22. 7. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities , No C 191/37 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive 89/622/EEC on the approximation of the 
laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the labelling 
of tobacco products (*) 
(91/C 191/15) 
On 28 January 1991 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 100A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 
17 May 1991. The Rapporteur was Mr Noordwal. 
At its 287th plenary session (meeting of 29 May) the Economic and Social Committee adopted 
the following Opinion by 78 votes to 33, with 4 abstentions. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Commission has put forward the proposal 
in response to the request by the Member States that it 
submit, as soon as practically possible, a draft Directive 
laying down appropriate additional rules—in particular 
with respect to special warnings—for the labelling of 
tobacco products other than cigarettes. 
1.2. The Commission is also taking the opportunity 
to supplement the list of optional warnings in the 
Annex to the Directive, which currently applies solely to 
cigarettes. Agreement had already been reached with 
the Council to update this list at regular intervals. 
1.3. Finally, the proposal bans release on the market 
of moist snuff tobacco products. The Member States 
most exposed to these new products have banned them 
and the national provisions in question need to be 
harmonized. 
1.4. In keeping with Article 100(a)(3) of the EEC 
Treaty, the proposal is based on a high level of protec­
tion. 
1.5. The Commission states that from the technical 
and scientific point of view, and for the purposes of 
their specific labelling, tobacco products other than 
cigarettes should be divided into three groups: 
— Rolling tobaccos, 
— Other smoking tobaccos, 
— Smokeless tobacco products. 
The Commission states that 'the technical requirements 
concerning the presentation of specific warnings on the 
packagings of these three types of products correspond to the flexible approach established in Article 4(5) of 
Directive 89/622/EEC for tobacco products other than 
cigarettes'. 
1.6. The Commission states that consumption of 
rolling tobaccos is similar in nature to cigarette smoking 
and carries the same health risks. Consumption of other 
smoking tobaccos (pipe tobacco, cigars, cigarillos) has 
certain special characteristics, in particular the link with 
heart disease. 
The special features of smokeless tobacco products (e.g. 
chewing tobacco and snuff) are their consumption by 
mouth or nose and the fact that they have virtually no 
market outside certain regions and socio-occupational 
groups (seafarers, miners and sectors of the army). 
1.7. The explanatory memorandum devotes a special 
sub-section to moist snuff tobaccos for oral use. 
The Commission notes that these products are relatively 
new and, according to recent scientific studies, in some 
respects more harmful and addictive than other non-
cigarette tobacco products. As an additional hazard, 
these products are attractive to young people and make 
them addicted to nicotine. 
The Commission considered the possibility of banning 
the sale of these products to young people under the 
age of 18, but felt that this would not be enough and 
opted to follow the example of the Member States who 
have completely banned these products or are about to 
do so. The Commission argues that in the case of new 
products which are scientifically recognized as harmful 
and are not yet widely used by European consumers, the 
most efficient cancer prevention measure is to impose 
a ban before the economic and personal interests of 
consumers are affected. 
(*) OJ No C 29, 5. 2. 1991, p. 15. 1.8. Finally, it should be noted that the Commission 
proposes a new warning of the nicotine addiction cau-
No C 191/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 7. 91 
sed by tobacco products, based on the 1988 report by 
the Surgeon General of the United States on 'The Health 
Consequences of Smoking — Tobacco Addiction'. 
The Commission states that the inclusion of this mess­
age in the list of warnings is important in that it gives 
the consumer objective information and should have 
powerful dissuasive effect, in particular on young 
people. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee attaches great importance to the 
warnings published by cancer experts about tobacco 
health hazards, and considers that more far-reaching 
measures in this area are in the interest of consumers. 
The Committee considers that there is an urgent need 
for a coherent EC policy, including redevelopment pro­
grammes for the raw tobacco sector, and back-up meas­
ures and support for those who lose their jobs and 
income as a result of this Directive. 
The national social security schemes of all Member 
States spend large sums on health care for heavy smok­
ers. To ensure that those affected can continue to 
receive proper care, a portion of revenue from excise 
duties on tobacco products should be channelled to the 
national social security schemes. 
In its Opinion of 7 July 1988 (*) on the first labelling 
Directive, the Committee stated that such measures 
should strike a balance between costs and benefits. 
It is a pity therefore that the draft Directive under 
review disregards the Committee Opinion in question, 
which also recommends that account be taken of the 
economic and employment impact on, in particular, 
Community small and medium-sized firms. The rec­
ommendation is all the more valid because Community 
small and medium-sized firms are still adjusting to the 
consequences of the first labelling Directive which, as 
the Commission itself points out, has still not been 
implemented in all Member States. 
2.2. The Community market for rolling tobacco, 
pipe tobacco, cigars, cigarillos, chewing tobacco and 
snuff is small (approximately 9%) and in aggregate 
is contracting. Manufacturers are often small firms 
producing a wide variety of brands and types in order 
to cater for a disparate consumer demand. This is shown by the following examples in a number 
of Member States where the products in question are 
of importance (1990 figures). 
Cigars/cigarillos 
Germany 
France 
Netherlands 
Rolling tobaccos 
Germany 
Netherlands 
Pipe tobaccos 
Germany 
Netherlands 
Chewing tobaccos 
Germany 
Netherlands 
Snuff 
Germany 
Netherlands Types/brands 
1600 
450 
650 
300 
100 
700 
60 
15 
20 
200 
10 Consumption 
1 245 million 
(cigars/cigarillos) 
1 459 million 
519 million 
14 266 (tonne) 
16 072 
1 259 (tonne) 
267 
14 (tonne) 
65 
260 (tonne) 
A few tonnes (2) 
2.3. Community sales of cigars and cigarillos drop­
ped 30% between 1970 and 1990; sales of rolling tobac­
cos have fallen 6% in the last two years. The pipe 
tobacco market has recorded a steady 25% fall since 
1982 and the same trend is apparent in the chewing 
tobaccos and snuff markets. 
2.4. The Committee wonders whether the Com­
mission is aware of the practical packaging problems 
with which manufacturers are confronted. Packets have 
to be ordered and taken in batches of at least 100 000, 
which in the case of 40 g and 50 g packets means a 
volume of 4 000 to 5 000 kg. For brands with annual 
sales of 1 000 kg this is enough to cover stock needs for 
four to five years. 
The problems of exporting firms are still worse, 
(additional stocks carrying warnings in rotation in the 
language of the export country). It must also be remem­
bered that the Member States are to have the right to 
change the list of rotating warnings in the course of 
time. 
It should be emphasized that snuff packets are so small 
(4, 5, 7, 10 g etc.) that there is no space for a second 
warning in addition to the general warning. 
(!) OJ No C 237, 12. 9. 1588. (2) Exact figure not available. 
22. 7. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 191/39 
2.5. The Committee considers that the measures pro­
posed by the Commission are excessively geared to the 
cigarette market where there are relatively few brands, 
and these are manufactured by a handful of major 
multinationals able to meet the labelling requirements 
by using modern techniques (laser technology). This 
impression is reinforced by the Commission's proposal 
that the list of rotating warnings for cigarettes should, 
with only a single change, be taken over for other 
tobacco products. 
The measures for tobacco products other than ciga­
rettes must not discriminate against the products of 
Community-based small and medium-sized firms. 
2.6. The Committee therefore considers that the 
small and structurally contracting market share of these 
products, and the fact that they are mainly manufac­
tured in the Community by small and medium-sized 
firms, are good reasons for avoiding the rotation of 
specific warnings. 
2.7. The Commission has not acted on the comments 
in the Committee Opinion of 7 July 1988 with respect 
to the trade barriers caused by the varying national 
languages, or the recommendation to consider the scope 
for using a pictogram. We thus still have the anomaly 
that the Commission proposal for warnings in the 
national languages can cause trade barriers, although 
it is the purpose of Article 100A to prevent such barriers. 
2.8. With regard to the ban on moist snuff tobaccos 
for oral use, the Committee wonders whether a Direc­
tive on product labelling should be used to ban one of 
these products. Furthermore, the Committee feels that 
consideration should be given to whether a Regulation 
might be a more appropriate instrument than a Direc­
tive for imposing a ban which in principle applies to 
all EEC citizens. 
It should also be noted that the definition does not 
properly establish the intended legal distinction 
between moist snuff tobaccos and other tobaccos for 
oral use (e.g. moist chewing tobaccos). 
A definition appropriate to the purpose of the Com­
mission could be: 'Finecut, moist tobacco made up in 
small packets which are intended to be placed in the 
mouth at the inner side of the cheek'. 
2.9. The Commission proposes to add a new item 
number 15 reading 'smoking causes addiction' to part 
B of the Annex. The Committee considers this too 
extreme;, since one thinks in the first place of products 
such as cannabis being addictive. The fact is that smok­
ing has become significantly less common, and is now 
confined to 30-40% of the population. The Committee 
therefore suggests amending the wording to read 'Tob­
acco leads to a certain form of addiction and habit'. 3. Comments on Articles 
3.1. The amendment to point 1 of Article 2, and the 
additional 4 of that Article (laid down by Article 1 of 
the draft Directive under review) should be dropped if 
the Commission agrees with the Committee that a ban 
should be prescribed by a Regulation, or at least that 
this 'labelling' Directive is not a suitable instrument for 
this purpose. 
At all events the definition laid down in point 4 should 
be amended. A definition is proposed in 2.8 above. 
3.2. (a) The Committee recommends retaining the 
distinction between 'cigarettes' and 'tobacco products 
other than cigarettes', because of the differences in scale 
mentioned in 2.5. The addition 'and rolling tobacco' in 
Article 1(2)(a), under 2(a) and 2(b) should therefore be 
deleted. 
(b) In Article 1(2)(a), under (c), add after 'smokeless 
tobacco products' the words 'with the exception of 
snuff, because the very small packets do not have the 
space for an additional warning. 
3.3. The first sentence of subsection (b) of Article 
1(2) (a) should be amended to read: 
'The unit packets of smoking tobacco products 
other than cigarettes shall carry an additional non-
rotating warning.' 
3.4. The point (4) of Article 1 might be deleted, 
depending on the attitude taken to the recommendation 
in 3.1 above. 
3.5. The new warning (No 15) in part B of the Annex 
should be amended to read: 
'Tobacco leads to a certain form of addiction and 
habit.' 
3.6. Article 2 
(a) The comments in 3.1 and 3.4 apply mutatis mutan­
dis to Article 2(1). 
(b) Article 2(2) and Article 2(3) will confront small and 
medium-sized firms in the Member States with 
major problems, partly because in general the first 
labelling Directive has not yet been fully 
implemented. The Committee therefore asks the 
Commission to amend these dates in the light of 
the data when the first labelling Directive is actually 
implemented in all Member States. To ensure grad­
ual introduction, it is necessary for small and 
medium-sized manufacturers to have a breathing 
space of at least one year after the transition dead­
lines specified in the first labelling Directive. 
No C 191/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 7. 91 
3.7. Article 3(1) should be rewritten in line with 3.2 3.8. Article 3(2) should be amended in the light of 
of this Opinion. 3.2 and 3.6(b) of this Opinion. 
Done at Brussels, 29 May 1991. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
APPENDIX 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following amendments, which received at least 25 % of the votes cast, were rejected during the debate: 
Page 7, point 2.9 
In the last sentence delete the words 'a certain form of. 
Reason 
There can be no distinction; it is or it is not an addiction and habit. 
Voting 
For: 34, against: 45, abstentions: 19. 
Page 8, point 3.2 
Delete. 
Reason 
The Directive is aimed at preventive warnings and as such no tobacco-based product should be exempt. The 
argument about size does not stand up, nor the one on the issue of the number of brands. 
Harmonization must apply across all tobacco products in order to maintain competition. 
Voting 
For: 31, against: 44, abstentions: 21. 
Page 8, point 3.5 
Delete the words 'a certain form of. 
Reason 
It is a known fact that some people who smoke become addicted to nicotine, others adopt a habit of wanting 
to use tobacco. It is both addiction and habit for some. 
The new definition in the Opinion should open up a debate on the degree of addiction and habit. 
22. 7. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 191/41 
Voting 
For: 34, against: 45, abstentions: 19. 
Page 9, point 3.6 (b) 
Amend the second sentence to read: 
'The Committee therefore asks the Commission to ensure that the first labelling Directive is carried out 
forthwith.' 
Reason 
We have a Directive which has been agreed; it should be carried out. The delaying tactics suggested in the 
Opinion are unacceptable when Member States are not complying with Community laws. 
Voting 
For: 37, against: 42, abstentions: 16. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive relating to the coordination of procedures 
on the award of public service contracts (l) 
(91/C 191/16) 
On 4 January 1991 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 100A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 3 May 1991. The Rapporteur 
was Mr Salmon. 
At its 287th plenary session (meeting of 29 May 1991), the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Commission proposal is designed to cover 
purchases of services by central, regional and local 
public authorities, provided the contracts are of a suf­
ficient size to make cross-frontier operations a worth­
while proposition. It does not cover purchases of ser­
vices by entities operating in the water, energy, trans­
port and telecommunications sectors, which will be the 
subject of a separate directive. 
1.2. The classification of services according to 
whether they are subject to full application of the 
directive (Annex IA) or its minimum requirements 
(Annex IB) is decided on the basis of a number of 
different criteria. Categories of services are defined 
in accordance with the Central Product Classification 
(CPC)of the United Nations. 
(J) OJ No C 23, 31. 1. 1991, p. 1. 1.3. Several derogations are provided for: real estate 
contracts; audio-visual services; arbitration and concili­
ation services; the issuing of government bonds; public 
debt management; certain telecommunications services 
(i.e. those not covered by Directive 90/388/EEC on 
competition in the market for telecommunications ser­
vices). 
1.4. The directive only covers contracts whose value 
exceeds a certain threshold. It also specifies prize and 
payment thresholds for design contests. 
1.5. Design contests are to be open to any Com­
munity participants if the total amount of prizes and 
payments exceeds ECU 200 000. The provision of cer­
tain services may, under certain national regulations,