12 3 90 Official]ournal of the European Communities ^oC(^23 
Opinion on the proposal foraC^ouncillOirecrive on the advertising of tobacco productsinthe 
press and by means of bil^s and posters (^ 
(90BC^2B10) 
On 20Apnll989,the Council decided to consult the Economic and SocialCommittee,under 
Article 100 A (3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abo^ementionedproposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Idealth and Consumer Affairs,^hich^as 
responsible for preparing the Committees ^orl^ on the subject, adopted its Opinion oei 
28 ^o^ember!989.The rapporteur ^as Air Aspinall. 
At its 272nd Plenary Session (meeting of 19 December 1989)m^ Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by 82^otes for,fi^e against and nine abstentions. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. This is a proposal to harmonise the conditions 
under ^hich the advertising oftobacco products is allowed 
in newspapers, magazines andpublications of a similar 
l^md and by means ofbills and posters.Its aim is to remote 
the barriers tofree trade. 
1.2. The legal base is AiTiclelOOA,^hich is the same 
instrument as ^as used in the labelling oftobacco products 
Directive (^.The proposal does not ban ad^ertismg^it is 
aimed at the removal of barriers to free trade, not at 
promotinghealth.nevertheless, under Articlel00A(3pthe 
Commissions charged ^ithharmom^mg regulations to 
the standard ^hichtal^esasabaseahighle^el of health, 
safetyanden^ironmentalprotection. 
1.3. The Directive provides forahealth earning to be 
included in any advertisement in newspapers, magazines 
and publications ofasimilarleind and by means ofbills and 
posters. These should be the same as those set out in the 
labelhngoftobaccoproductsrefer^edtoin 1.2abo^e. 
2. C^enera^ comments 
2.1. The Committee supports the ob^ecti^e of the 
Commission^sproposal to harmonise, in so far as this leads 
toareductionoftrade barriers and subject to the comments 
detailed belo^, the conditions for advertising tobacco 
products in newspapers,magazines and publications ofa 
similar l^ind and by means ofbills and posters, and ^hich 
^ould^ require allsuchad^ertisements to carryahealth 
^a^nmg, limit advertisements to the depiction of the 
^oi^enrt,t^.r^ pacl^et^ ban advertisements from young peopled pubh 
cations^and ban all indirect advertising. 
2.2. The Committee has haddifficulty in interpreting 
some of the Articles in this Di^ecti^e and suggests thata 
closed examination of the legal drafting should be 
undertaken by the Commission if the Di^ecti^e^sob^ecti^e 
is to be fully implemented into Alember State legislation. 
ThisparticularlyapphestoArticles3and^. 
2.3. Theproposal^sob^ecti^eistoharmom^eauthori^ed 
advertisements, allowing for considerable room for the 
competence^ithmAlember States^ legislationpro^iding 
formore stringent action e.g.acomplete ban on advertising 
oramore flexible approach giving time and scope for the 
industry to adapt. 
tn Articled there appears to be a contradiction ^hich 
means that althougha^lember State mayban advertise 
ments this coders only internal newspapers, magazines and 
publications ofasimilarl^md and advertising by means of 
bills and posters. 
2BL The proposal does not fulfil the aspiration of 
certain bodies in the Community ^hich^ouldprefertosee 
atotal harmonization undertaken based onacomplete ban 
in line ^ithsomeAiemberStates^current legislation. All 
the international medical and health organisations that 
ha^e studied the problems ha^e called foratotal ban on 
advertising. 
Consumer opinion polls sho^ the members of the public 
^ant tobacco advertising stopped altogether and a 
European Communities Surrey in Spring 1987 found that 
nearly three quarters ofEuropeans approve ofthe idea ofa 
ban on tobacco advertising. 
Pubhcopimonisundoubtedly changing andthereforeit 
appears to the Committee that o^er a period of time 
tobacco advertising legislation^allha^e to be taclded. 
No C 62/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 3. 90 
2.5. The Committee believes that a proposition to ban 
all advertisements would go too far at this stage and could 
create unfair and possibly unreasonable restrictions in 
some Member States. 
The Committee therefore considers that the proposals on 
direct advertising in this Directive are a reasonable 
compromise which gives the industry time and scope to 
adapt by consultation between all interested parties. 
2.6. The Committee considers that the provisions on 
indirect advertising contained in Article 3 (2) are unac­
ceptable. The rigidity of the ban is totally out of proportion 
with the limitations proposed for direct advertising of 
tobacco products. A total ban would hit companies which 
have promoted and continue to promote the diversification 
of production. It would mean job losses both in these 
sectors and in the advertising sector. 
It would seem more sensible to limit the ban to the 
trademark of tobacco products when it is used without any 
other inscription or motif, or solely with a depiction of 
smokers' accessories or non-manufactured items. 
2.7. In seeking to remove barriers to free trade in the 
tobacco industry, the Committee would remind the 
Council of its Opinion on the harmonization of tobacco 
excise duty (OJ No C 237, 12. 9. 1988). 
Specific comments on the Articles 
Article 1 
The Committee supports the definition of 'tobacco 
products' for the purpose of this Directive, so as to be in line 
with the definition set out in the Common Position of the 
Council on labelling. 
Article 2 
Since the Council of Ministers had adopted on 13 Novem­
ber 1989 a protocol declaration for tobacco products other 
than cigarettes, it is the opinion of the Committee that the 
Commission should propose a separate draft Directive or 
additions to existing Directives to comply with this. 
The Committee is also concerned that the meaning of the 
word 'press' could be misinterpreted, and would suggest 
that the wording used in Article 5 should be used 
throughout the proposal (newspapers, magazines and 
publications of a similar kind). 
Done at Brussels, 19 December 1989. In the second indent referring to specific warnings the 
Committee suggests the wording should be changed to 
coincide with the labelling Directive to read : '... printed in 
clearly legible print on a constrasting background'. 
Article 3 
The Committee recommends the wording to be changed as 
follows: 
'The content of advertisements in newspapers, maga­
zines and publications of a similar kind and on bills and 
posters shall be restricted solely to the presentation of 
the packaging of tobacco products and the tobacco 
product itself as marketed, with only the addition of 
technical information on the features of the product, if 
desired.' 
Article 4 
The Committee would suggest that the wording be changed 
to '... mainly intended for young people'. 
Publications mainly intended for young people may require 
some form of interpretation, including verification of 
readership. 
Article 5 
Article 5 (2) should be deleted. 
Appendix 
The Committee fully supports the list of amended health 
warnings as set out in the labelling Directive text. 
Impact on competitiveness and employment 
Clearly any unemployment that might occur following 
implementation of this Directive is of concern to this 
Committee and therefore we would urge consultation with 
interested parties to ensure that wherever possible action is 
taken to retrain employees and farmers made redundant 
and where appropriate Community funds are allocated. 
The Committee also is concerned that the views of the 
industries involved in tobacco production and distribution 
do not appear to have been sought by the Commission. It is 
our view that the senior officials for health of the Member 
States do not reflect the views of those involved. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
12. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 62/25 
APPENDIX 
The following amendments, which were supported by at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected during 
the debate: 
Page 2. 
Delete points 2.4 and 2.5. 
Reasons 
These points have no bearing on the subject matter of the proposed Directive, i.e. trade barriers, but contain a 
polemic on health. Hence they do not belong in this Opinion. Furthermore, the third paragraph contains a 
dubious argument regarding the case for legislation. The logical conclusion is that if public opinion swings back 
in favour of smoking, restrictions on smoking can be lifted and concerns over health are irrelevant. 
Voting 
Point 2.4: for: 32, against: 37, abstentions: 10. 
Point 2.5: for: 34, against: 41, abstentions: 10. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) laying down health rules for the 
production and placing on the market of melted animal fat, greaves and by-products of 
rendering for human consumption (!) 
(90/C 62/11) 
On 14 November 1989, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned 
proposal. 
The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Gardner as Rapporteur-General with 
the task of preparing its work on the subject. 
At its 272nd Plenary Session (meeting of 20 December 1989) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee welcomes this measure which is 
necessary for the completion of the Single Market, but 
considers that it would be better to have it as a Directive. In 
general, Directives can be applied more clearly within the 
various frameworks of national legislation. In this case 
there is a further reason — the time required for adaptation 
will vary with the Member States. 
1.2. This proposal covers definitions, hygiene and 
production rules, inspection procedures and some anal­
ytical standards. On the face of it these seem thoroughly 
sensible. However, in the detail they refer to three other 
future Community Regulations. One of these is available as 
a proposal while the others are not even at that stage. 
(!) OJ No C 327, 31. 12. 1989, p. 25. 1.3. The Committee therefore has to reserve the right to 
give a further Opinion if necessary, when these are in place. 
1.4. Subject to the comments above and below, the 
Committee approves the proposal. 
2. Detailed comments 
2.1. Article 2.1 
This requires that the definitions of a future Regulation on 
general health rules apply [Proposal COM(89) 492 final]. 
While leaving detailed comments on these to the Commit­
tee's Opinion on that proposal, it is essential that there be 
an adequate transition time to implement them, Many 
establishments will require extensive modification to 
comply.