No C 208/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 8. 88 
Additional Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) laying down health 
conditions for the marketing of fish and fish products concerning nematodes (*) 
(88/C 208/07) 
On 2 March 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Committee delivered its first Opinion on this subject on 24 March 1988 (rapporteur-
general: Mr Roseingrave). 
The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Commit­
tee's work on the subject, adopted its Additional Opinion on 5 May 1988. The rapporteur 
was Mr Roseingrave. 
At its 256th plenary session, held on 1, 2 and 3 June 1988 (meeting of 3 June 1988), the 
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Additional Opinion by 92 votes to 8 
with no abstentions. 
1. Introduction 2. General comments 
1.1. The Committee welcomes in general the Com­
mission proposal to lay down essential health con­
ditions for the marketing of fish and fish products 
involving the presence of nematodes. The Committee 
particularly welcomes such a proposal aimed at finding 
a balanced and uniform Community-wide approach to: 
— protect the consumer and to safeguard public 
health, 
— prevent any alleged health problems from serving 
as restrictions on trade or from imposing an unwar­
ranted effect on demand, 
— enable the market to be better harmonized and 
competitive on equal terms. 
1.2. The Committee thinks that all problems con­
cerning the quality of foodstuffs, therefore including 
fish and fish products, should be reported factually in 
the media and not in an exagerated way, so that the 
consumer is assured of objective information. 
1.3. Because this is a crucial problem, the Committee 
cannot accept the fact that the Commission can present 
such a proposal on 17 February 1988 and expect it to 
be in force throughout the Community by the following 
1 April. 
The Committee does not believe that this problem can 
be resolved satisfactorily in such a short time. 
1.4. While supporting the need for health and 
hygiene protection measures for fish and fish products, 
the Committee cannot accept the Commission proposal 
in its present form as in several areas it finds it generally 
defective, lacking in clarity and necessary definition and 
incapable of effective implementation. 
0) OJN0C66, 11. 3. 1988, p. 2. 2.1. The Committee regrets that the Commission 
proposal seems confined to intra-Community trade. It 
should refer explicitly to imports from third countries 
so that the latter can be treated in the same way as 
Community produce. 
2.2. The text should indicate the species of nema­
todes in question and state which ones are dangerous 
for human health. 
2.3. The Committee considers that the proposed 
Regulation should stress the fact that the provisions are 
aimed only at fresh fish eaten raw or treated insuf­
ficiently to kill possible nematodes in fish or fish prod­
ucts as mentioned under point 2.5. 
2.4. The Committee is of the opinion that hence no 
measures are needed for fish intended for consumption 
after adequate treatment. On the other hand the con­
sumers confidence in the hygiene of the product necessi­
tates further measures. 
The Committee wonders if a loss of confidence in 
the product would not occur if optical measures like 
compulsory gutting were to be imposed. 
2.5. The types of fish posing a potential risk are 
those which: 
a) are only lightly salted and are consumed virtually 
raw; 
b) undergo a cold smoking process; 
c) are marinated—either in the factory or in the home-
—if this process does not constitute complete treat­
ment. 
Re a) concerns virgin herring. 
Re b) concerns all other types of herring, as well as 
mackerel, sprats and salmon. 
8. 8. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 208/23 
Re c) concerns fresh herring. 
2.6. The Committee considers that the proposed 
Regulation should focus particularly on these types. 
Consumers information should also be focused on 
these. 
2.7. Enterprises forced by such a Regulation to make 
technical adjustments must receive financial support 
from the Community without which adequate structur­
al adaptation would not be possible. Many vessels, 
particularly smaller ones, have neither the facilities nor 
the manpower to implement the Regulations in this 
proposal. 
2.8. The proposed Regulation does not assess the 
structural impact on the catching sector. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 1.1. 
3.1.1. This Article must not be confined to sea water 
fish. So the Committee proposes changing 'sea water 
fish' to 'fish'. 
3.1.2. The complete list of species covered by the 
Regulation shoud be given in an Appendix. 
3.2. Articles 1.2. and 1.6. 
3.2.1. The Committee believes that chilling does not 
contribute to an adequate solution to the problem. 
Chilling may only be considered as a measure conserv­
ing the quality of the product until fuller processing 
can be carried out. 
3.3. Articles 1.8. and 1.9. 
3.3.1. Insert 'or a third country' after 'Member 
State'. 
3.4. Article 1.11. 
3.4.1. The definition of 'clean sea water' appears to 
be superfluous here, as there is no reference to it in the 
Regulation. It is not possible to determine on board of 
a fishing vessel whether this water is of drinking-water 
quality. This passage should therefore be deleted. 
3.5. Articles 2.1. and 2.2. 
3.5.1. These sections of the Article could be inter­
preted as meaning that all fresh fish (including fish 
intended for consumption after proper heating) is to be 
treated as stipulated in the Annex. This would be a 
mistake and unworkable for the sector. 
3.5.1.1. The draft Regulation should state that its 
provisions apply only to specific fish species and prod­ucts which can potentially endanger the health of the 
consumer. 
3.5.1.2. For this reason the treatment prescribed in 
the draft Regulation should be limited to the categories 
listed in point 2.5. 
3.5.1.3. The Regulation should also prohibit res­
taurants from serving raw fish for immediate consump­
tion unless it has been treated in the manner prescribed 
by the Regulation. 
3.6. Article 2.3. 
3.6.1. The Committee regrets that the Commission 
was unable to include an Annex listing the fish species 
and the nature of the fish products to which the obli­
gation laid down in Article 2.2 is to apply. 
3.6.1.1. The list of fish and fish products covered by 
these obligations should be drawn up in the light of the 
realities of fishing and the characteristics of species. 
Waivers should be systematic. 
3.7. Article 3 
3.7.1. To ensure effective control treatment should 
preferably be done at the place of first marketing or on 
board. 
3.7.2. The Committee considers that this provision 
could aid intra-Community trade. However, it would 
like to know what derogations the Commission has in 
mind in Article 3.5. 
3.7.3. The Committee doubts whether it is sufficient 
to refer to the procedure laid down in Article 7. Detailed 
rules governing trade and transport are needed if the 
system is to be watertight. This requires a system where­
by sellers pre-notify shipments to the relevant authori­
ties in the Member States or region of final destination. 
Otherwise, shipments where reasonable grounds for 
suspicion might exist regarding adequacy of treatment, 
may go uninspected. 
3.8. Article 4.1. 
3.8.1. The Committee wonders about the legal 
consequences of use of the mechanism described in 
Article 4. It considers that precise definitions are needed 
of the concepts of 'serious grounds for suspecting that 
there are irregularities' and 'non-discriminatory inspec­
tions', in order to ensure that unjustified barriers do 
not arise at Member State frontiers under any pretext 
of concern for health. 
3.9. In those countries where enforcement would be 
the responsibility of local or regional authorities, the 
Commission must ensure that Member States properly 
No C 208/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 
inform those authorities of their duties under this legis­
lation. 
4. Annex 
4.1. Paragraph 1 (a) 
4.1.1. The provisions mentioned in 1 (a) should be 
deleted as they do not ensure the solution of the 
problem. 
The Commission should also realize that because of the 
special characteristics of certain species of fish they 
cannot be gutted on board. 
4.2. Paragraph 1 (b) 
4.2.1. The Committee wonders about the effective­
ness of visual inspections, to be carried out during 
filleting. For some species visual inspections are not 
possible. This obligation does not lead to a guaranteed 
safe product. This paragraph should therefore be 
deleted. 4.3. Paragraph 2 
4.3.1. Some of the provisions may be too burden­
some for the processing industries. Aid to these indus­
tries may therefore be necessary. 
The Committee wonders if all the proposed methods of 
treatment are sufficiently based on scientific evidence, 
particularly as far as paragraph 2 (b) is concerned. 
Therefore, the Committee advises that only methods of 
treatment which are based on scientific evidence should 
be employed. 
5. Final remarks 
The Committee has taken note of the Commission's 
decision to give a subsidy to Germany for a promotion 
programme aimed at restoring the German fish market. 
The Committee would welcome the opening of this 
possibility for subsidy to all other Member States in 
the immediate future on the basis of Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 4028/86. 
Done at Brussels, 3 June 1988. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
APPENDIX 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
(Fourth paragraph of Article 43 of the rules of procedure) 
During the discussions in the plenary the following motion for amendment was defeated: 
Add at the end of the second paragraph: 
'... were to be imposed since many species would be less attractive if presented in gutted form and would 
not be purchased by the consumer.' 
Voting 
For: 27, against: 37, abstentions: 19.