No C 206/44 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 8. 84 
While it is important to refer to practice, it is equally important to guarantee an obligation which 
cannot be disregarded. An 'overall' Directive provides this guarantee, while an optional one is 
subject to the discretion of the individual States. 
Voting: 
Votes in favour: 20, votes against: 56, abstentions: 6. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 80/217/EEC 
introducing Community measures for the control of classical swine fever 
(84/C 206/14) 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the 
European Communities No C 19 of 26 January 1984, page 6. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 27 January 1984 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Com­
mittee under Articles 100 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic 
Community on the abovementioned matter. 
Procedure: 
The Economic and Social Committee instructed Mr Storie-Pugh, as Rapporteur-Gen­
eral, to prepare work on the matter. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
At its 217th plenary session, meeting of 24 May 1984 the Economic and Social Com­
mittee adopted the following opinion unanimously. 
The Committee recognizes that the proposal for 
amending legislation is very necessary because the 
overall position regarding the incidence of out­
breaks of classical swine fever is deteriorating ser­
iously. The Committee is, however, of the opinion 
that the measures proposed do not go far enough. 
Indeed, current legislation together with the new 
amending proposals are not technically adequate to 
reverse the present trend unless an even more strin­
gent approach is accepted and enforced. 
The basic legislation has not been successful in the 
objectives, due to a variety of reasons, mostly well 
recognized. The original concepts were sound 
enough, but much of the subsequent failure can be 
attributed to inadequate implementation. 
However, the amendment as proposed by the Com­
mission is still too weak in many areas: one may 
instance such aspects as lack of proper definition 
regarding compulsory vaccination, movement con­trol of live animals and especially concerning trade 
out of the vaccination areas, e.g. vaccinated pigs 
leaving such areas, meat, including offal, the meat 
of vaccinated animals, the dangers of staggered 
slaughter, the control of salvage pigs off infected 
premises, etc. Any review must take into account 
not only intra-Community trade but also that from 
third countries. 
It would seem that the Commission (possibly for 
reasons of politics and economics outside its con­
trol) has tried to compromise in its approach 
between the two basic possibilities (the choice of 
programme depending on the disease situation at 
the start) of: 
(a) vaccinate everything for at least two years — 
stopping at some predetermined date; 
(b) slaughter/compensation/stamping out plus 
usual controls. 
6.8.84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 206/45 
The second is not a practical measure on its own at 
this stage for economic reasons including the de­
struction of the pig industry and its supporting 
services in many areas. 
Because the current proposals are not sufficiently 
draconian the inherent deficiencies of both 
approaches will inevitably reappear and, in the view 
of the Committee, the proper eradication of classical 
swine fever will not be attained, the liberalization of 
the internal market will not progress, and compen­
sation will continue to be a higher than necessary 
demand on Community funds. 
The Committee, regretfully having come to the 
above conclusion and wishing to see a greater sense 
of purpose and urgency on all sides, is of the 
opinion that Community financial aid should be 
suspended in the near future and until a tougher 
and more realistic eradication programme can be 
agreed upon and established with a real commit­
ment and responsibility on the part of the Member 
States to make such a programme work. 
Concurrently a financial review would be timely, 
including the methods of compensation and insur­
ance, and the particular economic problem of areas 
not containing a total pig economy (see below, 
under 2 — Control areas, first paragraph). 
Commentary 
1. Vaccination 
(a) The Committee strongly supports the view that 
there must be the most vigorous possible official 
control of the manufacture, sale distribution 
and utilization of the vaccine. The illegal use of 
vaccine must, in any event, be stamped out 
now. The vaccine must be administered by 
trained personnel. There must be a meaning­
fully supervised period after vaccination before 
movement is allowed except for slaughter move­
ment under license within the area. Vaccination 
must begin early enough: on occasion there is 
no doubt that the decision to vaccinate has been 
taken too late. 
(b) Vaccination is the classic method of reducing 
unmanageable numbers of outbreaks to the 
level of occasional outbreaks which can be dealt 
with by stamping out/compensation/normal recognized sanitary control measures. It is unde­
sirable as a permanent method of control. 
(c) Movement of vaccinated animals and their 
offspring has occurred with an insufficient 
appreciation of the known risks e.g. carriers and 
immuno-incompetent animals which may 
spread the disease or mask a clinical outbreak, 
obscure the situation, or make diagnosis diffi­
cult. Without caution, there is little doubt that 
the further dispersion of virus can thus be facili­
tated and new outbreaks occur. 
(d) There seems little difference of informed opi­
nion that when a certain number of outbreaks 
occur in a population of given density, vaccina­
tion should be obligatory (and be associated 
with the known safeguards of time, identifica­
tion, movement and so forth). The Committee is 
of the opinion that this should be compulsory 
for all classes of pig, though a method of dero­
gation for herds of especial genetic merit would 
be acceptable. 
It follows therefore (in regard to the Commis­
sion's draft amendment) that Article 14(2) (b) 
should be deleted (or not incorporated in any 
future proposal). Although the rationale for the 
method outlined in Article 14 (2) (b) is clear and 
in theory can be considered as a possible 
method, the fact that it has been shown in prac­
tice not to have been successful rules it out for 
consideration as an option. 
The decision to vaccinate must continue to be a 
decision of the competent authorities of each 
Member State. The Standing Veterinary Com­
mittee should be in a position to recommend 
but not compel vaccination in a Member State. 
(e) If vaccination is not applied totally in a high 
risk area, and there is an eventual problem rela­
tive to numbers and duration of the epizootic — 
then there should be a cut-off point when Com­
munity finance should cease. There is a prece­
dent and a timetable in a parallel situation in 
CSF Free Countries (Decision 80/1096). 
2. Control areas 
Irrespective of what kind of control area one is con­
sidering the area must be large enough to contain a 
total pig economy such as abattoirs and fattening 
facilities. Economic problems could occur in a vac­
cinated area if this is not so, and inevitably lead to 
pressure to lower acceptable control measures and 
No C 206/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 8. 84 
take unwarranted risks. Whereas vaccinated pigs 
can enter such areas, pigs should not leave the area. 
This economic problem should be looked at more 
closely even to considering whether a case could be 
made for justifying Community aid to establish fat­
tening units or abattoirs, bearing in mind that in a 
vaccination area, vaccination should continue for 
two years (to reduce the risk of lateral spread later). 
Examination should be made to determine to what 
extent this can be of general application, because to 
develop the concept of autonomous closed zones 
must be part of the basic eradication philosophy. 
Whereas it is undesirable to define and give exact 
parameters for the proposed high risk areas, espe­
cially by reason of the great variation in pig popula­
tion densities, the Standing Veterinary Committee 
should draft guidelines and a clear code of practice 
to ensure consistent and prompt action. 
3. Discipline and supervising control 
It is obviously not possible to quantify what signif­
icance inadequate discipline and control by pro­
ducers, carriers, authorities and others may play in 
ensuring that existing rules are properly imple­
mented. It is sufficient to say that there are enough 
incidents to suggest that this should be examined 
more seriously. For example: 
(a) There are an unacceptable number of primary 
outbreaks related to swillfeeding. The import­
ance of this in the genesis of secondary out­
breaks has been insufficiently stressed. The dif­
ficulties in controlling this (e.g. in the case of 
small producers) are appreciated. Nevertheless, 
Done at Brussels, 24 May 1984. a greater effort should be made at least to 
ensure the implementation of existing Regula­
tions. 
One would not wish to exaggerate the potential 
risk, but it is also known that unauthorized food 
does get imported, e.g. by tourists and can find 
its way to camping sites or to agricultural hold­
ings. 
(b) An unacceptable number of outbreaks are asso­
ciated with movement and transport. In some 
cases this follows the traditional mixing of store 
pigs from different sources and the redispersing 
of some of these groups: lack of individual pig 
identification makes the tracing of disease 
sources more difficult, even when the require­
ments for maintaining a record of movement are 
honestly complied with. However, there is also 
the uncertainty as to whether transport Regula­
tions are being complied with fully. In addition 
to non-compliance there is the view that the 
requirements themselves need tightening first in 
regard to cleaning and disinfection (the corro­
sion occurring in metal vehicles has frequently 
been put forward as an excuse) and secondly 
that the Regulation must include all sizes and 
classes of vehicles — the small ones as well as 
the big transporters. It could be suggested that 
vehicles used for carrying pigs must be disin­
fected within 24 hours of carrying pigs irrespec­
tive of what load (e.g. food) is subsequently to 
be carried. An additional problem is the use of 
vehicles not primarily intended for the transport 
of livestock. 
The frankly illegal movements particularly of 
very small pigs is difficult to police. The tempta­
tion is great because the financial value of the 
pig is low and the compensation is comparably 
low. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC