22. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 328/5 
2.15.2. The Committee would once again stress the 
need for the EEC Statistical Office to carry out more 
effective surveys and analyses of the tourist sector and 
the enterprises operating in this field so as to provide 
a uniform basis of fundamental information on which 
to elaborate a reliable policy. 2.16. Annex III 
The Committee as stated at the outset approves the 
three Commission proposals, subject to the qualifi­
cations set out above. 
Done at Brussels,. 17 September 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the 
Member States concerning food additives authorized for use in foodstuffs intended for human 
consumption (l) 
(86/C 328/02) 
On 29 April 1986 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above-
mentioned 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 
1 and 2 September 1986 in the light of the report by Mr De Grave. 
At its 239th plenary session (meeting of 17 September 1986), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously: 
1. General comments 
1.1. Up until now it has been possible to harmonize 
only four lists of additives at Community level. For 
more than 12 years, i.e. since the adoption of Directive 
74/329/EEC(2), the Council has not issued any Direc­
tives on additives, except for amendments to the four 
existing Directives, and no progress has been made on 
these four Directives as regards conditions of use. 
1.2. This shows the need for a more flexible 
approach. On several occasions the Economic and 
Social Committee has advocated the adoption of direc­
tives by a majority rather than a unanimous vote. 
1.3. During this time the Commission itself has been 
able to put forward only a few new proposals on 
account of the complexity of the subject and insufficient 
staff. The Committee fears that the Commission will 
not be in a position to speed up its work and hence to 
(!) OJ No C 116, 16. 5. 1986, p. 2. 
(2) OJ No L 189, 12. 7. 1974. implement the programme it has set itself. At all events 
such accelerated progress must not prejudice the due 
attention required by this difficult subject. 
1.4. Thus the proposed new procedure could give 
rise to considerable difficulties in an area as sensitive 
as additives. 
1.5. The general criteria for the use of food additives, 
as summarized in Annex II, should be reduced to the 
following two points: 
— possible effect on public health (toxicity, nutritional 
aspects, hypersensitivity, etc.), 
— technological need, 
to which should be added the fairness of commercial 
transactions. 
To ensure that each of these aspects is adequately 
examined, the directive should provide for the manda­
tory consultation of: 
— the Scientific Committee for Food and, 
subsequently, 
— the Advisory Committee on Foodstuffs. 
No C 328/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 12. 86 
1.6. It must be possible to publish the opinions of 
these two committees. 
1.7. In a difficult area where there is frequently 
controversy, not only between consumers and manufac­
turers, but also between manufacturers themselves, and 
even between scientists, it is necessary to ensure that 
the parties concerned are consulted and kept informed 
to the fullest possible extent. 
The Committee therefore suggests that the Commission 
make public its proposed directive by requesting the 
opinion of the Economic and Social Committee before 
it is voted on in the Standing Committee. In this way 
the Economic and Social Committee would retain the 
possibility of putting across the views of the parties 
concerned in an area which has always been of great 
concern to manufacturers and consumers. 
1.8. In addition, the Committee suggests that 
observers representing the parties concerned be admit­
ted to the preparatory work of the Standing Committee 
for Foodstuffs, as is the case for cosmetics. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. The Committee considers it essential that where 
powers are delegated to the Commission the matter in 
question be defined more precisely so as to avoid any 
legal uncertainty. 
Thus, some substances are on the borderline between: 
— additives and foodstuffs, 
— additives and pesticides, 
— additives which do or do not fall under this Direc­
tive, 
— additives and processing aids. 
This is the case with, for instance, ethylene oxide, 
saffron, sorbitol, enzymes, modified starch, foodstuff 
extracts (soya protein concentrate, casein, gelatine, 
fibres, albumin, etc.). Products for treating foodstuffs 
after harvesting are regarded sometimes as additives, 
sometimes as pesticides, ripening agents, sprout inhibi­
tors, fungicides, etc. Some fungicides when used on 
citrus fruits are classified as additives (e.g. diphenyl), 
but become pesticides when used on other foodstuffs. 
Moreover, some fungicides used instead of diphenyl are 
listed as pesticides (e.g. benomyl). 
All products used for treating crops after harvesting 
should be regrouped in a single list of additives. 2.2. Article 2 (2) 
2.2.1. Multi-purpose additives should continue to 
appear in multiple lists of additives. 
2.3. Article 3 (2) 
2.3.1. In the Committee's view, the existing specific 
directives can only be amended in respect of the addi­
tives included in one of the four Community lists; those 
categories of additives still covered by national law 
and not evaluated at Community level would thus be 
excluded. 
2.4. Article 3 (3) 
2.4.1. A subparagraph (g) should be added covering 
instructions for use (Article 5 (1) (d)). 
2.4.2. In addition, the final sentence should be 
amended so as to provide for mandatory consultation 
of the Advisory Committee on Foodstuffs and the Scien­
tific Committee. 
2.5. Article 4 
2.5.1. The same consultation procedure should be 
followed as for Article 3. 
2.6. Article 5 (1) (c) 
2.6.1. This should read as follows: 'any special stor­
age conditions and/or conditions of use'. 
2.7. Article 5 (1) (d) 
2.7.1. This should read as follows: 'instructions for 
use'. 
2.7.2. Additives may be used by numerous firms, 
including small and medium-sized enterprises, which 
are not always familiar with the conditions of use. 
2.8. Article 9 
2.8.1. The Committee would refer (a) to the general 
comments above and (b) to the ESC's opinion on the 
completion of the internal market: Community legis­
lation on foodstuffs. 
2.9. Annex 1 
2.9.1. This list should be entitled 'Categories of tech­
nological functions of food additives'. This title is more 
in line with the requirements of Article 2 wich refers to 
'any technological function described and defined' in 
Annex I. 
22. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 328/7 
2.9.2. The Committee considers that the inclusion in 
this list of categories of additives which are not author­
ized in the majority of Member States should not have 
any influence on their subsequent authorization (e.g. 
firming agents, flouring treatment agents). If necessary 
these additives should be excluded from the delegation 
of powers to the Commission. 
2.9.3. It would also draw attention to substances the 
handling of which is particularly dangerous, especially 
for the health of children and adolescents. This is the 
case with sequestrants which can mitigate shortcomings 
in the manufacturing process. The definition should 
specify whether the Commission takes 'sequestrants' to 
be the same as 'chelating' additives. 
2.9.4. The term 'sweetener' should be split into two 
categories: 'artificial sweeteners' and 'natural sweet­
eners'. 
2.9.5. The term 'agent de traitement de la farine' 
(flour treatment agent) should be replaced by the men­
tion of one or more technological functions so as not 
to be all-embracing (e.g. bleaching). 
2.9.6. 'Enzyme', which is not a technological func­
tion, should also be deleted from Annex I; enzymes 
used as additives should be included in the category to 
which they belong (antioxidant, stabilizer, etc.). 
2.9.7. The Committee is surprised at the omission of 
'emulsifying salts', a category covered by the labelling 
Directive. 
2.9.8. The terms 'antimoussant' (antifoaming agent) 
and 'agent moussant' (foam stabilizer) do not cor­
respond in the different language versions. In fact the 
different versions of the Annex do not correspond in 
general. 
2.9.9. The Committee wonders whether all the terms 
in this Annex should not be defined so as to avoid any 
misunderstanding. 
2.10. Annex 11 
2.10.1. The Committee notes that this Annex sum­
marizes other texts. As this is a legal text, it would 
prefer to see the full text included in this Annex rather 
than a summary. 
Done at Brussels, 17 September 1986. 2.10.2. The Committee notes that point 1 covers 
both the toxicological evaluation (to be carried out 
by the Scientific Committee) and the evaluation of 
technological need (to be carried out by the Advisory 
Committee on Foodstuffs in particular). It considers 
that, which very specific exceptions, it is not the Scien­
tific Committee which is competent to decide individu­
ally on the need for an additive in a foodstuff. Hence 
point 1 should not mix these two aspects. 
2.10.3. On the other hand, the various health aspects 
(toxicity, hypersensitivity, nutritional quality) are dealt 
with in different places (points 1, 5 (a), etc.) of Annex 
II. 
2.10.4. The drafting should therefore be revised and 
the comments on health separated from those on tech­
nological need. 
2.10.5. Greater emphasis should be given to a third 
criteria on which producers and consumers have long 
been agreed: the fairness of commercial transactions. 
2.10.6. The beginning of point 2 should be amended 
as follows: 'Only those food additives may be author­
ized which'. The present wording is ambiguous and 
does not take account of the criterion of technological 
need. If necessary this point 2 could be deleted as it 
duplicates point 1. If it is retained, the wording will 
require further amending to provide that an additive 
may not be authorized if 'the toxicological evidence 
presently available' is inadequate. 
2.10.7. The Committee urges that point 5 (a), which 
also seems to be inconsistent with point 5 (c), be amend­
ed to provide that the additive may not reduce the 
nutritional value of the food unless it is necessary for 
the production of foods for groups of consumers having 
special dietary needs. 
2.10.8. The words 'as far as possible' in the first line 
of point 6 (c) should be deleted. The concept of an 
'acceptable daily intake' loses all meaning if qualified 
in this way. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR