31.7.89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 194/11 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on animal health conditions governing 
intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of poultry and hatching eggs(1) 
(89/C 194/05) 
On 9 March 1989, 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 Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Com­
mittee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 19 April 1989. The rapporteur was Mr 
Rolao Goncalves. 
At its 266th plenary session (meeting of 31 May 1989), the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
The Committee welcomes the proposal and approves 
it in general, subject to the observations set out below. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. Thanks to modern means of transport, travel is 
quicker today; this, together with less stringent require­
ments at border crossings, means that epidemics spread 
more rapidly from one population to another. A similar 
development has taken place with epizootic and epiphy-
totic diseases. 
1.2. Consequently, unless preventative measures are 
taken, the introduction of free movement of goods on 
1 January 1993 could lead to an increase in epizootic 
diseases (among animals) and epiphytotic diseases 
(among plants) in the Community. 
1.3. To forestall such a destructive process without 
creating obstacles to the completion of the Single Mar­
ket, successive efforts have been made to devise systems 
for monitoring animal health matters. 
1.4. These measures are basically preventative in 
nature and seek to eliminate disparities between Mem­
ber States. They are mostly concerned with veterinary 
matters, focussing on five very distinct aspects: 
— technical requirements for animals at the pro­
duction stage, their eggs and their embryos, in con­
trast to the previous system which mainly involved 
border controls, 
— creation of an effective certification system, 
— measures to stamp out any outbreaks of disease in 
the Community, 
— monitoring of the transportation of animals, their 
eggs and their embryos. 
1.5. Such measures have already been taken in 
respect of bovine animals and swine, and are currently 
being extended to include ovine and caprine animals. 
They should ultimately cover all livestock-breeding 
activities. 1.6. The present proposal (COM(89) 9 final) seeks 
to introduce a coherent set of animal health measures 
relating to poultry and hatching eggs being transported 
(1) between Member States and (2) from third countries 
into the Community. 
1.7. Some form of framework should be provided 
for all the above measures; the Committee feels they 
should be incorporated in the general framework of 
overall animal health policy. For this reason, it rec­
ommends that the Commission draw up an urgent 
proposal for a 'Framework Directive' on overall strat­
egy for veterinary policy and livestock breeding in the 
Community. 
1.8. Moreover, in the same vein, the Committee 
takes the view that the Commission must consider 
adopting measures to keep zoonoses in check, especially 
those strains which might be transmitted to humans, 
and salmonella infections in particular. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee endorses the Commission's 
intention to align health measures without restricting 
the free movement of goods. It supports the Com­
mission's efforts to consolidate the preventative 
approach to epizootic diseases and to assign to experts 
the task of monitoring these measures and issuing health 
certificates. 
2.2. The Committee would like to see all disparities 
in animal health conditions in the Member States elim­
inated, as set out in the fourth 'whereas' of the pre­
amble. The principles now being established for intra-
Community trade and trade with third countries should 
be applied consistently and uniformly throughout the 
Community (in a similar way to the principles rec­
ommended in 1987 for the production and marketing 
of egg products: ESC Opinion—CES 637/87). 
(>) OJ No C 89, 10. 4. 1989. 2.3. The Committee does, however, recognize the 
difficulties to be overcome, particularly in relation to 
No C 194/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 31.7.89 
birds vaccinated against Newcastle disease and then 
imported into countries which do not vaccinate against 
the disease. Against this background, the Committee 
considers that the proposed special measures are still 
justified, although it still hopes that in the future, vet­
erinary practices throughout the Community will be 
brought into line with one another. 
2.4. The Committee would like to see (1) references 
to health aspects of animal transportation within the 
Community, and (2) the stipulation of rules covering 
these aspects to mirror those on production and trade 
in this sector. 
2.5. The Committee feels that conditions governing 
the welfare of the poultry (most suitable ambient con­
ditions, food and water supplies) merit particular atten­
tion and could be incorporated in the Regulation from 
the outset. 
2.6. The Committee would also emphasize the 
important role of the Commission's veterinary experts 
in promoting general education and exchanges of infor­
mation between experts from the various Member 
States; the aim is to align the most suitable poultry 
farm management practices, taking into account the 
economic and social aspects of measures to combat 
human and animal diseases. 
2.7. The Committee strongly favours a move 
towards an overall alignment of poultry farming prac­
tices. Article 35 provides for a review of the Regulation, 
which would provide an opportunity to extend the 
application of its provisions, particularly within the 
Member States themselves; this, the Committee 
believes, should be one of the Regulation's objectives. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 1(2) 
The Committee is concerned at the fact that the Regu­
lation is not to apply to trade in poultry for exhibitions, 
shows and contests, but leaves decisions to the Com­
mission, in accordance with the procedure set out in 
Article 32. 
The Committee considers that the reverse should apply. 
The high potential risks of the introduction and spread 
of diseases mean that the principles of animal health 
should be applied as the general rule, with any possible 
exceptions left to the discretion of the Commission, in 
accordance with Article 32. 
3.2. Article 2 
3.2.1. The Committee feels it necessary to modify 
the definition of 'flock' to allow inclusion of younger roosters, as sometimes occurs. Thus, the words 'all 
poultry of the same species, the same age and the same 
health status' should read: 'All poultry of the same 
species and the same health status, the majority of 
which are the same age.' 
3.2.2. The Committee recommends the inclusion of 
definitions of other terms appearing in the text on more 
than one occasion: 
— veterinary expert, 
— competent authority, 
— central veterinary authority, 
— national reference laboratory (and its context in 
Annex 3). 
3.2.3. The Committee feels that the definitions in 
Annex 2 should also be included in this Article, with 
the exception of the definitions of diseases (avian influ­
enza and Newcastle disease). The latter would be trans­
ferred to Annex 1, and Annex 2 could then be deleted. 
3.3. Article 6(b) 
After 'animal health restrictions', add 'or punitive 
measures'. 
3.4. Article 7(1)(a) 
As elsewhere in the Regulation (Article 8(b), Article 
9(c), etc.), reference is made in the second indent to 
compliance with the vaccination conditions set out in 
Annex 5. For reasons which are explained below, this 
Annex should be deleted. Consequently, each reference 
to this Annex should also be deleted. 
3.5. Article 11 
The Committee deems the inclusion of consignments 
of more than 20 units to be far too restrictive and 
difficult to monitor, and suggests that this number be 
raised to 50 (the usual number of birds contained in a 
normal transportation container of day-old chicks in 
the Member States), or that it be aligned with Article 
2(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2782/75 which 
stipulates 100 birds or 1 000 eggs for hatching. 
3.6. Article 12(3) 
The review stipulated in this paragraph should be car­
ried out at the same time as the review of the whole 
Regulation stipulated in Article 35. It does not appear 
advisable tocarry out the two reviews 6 months apart, 
as suggested in this paragraph. Consequently, the para­
graph should be deleted. 
31.7.89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 194/13 
3.7. Article 21 
3.7.1. Article 21(2)(a) 
At the end of line 2, add 'and human' to read 'exotic 
animal and human diseases'. 
3.7.2. Article 21(2)(f) 
Amend 'the third country' to read 'the third country or 
part of a third country'. 
3.8. Article 23(1 )(a) 
To bring the wording into line with that of Article 11(2) 
which covers the Community, the following should be 
added at the end of the paragraph: 'And never less than 
three months.' 
3.9. Article 27 (5 and 7) 
Both paragraphs set out measures (one covering the 
conveyance of consignments 'without being unloaded', 
the other covering the use of 'additional checks') which 
constitute restrictions to, if not contraventions of, the 
principles of free movement of goods in the Com­
munity. This duplicates the checks already carried out 
when consignments enter the Community and, further­
more, represents a clear violation of the principles of 
the Single European Act. 
The Committee therefore asks that these paragraphs be 
deleted. 
3.10. Article 31 
The Committee recommends that this Article be deleted 
as contrary to Community principles. 
3.11. Article 32(2) 
This Article should be amended to read: 'The pro­
visions set out in the paragraphs below...' 
3.11.1. Article 32(5) 
At the end of the paragraph, add 'unless the Council 
has taken a simple majority decision which runs counter 
to the measures proposed by the Commission'. 
3.12. Article 36 
The date for the implementation of the Regulation 
should coincide with its entry into force. The Article 
should therefore be amended to read '... shall enter into 
force and shall apply from the 30th day ...' 3.13. Annex 1 should include a definition of each 
disease which is 'compulsorily notifiable'. A third 
indent should be inserted to cover: 
— 'Any other diseases which may subsequently be 
defined and established as compulsorily notifiable, 
in accordance with Article 33.' 
3.14. Article 33(4) 
At the end of the paragraph, add 'unless the Council 
has taken a simple majority decision which runs counter 
to the measures proposed by the Commission'. 
3.15. Annex 2 
As mentioned in 3.2.3, the Committee recommends 
that this Annex be deleted. The definitions of avian 
influenza and Newcastle disease should be transferred 
to Annex 1, and the remaining definitions to Article 2. 
3.16. Annex 3 
The national reference laboratory of the Federal Repub­
lic of Germany should be included from the very begin­
ning in the list in this Annex, together with the national 
laboratories of the other Member States. 
3.17. Annex 4 
3.17.1. Chapter I 
3.17.1.1. Point 1(d) 
It should be specified after the second indent that: 'The 
abovementioned records must be kept up to date for at 
least three years.' 
3.17.2. Chapter II 
3.17.2.1. Point A(l)(a) 
Amend to read 'the siting, layout and construction of 
the facilities'. 
3.17.2.2. Point A(2)(a) 
Amend 'between batches', to read 'every second flock' 
or 'after every flock'. 
3.17.2.3. Point A(2)(h) 
After 'a flock history must be kept for each flock', add 
'and kept up to date for at least three years'. 
No C 194/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 31.7.89 
3.18. Annex 5 
The heading is incorrect; the provisions of the Annex 
are actually designed to govern the 'vaccines' used and 
not the 'vaccination conditions'. Moreover, the contents 
of the Annex will no longer be relevant after the adop­
tion of the proposed Directive on the establishment 
of additional provisions for immunological veterinary medicinal products (COM(88) 779 final—SYN 190), 
implementing Directive 81/851/EEC. Work on this is 
currently in progress, and it is hoped that the Directive 
will soon be finalized. 
For this reason, it is recommended that this Annex 
be deleted, together with any references to it in the 
Regulation proper. 
Done at Brussels, 31 May 1989. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the 
Member States concerning food ingredients treated with ionizing radiation 
(89/C 194/06) 
On 26 December 1988, 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 1989. The rapporteur 
was Mr Gardner. 
At its 266th plenary session (meeting of 31 May 1989), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by 85 votes to 43 with 16 abstentions (vote recorded). 
1. Introduction 
1.1. Ionization of food(1) is used to kill dangerous 
bacteria and larger pathogens, as well as infesting 
insects. It is also used to increase the shelf life of some 
foods. For this purpose, the food is exposed to ionizing 
radiation, either from electric machines or from isotope 
sources, in each case under carefully controlled con­
ditions. The process is technologically complex and 
expensive, so its application will be limited to specific 
cases. 
Six Member States, Belgium (± 10 foods), Denmark (2), 
Spain (2), France (± 9), Italy (3), Netherlands (± 40), permit 
food irradiation to different degrees (different products). Ire­
land, Greece and Portugal have no legislation either prohibit­
ing or permitting ionization of food. The position in Luxem­
bourg is unclear. The UK prohibits ionization. Germany in 
principle prohibits ionization but administrative permission 
can be given for individual foods (e.g. spices). 1.2. Many ordinary people have considerable con­
cerns about the consumer acceptability of food ioniz­
ation and about worker protection associated with the 
ionization facilities. This applies in particular to (a) the 
acceptability on health grounds and the technological 
need for this preservation technique, (b) the danger of 
the ionization procedure and of disregard for hygiene 
standards, (c) the rise in the number of jobs exposed 
to radiation and (d) the nutritional-physiological 
aspects of any reduction in the nutritional value of food 
as a result of ionization. 
1.3. The food ionization technique up to 10 kGy 
has been subjected to very intensive nutritional and 
toxicological tests over the last 30 years, including 
multigeneration ones on animals. Much of these com­
prehensive scientific and technical data were produced 
by an international project funded by 25 governments. 
Consequently the standard of the Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the 
World Health Organization (WHO) (CODEX) 'recog-