing treatment ^meat^ 
— labelling of wine 
— labelling of fruit and vegetables duality standards^ 
— labelling of eggs ^freshness^size^ packing date^ 
— fat content of butter 
— fresh mil^^fat contents etc.^. 
Civen these omissions^ one may reasonably asl^ what is the real scope of the powers sought by the Commission 
and of its proposal on labelling. 
tsitaquestion of harmonization of legislation on all foodstuffs or only some; of labelling of all foodstuffs 
oronlysome^andifso^which^ 
^delegation of power to the Commission cannot be discussed when its scope is so unclear and will produce 
legal uncertainty. 
The amendement^ which was accepted by the rapporteur at both section and study group levels is selfD 
explanatory. 
r^or^^Against^^ Abstentions^.