3. 5. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities NoC 112/39 
If it is felt that existing protection of these commodities is inadequate it can be increased through such 
normal methods as an increase in duty or in reference price. For products not bound in GATT it is always 
possible to increase protection where that is thought to be necessary through the normal methods. 
It would be doubly unsatisfactory if the use of Community prices were to lead to extra duties being charged 
on products whose price because of its quality was already above the reference price. 
Voting 
For: 42; against: 50; abstentions: 11. 
The following text of the opinion was superseded by an amendment approved during the plenary session 
debate: 
Point 2.5 
'Noting the new scheme to grant aid to producer organizations (first and second indents of 
Article 2(1)), the Section observes that payments by Member States are to be optional rather than 
mandatory. This means that the scheme will be applied only in the case of new members first joining 
producer organizations.' 
Voting 
For: 36; against: 34; abstentions: 25. 
Opinion on the proposals for: 
— a Directive amending Council Directive 71 /118 / EEC on health problems affecting trade in 
fresh poultrymeat in respect of personnel responsible for carrying out health inspections, 
supervision and control tasks 
— a Directive concerning the' qualifications of the personnel responsible for carrying out 
health inspections, supervision and control tasks foreseen by Council Directive 
77/99/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in meat products 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the European 
Communities No C 262 of 14 October 1981, pages 3 and 4. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 5 October 1981 the Council referred the abovementioned proposals to the Economic and 
Social Committee in accordance with Article 43 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 195th 
plenary session held in Brussels on 24 and 25 February 1982. 
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 43 
thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council of the 
European Communities on 5 October 1981 for an opinion on the proposal for a Directive amending Council 
Directive 71/118/EEC on health problems affecting 
trade in fresh poultrymeat in respect of personnel 
responsible for carrying out health inspections, 
supervision and control tasks, and the proposal for a 
Directive concerning the qualifications of the personnel 
responsible for carrying out health inspections, 
No C 112/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 5. 82 
supervision and control tasks foreseen by Council 
Directive 77/99/EEC on health problems affecting 
intra-Community trade in meat products, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 
27 October 1981 instructing the Section for Agriculture 
to prepare an opinion on the matter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the Section for 
Agriculture at its 232nd meeting held on 4 and 5 February 
1982 (meeting of 4 February), 
Having regard to the oral report made by the rapporteur, 
Mr Wick, 
Having regard to its earlier work on the matter, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 195th plenary 
session held on 24 and 25 February 1982 (meeting of 
25 February), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 55 votes to 15, with four abstentions: 
After having taken note of the Commission's report to the 
Council on personnel responsible for carrying out health 
inspections, supervision and control tasks at 
establishments handling meat products, cut meat and 
stored meat, the Committee approves the 
abovementioned Commission proposals, subject to the 
observations set out below. 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee would point out that, under 
Directives 71/118/EEC and 77/99/EEC, the official 
veterinarian is, as a matter of principle, responsible for 
supervising the examination of animals for slaughter and 
meat and for other supervisory tasks in the Member 
States. The draft Directives under consideration are 
designed to introduce a derogation to this principle in the 
case of one Member State (the UK). 
1.2. The Committee would take the opportunity 
offered by this proposed derogation for one Member 
State to express its deep regret that individual Member 
States continue to receive special treatment. 
1.3. The Committee would draw attention to the 
different qualifications of the supervisory staff 
responsible for carrying out the tasks mentioned above. It 
notes the following points: 
1.3.1. At the present time there are two levels of 
qualification for staff carrying out the said tasks in the 
Member States, namely: (1) veterinarians (the official 
veterinarian); and (2) assistants, in accordance with 
Article 4 of the EEC Directive on fresh poultrymeat and 
Article 6 of the EEC Directive on meat products. 1.3.2. When the proposed Directives come into force 
there will then be three levels of qualification for staff, 
namely: (1) veterinarians (the official veterinarian); 
(2) assistants (in accordance with Article 4 of the EEC 
Directive on fresh poultrymeat and Article 6 of the EEC 
Directive on meat products); and (3) the environmental 
health officer in the UK. 
1.4. The Committee fully endorses the conclusions set 
out in Chapter IV of the report of the Committee of 
Enquiry on the qualifications of non-veterinary personnel 
responsible for inspecting cutting and storage premises 
for fresh poultrymeat and personnel of establishments 
preparing meat products (report from the Commission to 
the Council). 
1.5. The Committee shares the view of the majority of 
the members of the Committee of Enquiry that only a 
training as a veterinarian is appropriate for persons 
carrying out specific inspections of untreated meat, meat 
products and cut poultrymeat, issuing certificates for 
these products and checking on general health 
requirements. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 1, point 1, of the amendment to Directive 
71/118/EEC 
The Committee notes that the Commission representative 
has pointed out that the proposed provision is already 
being carried out in all EEC Member States; all that is 
required to establish a definitive rule on the matter is to 
lay down a date of application (15 August 1982). 
2.2. Article 1, point 2, of the amendment to Directive 
71/118/EEC and of Annex I to the amendment to 
Directive 77/99/EEC . 
The Committee would express its concern over the fact 
that the proposed derogation is to apply to one Member 
State (the UK). The Committee is concerned over this 
matter because of the danger of distorting competition in 
the Community. In the Committee's view the proposed 
provision also jeopardizes the endeavours to harmonize 
the rules governing veterinary hygiene in the Community. 
Furthermore, the Committee fears that it may lead to 
differences in the quality of the supervision carried out in 
the Member States. 
For the reasons mentioned above there is, in the 
Committee's view, a need to consider whether the 
proposed derogation should be brought into effect merely 
as a transitional solution for the UK with a deadline being 
set for its expiry. 
2.3. If the Council regards the derogation in respect of 
the environmental health officer in the UK as fully 
satisfying the need to ensure both the protection of 
consumers and the interests of the economy, the 
Committee feels that there is a need to consider whether 
3. 5. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities NoC 112/41 
The Committee would point out that such a solution 
would contradict the observation made in point 6 of the 
conclusions to the report of the Committee of 
Enquiry. 
The Chairman of 
the Economic and Social Committee 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE 
ANNEX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
REJECTED AMENDMENT 
The following amendment, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, was rejected in the course of 
the Committee's debate: 
Article 1, point 2.2 
This point should be replaced by the following: 
'The Committee considers that the derogation may be requested and should be applied to any Member 
State which might wish to adopt a system similar to that of the UK. The Committee, however, believes 
that the Commission should exercise control over the qualifications of the environmental health 
officers. It is accepted that these are at present adequate for the limited functions which they perform 
but it is important to see that they continue to be adequate as knowledge develops.' 
Reasons 
The environmental health officer is only being allowed to perform quite limited functions for which the 
Commission has satisfied itself that he is qualified. Inspection at point of slaughter and all certification for 
intra-Community trade will remain the responsibility of the veterinarian. The rules applied by the 
environmental health officer will be Community rules. There is, therefore, no question of jeopardizing the 
harmonization of rules governing veterinary hygiene or of differences in the quality of supervision. 
To make the derogation transitional would involve the UK in an expensive and politically difficult change 
in its methods of inspection without any increase in efficiency, since the Commission has accepted the 
adequacy of the environmental health officers for the inspections they will perform. There is no distortion 
of competition since the pay of an environmental health officer is only a little less than that of a veterinarian. 
The cost problem from the UK's point of view is that the environmental health officers exist and would not 
be got rid of if veterinarians were used, not that environmental health officers are in themselves 
cheap. 
However, as is frequently the case in the UK, standards for the diploma which environmental health 
officers obtain are set by their own institute, and the standards for the degrees which are an alternative are 
set by each university separately. It is important, therefore, that there should be EEC control over the 
standards. 
Voting the services of veterinarians for supervising the 
examination of animals for slaughter and meat could not 
in future be dispensed with in all the Member States of the 
Community on cost grounds. 
Done at Brussels, 25 February 1982. 
For: 24; against: 41; abstentions: 6.