No C 332/62 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
4.7. Chapter III, IV. Point 2c) 
Point 2c) should be reworded to read: 
'c) marinated or salted herring and other species 
likely to contain nematodes, where this process is 
insufficient to destroy the nematodes.' 
4.8. Chapter IV, 1. Point 3 
Amend to read 'an inspection at regular and frequent 
intervals.' 
Done at Brussels, 19 September 1990. 
1. Introduction 
The Commission has recently published a proposal 
for general health rules for animal (including fishery) 
products and 14 specific proposals establishing rules for 
individual products or group of products. The present 
proposal is to give temporary exemptions under strictly 
defined conditions from parts of the specific proposals 
but not from the general ones. 
(>) OJ No C 84, 2. 4. 1990, p. 100. 4.9. Chapter IV, II. Point 2B) 
This point is of doubtful practical application, since it 
does not indicate how the acceptable daily intake is 
established. 
4.10. Chapter VI 
A reference should be made to the need to conform 
with EEC Directive 396/89 on indications or marks 
identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs, which 
has now entered into force. 
4.11. Chapter VI, 1. First indent 
The Committee suggest that the temperature be indi­
cated. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
2. General comments 
2.1. This proposal is very necessary as many pro­
ducers have problems and will need time to bring their 
operations up to modern standards. The Committee 
therefore approves it in principle, but some points in it 
need to be reconsidered. In particular: 
2.1.1. There is considerable doubt whether the tens 
of thousands of applications involved can be processed 
in the time available. Furthermore in practice the pro­
posed timing (by 1 January 1992) is likely tot be imposs­
ible. Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision on the conditions for granting temporary 
and limited derogations from specific Community health rules on the production and 
marketing of products of animal origin (*) 
(90/C 332/17) 
On 21 February 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned 
proposal. 
The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Com­
mittee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 12 July 1990. The Rapporteur was 
Mr Gardner. 
At its 279th plenary session (meeting of 19 September 1990) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/63 
2.1.2. There is too much scope for unequal appli­
cation of health rules since a derogation is granted first 
on the discretion of the Member State and then of the 
Commission on the advice of the Standing Veterinary 
Committee (SVC). In the interest of harmonization it 
would be preferable to have the rules set out clearly in 
the relevant vertical measures. 
2.1.3. It must be specified that exempted products 
must still comply with the general hygiene Directive 
(3.1.1 below). This provision is in accordance with 
Article 1.2 of the general health Rules cited in the sixth 
'whereas' to this proposal. 
2.1.4. There is no overall time limit for a derogation. 
A limit is necessary to encourage producers to make 
the necessary changes within a reasonable time span. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Preamble 
3.1.1. In view of our comments under 2.1.3 above, 
there should be a further 'whereas': 
'Whereas the granting of the derogations from spec­
ific Community health rules to certain establish­
ments does not affect compliance with the require­
ments of Directive No .../... of ... on the protection 
of human health by monitoring the wholesomeness 
of food and observing basic principles of hygiene 
during the production, handling and sale.' 
3.1.2. Given the definition in Article 1.2 of the pro­
posal, it would be better to deal with producing and 
marketing separately. The fourth 'whereas' therefore 
should be amended to: 
'... on the production and/or marketing ...' 
3.2. Article 2 
3.2.1. This Article raises a very major point: 
3.2.2. Applications for derogations must be submit­
ted by the enterprise to the Member State and then by 
the Member State to the Commission, all by 1 January 
1992. The Commission then has a further year to agree 
or otherwise. 
3.2.3. Now, about 15 months before 1 January 1992, 
many of the health rule regulations are far from being finalized and none have yet been adopted. However, 
until the actual regulations are published operators 
cannot know whether they need to apply for dero­
gations nor can Member States establish rules. 
3.2.4. Therefore: 
a) Article 2 must be changed and instead of '1 January 
1992' the following words should be substituted: 
'One year before the entry into force of the specific 
health rule regulation from which temporary dero­
gation is requested.' 
b) Additionally, there must be sufficient time for small 
operators to get to know text of the specific health 
rule regulation concerned. 
c) There must be an appeal procedure for operators 
who are refused adequate derogation. 
3.3. Article 2.1 
3.3.1. For greater clarity the words 'specific Com­
munity health rules' should be replaced by a list of the 
Directives and/or Regulations concerned. 
3.4. In line with the new 'whereas' a new point 
should be added to say that: 
'any temporary limited derogations do not affect 
compliance with the Directive No .../... of ... on 
the protection of human health by monitoring the 
wholesomeness of food and observing basic prin­
ciples of hygiene during their production, handling 
and sale.' 
3.5. Article 3.2 
3.5.1. The word 'temporary' is vague. The Com­
mission should fix an overall time limit for derogations. 
3.6. Article 3.3 
3.6.1. Different language versions vary slightly. 
3.6.2. To clarify the text, the first sentence should 
be changed to: 
'in examining the application, the Commission shall 
take into consideration all of the following:' 
3.7. Article 4 
3.7.1. Whenever derogations are applied for, or 
No C 332/64 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
granted, they should be made public by the competent 
authority. 
3.7.2. The Committee does not agree with leaving 
significant derogations affecting public health to a com-
1. Introduction 
1.1. The olive oil market in Spain and Portugal, and 
in the European Community as a whole, is marked by 
special socio-economic features. 
1.2. Olive oil consumption has fallen dramatically 
in Portugal over the last few years. 
1.3. Problems have also been caused by the EC 
surpluses in other farm products. 
1.4. The Committee feels that these three points are 
a cause for concern. mittee procedure without any involvement by the pub­
lic. A possible way of overcoming this problem would 
be to inform the ESC immediately of any proposals for 
significant derogations so that the Committee can give 
an Opinion on these if necessary. 
2. Comments 
2.1. While supporting the Commission proposals in 
principle, the Committee would make the following 
recommendations. 
2.2. The moderate increase in olive oil production 
which is likely in the near future could generate costly 
surpluses if the Commission implements its proposed 
strategy of simply keeping consumption in Spain at the 
present level. Done at Brussels, 19 September 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on: 
— the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC on 
the establishment of a common organization of the market in oils and fats, and 
— the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) withdrawing olive oil and oil cakes from 
the list of products subject to the supplementary trade mechanism (STM) applicable to 
trade with Portugal 
(90/C 332/18) 
On 9 August 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposals. 
The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Com­
mittee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 7 September 1990. The Rapporteur 
was Mr Mayayo Bello. 
At its 279th plenary session (meeting of 19 September 1990) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion.