No C 101/30 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 23. 11. 73 
CONSULTATION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
on the  proposal  for  a Council  Directive  on the  approximation  of the  laws  of the 
Member  States  concerning  bread 
A. REQUEST  FOR  AN  OPINION 
At its 225th  meeting  held  on 23 January  1973,  the Council  decided  in accordance  with 
the provisions  of the second  subparagraph  of Article  100  of the Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community  to consult  the Economic  and  Social  Committee  on the 
above  proposal  for a Directive. 
The request  for an Opinion  was  sent  by the President  of the  Council  to the  Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee  on 24 January  1973. 
B. TEXT  WHICH  WAS  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  CONSULTATION 
The text  which  was  the  subject  of the  consultation  has  not  yet been  published  in the 
Official  Journal  of the European  Communities. 
C. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
At its 113th  Plenary  Session  held  in Brussels  on 26 and  27 September  1973,  the Com-
mittee  adopted  its Opinion  on the text  referred  to above  with  11 votes  against. 
The text  of the Opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the  request  by the  Council  on 24 
January  1973  for an Opinion  on the  'proposal  for a 
Council  Directive  on the  approximation  of the  laws 
of the Member  States  concerning  bread'; 
Having  regard  to  Article  100  of  the  Treaty 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community; 
Having  regard  to the  Decision  of its Bureau  on 25 
January  1973  to instruct  the  Section  for Agriculture 
to prepare  a report  and  Opinion  on the subject; 
Having  regard  to the  Opinion  delivered  by  the 
Section  for Agriculture  at its meeting  on 5 July  1973; 
Having  regard  to the report  presented  by Mr Bourel, 
rapporteur; 
Having  regard  to the  discussions  during  its 113th 
Plenary  Session,  sitting  of 27 September, HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION: 
The Committee  approves  the  proposed  Directive 
subject  to the following  comments: 
Preliminary  remarks 
The discussion  of this  proposed  Directive  brought 
out the  fact  that  while  the efforts  undertaken  by the 
Community  since  its creation  to harmonize  laws  were 
familiar  to representatives  of  the  six  founding 
Member  States,  representatives  from  the  newly 
acceded  Member  States  wondered  about  the scope  of 
such  efforts  and  their  impact  on  the  habits  of 
producers,  traders  and  consumers. 
I. General  Comments 
In trying  to establish  the  exact  scope,  within  the 
framework  of Article  100  of the  Treaty,  of the 
23.11.73 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 101/31 
proposed  Directive  under  discussion,  the Committee 
notes  very  generally  that: 
— bread  is traditionally  one  of the  most  widely 
consumed  foodstuffs.  Habits  regarding  the 
consumption  of bread  are extremely  ancient  and 
also vary  greatly  from  one  EEC  country  to 
another:  there  is therefore  no universal  concept  of 
'normal'  bread  common  to  all  Community 
consumers  or producers; 
— the  still  developing  ways  in which  bread  is made 
are also  fundamentally  different.  In several  EEC 
countries  the industrial  production  of bread  is far 
more  common  than  non-industrial  production; 
while  in other  States  the  opposite  is the  case. 
These  different  habits  of bread  manufacture  also 
have  an influence  on the concept  of bread  and  on 
its composition; 
— customs  statistics  show  that  trade  in bread  within 
the Community  only  accounts  for  a very  small 
proportion  of the  total  production.  Principally 
because  of differences  between  national  laws, 
such  trade  is mainly  in certain  types  of bread 
eaten  in  European  regions  with  the  same 
bread-eating  habits; 
— accordingly,  the  Committee  recognizes  the  need 
for a limited  harmonization  of rules  on the 
manufacture  and  marketing  of bread  in order  to 
eliminate  on the  one  hand  certain  distortions  of 
competition  arising  for the types  of bread  which 
are commercially  traded,  and  on the  other  hand 
to normalize  and  improve  such  trade. 
These  considerations  lead  the Committee  to make  the 
following  general  and  specific  comments. 
II. General  Comments 
In setting  out  these  comments,  the Committee  based 
itself  on the  Document  prepared  by the  Economic 
and Social  Committee  on 24 May  1972,  on the 
'harmonization  of laws  relating  to farm  products  and 
foodstuffs'. 
1. Optional  nature  of the proposed  Directive 
In the  proposal  under  discussion,  the  Commission 
has adopted  the  so-called  'optional'  harmonization 
solution,  as defined  in the 'General  Programme  for 
the elimination  of technical  barriers  to trade'  which was the subject  of a Council  Decision  on 25 March 
1969.  In each  Member  State,  the national  legislation 
on bread  — which  will  be maintained  in toto  — will 
coexist  with  the  stipulations  of the  Directive  and 
incorporate  them,  so only  the types  of bread  which 
satisfy  the rules  contained  in the  Directive  will  be 
able to circulate  freely  between  the 9 Member  States. 
The Committee  notes  that  a proposed  Directive  of 
this nature  is not,  basically,  consistent  with  the 
wishes  it has frequently  expressed,  since  it has always 
been  in favour  of the so-called  'total'  harmonization 
solution  (replacement  of national  legislations  by 
Community  legislation).  But,  when  faced  with 
proposals  for  'optional'  harmonization,  the 
Committee  has always  called  for a definite  time  limit 
for the changeover  to 'total'  harmonization.  No such 
date is set out in the present  proposal. 
However,  in view  of the general  considerations  listed 
above  the Committee  realises  that  it is impossible  to 
go any  further  and  that  it is unreasonable  at this 
point  to envisage  a Directive  introducing  'total' 
harmonization,  owing  to the great  variety  of types  of 
bread. 
The Committee  therefore  feels  that  the  proposed 
Directive  will  provide  an improvement  on the present 
situation  as regards  the free  circulation  of the types 
of bread  which  are commercially  traded.  However,  in 
view  of the  diversity  of national  laws  and  of the 
enormous  variety  of types  of bread  produced  and 
consumed  in the  Community,  and,  in view  of the 
consequences  of the  chosen  optional  harmonization, 
the Committee  draws  the Commission's  attention  to 
the fact  that  it is absolutely  imperative  to prevent  the 
application  of the Directive's  stipulations  constituting 
in effect  a way  of getting  round  the  national 
legislation.  "Whatever  happens,  the  Committee  feels 
that the  possible  changeover  to total  harmonization 
should  be preceded  by sufficiently  detailed  studies  on 
the development  of trade  in bread  following  the 
application  of the  present  proposed  Directive  and 
also on the development  of bread  consumption  in the 
EEC  and  its manufacture. 
2. Requirements  in the matter  of hygiene 
The Committee  deplores  the  lack  of a horizontal 
Directive  on  hygiene  requirements  for  food 
manufacture.  The  existence  of such  a Directive  would 
in fact  have  made  it possible  to identify  any  points 
requiring  clarification  by the present  proposal.  In the 
meantime,  the  Committee  feels  that  national 
provisions  on the matter  remain  applicable  and  that 
their  application  is not barred  by Article  10. 
No C 101/32 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 23.11.73 
3. Raw  materials  forming  the  ingredients  of bread 
Traditionally,  wheat  flour  is the essential  ingredient 
of bread.  The  Committee  notes  that  Article  2 (2) of 
the present  proposal,  when  defining  flour  used  in 
bread,  makes  a reference  to a Council  Regulation  still 
at the drafting  stage. 
The Committee  is extremely  dubious  about  such  a 
procedure.  The  absence  of an exact  definition  of 
wheat  flour  could  lead  to confusion  as to the 
definition  of different  types  of bread. 
The Committee  requests  that  the Council  decision  on 
the harmonization  of rules  on flour  should  precede  or 
at least  be adopted  concurrently  with  the decision  on 
the proposed  Directive  under  discussion. 
4. Designation  of  types  of bread  covered  by  the 
proposed  Directive 
Given  the optional  nature  of the proposed  Directive, 
the Committee  recognizes  the need  for the types  of 
bread  which  it covers  to carry  a distinctive  sign  on 
their  labelling. 
But the  Committee  cannot  countenance  the 
designation  'EUR  bread'  used  several  times  in this 
proposal,  particularly  in Annex  I (definition  and 
classification)  and  in Annex  IV.  The  Committee 
points  out  that  the Directive  is intended  to facilitate 
trade  in the  types  and  varieties  of bread  which 
comply  with  its  requirements.  So  under  no 
circumstances  should  the impression  be given  that  a 
special  type  of bread  has been  created. 
On the  other  hand,  it is logical  that  the  types  of 
bread  conforming  to the conditions  stipulated  in the 
Directive  should  bear  the designation  'EUR',  as laid 
down  in Article  6. 
In the  opinion  of the  Committee  it should  be 
specified,  in order  to avoid  any  ambiguity,  that  bread 
which  conforms  to the  conditions  of both  the 
Directive  and  the relevant  national  legislation,  and  is 
to remain  in the State  where  it is made,  does  not need 
to bear  the designation  'EUR'. 
5. Consumer  information 
The Committee  has  three  main  points  to mention 
under  this  heading. (a) Mentioning  whether  fat or sugar  is added  (Article 
6 (1) (b)) 
This  is an extremely  complex  problem.  In certain 
EEC  countries  the  types  of bread  in everyday 
consumption  may  legally  contain  added  fat,  which 
does  not  have  to be mentioned.  Some  EEC  States 
even  hold  such  a declaration  to be illegal. 
In other  countries,  on the other  hand,  bread  which  is 
considered  to be in everyday  consumption  does  not 
contain  added  fat and  mention  of any  such  additions 
is mandatory. 
The Commission  has  therefore  tried  to achieve  a 
compromise  by proposing  that  bread  may  contain  up 
to 10 % by weight  calculated  on the dry  matter  but 
that it must  bear  a designation  if the amount  added  is 
1-5 % or more. 
The Committee  finds  that  this  compromise  may 
create  complications  for  both  consumers  and 
manufacturers. 
Bearing  in  mind  the  various  technological, 
psychological  and  political  arguments  involved,  the 
Committee  wonders  if  standardized  consumer 
information  could  not  be appropriately  ensured  by 
inserting  a new  category  in the  wheaten  bread 
classification,  namely,  'wheaten  bread  not  containing 
any added  fat or sugar'.  The  consumer  could  thus 
opt for one  category  or the other. 
As regards  the nature  of fats  used  in the fabrication 
of food,  the Committee  notes: 
— that  it is often  complex  (mixed  fats); 
— that  it is not constant  from  one  production  batch 
to another. 
So it seems  to be difficult  to state  this  nature. 
However,  to ensure  the best  possible  safeguarding  of 
consumers'  health,  the  Committee  considers  that 
qualitative  standards  must  be worked  out  as soon  as 
possible  for fats  used  in the fabrication  of food. 
(b) The  scale  of weights  (Article  3) 
The Commission  has  adopted  the  weights  most 
commonly  used  in  the  Member  States.  The 
Committee,  however,  points  out  that,  because  the 
arrangement  introduced  by the Directive  is optional, 
this scale  of 'Community'  weights  will  coexist  in each 
Member  State  with  the scales  of weights  permitted  in 
that State. 
23. 11. 73 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 101/33 
The Committee  does  not believe  that  such  a solution 
benefits  the consumer  in all circumstances  and  this 
is why  considering  that  a  reduction  and 
standardization  of the  scale  of weights  is doubtless 
desirable,  it requests  that  there  should  be a provision 
in the Directive  allowing  for the scale  of weights  to be 
reviewed  by the Commission  after  the Directive  has 
been  in application  for two  years. 
(c) The  name  and  address  of the  manufacturer 
(Article  6 (1) (e) and  (f)) 
The Committee  is of the  opinion  that  consumer 
information  is sufficiently  assured  from  the  time 
when  a person  assumes  responsibility  for the sale  of 
bread  under  his name  and  address. 
But where  this  name  and  address  are those  of a seller, 
and where  a fraudulent  practice  or accident  is 
recorded  the  controlling  authorities  must  be able  to 
identify  the manufacturer  easily. 
The Committee  proposes  rewording  subparagraphs 
(e) and  (f) of Article  6. 
6. Rules  on additives 
The Committee  notes  that  the  list  of additives 
permitted  by this  proposal  was  chosen  — with  one 
exception  — from  the  additives  contained  in the 
positive  lists  accepted  by the  Council  at horizontal 
level.  Moreover,  the proposal  lays  down  maxima  for 
incorporation  of these  additives. 
With  regard  to the indication  of such  'preservatives' 
provided  for in Article  6 (1) (d),  the Committee  feels 
that the real  consumer  protection  lies in the ability  of 
the controlling  authorities  to carry  out  such  checks 
easily.  For  this  reason  the  Committee  requests  that 
Article  6 (1) (d),  be reviewed  so as to reserve  to the 
controlling  authorities  information  containing  all 
details  on preservatives  which  constitute  no health 
threat  whatsoever  within  the limits  laid  down. 
In this  matter,  the  Committee  based  itself  on its 
document  of 24 May  1972  on the harmonization  of 
laws  relating  to farm  products  and  foodstuffs  and in 
particular  the following  passages  thereof: 
'The  following  two  guiding  principles  should  be 
retained  when  considering  the use  of additives  in 
foodstuffs: 
— technical  or technological  desirability  . . .; 
— when  additives  are  particularly  necessary,  a 
ceiling  to the amount  of any  specific  substance 
which  can  be incorporated  in accordance  with the rule  adopted  by  the  scientific  experts 
(acceptable  daily  intake). 
There  remains  the  matter  of  .declaring  the 
additives.  Generally  speaking,  and  for the reasons 
set out  above,  one  might  think  it sufficient  to 
include  "additive(s)  added"  on the  labelling  of 
products  offered  to the consumer.  This  would  of 
course  not apply  to "technical  auxiliary  agents". 
However,  wherever  there  is a risk  of confusion  or 
deception  with  regard  to the  quality  or to 
differences  of price,  a more  specific  indication 
should  be given  ... 
..., the  actual  exercise  of control  must  be 
facilitated  as far as possible  by the  Community 
rules.  With  this  in mind,  the  controlling  bodies 
must  be able  to have  at their  disposal  all the 
requisite  information  for  carrying  out  their 
task...,  such  information  does  not  necessarily 
have  to figure  on the  labelling  of products  for 
retail  sale  as it may  be understood  by only  a 
minority  of consumers. 
On the  other  hand,  the  most  appropriate  way 
must  be found  for bringing  such  information  to 
the attention  of the control  bodies.  Either  it could 
figure  on  the  wholesale  or  semi-wholesale 
packaging  or in the  documents  which  usually 
accompany  products.  Discussions  between  the 
parties  concerned  would  enable  the  most 
appropriate  solutions  to be arrived  at bearing  in 
mind  the characteristics  of the various  products.' 
7. Translation  problems 
The Committee  notes  that  there  are  differences  of 
meaning,  in some  cases  very  substantial,  between  the 
texts  of the  proposed  Directive  in the  various 
languages.  The  Committee  requests  that  the  various 
versions  should  be very  meticulously  collated  to 
avoid  any  misunderstanding. 
III. Specific  comments 
Article  1(1) 
So as to make  the  optional  nature  of the  Directive 
quite  clear,  the  Committee  proposes  the  following 
wording: 
'This  Directive  applies  exclusively  to  products 
described  in Annexes  I and  IV of which  the label 
bears  the mention  "EUR".' 
No C 101/34 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 23. 11. 73 
Article  3 
The Committee  proposes  adding  a second  paragraph 
worded  as follows: 
'During  the  third  year  of application  of the 
Directive  the  Commission  shall  examine  the 
situation  arising  out  of applying  this  scale  of 
weights.  If necessary,  the  Commission  shall 
propose  adjustments  to;  the Council.' 
Article  4 (2) 
The Committee  considers  that  the proposed  wording 
is not  sufficiently  precise.  On  the  one  hand 
craftsmen-bakers  must  be able  to sell the bread  which 
they themselves  have  made,  in the area  near  its place 
of manufacture.  But  when  bread  is transported  over 
long  distances,  it is the  duty  of the  controlling 
authorities  to check  whether  the means  of transport 
is suitably  fitted  out and,  if not  to stipulate  that  the 
bread  must  be wrapped. 
Article  5 (3) 
The Committee  states  the  need  to  align  the 
stipulations  in this  paragraph  on the  provisions  of 
Annex  IV,  especially  those  relating  to reserved 
extended  descriptions. 
It therefore  asks  that  the  last  but  one  line  of 
paragraph  3 refer  to '(d) and  (e)',  not '(c) and  (d)\ 
Article  6 
1. Paragraph  1, (b) 
The Committee  requests  this  subparagraph  be 
amended  to take  account  of the  suggestion  put 
forward  in point  5 (a) of the general  comments. 
2. Paragraph  1, (d) 
The Committee  requests  that  this  subparagraph  be 
amended  to take  account  of the remarks  under  point 
6 of the general  comments. 
3. Paragraph  1, (e) and (f) 
The Committee  requests  that  these  subparagraphs  be 
reworded  as follows: 
'(e) The  name  or style  and  address  or situation  of 
the producer.  In  addition,  the  same designations  may  also  be  given  for  a 
distributor  or seller. 
However,  for products  mentioned  in Article 
1 (1)  produced  in the  Community,  the 
designations  concerning  the  producer  may 
appear  in a code  declared  to the  competent 
authorities  of the producing  Member  State  if 
the designations  regarding  a distributor  or 
seller  appear  in the labelling. 
(f) In the  case  of goods  imported  from  a 
non-member  country  in the  name  of the 
country  of origin,  the name  or style  and  also 
the address  of the  importer  or distributor, 
the person  concerned  being  established  in the 
Community.' 
4. In  order  to clarify  the  situation  regarding 
products  conforming  to both  the  Directive  and  the 
laws  of a Member  State,  the  Committee  feels  it is 
necessary  to add  a paragraph  worded  as follows: 
'When  one  of the  products  covered  by Article  1 
(1) conforms  to the  Directive  and  also  to the 
national  rules  of a Member  State,  it may  be 
marketed  in accordance  with  either  the Directive 
or the national  rules  in question.' 
ANNEXES 
As regards  Annexes  II and  III of this  proposal,  see 
the comments  in the report. 
Annex  I and Annex  IV 
1. The  Committee  stresses  the need  to delete  the 
expression  'EUR'  bread. 
To begin  with,  it seems  that  a new  type  of bread  is 
being  created  and  furthermore,  it appears  from  the 
provisions  of Article  1 (1) of the proposed  Directive 
that the  Directive  applies  to the  types  of bread 
conforming  to  the  definition,  stipulations  and 
classification  in Annex  I and  to the descriptions  and 
extended  descriptions  in Annex  IV  and  which 
moreover  have  to carry  the 'EUR'  designation. 
2. The  Committee  requests  that  in view  of its 
obvious  ambiguity  the  wording  of  the  last 
subparagraph  of Annex  I relating  to wholemeal 
bread  should  be revised. 
The Committee  feels  that  'made  from  the products  of 
entire  milling  of wheat  and  rye'  would  be a more 
exact  definition. 
23. 11.73 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 101/35 
3. The  Committee  notes  that  a number  of words 
are used  incorrectly  in  these  Annexes  in  the 
definitions  of types  of bread.  Furthermore,  the literal 
equivalence  of  various  terms  might  lead  to 
unfortunate  confusions.  The  Committee  requests  that 
each  designation  in each  of the Community  languages 
should  be meticulously  re-examined. Finally,  in the  absence  of a Council  Regulation, 
defining  wheat  flour,  the  Committee  requests  that 
consideration  be given  to the  possibility  of adding  a 
category  for  wheat  flour  bread  in  which  the 
permitted  proportion  of flour  of other  cereals  would 
be lower  than  that  now  proposed  for  'wheaten 
bread'. 
Done  at Brussels,  27 September  1973. 
The Chairman 
of the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Alfons  LAPPAS 
ANNEX 
to the Opinion  containing  amendments  rejected  at the 113th  Plenary  Session 
The following  amendment,  proposed  in accordance  with  the  provisions  of the Committee's 
Rules  of Procedure,  was  rejected  during  the debates  at the 113th  Plenary  Session: 
I. In the Opinion,  under  'General  Comments',  point  5 (a) 'Mentioning  whether  fat or sugar 
is added',  delete  the last two  paragraphs  and  replace  by: 
'The Committee  therefore  notes  that  bread  can  contain  a not  insignificant  proportion 
of fat. 
It follows  that  the  consumer  must  be informed  of the  presence  of fat.  The  Section 
accordingly  endorses  the solution  proposed  by the  Commission,  namely  the  indication 
of the designation  "fat  added".' 
Reasons 
A loaf can contain  up to 10 % of fats,  i.e. up to 100 g per kilo. 
The fact  that  in certain  countries  bread  does  not so far contain  fats  makes  it all the more 
necessary  to warn  the consumer. 
Furthermore,  ingestion  of the fat contained  in bread  can  upset  the balance  of a whole 
diet. The  imbalance  will  be all the more  serious  if the consumer  is being  careful  not to 
exceed  a maximum  daily  fat intake. 
II. The  above  amendment  was  withdrawn  after  discussion  and  replaced  by a new  amendment 
worded  as follows: 
'In countries  where  the practice  of adding  fats  is uncommon,  Member  States  may  make  the 
marketing  of "EUR  bread"  containing  added  fats  subject  to an indication  on the 
packaging  of the fact  that  fat has been  added.' 
Result  of the vote: 
In favour  34, against  20, abstentions  2.