30. 1. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/23 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision to adopt a multinational research and 
development programme in food science and technology (1989 to mid-1993), FLAIR 
(89/C 23/10) 
On 12 July 1988, the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the Economic 
and Social Committee, under Article 130Q (2) of the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Committee on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 4 November 1988. The 
Rapporteur was Mr de Normann. 
At its 260th plenary session (meeting of 23 November 1988) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
The Committee supports the proposal for the expendi­
ture of: 
Commission 25 million ECU 
Contractors estimate 45 million ECU 
Total 70 million ECU 
in shared-cost and concerted action contracts on food-
linked agro-industrial research and development 
(FLAIR) over the period 1989 to mid-1993. 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee welcomes the approach of the 
Commission to regard the biological sciences as a com­
plete package which encompasses the applied sciences 
of food and agriculture. 
1.2. The framework programme (1987-1991) (!) allo­
cates 280 million ECU to the exploitation and optimum 
use of biological resources. Within this sum 105 million 
ECU is allocated to agro-industrial technologies. 
1.3. This is divided into two programmes: 
Consumer-led food-linked agro-industrial research and 
development: FLAIR 25 million ECU. 
Agriculture-led biotechnology-based agro-industrial 
research and technological development: ECLAIR 
80 million ECU. 
1.4. The Committee noted that these two pro­
grammes emphasised the two aspects of agro-industrial 
research and technological development. FLAIR was 
concerned with the food interests of the consumer while 
ECLAIR covered the biotechnological base of agri­
culture. 
1.5. The Committee would have preferred the two programmes to be issued at the same time in order to 
consider them together as two aspects of a single entity. 
1.6. The Committee has given its Opinion on 
ECLAIR on 23 March 1988 (2). 
1.7. The Committee found it difficult to identify 
clear overall objectives in this programme set against a 
background of Commission policy in the agro-industrv 
field. 
1.8. It also noticed a certain lack of definition 
especially with regard to quality. The Committee asks 
the Commission to clarify this definition. 
1.9. The Committee would like to have seen the 
work proposals arranged in order of priority with fund­
ing allocations (including the costs of administration 
shown separately). 
1.10. The Committee felt it should identify guide­
lines and propose priorities which it has done below 
for the main shared-cost research projects, and that this 
would help the Commission in selecting these projects. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Resources 
2.1.1. The Committee feels that given the framework 
programme allocation of 105 million ECU, the balance 
between FLAIR and ECLAIR may need to be adjusted 
in the light of experience as the programmes proceed. 
This should be considered when the framework pro­
gramme is reviewed in 1989. 
(') OJ No L 302, 24. 10. 1987, p. 1. (2) OJ No C 134, 24. 5. 1988, p. 15. 
No C 23/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1. 89 
2.1.2. The Committee asks that a mechanism should 
be created whereby the balance between the pro­
grammes is flexible and can be adjusted in response to 
the promise shown by initial programmes. 
2.2. Coordination 
2.2.1. The Committee is satisfied that the Com­
mission has given adequate attention to coordination 
and liaison within the biotechnological area of the 
framework programme and with the directorates con­
cerned with agriculture and consumer affairs which are 
the two main directorates out of the many which have 
been consulted and which have a marginal interest in 
this proposal. 
2.2.2. However the Committee would like a clear 
statement on the COST programme 90, 90 bis and 
91 bis in relation to the FLAIR programme. 
2.2.3. The Committee stresses the extreme import­
ance it places on the coordination of all the relevant 
work proposed by the Commission in this area. It 
considers that ECLAIR and FLAIR can only be con­
sidered in the wider context of the Action line 4 'Exploi­
tation and optimum use of biological resources' of 
the framework programme which also includes the 
programme on the competitiveness of agriculture and 
management of agricultural resources (55 million ECU) 
which has recently been presented by the Commission. 
3. Consumer aspects 
3.1. The Committee is well aware of the very com­
plex link between agriculture, industry and consumers. 
This proposal is for the benefit of consumers. 
3.2. The Committee considers therefore that the pro­
gramme would benefit in terms of the clarity of its 
overall objectives and the specificity of its individual 
project targets from a deeper knowledge of consumer 
views throughout the Community. 
3.3. The Committee believes that further work 
should be done by the Commission directorates-general 
responsible to attempt to collect the views of the con­
suming public. 
3.4. The Committee emphasises the great care that 
will need to be taken with the structure of the mechan­
isms used if worthwhile results are to be obtained. 
3.5. The Committee urges the Council to ask the 
Commission to undertake this work on a carefully-
considered and broad basis. 4. Social aspects 
4.1. The Committee draws attention to the need for 
a positive and dynamic approach to the social aspects 
of this programme, rather than an attempt at the con­
ventional consultation at the project stage and subse­
quently at the utilization of successful results. 
4.2. The Committee suggests that the Council 
demands, from the Commission, positive and practical 
proposals to achieve this objective. 
4.3. Such an approach will in turn depend on a 
practical knowledge of dietary habits throughout the 
Community as an integral part of a sound health and 
welfare policy. This in turn must depend on effective 
consumer studies. 
4.4. The Committee feels that the Commission 
should guard against the creation of any suspicion 
of paternalism in work which tend to alter regional 
preferences and habits. 
5. Content 
5.1. The Committee believes that concentration on 
a few projects of major importance and which are 
capable of yielding results of significant value is the 
preferred approach. 
5.2. The Committee proposes that the shared cost 
research and technological development effort be con­
centrated in a few areas according to the following 
guidelines: 
— The work has a Community dimension. 
— The work proposed is highly practicable and hence 
shows promise of worthwhile and utilisable results 
within the period covered by the programme. 
— The work is appropriate for Commission funding 
and does not duplicate work which can or should 
be done elsewhere. 
— The projects proposed are clearly and precisely tar­
geted and defined. 
— A precise plan for utilization of successful results 
is prepared and funds for its implementation are 
earmarked. 
5.3. The Committee believes it should apply its own 
guidelines above to suggest some priority proposals for 
shared-cost research sub-programmes and individual 
projects within them. 
(I) Assessment and enhancement of food quality (as 
clarified by the Commission: see point 1.8 above) 
30. 1. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/25 
— quantitative measures of 'freshness'. 
(II) Food hygiene, safety and toxicological aspects 
— improved rapid screening tests including the 
possibility of substituting the use of animals by 
alternative techniques such as the use of micro­
organisms; 
— the occurrence of natural plant toxins and their 
effect on food; 
— prediction of micro-organism growth rates and 
rapid methods for microbiology; 
— improved understanding of the relationship 
between food constituents and food allergies. 
(III) Nutrition and wholesomeness aspects 
— nutritional bio-availability of food constitu­
ents. 
(IV) A new proposal from the Committee 
— to prepare an effective data base for food con­
sumption in the regions of the Community. 
This is required to underpin all proposals which involve 
nutritional intake, food additive consumption and 
ingestion of toxic contaminants. Such a data base is 
essential to work involving protection against hazards. 
6. Work organization of the shared-cost proposals 
6.1. The Committee recommends that the shared-
cost work be concentrated in this area in a few major 
projects chosen from the sub-programmes. 
6.2. A task force should be allocated to each project. 
These should be constitued in accord with the following 
considerations: 
(I) Organizations from at least two Member States 
should be involved with each project. 
(II) Each task force should have significant industrial 
participation allied to balanced research and devel­
opment institutional and academic participation. 
(III) Involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises 
(SME) (T), probably in the form of subcontractors 
should be planned at a satisfactory level expressed 
as a percentage of project funding. 
(]) For the definition of SME, see the Information Report 'The 
importance of technological research and development to 
SME (see ESC document of 20. 8. 1986). (IV) A new flexible approach to funding should be 
developed. 
6.3. The precedents established in ESPRIT and simi­
lar projects should be examined carefully for their rel­
evance to this project. 
6.4. The Committee considers that the demon­
stration of the successful use of these limited funds is 
the only sound basis for demands for increased funding 
in the future. Such demonstration should be based on 
sound public relations. 
7. Review procedure and flexible funding 
7.1. The Committee considers that the review pro­
cedure proposed in Article 4 is insufficiently flexible to 
serve as a management tool for project direction. 
7.2. The Committee recommends that consideration 
be given to introducing a greater degree of flexibility 
to funding individual projects. 
7.3. The objective would be to use periodic evalu­
ation (say of not more than one year) of progress to 
give some degree of adjustment to funding to projects 
within a fixed global total. 
7.4. Projects showing great promise would then be 
able to proceed at an optimum pace. 
7.5. The Committee realizes that in order to intro­
duce flexible funding within the programme it will be 
necessary to reconsider soma basic budgetary rules. It 
believes that appropriate modifications to allow flexi­
bility could introduce a new dimension into shared cost 
research. 
7.6. However, the Committee notes that the need for 
contractual security especially for SME will need to be 
considered. 
8. Concerted action programmes 
8.1. The remaining programme proposals should be 
considered for concerted action programmes in the 
form of pilot and feasibility studies. The objective of 
such studies would be to demonstrate a potentiality for 
success for a major shared cost programme of signifi­
cant interest to industry. 
Successful studies would form the basis for further 
shared cost programmes to be undertaken by task forces 
when funds permit. 
8.2. The Committee understands that the Com­
mission propose ten concerted action projects involving 
No C 23/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1. 89 
Member States and COST-countries to implement the 
COST-proposals. 
8.3. However, the Committee would like a clear 
statement on the future of the COST-programmes 90, 
90 bis, 91 and 91 bis in relation to the FLAIR-pro-
gramme. 
9. Utilization and dissemination of results 
9.1. Article 130K of the Single European Act requires 
the Council to define the detailed arrangements for 
the dissemination of knowledge resulting from specific 
programmes. 
Done at Brussels, 23 November 1988. 
1. Growth, adjustment and international cooperation 
1.1. The economic cycle is in a particularly buoyant 
phase which is conducive in different ways to sustained 
expansion of the economy of the industrialized nations 
(3,9%) and the developing countries (3,5%-4%), and 
to the growth of world trade (7,6%). In 1988 the 
(!) OJ No L 63, 5. 3. 1974, p. 16. 
(2) OJ No L 330, 24. 12. 1975, p. 52. e The Committee asks that the Commission should make 
provision for this requirement for this proposal. 
10. Communication to the ESC of the progress report 
and evaluation report mentioned in Article 4 of 
the programme proposal 
10.1. The failure of the Commission to include the 
Economic and Social Committee in the communication 
of the results of review and evaluation required is drawn 
to the attention of the Council. 
10.2. The Committee feels that, being consulted on 
the proposal, it is reasonable that it should be kept in 
touch with the progress of the work. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
European economy has thus achieved better overall 
results than had been forecast in the revised analyses 
at the beginning of the year. 
The Committee endorses the Commission's identifi­
cation of the main factors which have helped achieve 
strong growth. However, it expresses reservations 
about (a) the forecasts which for years have proved 
inaccurate, and (b) the importance which the Com­
mission attaches to the inflationary hazards in the world 
economy. Opinion on the Commission annual economic report 1988/1989 
(89/C 23/11) 
On 28 October 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee on 
the Commission's annual economic report 1988/1989 in accordance with Council Decision 
120/74/EEC of February 1974 on the achievement of a high degree of convergence of the 
economic policies of the Member States of the European Economic Community (!) as amended 
by Decision 787/75/EEC(2), and especially Article 4 thereof. 
The Section for Economic, Financial and Monetary Questions, which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 15 November 1988. 
The Rapporteur was Mr Drago. 
At its 260th plenary session (meeting of 23 November 1988), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion by 112 votes to 5, with 2 abstentions.