23.11.73 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 101/1 
II 
(Preparatory  Acts) 
COUNCIL 
CONSULTATION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
on the proposal  for a Council  Regulation  supplementing  Regulation  (EEC)  No 816/70 
by introducing  new  provisions  relating  to oenological  practices 
At its 246th  meeting  held  on 5 June  1973,  the Council  decided  to exercise  its option 
of consulting  the Economic  and  Social  Committee  on the above  proposal  for a Regu-
lation. 
The request  for an Opinion  was  sent  by the President  of the Council  to the Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee  on 6 June  1973. 
B. TEXT  WHICH  WAS  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  CONSULTATION 
The text  which  was  the subject  of the consultation  has  not  yet been  published  in the 
Official  Journal  of the European  Communities. 
C. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
At is 113th  Plenary  Session  held  in Brussels  on 26 and  27 September  1973,  the Com-
mittee  adopted  its Opinion  on the text  referred  to above  by 50 votes  to 3 (3 abstentions) 
out of the 56 members  present  or represented. 
The text  of the Opinion  is as follows: A. REQUEST  FOR  AN  OPINION 
Having  regard  to the request  by the Council  of the 
European  Communities  on  6 June  1973  for  an 
Opinion  on the  'proposal  for a Council  Regulation 
supplementing  Regulation  (EEC)  No  816/70  by 
introducing  new  provisions  relating  to oenological 
practices'; THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in particular 
Article  198 thereof; 
Having  regard  to the  decision  of its Chariman,  in 
pursuance  of Articles  46 and  47 of the  Rules  of 
Procedure,  to entrust  the Section  for Agriculture  with 
the preparation  of an Opinion  and  report  on this 
matter; 
No C 101/2 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 23. 11. 73 
Having  regard  to the  previous  Committee  Opinions 
in the wine  sector,  and  in particular  the Opinion  of 
27 September  1972  on the  'proposal  for  a Council 
Regulation  laying  down  general  rules  for  the 
description  and  presentation  of wine  and  must  (1); 
Having  regard  to the  Opinion  delivered  by  the 
Section  for Agriculture  at its meeting  on 6 September 
1973; 
Having  regard  to the  report  presented  by Mr  De 
Grave,  rapporteur; 
Having  regard  to the  discussions  during  its 113th 
Plenary  Session  on 26 and  27 September  1973,  at its 
meeting  on 27 September, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION: 
The Committee  " approves  the  proposal  for  a 
Regulation,  subject  to the following  comments: 
A. General  comments 
1. The  Committee  agrees  entirely  with  the reasons 
put forward  in  the  Commission's  explanatory 
memorandum  and  feels  that  Community  provisions, 
either  of a horizontal  or specific  nature,  should 
regulate  certain  connected  problems  as soon  as 
possible: 
— the  maximum  amount  of certain  constituents  of 
wine  (heavy  metals,  processing  residues: 
fluosilicate,  dithiocarbamates,  triazine,  arsenic, 
etc), 
— treatments  authorized  for  containers  (vats  and 
barrels), 
— criteria  for the purity  of products,  especially  those 
mentioned  in Article  3 (point  2 (j)). 
2. The  Committee  feels  that  the  proposed 
Regulation  is a very  useful  supplement  to the 
Community  provisions  concerning  wine  which  are 
either  already  in existence  or are under  discussion.  It 
hopes  that  the  latter  provisions  will  be adopted 
swiftly,  especially  the  proposal  for  a Regulation  on 
the description  and  presentation  of wine  and  must.  It 
delivered  an Opinion  on the  latter  proposal  on 27 
September  1972,  on the  basis  of a report  by Mr 
Clavel. 
(*) OJ No C 124,  29. 11. 1972,  p. 19. 3. The  Committee  once  again  draws  the 
Commission's  attention  to a number  of translation 
errors,  especially  in the German  version  (e.g.  Article 
3, points  1 (d),  1 (f), 1 (i), and  2 (f)),  and  even  the 
Italian  version  (e.g.  Article  3,  point  2 (h). 
Furthermore  the  original  French  version  is itself 
sometimes  unclear.  At one  point  it speaks  of the 
addition  of sulphur  dioxide  (Article  3, point  1 (h)),  at 
another  of the use of sulphur  dioxide  (point  2 (g)). 
B. Specific  comments 
Article  1 
(Amendment  of Article  28a  of Regulation  (EEC)  No 
816/70): 
The percentage  opted  for  by the  Commission  (19 
milliequivalents)  seems  too high  for wines  with  a low 
alcohol  content.  The  limit  proposed  should  be made 
to vary  according  to the wine's  alcoholic  rating  and 
age. 
Article  2 
(New  Article  28b  of Regulation  (EEC)  No  816/70): 
Paragraph  1 
This  paragraph  does  not  cover  certain  oenological 
practices  used  in the preparation  of special  wines. 
The Committee  therefore  wishes  the  following 
sentence  to be inserted  at the end  of the paragraph: 
'This  provision  does  not  stand  in the  way  of 
specific  treatments  allowed  by national  laws  in 
force  for  turning  basic  products  into  sparkling 
wine,  semi-sparkling  wine,  liquer  wines,  flavoured 
wines  and  wine  vinegars,  until  such  time  as these 
products  are  covered  by  a  Community 
Regulation.' 
Paragraph  2 
According  to the  second  part  of this  paragraph  the 
processes  and  oenological  practices  listed  in Annex 
Ha 'must  not  have  the  effect  of misleading  the 
consumer,  in particular  by  concealing  defects  or 
diseases  or by falsifying  results  of analysis'. 
This  ambiguous  provision  should  be reworded,  so as 
to express  better  the principle  which  the Commission 
wished  to lay  down;  the  Committee  proposes  that 
this subparagraph  should  read: 
23.11.  73 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 101/3 
'... must  not  have  the  effect  of misleading  the 
consumer,  especially  by making  the wines  appear 
of a wholesome,  fair  and  average  quality  when 
analysed  although  in fact  they  are not.' 
Paragraph  3 and 4 
In paragraphs  3 and  4 of the proposed  Article  28 it is 
laid down  that  the application  to certain  products  of 
the processes  or oenological  practices  set  out  in 
Annex  II may  be prohibited  in accordance  with  the 
Management  Committee  procedure  (Article  7 of 
Regulation  No  24).  The  Committee  would  have 
preferred  these  restrictions  to be specified  in the 
present  proposal. 
Similarly,  a Member  State  may  impose  practices  of a 
more  restrictive  nature  for  quality  wines  psr 
produced  on  its  own  territory.  Such  provisions 
should  be respected  both  in the  producer  countries 
and in the importing  Member  States.  This  could  be 
achieved  either  by a Community  legal  instrument  or 
by the  Madrid  Convention  being  signed  by those 
States  which  are not yet signatory  to it. 
Article  3 
(Annex  Ila of Regulation  (EEC)  No 816/70): 
The Committee  notes  that  the Commission  wishes  to 
include  in the  Regulation  an  exhaustive  list  of 
authorized  processes  and  oenological  practices.  The 
Annex  Ila inserted  by Article  3 sets  out some  of these 
practices,  while  others  are  authorized  directly  by 
Articles  18  to 23,  25  and  25A,  or by  certain 
Regulations,  or even  certain  Decisions  adopted  in 
application  of these  Articles. 
The following  Regulations,  in particular,  authorize 
such  practices: 
— (EEC)  No  1093/70:  the  addition  of alcohol 
(Article  25 (2))  (modified  by Regulations  (EEC) 
Nos 1598/71,  1564/72  and  1929/73; 
— (EEC)  No  1594/70:  enriching,  acidifying  and 
deacidifying  processes  (Articles  18 (4);  19 (8);  20 
(4) and  22  (3),  modified  by  the  Treaty  of 
Accession); 
— (EEC)  No 1618/70:  sweetening  (Article  21 (2)). 
Annex  Ila is therefore  not an exhaustive  list. 
In order  to avoid  any  confusion,  Annex  Ila could  be 
entitled: 
'Processes  and  oenological  practices  mentioned  in 
Article  28b  (1)  which  may  be applied  to fresh 
grapes,  grape  must,  concentrated  grape  must,  etc.' As regards  deacidification  (Regulation  (EEC)  No 
1594/70),  the  Committee  would  like  the  use  of 
potassium  carbonates  to be authorized  as deacidifying 
agents. 
The Committee  also  wonders  if it would  not  be 
possible  to do away  with  the  double  list  in this 
Article  and  thus  improve  its lay-out. 
The Committee  draws  the Commission's  attention  to 
the marketing  of semi-sparkling  wines  made  from 
grapes  and  from  musts  in fermentation,  for which  it 
would  be preferable  to apply  the processes  listed  in 
paragraph  2 rather  than  those  in paragraph  1. 
Finally  the  Committee  asks  the  Commission  to 
reconsider  the  question  of strengthening  the natural 
colour  of quality  red  wines  in certain  circumstances 
by means  of oenocyanin. 
As regards  the  individual  points  of Annex  Ila the 
Committee  makes  the following  comments: 
1 (c) Refrigeration:  this  could  be deleted  as it is 
already  covered  by point  (b).  (This  comment 
also applies  to point  2 (d). 
1 (e) This  point  should  be reworded  as follows: 
'— keeping,  in an inert  atmosphere  consisting 
of pure  carbon  dioxide,  nitrogen  or argon, 
or of a mixture  of these  gases,  at a 
pressure  equal  to atmospheric  pressure, 
which  may  be increased  by: 
— 0-5  bars  in the  case  of nitrogen  and 
argon; 
— 0-05  bars  in  the  case  of  carbon 
dioxide; 
of which  substances  the  wine  shall  not 
under  any  circumstances  contain  more 
than  2 g/litre  (this  comment  also  applies  to 
point  2 (f)).' 
1 (f) This  point  could  be worded  as follows: 
'— addition  of yeasts.' 
It could  be followed  by a new  point  1 (f) 
(a) worded  in the same  way  as point  2 (n). 
1 (g) The  Committee  proposes  substituting 
ammonium  phosphates  instead  of diamonic 
orthophosphate  on its own.  This  process  could 
furthermore  be limited  to a few  special  cases 
(wine  from  the bottom  of the  vat  and  wines 
with  a high  alcohol  content). 
1 (h) Treatment  with  calcium  disulphite  could  be 
limited  to certain  special  cases  or even  just 
excluded.  (This  comment  also  applies  to 
point  2 (g)). 
No C 101/4 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 23.11.  73 
1 (k)  Precise  conditions  for  applying  this  practice 
should  be  defined  (treatment  under  the 
responsibility  of an expert  with  a utilization 
booklet). 
1 (1) The  Committee  proposes  that  the  same 
wording  and  lay-out  be adopted  as for point  2 
(j). 
2 (a) The  Commission  text  should  be completed  by 
the words: 
'or in the presence  of drained  marc  of the same 
year during  the  period  mentioned  in Article 
22.' 
2 (h) The  limit  adopted  should  be 200  mg/litre. 
2 (p)  Since  the term  'oenologist'  is defined  neither  by 
all the Member  States  nor  by the Community, 
it should  be replaced  by a provision  instructing 
the Member  States  to appoint  the  persons 
authorized  to carry  out  treatment. 
The Committee  draws  the  Commission's 
attention  to the  difficulties  and  dangers  of 
treatment  with  potassium  ferrocyanide.  It 
points  out  that  the treatment  of red wines  with 
potassium  ferrocyanide  is prohibited  by certain 
national  laws  and  considers  that  a very  strict 
set of Community  rules  on the use  of iron  and 
of copper  in container  materials  could  reduce 
the need  to resort  to this  treatment.  In future 
the prussic  acid  content  should  be limited. 
2 (r) If this  treatment  is accepted,  the  words 
'racemic  acid'  should  be replaced  by the words 
'racemic  tartaric  acid'  (DL  — tartaric  acid). 
However  the  Committee  hopes  that  there  will be a new  discussion  on whether  this  treatment 
should  be authorized. 
The Committee  draws  the  Commission's 
attention  to the  fact  that  racemic  tartaric  acid 
is already  authorized  under  Regulation  (EEC) 
No 1594/70  (acidification)  for  the  products 
mentioned  in Article  20  (1)  of Regulation 
(EEC)  No  816/70  (fresh  grapes,  grape  must, 
grape  must  in fermentation  and  new  wine  still 
in fermentation,  in wine-growing  zones  C II 
and C III). 
This  authorization  is accompanied  by  a 
procedure  which  is no longer  found  in the 
present  proposal  for  a Regulation,  with  the 
result  that  the  same  treatment  would  be 
authorized  by  different  Regulations  and 
following  different  procedures. 
2 (s) The  Committee  proposes  allowing  the  use  of 
alginates  (products  of collage)  and  of PVP 
(polyvinylpyrollidone)  to  eliminate  excess 
tannin  and  act on oxidizable  polyphenols. 
2 (t) The  Committee  proposes  that  at a later  stage 
the Commission  should  look  into  the 
advisability  of using  silver  chloride. 
Article  5 a 
The Committee  proposes  adding  a new  Article 
authorizing  the  Commission  to publish  the  most 
recent  version  of Regulation  (EEC)  No 816/70.  Up to 
now this  Regulation  has  recently  undergone  eight 
substantial  modifications,  covering  a large  number  of 
Articles  and  three  of the four  Annexes. 
Done  at Brussels,  27 September  1973. 
The Chairman 
of the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Alfons  LAPPAS 
ANNEX 
to the Opinion  containing  two  amendments  rejected  at the lJ3th  Plenary  Session 
The following  amendments,  proposed  in conformity  with  the  provisions  of the  Committee's 
Rules  of Procedure,  were  rejected  during  the debates. 
23. 11.73 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 101/5 
First  amendment 
In Section  B of the  Opinion,  under  'Specific  comments'  on Article  3 of the  proposal  for  a 
Regulation,  it is requested  that  the eighth  paragraph  asking  the Commission  to reconsider  the 
ban on colouring  quality  wines  psr,  be deleted. 
Reasons 
1. The  natural  colour  of a wine  is an essential  sign  of its quality.  A lack  of colour  is a sign 
that the fermenting  time  in the vat has  been  too  short,  that  the  yield  per acre  is excessive  or 
that the weather  has been  unfavourable. 
Allowing  these  faults  to be concealed  by an artificial  colouring  of the  wine  therefore  deceives 
the consumer,  who  would  think  that  he was  buying  a wine  of normal  quality,  and  other 
producers. 
This  deception  would  be all the more  reprehensible  since  it would  affect  not wines  in everyday 
use, but quality  wines,  which  are often  sold  at very  high  prices. 
Fortunately,  this  practice  is, at present,  limited  to a few  wines  in just  one  of the nine  Member 
States.  The  draft  Opinion,  in asking  the  Commission  to reconsider  the  ban  on  adding 
colouring  agents  to wine,  is prepared  to allow  this  practice  to be applied  to quality  wines  in 
all the  Member  States  — it is hard  to imagine  a single  Member  State  being  authorized  to 
disguise  mediocre  wines  by making  them  look  like  normal  wines.  This  would  be a discrimin-
ation  which  producers  in the other  States  would  find  difficult  to accept. 
There  is therefore  no reason  why  this  form  of deception  of the  consumer  should  be accepted 
throughout  the  Community,  especially  as provision  has  not  even  been  made  for warning  the 
consumer,  though  this  is the case  for products  which  are  much  more  standardized  and  much 
less costly  (syrups,  jams,  pork  butcher's  products,  etc). 
2. The  authorization  of oenocyanin  could  also  be a considerable  inducement  to fraudulent 
practices  and  their  extension,  especially  the  practice  colouring  white  and  rose  wines  red  so 
as to obtain  a higher  intervention  or market  price.  Fraudulent  practices  of this  kind  have  in 
fact just  been  uncovered  in one  of the Member  States  of the Community. 
3. Wine  should  remain  as natural  a product  as possible.  The  treatments  proposed  by the 
Commission  all aim  at ensuring  a good  preparation  of the  wine  or improving  it if it has  a 
slight  weakness.  Colouring,  on the  other  hand,  would  not  bring  about  any  improvement  but 
would  only  disguise  a defect. 
Result  of the vote: 
In favour  34, against  14. 
Second  amendment 
It is requested  that  the  eighth  paragraph,  referred  to in the  'First  amendment'  rejected,  be 
supplemented  by the following  text: 
'At any  event,  the  Committee  considers  that  any  possible  authorization  of the  use  of 
oenocyanin  could  only  be contemplated  for those  areas  of the Community  where  such  use 
is a traditional  oenological  practice.' 
Reasons 
As oenocyanin  is looked  upon  in one  Member  State  as a traditional  means  of correcting  the 
colour  of wine,  the  systematic  ban  on its use  could  be reconsidered.  However,  it should  be 
stressed  that  under  no circumstances  could  this  practice  be allowed  throughout  the Community. 
Result  of the vote: 
In favour  34, against  11, abstentions  5.