No C 114/16 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 11. 5. 77 
Opinion  on the  proposals  for  a Council  Directive  concerning  the  placing  of EEC-
accepted  plant  protection  products  on the market,  and 
a Council  Directive  prohibiting  the  placing  on the  market  and  the  use  of plant 
protection  products  containing  certain  active  substances 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 200  of 26 August  and  No C 212  of 9 September  1976. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 17 August  1976  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposals  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  100  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
147th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 30 and  31 March  1977. 
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 
17 August  1976, 
Having  regard  to the Decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
28 September  1976  instructing  the  Section  for 
Protection  of the  Environment,  Public  Health  and 
Consumer  Affairs  to draw  up an opinion  and  a report 
on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the opinion  issued  by the Section 
for Protection  of the Environment,  Public  Health  and 
Consumer  Affairs  on 8 March  1977, 
Having  regard  to the  report  submitted  by  the 
rapporteur,  Mr Jaschick, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 147th  plenary 
session  held  on 30 and  31 March  1977  (meeting  of 
30 March), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
unanimously: 
The Committee  approves  the two  proposals,  subject 
to the comments  set out below: 1. General  comments 
1.1. The  Section  approves  the  two  proposals 
because  they  will  enable  the  Commission  and  the 
Member  States  to cooperate  closely  on technical  and 
scientific  developments,  and  consequently  will 
make  for  better  knowledge  of the  advantages  and 
risks  attaching  to the  use  of plant  protection 
products. 
1.2. The  Committee  notes  that  the  first  of the 
proposed  Directives  has  two  aspects.  On  the  one 
hand,  it is designed  to further  the free  movement  of 
goods,  pursuant  to the Community's  programme  for 
the removal  of technical  barriers  to trade.  Secondly, 
it takes  account  of the  environmental  and  consumer 
protection  requirements  arising  from  the  Commu-
nity's  programmes  on the environment  and  consumer 
protection  and  information. 
1.3. The  Committee  is in overall  agreement  with 
the Commission  that  the  products  covered  by the 
proposal  help  to combat  plant  pests,  and  thus 
increase  agricultural  productivity  and  security  of 
food  supplies.  It is clear,  however,  that  these  products 
may be harmful  to man,  animals,  plants  and  the 
environment. 
1.4. The  Committee  therefore  considers  that  the 
first proposal,  as one  facet  of Community  action  on 
dangerous  substances,  should  be  completely  in 
harmony  with  the  proposal  for a Council  Directive 
on the  approximation  of the  laws,  regulations  and 
administrative  provisions  of Member  States  relating 
to the  classification,  packaging  and  labelling  of 
pesticides  (1). It therefore  urges  the  Commission  to 
ensure  that  there  is no conflict  between  the  two 
C1) OJ No C 40, 20. 2. 1975. 
11.5.  77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 114/17 
Directives  when  they  come  to be incorporated  into 
national  law. 
1.5. Furthermore,  the  Commission  should  have 
indicated  more  clearly  what  stages  are  to be gone 
through  on the way  to its ultimate  objective,  namely 
upward  alignment  of the  relevant  national  health 
protection  regulations. 
1.6. On  the subject  of the last-mentioned  objective, 
the Committee  considers  that  health  protection  would 
be better  served  by a ban  on both  the  production 
and marketing  of substances  dangerous  to human 
and animal  health.  Failing  this,  dangerous  substances 
might  be produced  for sale  in non-member  countries 
and used  illegally  in the EEC;  checks  would  be very 
difficult  to carry  out.  Moreover,  to treat  substances 
which  are banned  as dangerous  in the Community  as 
being  harmless  for  use  elsewhere  would  not  accord 
with  a proper  approach  to environmental  policy. 
1.7. The  Committee  realizes  that  a production  ban 
would  go beyond  the  target  of approximation  that 
the Community  has  set itself  for  this  initial  phase, 
bearing  in mind  too that  some  non-member  countries 
currently  have  need  for such  products.  Nevertheless, 
the Commission  should  take  up this  matter  in its 
subsequent  proposals. 
1.8. The  Commission  should  consider  the case  for 
extending  the list of approved  products  by adding  a 
number  of products  whose  use is currently  approved 
in certain  Member  States.  Such  a measure  should, 
however,  not set back  the date  on which  the proposed 
Directive  under  discussion  comes  into  force. 
1.9. Turning  now  to the  second  of the  two 
proposals,  the  Committee  observes  first  of all that 
the proposed  list of prohibited  substances  is not yet 
complete.  It is to be updated,  as and  when  necessary, 
in the  light  of progress  in scientific  and  technical 
knowledge. 
1.10.  As  regards  the  procedure  for  consulting 
interested  parties,  the Committee  considers  that  the 
Commission  should  have  made  provision  in both 
of the  proposals  for  the  Consumers'  Consultative 
Committee  to be asked  to give  its views  before 
decisions  are  taken.  The  community  programme 
for a consumer  protection  and  information  policy 
expressly  mentions  plant  protection  products 
(pesticides)  as one  area  for  priority  action  to 
safeguard  consumers'  health  and  safety  (1). 
H OJ  No  C 92, 25.  4. 1975,  points  16 and  17 of the 
programme. 2. Specific  comments 
A. Proposal  for  a Council  Directive  concerning  the 
placing  of EEC-accepted  plant  protection  products 
on the market 
2.1. Article  2 (Scope) 
2.1.1.  Contrary  to what  several  language  versions 
of the  title  would  give  one  to believe,  the proposal 
is not confined  to products  for the protection  (in the 
strict  sense  of the term)  of plants  or certain  types  of 
plant,  but  is more  general  in scope,  being  concerned 
with products  used  to  treat  plants,  including 
insecticides,  growth  regulators  and  the like. 
2.1.2.  Most  pesticides  fall  within  the  scope  as 
defined  in Article  2, but  some,  which  are  utilized 
outside  agriculture  and  forestry,  are not covered. 
2.1.3.  The  Committee  therefore  asks  the Commis-
sion to consider  how  such  products  can  be subjected 
to the same  marketing  and  EEC  acceptance  rules  as 
plant  protection  products. 
2.2. Article  4 (Acceptance  conditions) 
2.2.1.  The  Committee  considers  that  the  general 
conditions  for  the  granting  of EEC  acceptance 
specified  in Article  4 (1) are,  on the  whole,  very 
subjective.  As a result,  Member  States  may  interpret 
them  differently.  Accordingly,  the  Committee  urges 
that there  be uniform  objective  criteria. 
2.2.2.  Furthermore,  the fact  that  uniform  principles 
for checking  compliance  with  requirements  will  be 
established  by the  Committee  for  Adaptation  to 
Scientific  and  Technical  Progress,  in accordance  with 
the procedure  laid  down  in Article  20, should  help 
to allay  fears  that  the free  movement  of goods  will 
be disrupted  and  systematic  recourse  made  to the 
derogations  provided  for  in Articles  12 and  14 of 
the proposal. 
2.3. Article  6 
2.3.1.  The  Committee  also  considers  that  a more 
precise  deadline  should  be set for the  decisions  by 
the appropriate  authorities  on applications  for EEC 
acceptance. 
2.3.2.  Accordingly,  it suggests  that  the second  part 
of Article  6 (2) be amended  to read: 
'. ... and  decide  within  three  months  on any 
application  for EEC  acceptance  made  to it'. 
No C 114/18 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 11. 5. 77 
2.3.3.  The  Committee  asks  that  the  following  he 
added  to the particulars  listed  in Article  6 (3): 
'— the  name  and  address  of the  manufacturer, 
if he is not the applicant'. 
2.4. Article  7 
2.4.1.  The  Committee  suggests  that  the  word 
'normally'  be deleted  from  Article  7 (2). 
2.4.2.  The  Committee  further  suggests  that 
Article  7 (3) be amended  in such  a way  as to protect 
the business  and  manufacturing  secrets  of applicants 
for EEC  acceptance,  irrespective  of whether  such 
protection  has been  formally  requested. 
2.5. Article  8 
2.5.1.  The  Committee  asks  that  the  uniform 
principles  for  checking  by  means  of tests  and 
analyses,  that  the  requirements  for  EEC  acceptance 
are met  should  be  laid  down  by  the  Standing 
Committee  on Plant  Health. 
2.5.2.  Furthermore,  it trusts  that  these  principles 
will be based  on work  carried  out  at international 
level,  e.g.  by EPPO  (European  and  Mediterranean 
Plant  Protection  Organization)  on  biological 
effectiveness.  This  will  ensure  that  tests  and  analyses 
do not  vary  in scientific  thoroughness  from  one 
country  to another. 
2.6. Article  9 (3) 
2.6.1.  The  Committee  would  ask  the Commission 
to consider  proposing  a simplified  EEC  acceptance 
procedure,  to be used  when  certain  changes  (which 
do not  detract  from  full,  accurate  information  of 
users)  are  made  to the  particulars  mentioned  in 
Article  9 (3). 
2.7. Article  11 
2.7.1.  The  Committee  would  also  ask  the 
Commission  to consider  making  provision  for  an 
appeal  procedure  in cases  where  EEC-acceptance  has 
been  refused,  cancelled  or made  subject  to limits. 
Such  an appeal  procedure  could  entail  a stay  of 
execution  in respect  of plant-protection  products 
already  on the market. 
2.8. Article  12 
2.8.1.  With  respect  to the  national  exceptions  to 
EEC  acceptance  covered  by  Article  12  (2),  the 
Committee  stresses  once  again  the  importance  of 
fixing  objective,  uniform  criteria  when  laying  down 
the requirements  to be met  for EEC  acceptance.  This is necessary  to avoid  any  divergency  between  Member 
States  in the field  of consumer  protection  or the free 
movement  of goods. 
2.9. Article  13 
2.9.1.  The  Committee  asks  that  the  words  'if 
possible'  be deleted  from  the first  line of Article  13 (1). 
2.9.2.  As  far as Article  13 (2) is concerned,  the 
Committee  refers  to its comments  on Article  12. 
2.10.  Article  15 
2.10.1.  The  Committee  would  draw  attention  to 
its opinion  on  the  proposal  for  a Directive  on 
pesticides  mentioned  in paragraph  1.4  and  to its 
general  observation  on  the  need  for  perfect 
coordination  of the provisions  of these  two  Directives. 
2.10.2.  Article  15 (3) 
2.10.2.1.  Item  3.1.7. 
In order  to enable  the various  production  series  to 
be readily  recognized.  The  Committee  would  like 
products  manufactured  by  batch  or  continuous 
process  over  a given  period  to be identified. 
It also  considers  it advisable,  in certain  cases,  for an 
expiry  date  or date  until  which  the product  keeps  its 
proper  qualities  to be indicated,  if necessary  together 
with  advice  as to storage.  Users  want  to know  how 
long  products  may  be  expected  to retain  full 
effectiveness,  even  if this  should  increase  costs. 
2.10.2.2.  Item  3.1.8. 
The Committee  points  out  that  here  and  in point  4 
of Annex  II the wording  should  be 'form  and  nature 
of the preparation',  rather  than  'the  physical  nature 
of the preparation',  since  it is not simply  a question 
of the  three  physical  states  of matter:  solid,  liquid, 
gas. 
2.10.2.3.  Item  3.1.9. 
The Committee  stresses  that  all special  risks  that 
cannot  be precluded  by  simplifying  the  product 
should  be indicated  by a suitable  choice  from  all the 
standard  phrases,  with  no limitation  as to how  many-
may be employed. 
2.10.2.4.  Item  3.1.10. 
The Committee  also  considers  that  it should  be 
obligatory,  at least  in the  case  of certain  serious 
11.5.  77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 114/19 
hazards,  for  advice  to be given  on the  emergency 
first-aid  treatment  to be administered  by doctors, 
and for a list of treatment  centres  for poison  victims 
to be provided.  It points  out  that  the  Council  of 
Europe  has  drawn  up  a standard  notice  which 
includes  antidotes  and  advice  to the doctor. 
2.10.2.5.  Item  3.1.12. 
The wording  of this  point  should  be made  more 
precise  so as to embrace  only  those  uses  covered  by 
the decision  to confer  EEC  acceptance. 
2.10.2.6.  Item  3.1.13. 
The Committee  draws  attention  to the  potential 
detrimental  effects  of deficiencies  in the  equipment 
used  to dispense  plant  protection  products.  It stresses 
that equipment  should  conform  to certain  minimum 
standards  and  calls  upon  the Commission  to promote 
studies  aimed  at ensuring  that  such  dispensers 
function  satisfactorily. 
2.10.2.7.  Item  3.4. 
The Committee  points  out  that  the  European 
Parliament  and  itself  have  always  insisted  that  use 
of the official  languages  of the Member  States  should 
be an automatic  requirement. 
2.10.3.  Article  15 (4) 
The Committee  agrees  that  there  should  be uniform 
rules  on this  matter  and  on the  use  of distinctive 
symbols,  signs  and  colours  on labels  and  packaging. 
But it warns  against  any  exceptions  to a generalized 
obligation  to colour  products,  since  people  might 
be misled  into  believing  (wrongly)  that  there  is no 
danger. 
It draws  attention  to the fact  that  inconsistencies  of 
this kind  between  coexisting  national  and  EEC  rules 
on product  acceptance  are  fraught  with  serious 
dangers  that  must  be eliminated  as soon  as possible 
by means  of total  approximation.  Such  approximation 
should  not be restricted  to plant  protection  products. 
The Committee  does,  however,  recognize  the technical 
problems  which  would  be incurred  in colouring 
certain  products.  It therefore  suggests  that  provision 
be made  for such  products  to be sold  in a special 
packaging  bearing  a label  stating  that  the  contents 
are poisonous.  Such  products  would  then  be exempt 
from  the colouring  requirement. 
Done  at Brussels,  30 March  1977. B. Proposal  for  a Council  Directive  prohibiting  the 
placing  on the  market  and  the  use  of plant 
protection  products  containing  certain  active 
substances 
2.11.  Article  3 
2.11.1.  The  Committee  considers  that,  by analogy 
with  what  is done  in the pharmaceutical  field,  there 
should  be a tolerance  to cover  cases  where  banned 
active  substances  are present  as negligible  traces  with 
no harmful  effects. 
2.11.2.  The  Committee  therefore  suggests  that  the 
following  sentence  be added  to Article  3: 
'Plant  protection  products  which  contain 
impurities  because  of  the  nature  of  their 
manufacturing  process  may  however  be placed 
on the market  and  used,  provided  that  they  have 
no harmful  effects  on human  beings,  animals  or 
the environment'. 
2.12.  Articles  4 and  7 
2.12.1.  In  the  Committee's  view,  these  Articles 
should  be given  a very  narrow  interpretation.  Failing 
this, the  terms  of competition  are  liable  to be 
distorted. 
2.13.  Article  6 
2.13.1.  The  Committee  asks  the  Commission  to 
align  the  versions  of this  Article  in the  various 
languages  on the  original  (English)  version. 
2.14.  Annex 
2.14.1.  It  should  be made  clearer  in the heading  of 
column  (2) that  these  are the absolute  limits  for any 
derogations  that  might  be allowed. 
2.14.2.  In  addition,  the  Committee  asks  the 
Commission  to examine  whether  this  list should  not 
be extended  to cover,  for instance  treatments  specific 
to certain  products  which  are  grown  on a small 
scale. 
2.14.3.  The  Committee  considers  that  a fourth 
column  should  be added  to the Annex,  setting  out the 
period  which  must  elapse  before  agricultural  land 
which  has  been  treated  with  certain  of the  active 
substances  listed  in the Annex  may  be brought  into 
production. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI