No C 269/62 Official Journal of the European Communities 14. 10. 91 
APPENDIX 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following amendments, which received at least one quarter of the votes cast, were defeated in the course 
of the debate. 
Page 4, point 2.3 
Delete the last sentence of this point. 
Reason 
The present unanimity rule should not be diminished. 
Voting 
For: 42, against: 78, abstentions: 7. 
Point 4.3.1, first indent 
Delete the reference to the 'guaranteed right' to training. 
Voting 
For: 37, against: 80, abstentions: 19. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on the protection of geographical 
indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (*) 
(91/C 269/19) 
On 31 January 1991 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 Commit­
tee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 14 June 1991. The Rapporteur was 
Mr Quevedo Rojo. 
At its 288th plenary session (meeting of 3 July 1991) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by 80 votes to 43, with six abstentions. 
1. Preliminary comments 
1.1. The present situation of Community agriculture 
has been raised in Community circles before. The Com­
mission has on a number of occasions stressed the need 
to seek new solutions and to gear production to the 
growing demand for traditionally-produced products 
and regional specialities. The Committee has endorsed 
this approach. 1.1.1. A Community policy geared towards quality 
is thus vitally important, both to satisfy the require­
ments of increasingly discerning consumers and to raise 
producers' incomes by bringing more added value to 
the sector. 
(l) OJ No C 30, 6. 2. 1991, p. 9. 1.1.2. At the same time, Community consumers are 
showing an increasing interest in high-quality products 
now that their basic needs are so amply met. 
14. 10. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 269/63 
1.2. The special characteristics of the foods involved 
derive from their origin, soil conditions, geographical 
and climatic environment, the varieties and species 
used, and the way they are prepared or produced. It is 
these factors which give the product its name and 
reputation in the market place. 
1.3. The planned inspection systems will provide the 
consumer with a guarantee of the origin, method of 
manufacture and qualify of the product and thus of its 
distinctive organoleptic properties. At the same time, 
the designations used by farmers and processing indus­
tries (and hence their reputations) will be protected 
against misuse by third parties. 
1.3.1. The labelling of these products requires special 
attention. Although Directive 79/112/EEC(1) provides 
for adequate consumer information, it contains no pro­
visions for protecting the use of certain geographical 
names which are traditionally used to market products 
from the areas concerned. 
1.4. The protection of geographical indications 
(PGIs) and designations of origins (PDOs) provided by 
the proposed Regulation is a significant step forward 
for the consumer. Improved presentation of the product 
will lessen the risk of confusion and offer a better 
guarantee of the product's origin. 
1.4.1. Producers too will benefit from protection of 
the geographical names (whether PGIs and PDOs) 
which are an important collective asset and which have 
hitherto not enjoyed the legal protection accorded to 
registered trade marks. 
1.5. The free movement of goods will not be affected, 
since products manufactured in different parts of the 
Community may also be marketed providing they are 
properly labelled. It is worth mentioning that this prin­
ciple is already laid down in Article 2(la)(i) of 
Directive 79/112/EEC. 
1.6. In some cases, the absence of protection has led 
to commercial use of geographical names as a generic 
title for products which lack the distinguishing features 
that lent prestige to the original product. Any policy 
seeking to protect production must obviously establish 
mechanisms to protect the use of such designations, in 
order to prevent them being misused in a way which 
could mislead the consumer. 
1.7. In the same way, prestigious names which have 
been established through the care and hard work of certain producers must not be allowed to become gen­
eric designations simply because they are not properly 
protected. 
1.7.1. There are already Community precedents for 
this, such as the rules covering quality wines produced 
in specific regions. In these cases, the geographical 
designation can only be used if the product meets 
certain concrete specifications. 
1.8. For all these reasons, the Committee welcomes 
the proposal and supports its general approach and 
scope. 
2. General comments 
2.1. Community agriculture has undergone large-
scale restructuring over the last 30 years. Various fac­
tors have played their part here: technological progress, 
intensification of production, reduction in farmland, 
job losses, and so on. In consequence, production defi­
cits have given way to surpluses of virtually all basic 
foodstuffs. 
2.2. Agricultural policy has therefore become polari­
zed as nutritional and environmental considerations 
have come increasingly to the fore: on the one hand are 
the huge production surpluses with their intervention 
markets and control mechanisms; on the other, the 
increasing demand for distinctive, high quality products 
to satisfy discerning consumers looking for a more 
varied diet. 
2.3. The Commission proposal will help to update 
quality policy and to lay down the necessary legal bases. 
2.3.1. The proposal applies to agricultural products 
and foodstuffs, whether or not they are agricultural 
products within the meaning of Annex II to the Treaty. 
Article 43 therefore does not seem to provide a suf­
ficient legal basis. Article 100 A should also be cited. 
2.3.2. Moreover, in order to safeguard both invest­
ments and consumer knowledge of national desig­
nations, the relationship between the two systems 
should be so defined that they can exist in parallel. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 1 
3.1.1. In Article 1(1) of the Spanish version change 
'agricolas' to 'agrarios' (does not affect English version). 
(!) OJ No L 33, 8. 2. 1979. 3.1.2. Article 1(2) states that the Regulation is to 
apply without prejudice to a number of other Com-
No C 269/64 Official Journal of the European Communities 14. 10. 91 
munity provisions. An indication is needed as to 
whether these provisions are complementary to the 
Regulation or are to apply independently. 
3.2. Article 3 
3.2.1. The distinction between protected geographi­
cal indication (PGI) and protected designation of origin 
(PDO) needs further clarification. The conditions for 
granting PDO should include traditional historical 
character. 
3.2.2. If possible, a list should be made of the tra­
ditional descriptions mentioned in the second para­
graph of Article 3(1), so as to provide a clear demar­
cation. 
3.2.3. Article 3(1) and 3(2) should expressly cite 
which names of countries may be used as PGIs or 
PDOs. 
3.2.4. A Community symbol should be devised to 
indicate PGI and PDO, for use in the presentation and 
advertising of the relevant products. 
3.2.5. The terms 'raw material' and 'processing' also 
need definition, to prevent them being interpreted too 
broadly and thus relaxing the requirements for PGI and 
PDO status. 
3.3. Article 7 
3.3.1. It seems illogical to retain the third option 
(third indent) in cases where a geographical indication 
or designation of origin is used by groups established 
in two or more Member States sharing a common 
geographical area. Any objections should be lodged 
prior to the initial registration in accordance with the 
procedure laid down in Article 8. Failing this, the first 
two indents of Article 7 should apply, i.e. the applicant 
group must either meet the registered product specifi­
cation or must reach an agreement with the original 
group to amend the specification. 
3.4. Article 8 
3.4.1. The deadline for lodging objections seems a 
little short, and should be extended to six months. 3.5. Article 10 
3.5.1. The reference in Article 10(1) to 'the group 
referred to in Article 4(2)' should be amended to read: 
'the group referred to in Article 4(2a)(6) and Article 
4(2b)(7)\ 
3.5.2. Article 10(6) should be amended to read: 
'the competent authority shall withdraw...' 
3.5.3. A new Article 10(7) should be inserted con­
cerning information for the various Community bodies 
and for the consumer: 
'7. Once a year, the Commission shall ask the Mem­
ber States concerned for information on the work 
of the inspection bodies monitoring each registered 
PGI and PDO. On the basis of this information, the 
Commission shall draw up a report which shall 
include details of its policy with regard to any 
irregularities detected and in particular the 
implementation of Article 17. The report shall be 
submitted to the Council, the European and the 
Economic and Social Committee.' 
3.5.4. An Article 10(8) should also be inserted: 
'8. In order to ensure that all producers receive 
equal treatment, and that the checks carried out by 
the inspection bodies are objective, the implemen­
ting arrangements of the present Regulation shall 
include provisions on the frequency and number of 
inspections, the aspects which the inspection must 
cover, the reports to be forwarded to the competent 
authority when irregularities occur, and the annual 
report on implementation.' 
3.6. Article 14 
3.6.1. A further paragraph should be added to the 
final indent of Article 14(1): 
'However, a registered mark which is identical or 
similar to a PGI or PDO and which has been used 
during the last five years on products affected by 
the PGI or PDO may, if the owner can provide 
documented evidence of such use, continue to be 
used for a maximum period of two years after the 
entry into force of the present Regulation.' 
3.7. Article 18 
3.7.1. Article 18(2) should specify that existing 
national PGIs and PDOs which have been published in 
the official journals of the Member States (and which 
provided the impetus for the present proposal) should 
be registered automatically, without having to go 
through the procedure laid down in Articles 5, 6 and 
14. 10. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 269/65 
8. To this end, the Member States concerned should indications which should initially qualify for this treat-
send the Commission a list of the designations and ment. 
Done at Brussels, 3 July 1991. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
APPENDIX 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
(fourth paragraph of Article 43 of the Rules of procedure) 
The following amendments were defeated in the course of the debate: 
Point 1.6 
Add the following: 
'This only concerns products whose quality is influenced by the geographical environment. A clear distinction 
must thus be made between geographical names and authorized generic titles.' 
Reasons 
Geographical names are quite widely used as generic titles and are in some cases covered by national and 
EC legislation. Allowance should be made for this by making a clear demarcation, as the businesses concerned 
would otherwise no longer be able to label their products in accordance with the labelling regulations. If the 
field of application of the regulation were too wide, barriers to trade would be created and product innovation 
would be impeded. 
Voting 
For: 54, against: 58, abstentions: 12. 
Point 3.1.3 (new) 
Complete Article 1(1) to read: 
'... foodstuffs which consist of the first transformation of agricultural products'. 
This definition applies wherever 'foodstuffs' are mentioned in later articles. 
Reasons 
Only agricultural products and first transformation ones could be said to be affected by this geographical 
environment (eg. Parma ham; Parmesan cheese). 
For processed foods such as 'Quiche Lorraine', 'Alpine Milk Chocolate', 'Scotch Eggs', etc. this does not 
apply and they should be excluded from the proposal to prevent abuse. 
No C 269/66 Official Journal of the European Communities 14. 10. 91 
Voting 
For: 50, against: 65, abstentions: 9. 
Point 3.6.1 
In the proposed addition to Article 14(1), delete the words: 'for a maximum period of two years'. 
Reasons 
As yet unimplemented EC rules should not have priority over marks which are already legally registered and 
used. This would seriously harm the businesses involved, as the marks registered at great expense regularly 
form these businesses' economic basis. 
Voting 
For: 50, against: 65, abstentions: 11. 
Point 3.8 (new) 
Article 19 
'For foods other than agricultural products defined by Annex II of the Treaty, PGIs and PDOs shall be 
confined to those given in a list appended to this proposal.' 
Reasons 
This is necessary to prevent unfair use of these proposals. Such a list would protect the farmer by keeping 
these designations to genuine farm-related products and would protect the consumer by continuing free 
choice for other products. Such a list is part of the wine regulation mentioned in 1.7.1. 
The Commission proposal merely provides for a committee which could establish such a list but is not 
required to do so. Also the committee would draw up any list without participation of the public and without 
the advice of the ESC or the European Parliament. 
Voting 
For: 57, against: 63, abstentions: 8.