31. 12. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 343/23 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on containers of liquids for human 
consumption 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the 
European Communities No C 204 of 13 August 1981, page 6. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 5 May 1981 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic and 
Social Committee in accordance with Articles 2, 30, 100 and 235 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 
191st plenary session held in Brussels on 28 and 29 October 1981. 
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 
Articles 2, 30, 100 and 235 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council of 
the European Communities on 5 May 1981 for an 
opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on 
containers of liquids for human consumption, 
Having regard to the decision taken by the 
Committee's chairman on 22 May 1981, 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 Section's discussions at its 64th 
meeting, held on 6 October 1981, 
Having regard to the opinion on the Council 
Directive on waste disposal delivered by the 
Committee at its plenary session on 28 November 
1974 (!), 
Having regard to the discussions at its 191st plenary 
session, held on 28 and 29 October 1981 (meeting of 
29 October 1981), 
Having regard to the report submitted by the 
rapporteur, Mr Hatry, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 109 votes to 6 with 13 abstentions: 
(>) OJ NoC 16, 23. 1. 1975. 1. GENERAL COMMENTS 
1.1. The Committee approves the general objectives 
of the proposal for a Directive, taken as a whole, i.e. 
that the Directive's main aim is to control and 
eliminate waste in a relatively important area, while 
at the same time seeking to encourage recycling and 
recovery as regards both energy and raw materials. 
1.2. The Committee notes that the methods 
proposed should lead, in so far as the Directive 
achieves its aims, to favourable results in an area that 
is delicate and difficult for society as a whole and for 
the economies of the Member States; at the same time 
it thinks it is important that the Directive should not 
impose too severe financial, technical or even human 
constraints on consumers, taxpayers, manufacturers 
or distributors. 
1.3. The Committee points out that the experience 
accumulated in this area in both the Member States 
and at Community level is very limited and indeed 
fragmentary. Consequently an initiative of this type 
should be a developing process so that benefit can be 
derived, in the implementation at both Community 
and national level, from the experience that will be 
progressively gained. 
1.4. Very many objections have been but forward 
by all the industrial and commercial interest groups, 
by the consumer organizations and by the social 
organizations. The details of these objections are 
given in the report. 
No C 343/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 81 
From this angle the Committee would observe that a 
number of weaknesses noted in its examination of the 
proposal, cannot easily be corrected or clarified at 
this preliminary stage; this would make the text more 
binding and precise in areas where little experience 
has been accumulated with regard to the 
consequences of the measures provided for. 
1.5. The Committee also notes that the proposal for 
a Directive deals with an area where, failing a 
Community initiative, national measures adopted 
without coordination at Community level and even 
without any obligation to notify the Commission, 
could lead to new trade barriers or distortions of 
competition between countries or sectors. 
1.6. Without eliminating the risk of national 
initiatives that could lead to these drawbacks, the 
proposal for a Directive creates an appropriate 
European framework which ensures that the 
Community authorities will be notified; it also 
facilitates a harmonization policy and enables 
national measures liable to jeopardize certain 
principles of the Treaty to be examined with greater 
speed. 
From this point of view, the fact that the Directive is 
flexible has more advantages than disadvantages at 
this stage. 
1.7. The Committee further notes, in the light of the 
texts and the oral information provided by the 
Commission representatives in the course of the 
Study Group's work, that the proposal seeks to 
achieve its objectives in the waste sphere while 
observing certain priorities, viz.: 
— that no container material is favoured or 
discriminated against, 
— that no process for eliminating liquid containers 
as waste, whether it be recycling or refilling, is 
discriminated against as a result of the emphasis 
placed on the idea of 'recoverable' container, 
— that it is therefore possible to take account in 
containers of the nature of the liquid, the 
distribution channels and the need to reduce as 
much as possible the financial impact of the 
operation both for consumers and for 
manufacturers and distributors, 
— that considerations of consumer health and safety 
also have an influence on the policy embodied in 
the proposal. All these points should be reflected in the final 
version of the proposal for a Directive. 
1.8. The Committee also notes that there were a lot 
of preliminary consultations, as witness the number 
of successive drafts produced of the Commission 
proposal and the diversity of the views expressed. It 
regrets, however, that there does not seem to have 
been any organized, direct consultation of workers' 
representatives or any overall consultation of 
industrial and commercial circles. 
1.9. The Committee observes with interest that the 
proposal for a Directive allows voluntary agreements 
between national governments and the business 
circles concerned and that the statements by firms' 
representatives indicate that one can count on active 
cooperation by firms in pursuing some of the 
objectives laid down. 
1.10. The Committee has also noted with 
satisfaction the Commission's desire to continue with 
representative consumer organizations the task of 
consumer education and information so as to foster 
in the coming years an increasingly favourable 
attitude to the correct elimination of the waste 
covered by the Directive. 
1.11. Finally, without wishing to call into question 
the aims of the proposal for a Directive, the 
Committee would point out that unfortunately 
neither the text nor the explanations given by the 
Commission representatives provide any 
information concerning the proposed measures' 
effect, positive or negative, on employment or above 
all, concerning the energy impact, despite the 
growing importance of the energy problem since the 
early 70s. The Committee would like the studies 
which will have to be continued by the Commission 
and the Member States to deal more with these two 
aspects. 
2. SPECIFIC COMMENTS 
A number of specific points arose during the 
examination of the proposal for a Directive and the 
Committee would comment on these as follows: 
31. 12. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 343/25 
2.1. Nature of the decision proposed to the Council 
While certain members would have preferred the 
Commission's proposal to have taken the form of a 
recommendation, the Committee is able to accept the 
principle of a Directive. The provisions will, 
however, have to be refined as experience is 
accumulated. 
The Committee notes that the relative vagueness of 
the Directive could in certain cases lead to action of 
limited effectiveness, but it recognizes that the lack of 
practical experience in the vast majority of Member 
States does yet allow greater precision. 
2.2. Legal basis of the proposal for a Directive 
The Committee observes that the provisions are 
based exclusively on Article 235 of the Treaty and 
wonders whether express reference should not have 
been made to Articles 2, 30 and 100, which would 
seem to be appropriate legal bases for the action 
proposed by the Commission. 
2.3. Nature of the liquids for human consumption 
covered by the Directive 
Some members did not think that the proposal for a 
Directive should apply at all to certain categories of 
liquids for human consumption, in particular fruit 
juices and milk. The Committee is, however, 
convinced that exclusion of these products could 
deprive the Directive of the impact it must have if it is 
to deal with a significant proportion of household 
waste and thus protect the environment, and if it is to 
make a contribution of some importance to savings 
in the energy and raw materials spheres. 
However, the fact that the Directive covers liquids for 
human consumption with very different physical and 
chemical properties, as witness the list of products in 
Annex I — particularly the fact that some beverages 
are carbonated and others not, and the divergence in 
unit value of the products and in the requirements 
regarding preservation, transport and informative or 
promotional labelling, etc. — means that the 
Directive has to be flexible; the methods for dealing 
with the diversity of products are all aimed at 
maximum elimination of waste under conditions that 
make it possible to achieve minimum net energy 
consumption and maximum recovery of raw 
materials, at acceptable cost in particular. 2.4. Nature of the figures to be collected and 
communicated 
The Committee notes the relatively imprecise nature 
of the figures for fixing the objectives and of the 
information to be communicated. It considers that an 
advance will be made in this area only through 
progressive application of the rules laid down in the 
proposal, so that experience will indicate the most 
effective and meaningful ways of determining 
quantitative objectives and the statistics to be 
collected. 
The Committee recommends that in this area, which 
covers products of low unit value (although their 
volume may be very large), adequate statistical 
methods (surveys based on representative sampling, 
for example) be devised which do not impose an 
unnecessary financial burden on economic activity. 
2.5. Scope of the measures concerning 
standardization of containers 
The Committee discussed the significance of the 
French expressions 'normalisation', 'standardisa­
tion' and 'banalisation' (translator's note: all 
rendered in English as 'standardization' in the 
Commission document) and noted that the 
terminology used here gave rise to controversy 
concerning not only the essence of the problem (the 
desirability, usefulness or indispensability of these 
initiatives) but even the meaning that should be 
ascribed to the terms in the different Community 
languages. 
The Committee recommends that a more precise 
definition of the terms used be given by the 
Commission so that a clear pronouncement can be 
made, with full knowledge of the facts, on the 
significance and scope of the proposals. 
2.6. Social significance of the measures planned, 
particularly from the employment angle 
During its discussions the Committee received 
contradictory information on this subject. Since the 
Commission did not explicitly consult workers' 
organizations in particular, the Section considers that 
more precise information should be gathered on this 
matter. 
2.7. Importance of the overall energy balance 
On the basis of information given by the Commission 
representatives, the Committee notes that, at the 
request of certain governments, no mention has been 
made of information on the recovery of the energy 
incorporated in containers or on the minimization of 
net energy expenditure. 
No C 343/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 81 
The Committee deplores this, particularly since the 
data available indicate that a considerable 
proportion of the containers covered by the proposal 
for a Directive have a high energy content and 
because information on the subject is obtainable as a 
result of studies carried out by the trade circles 
concerned. Since the energy factor is of growing 
importance in the Community's balance of payments 
and should be given all the necessary attention, the 
Committee considers that additional information 
should be supplied in this area. 
2.8. Scope of the Directive as regards trade barriers 
and competition 
The Committee notes that, failing an initiative by the 
Commission, the Community is liable to be 
confronted with numerous national initiatives or 
even, in certain countries with a federal structure, 
regional initiatives which would definitely jeopardize 
freedom of movement for goods and competition 
within the Community. 
The Committee observes that the lack of precision in 
the proposal for a Directive (which it appreciates is 
due to the matter being in a state of flux) means that 
one cannot guarantee at the outset that initiatives by 
the governments will not affect freedom of 
movement for goods and competiton. 
The Committee notes that at all events the proposal 
provides the Community with an information 
instrument and a suitable procedure for eliminating 
as soon as possible the danger of measures not in 
keeping with the spirit of the Treaty. 
From this point of view, the Committee thinks that 
the proposal represents a step forward as compared 
with a completely anarchical situation. 
2.9. Involvement of economic and social interest 
groups in the implementation of the Directive 
According to the information the Committee has 
received it would seem that, despite the consultations 
referred to in 1.8 above, there is definite 
dissatisfaction among the economic and social 
interest groups about the nature of the consultations 
that led to the final version of the proposal for a 
Directive. 
The Committee has already pointed out that the fact 
that the subject matter is relatively new means that 
there will have to be permanent liaison with the 
circles concerned because of the socio-economic 
impact and the consumer aspect. 
With this in mind, the Committee would recommend 
that the Commission appoint a back-up committee comprising all the interested parties (i.e. 
representatives of manufacturers, distributors, 
workers and consumers) which would periodically 
receive the reports and be informed of the objectives 
referred to in the Directive and which would make it 
possible to alleviate the shortcomings as regards 
contacts noted during the Committee's work. 
Some form of contact with the local authorities 
responsible for the implementation of environmental 
policy should also be envisaged. 
The Committee would also like to receive a report 
drawn up by the Commission on the basis of the data 
received from the national governments. 
3. ANALYSIS OF THE ARTICLES 
An analysis of the Articles gives rise to the following 
comments and suggestions for changes: 
3.1. The Committee would ask the Commission to 
update the information given on the various 
countries, which does not always seem to reflect the 
latest developments (Denmark, the United 
Kingdom, the Netherlands). 
3.2. The Committee thinks that in the preamble the 
words 'olive oil' in the penultimate line of the fourth 
paragraph on page 13 should be replaced by 'edible 
oils, particularly olive oil'. 
3.3. Article 2 
The Committee feels that a distinction must be made 
between the recycling of materials and energy 
recovery, although both can, in principle, be 
endorsed. 
Further, the Committee recommends that preference 
be given to recycling whereby waste can be used for 
the manufacture of new containers or other products 
rather than simple energy recovery. This should be 
done at any rate until it can be proved, on the basis of 
objective data, that both these forms of recycling are 
equally appropriate for the conservation of raw 
materials (the aim of this Directive). 
The questionnaire in Annex II does not, in the 
Committee's view, seem to take due account of this 
dual aspect. 
3.4. The Committee would point out that the list of 
definitions in this Article is incomplete; certain 
containers or procedures are not mentioned in 
subsequent Articles. 
31. 12. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 343/27 
The Committee notes that the term 'non-returnable 
container' is not included in the definitions, although 
the term 'returnable container' is. 
3.5. Article 3 
The Committee would stress the positive nature of 
this Article, which allows one to proceed by trial and 
error. In the initial stage it will be very difficult to 
determine exactly the tonnage and/or volume of 
containers and the compilation of precise statistics 
will be too costly, given the low value of the materials 
in question. 
3.6. Article 4 
The Committee would draw attention to the fact that 
the expression 'modes de distribution' ('methods of 
distribution' in the English text) in subparagraph (c) 
is rather inadequate in this context. 
The Committee would observe that in normal usage 
and in the language of the trade this expression 
means 'distribution channels', whereas according to 
the explanations it has given the Commission meant 
the treatment containers undergo. 
The Committee thinks that this wording should be 
changed. 
The Committee would also stress that the 
combination of Articles 3 and 4 should make it 
possible to define more precisely the extent to which 
the Member States can take action. This can be done 
by progressively refining the Directive once it has 
been brought into force and tested in practice. 
3.7. Article 5 
The Committee would point out that the third indent 
is fairly vague about the way in which the Member 
States can promote outlets for the materials 
recovered from used containers. 
It supports initiatives aimed at eliminating 
administrative and legal obstacles, particularly in the 
area of public supply contracts, that would impede 
the use of recycled products. 
The Committee also thinks that it will be necessary to 
avoid distortions of competition, which would be 
fundamentally at variance with the spirit of the 
Treaty. 
3.8. Article 6 
The Committee would recommend that this Article 
provide not only for weight reductions and energy savings but also for reductions in volume as far as 
possible. 
3.9. Article 7 
The wording of this Article does not seem to be 
neutral as regards the various possible ways of 
recovering containers. 
The Committee has concluded that this Article 
should be viewed from the angle referred to in 1.7 
above. 
3.10. Article 8 
The Committee wonders about the degree of 
expertise that will have to be shown by the specialists 
who will assess the suitability of new containers. 
The Committee thinks that the back-up committee 
referred to in 2.9 should devote attention to the 
containers covered by Article 8. 
3.11. Article 9 
The Committee is guarded in its attitude to the ideas 
put forward in this Article. 
Besides the terminological difficulties referred to in 
its general comments, it has noted certain 
reservations in trade circles. 
These trade circles point to the possibility of 
considerable quantities of containers being destroyed 
within a short period of time and of too severe 
constraints in respect of raw materials and energy, 
since a standardized container will have to be able to 
cope with the most demanding product. They also 
draw attention to the technical difficulties resulting 
from the fact that there are different types of 
beverages, as well as to the possibility of restrictions 
of competition and trade barriers, etc. 
The Committee notes, however, that if the returnable 
container is to become the general rule for certain 
types of beverage throughout the Community, some 
forms of standardization, which would clearly not be 
essential in the case of non-returnable containers, 
could become necessary in order to avoid certain 
drawbacks, such as a walling off of national 
markets. 
The Committee would recommend that the back-up 
committee carry out the task provided for in 
paragraph 3 of Article 9, so that this committee 
representing more than just trade interests will have 
an opportunity of expressing its views. 
No C 343/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 81 
3.12. Article 10 
The Committee suggests that the Commission's 
report (2.9 above) be sent not only to the back-up 
committee but also to itself and the European 
Parliament. 3.14. Annex I 
On the basis of a careful examination of the grounds 
for inclusion of the products listed in this Annex, the 
Committee considers that there is no reason why a 
Directive on the harmonization of policy on waste 
should exclude certain liquids for human 
consumption whose packaging could be recycled. 
3.13. Article 11 
The Committee would point out that the 'possible 
harmonization' referred to in paragraph 1 would 
become necessary where the lack of such 
harmonization could lead to distortions of 
competition, impediments to free movement of 
goods or a walling off of markets. 3.15 Annex II 
The Committee would suggest that the destinction 
between the methods for recycling containers 
(utilization of the raw material or generation of 
energy) be brought out more conspicuously in this 
Annex so as to clarify Article 2 and more specifically 
subparagraph (d) thereof. 
Done at Brussels, 29 October 1981. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following passage in the section opinion was deleted as a result of an amendment adopted during 
the discussions: 
3.3. Article 2 
The Section would recommend that the definition of 'recyclable container' indicate more clearly 
the two kinds of recycling possible, viz.: 
(i) utilization for the manufacture of new containers or for other products; 
(ii) production of energy. 
There is no doubt that both forms of recycling are valuable. 
Result of the voting: 
For: 54, Against: 51, Abstentions: 11.