17.2.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC40/3
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilRegulation(EEC)oncertificatesofspecificcharacter
forfoodstuffs(*)
(92/C40/02)
On31January1991theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle198oftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity ,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheSectionforProtectionoftheEnvironment ,PublicHealthandConsumerAffairs,which
wasresponsibleforpreparingtheCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon
9July1991.ArevisedversionwaselaboratedattheSectionmeetingof5November1991.
TheRapporteurwasMrGardner.
Atits291stplenarysession(meetingof27November1991),theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeunanimouslyadoptedthefollowingOpinion.
1.Summaryofproposal
Theobjectiveistosetuparegistrationandlabelling
systemforagriculturalproductsandfoodstuffsunder
whichtheseproductswillbecertifiediftheydisplay
specific,closelymonitoreddifferentialcharacteristics .
BythissystemofmarketsegmentationtheCommission
hopesthatcertainsellerswillgetbiggersalesor
improvedmarginsfortheseproductsthusbringing
somebenefittosomefarmers.Thesystemisbasedon
nationalprototypessuchastheFrench'LabelRouge'
butgoesfurtherthantheseinattemptingtofixthelegal
tradedescriptionaswellashavingaspecialsymbol.
TheCommissionalsohopesthatthiswillretainrural
populationincertainareas.willsecuregreatermarketacceptancewillimprove
farmers'incomes.Thepricedifferencevis-a-vissimilar,
non-certifiedproductsalreadyonthemarketwill
becomelesssignificant .
1.1.5.Stabilizingtheruralpopulationisextremely
difficult,althoughanysupport,moralormaterial,is
likelytobewelcome.
1.1.6.Inthiscontextitwouldbeusefultohavea
systemprotectinga)theproducer,whoisguaranteeing
aproducthithertobasedoncommercialstandards,and
b)theconsumer,whowillbenefitfromachoiceof
differentandguaranteedproducts.
1.1.7.TheCommissionhopesthissystemwill
encourageproducersbyenablingthemtogeartheir
producttoaspecificqualityandapricemoreinline
withthemarket.
2.Generalcomments
Theproposaliswellintentionedbuthasanumberof
fundamentaldefects.Unlesstheseareremedied,the
Committeecannotapprovetheproposal.
Indetailthesedefectsare:1.1.Reorientationofthecommonagriculturalpolicy
(CAP)
1.1.1.TheCommission'sargumentsappearrather
optimistic,althoughthesystemmayhavecertainben­
eficialeffects.
1.1.2.Itisover-optimistic toassertthatdiversifi­
cationofagriculturalproductionandtheeffectsofthe
specificcharactersystemmayimprovefarmincomes,
especiallyindisadvantaged areas,andstabilizerural
populations .
1.1.3.Althoughdiversification ofagriculturalpro­
ductionmayresult,itwillbenecessarytotakeinto
consideration thespecificcharacteristics ofagiven
productandcheckwhetherthiswillreallyleadto
diversification .
1.1.4.TheCommission believesthattheexistenceof
acertificateandapossibleguaranteethattheproduct2.1.Theinclusionofnon-Annex11manufactured
foods
2.1.1.Ifthecertificateissuccessfulingenerating
higherpricesandbettermarketshares,thesewillaccrue
totheproductactuallyhavingthelabel.
2.1.2.Particularlyforagriculturalproductstheben­
eficiarywillinprinciplebethefarmerbutformanufac­
turedfoodsthesebenefitswillaccruemainlytothe (MOJNoC30,6.2.1991,p.4.

NoC40/4 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 17.2.92
2.3.3.Thesymbolmaybecomeausefulmarketing
toolasnationalprototypeshaveshownbutitneedsto
beassociatedwithgenuineconsumerbenefits.foodmanufacturerorretailerwhoseproductsbearthe
label.Themanufacturers orretailershavenoincentive
topaymoreforrawmaterialsusedinproductsbearing
thecertificate .
2.2.Theapparentconfusionconcerningquality 1A•Attemptingtofixthetradedescription
2.4.1.Fixingthetradedescriptionwouldallowa
groupofproducerstopre-emptatradedescriptionfor
productmanufactured toitsspecification .Thereisa
dangerthatthisspecificationissodesignedastomake
itdifficultorimpossibleforcompetitorstofollow(par­
ticularlysmallandmedium-sized enterprises).Also
thereisarealdangerofconfusingconsumers .(For
examplessee3.8.)
2.4.2.Tradedescriptionsarealreadyregulatedby
Article5oftheLabellingDirective(79/112/EEC)which
requiresthetradedescriptiontobe'sufficientlyprecise
toinformthepurchaserofits(i.e.theproduct's)true
natureandtoenableittobedistinguishedfromprod­
uctswithwhichitcouldbeconfused'.2.2.1.Qualityisarelativeconcept.Itisimpossible
todefine'absolutequality',particularlyinsuchalarge,
complexsector.
2.2.2.Theterm'quality'canbeusedintwosenses:
a)Todifferentiatebetweenattributesoftwoproducts
asin'adifferentquality'.
b)Toindicateoneproductissuperiortoanother.
2.2.3.Theexplanatorymemorandumandpreamble
mention'quality'andtheCommissionstatethatthis
wasmeantinthesenseof'difference'.Unfortunately
thedocumentdoesnotmakethisclear.'Quality'does
notappearinthetextandformsnorequirementfor
thecertificate .
2.2.4.Thisissensibleforthefollowingreason:Itis
perfectlypossibletohavehighlegalqualitystandards
forquantifiableproductattributessuchasblemishesor
sizegradingofapples.Ontheotherhanditisalmost
impossibletolegislateforqualityintermsofconsumer
demandssincequalityfromthepointofviewofthe
consumercanbedefinedasfoodwhichis:2.4.3.Theproposedsystemthereforerunsagainst
theECprincipleoffreecirculationoffoodsfromthe
MemberStates.Furtheritwillbenefitgroupsfrom
Stateswiththeminimumnationalrules.
2.5.Anti-competitive aspects
2.5.1.Theproposedsystemcanbeusedbyagroup
torestrictcompetition,thusdamagingotherproducers
andconsumersbylimitingmarketingchoice.Thistend­
encyisstrengthenedbytheapplicantgrouphavinga
monopolyoveranychangesinthespecification .a)safeandwholesome ;
b)inconformitywiththeconsumer'srequirementsfor
flavour,texture,convenience,environmental status,
etc.
2.2.5.Anyfutureproposalsreferringtoquality
thereforeneedtomakeclearinwhichsensetheterm2.6.Newadministrative structures
isused.
2.3.Dangerofconfusingtheconsumer2.6.1.Newadministrative structureswouldhaveto
besetupatbothofficialandprivatelevelstoregister,
evaluate,dealwithappealsandcontrolthesystem.The
costandtimeinvolvedseemtobeoutofproportion
withanypotentialbenefitstofarmers,manufacturers
orconsumers .2.3.1.Theproposalprovidesforthreelabelling
elements.Theseare:Asymbol,theexpression'regis­
teredspecificcharacter'andthetradedescriptionof
theproduct.
2.3.2.Thefirsttwoarelikelytosuggesttoanumber
ofconsumers,thattheregisteredproductis'ofsuperior
quality'.2.6.2.Incertaincasesadministrative systemsexist
fornationallabels.However,thesearemuchsimpler.
Theyarelimitedtodetailedspecificationsofexisting
productsanddonotinvolvelegallimitationsoftrade
descriptions .

17.2.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC40/5
3.Detailedcomments 3.6.2.Theremustbeprovisionhereorelsewhere
forfreeadmissiontoanygroupbyothers.Thisis
particularlyimportantsincethegroupretainsamon­
opolyoveranychangesintheproductspecification .3.1.Title
3.1.1.Thisshouldbechangedto'Certificatesof
specificcharacterforagriculturalproductsandfood­
stuffs'.3.7.Article4,firstparagraph
3.7.1.RemarksasArticle2.1.
3.2.Legalbase
3.2.1.ThisproposalisunderArticle43oftheTreaty,
yetclaimstocoverallfood.However,theambitof
Article43seemsclearlyconfinedtoAnnexIIproducts
(byArt.38oftheTreaty).Thisappearstoleavethe
choicetoconfiningtheproposaltoAnnexIIproductsor
issuingitunderArticle100(functioningoftheCommon
Market)orArticle100A.Givenourcommentsin2.1
itwouldbebesttokeepitunderArticle43butconfine
ittoAnnexIIproducts.3.8.Article4(a)
3.8.1.Thisisinadequateforseveralreasons:
a)smalladditionstoastandardavoidtherestrictions;
b)nationalcriteriaareoftenfixedbycodesofpractice
ratherthanrules.Thisappliesespeciallytofoods
outsideAnnexII;
c)manufacturers incountrieswithfewstandardswill
finditmucheasiertoregisterspecificitythanthose
ofcountrieswithmanydetailedstandards;
d)localregulationsmaystopmanufacture (butnot
sale)ofaproductregisteredinanothercountry.
3.8.2.Thefollowingexampleswillillustratethose
pointsandthepotentialforconfusingconsumers .3.3.Second'whereas'-clause
3.3.1.Itseemsverydoubtfulthatthissystemof
certificationwillreducede-populationofruralareas.
3.4.Article2.1
3.4.1.Theproposalisveryvagueonwhatconstitutes
'specificcharacteristics whichdistinguish'.Thisneeds
definingintermsofspecificconsumerbenefitsand
expectations .Thepositionofingredients (whichmay
becertifiedproducts)inafoodisalsounclear.
3.5.Article2.23.8.2.1.Mayonnaise
3.8.2.1.1.Mayonnaise isstandardized insome
countriesbutnotinothers.Byaddingtheterm'sun­
floweroil',agroupcouldtrytoregisterthetrade
description,'sunfloweroilmayonnaise'foraproduct
with60-70%sunfloweroiland5%eggyolk,0,3%
acidandmadebyitsparticularmanufacturing process.
3.8.2.1.2.Competitorswhouse80%sunfloweroil
and7,5%eggyolk,andatotallydifferentmanufactur­
ingprocessthereforecouldnotselltheirproductas
'sunfloweroilmayonnaise'.
3.8.2.1.3.Theapplicant'sproductcouldberegis­
teredandmadeinSpain,GreeceortheUKbutnotin
GermanyorFrancewhereitisoutsidethelocallaws.
Itcould,however,besoldinGermanyandFrancewith
itsspecialcertificate.3.5.1.Thedistributors (cooperativeandprivate)
shouldbeincludedhere.Theyaretheactualinterface
withtheconsumerandwithouttheirsupportthe
schemeisunlikelytogetofftheground.Alsotheyare
responsibleforlabelling'ownbrand'products.For
theseitistheirlabelwhichwillcarrythesymboland
itistheywhowillbenefitfromanyhigherconsumer
prices.For'ownbrands'presumablyitistheretailer
whocollectsanyECsubsidyunderArticle24.
3.6.Article2.3
3.6.1.Aswrittenthereseemsnothingtostoptwo
foodmanufacturing firmswhoareseparatelyincorpor­
atedbutarecontrolledbythesameholdingcompany,
fromforminga'group'.3.8.2.2.Marzipan
3.8.2.2.1.TheUKandIrelandhavenostandardsfor
this.Germanstandardsallowalmondsandarelatively

NoC40/6 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities17.2.92
3.12.Article8.3 highlevelofsugar,Danishstandardsallowalmonds,
apricotkernelsandalowlevelofsugar.AnIrishgroup
couldregister'sweetalmondmarzipan'toincludesweet
almondsonly(i.e.nobitters,thesearereadilyobtain­
ablefromCalifornia),apricotkernelsandtheGerman
levelofsugar.
3.8.2.2.2.TheproductcouldbemadeinIrelandand
soldthroughouttheCommunitybutcouldnot(under
locallaw)bemadeinDenmarkorGermany.3.12.1.Ifagroupoffoodmanufacturers triesto
registeratradedescriptionwhichwouldprejudicea
competitor,thelatterhastolodgehisobjectionviahis
government .Threemonthsfrompublicationistoo
shortforthis,atleastsixmonthsareneeded.
3.13.Article8.4
3.9.Article5 3.13.1.Thefirstlineneedschangingtoinclude
appealsfromassociationswhicharedirectlyaffected.
3.13.2.Thelastphraseseemsmuchtoovague.Mem­
berStatesmustberequiredtoacceptorrefusesuch
opposition,givingreasons.Alsotheremustbeanappeal
procedurenationallyandatEClevel.3.9.1.Article5isambiguous .Thecurrentwording
('Onlygroupsofproducersoffoodstuffs...')couldcre­
ateconfusion,barringproductswithidenticalspecific
characteristics fromtheregister,andwouldnotserve
toimproveconsumerinformation .
3.9.2.Itisproposedthatthephraseinquestionbe
replacedbythefollowing:'Allgroupsofproducersof
agivenfoodstuff...'.
3.9.3.Alsotherehastobeprovisionforapplications
fromECwideassociationsincludingcooperativeand
umbrellaassociationsandgroupsconsistingoffirms
frommorethanoneMemberState.3.14.Article9.2
3.14.1.ThiswouldleavetheCommission asfinal
arbiteronthevalidityofspecificdesignation,ataskfor
whichitseemsillqualified.
3.14.2.Alsochangethreetosixmonths.
3.10.Article63.15.Article10
3.10.1.Thecriteriaseemtooundefinedtopersuade
consumerstopaymorefortheaddedvalueofhaving
aregisteredproduct(whichistheobjectoftheexercise).
3.10.2.Thecriterianeedtobespelledoutinmore
detailintheproposalratherthanbeinglefttonational
organizations .Asanexamplethemicrobiological cri­
teriafor'differingfromsimilarfoods'needdefining.
Furtherthereisnoobjectivewayofdescribingorgano­
lepticcriteria.
3.10.3.Includingtheproductionrulescoulddisad­
vantagesmallandmedium-sizedenterprisesastwo
largeproducerscouldspecifyacomplicatedandtightly
controlledproductionprocesswhichsmallmanufac­
turerscouldnotuse.3.15.1.Article10isunclear,asitstatesthatan
applicationforamendmentwillbepromptedby
improvements intheregisteredspecificcharacteristics .
Theconsequenceofthiswouldbere-registration .The
referencetoArticles6and9inthefinalsentenceofthe
Articleappearstosuggestthis.
3.15.2.Article10doesnotclarifythesituationof
groupsofproducersregisteredforthemanufactureof
agivenproductintheeventofthegroupwhichfirst
registeredtheproductapplyingforanamendment .Such
anapplicationshouldgiverisetoanewregistration,
thusrespectingtheprescriptiverightsoftheother
groups.
3.15.3.Inanycase,allgroupsofproducersregistered
forthemanufactureofagivenproductmusthavethe
righttosubmitanapplicationforamendment .
3.11.Article7
3.16.Article12
3.11.1.Aswrittenthereisnomethodofensuring
uniformproceduresbetweentheauthoritiesofMember
States.Furtherwhatisthepositionforanapplicant
groupcomposedofproducersfromseveralMember
States?3.16.1.Forthereasonsgivenin2.4above,thisArticle
shouldbedeleted,thusconfiningtheproposaltothe
symbolandthelogo'SpecificDesignation'.

17.2.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC40/7
3.17.Article13
3.17.1.Thisseemsreasonableprovidingthecriteria
forregistrationareadequatelydefined.However,a
moremarketing-oriented expressionmightbedevised
(likethe'LabelRouge'inFrance).
3.18.Article14
3.18.1.Itisdoubtfulwhetheritisappropriateforan
inspectionbodytohavetoprovideproof[Art.14(4)].
Reasonsforsuspicionshouldbeenough.
3.19.Article17
3.19.1.Thereseemsnogoodreasonwhyboth
nationalandCommunitysymbolsshouldnotbeonthe
samefood,providingthisfoodisregisteredunderboth
schemes.ThisArticleshouldbedeleted.Ithastobe
madeclearthatnationalschemescancontinueindefi­
nitely.
3.20.Article23
3.20.1.ThisappearstoleavetheCommissionasthe
finalarbiterofdecisionstakenbehindcloseddoors.
TheMemberStateshavenofinaldecisionandcanonlychallengetheresultbyappealingtotheLuxemburg
court.
3.20.2.Consumersandmanufacturers andtheir
employeesarenotconsulted.Thiscouldbesolvedby
establishingaconsultativecommittee .
3.21.Article24.1
3.21.1.Subsidiesshouldonlybegivenforobjective
consumerinformationandforpromotingthecertificate
andsymbol.Financialassistancetogroupscoulddistort
competition .
3.21.2.Alsothefirstindentshouldbechangedto:
'Informingconsumersabouttheschemeandinpar­
ticularthemeaningofSpecificCharacter.'
3.22.Article24.2
3.22.1.Thisappearsafurtherreasonforconfining
theambitofthisproposaltoAnnexIIproducts.
DoneatBrussels,27November1991.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
FrancoisSTAEDELIN