No C 23/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1. 89 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 79/373/EEC on the 
marketing of compound feedingstuffs (l) 
(89/C 23/06) 
On 22 June 1988 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 3 November 1988. The Rapporteur 
was Mr Delia Croce. 
At its 260th plenary session (meeting of 23 November 1988) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion by a unanimous vote. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The purpose of the proposal is to amend Council 
Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound 
feedingstuffs. This Directive has already been amended 
on a number of occasions by Commission Directives 
80/509/EEC (2. 5. 1980), 80/695/EEC (27. 6. 1980) 
and 82/957/EEC (22. 12. 1982), Council Directive 86/ 
354/EEC (21. 7. 1986) and Commission Directive 87/ 
235/EEC (31 3. 1987). 
1.2. The Committee was asked for its Opinion on 
Council Directives 79/373/EEC and 86/354/EEC. 
1.3. The present proposal is based on a number of 
important considerations: 
1. An end should be put to all national derogations 
with regard to labelling rules, by specifying the 
information which the person responsible must or 
may provide. 
2. The accuracy of the information must be officially 
verifiable at all marketing stages. 
3. It is not considered advisable to require that the 
quantity of each ingredient in the feed for productive 
stock be determined, because verification will pose 
problems which in some cases will be practically 
insoluble. Hence the proposal that only the name 
but not the quantity of each ingredient be indicated 
('flexible declaration'). The possibility of grouping 
together , in categories, ingredients derived from the 
same basic product is considered worth retaining. 
4. It is not proposed to require that the energy content 
of compound feeds for pigs and ruminants be indi­
cated because it is doubtful how this information 
can be verified. It has been decided, however, to 
allow such information to be provided on the basis 
of nationally recognized methods. 5. Manufacturers must also be permitted to provide 
information other than that expressly laid down in 
the Directive, provided that this is made subject to 
certain conditions or restrictions in order to ensure 
fair competition and objective information. 
6. Member States should no longer be able to require 
that compound feedingstuffs must or must not con­
tain certain ingredients. Instead there should be a 
Community list of ingredients which are prohibited 
because they are harmful to animal or human health. 
7. It is compulsory to indicate the minimum storage 
life of a product, with a distinction being drawn 
between highly perishable feedingstuffs (where a 
'use before' date should be given) and other feeding­
stuffs (where the indication should be 'best 
before...'). The date of manufacture is to be given 
indirectly, using the wording 'manufactured 'x' 
days, months or year(s) before the minimum storage 
life expiry date indicated'. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee would draw attention to its past 
Opinions on the subject, viz. the unanimously approved 
Opinion of 29/30 September 1971 (2) and the Opinion 
of 30 January 1985(3) which was carried by a large 
majority. 
2.2. The Committee thinks that the new proposal 
can be approved. More binding Community rules cover­
ing all Member States would certainly be timely, 
especially in the run-up to the all-important objective 
of the single European market. It is necessary to open 
up trade in compound feedingstuffs, so that producers, 
marketers and distributors can all compete fairly. How­
ever, it must also be ensured that users receive precise 
and accurate information. 
(!) OJ No C 178, 7. 7. 1988. (2) OJNoC4, 20. 1. 1972. 
(3) OJ No C 87, 9. 4. 1985. 
30. 1. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/11 
2.2.1. The Committee therefore gives its broad 
approval to the proposal, subject to a number of general 
and specific comments which have been prompted by 
the fact that some problems remain unsolved and some 
of the solutions adopted are questionable or confusing. 
2.3. The new rules will oblige manufacturers to 
supply precise information. They also detail the 
optional information that may be furnished about prod­
ucts, their use, and their composition. Such a system 
brings a need for effective checks, and hence for har­
monized methods of analysis and assessment. 
2.3.1. The Commission has already taken decisive 
steps in this field, but it must continue to look for the 
most appropriate procedures and select the methods to 
be adopted. Pending this, internationally recognized 
methods should be used. 
2.4. The new Article 5(l)(e) and Article 5c(2) make 
it obligatory to list the ingredients in descending order 
by weight but not to specify the quantity of each 
ingredient. This is an important change which raises 
questions and problems to which there is no easy 
answer. 
2.4.1. It means that the composition need not be 
disclosed in full, i.e. the user will not be provided with 
full information. In addition, there are doubts about 
the effectiveness of the checks for verifying the quantity 
of each ingredient or certifying their presence. 
2.4.2. Details of the basic ingredients and the energy 
content of a feedingstuff are essential for assessing its 
value and quality. 
2.5. A solution must be sought to the problem of 
determining the energy content of feed. It is impossible 
to accept that a solution cannot be found. Acceptable 
results have been obtained for poultry feed and con­
siderable progress has been made with regard to pig-
feed. There are thus good grounds for thinking that an 
economic and scientifically recognized method can be 
obtained for determining the energy value of other 
animal feed. 
2.6. Grouping together various ingredients in cat­
egories—a possibility already provided for in existing 
rules—must be regarded as a suitable way of providing 
more reliable checks and ensuring the protection of 
industrial know-how and production capabilities. 
2.6.1. However, it must be ensured that this option 
cannot confuse the user in any way. 
2.7. The possibility of supplying extra information 
—in addition to that which it is compulsory to provide —is broadly acceptable because operators should be 
left with some room for manoeuvre. 
2.7.1. All the same, it is necessary to stress that all 
the information must be brief, clear, objective and 
accurate. The user must have sufficient information to 
determine the nutritive value of the feed, and it must 
also be possible to verify the information properly. 
2.8. Article 5 of the current legislation allow Member 
States to specify the ingredients which may be used in 
compound feedingstuffs. Replacing this with a list of 
prohibited ingredients (new Article 10) is a major 
change which can be endorsed. However, precise Com­
munity agreement is needed on the list of prohibited 
ingredients, which must be drawn up at an early date. 
2.9. The proposals with regard to products' dates of 
manufacture and expiry raise a good deal of uncer­
tainty. Consumer interests are undoubtedly protected 
by the indication of these dates. However, some pro­
duction processes make it difficult to indicate the exact 
date of manufacture. The argument that it should not 
be indicated can therefore be endorsed, provided that 
this does not hamper checks. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 1 (2) proposes the addition of a point (e) 
with regard to the minimum storage life of a compound 
feedingstuff. The Committee proposes that 'under 
proper storage conditions' be amended to 'under nor­
mal storage conditions'. 
3.2. Article 5 (1) must put more emphasis on the 
need to ensure that the particulars are clearly legible, 
inter alia by using the right print for the packaging. 
3.3. Point (h) in the Article 5 (1), which deals with 
the identification of the person responsible for the infor­
mation, should head the list of compulsory information, 
thus becoming point (a). It should also be amended so 
that the address of the person responsible is specified 
in the clearest terms. 
3.4. The provisions in the new Article 5 (2) should 
be more precise. Above all, 'small quantities of feeding-
stuffs intended for the final user' should mean quantities 
sold and packaged in the presence of the user. 
3.5. Some of the optional information referred to in 
the new Article 5 (3) should be made compulsory and 
No C 23/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1. 89 
transferred to Article 5 (1). This would make the infor­
mation more homogeneous throughout the Com­
munity. In particular, the indication of the batch num­
ber ought to be obligatory. 
3.6. The derogation allowed in Article 5 (4) raises 
some doubts especially as, once fiscal frontiers have 
been abolished, it will be difficult to identify feeding-
stuffs produced and marketed on the territory of only 
one Member State. At all events, the provision in 
point (b) might be prejudicial to the principle of com­
mercial secrecy. 
3.7. Special attention should be paid to the new 
Article 5c, which needs to be thoroughly revised in 
order to ensure that the list of optional information 
cannot mislead users. Users must also be able to recog­
nize what is meant by 'ingredients' (without having to 
read the entire Directive and its amendments). 
3.7.1. In particular, the grouping together of ingredi­
ents in categories raises questions. The establishment 
of these categories is considered advisable, but the 
Commission must lay them down promptly in order to 
prevent differences between Member States. 
3.7.2. Clarification is also needed of what is meant 
by the 'specific name' of an ingredient, because the 
name must be such as to rule out any confusion. 
3.8. The new Article 5d, which specifies how the 
minimum storage life is to be indicated, raises many 
problems. 
3.8.1. It is certainly a good idea to make it compul­
sory to indicate the expiry date of the product. How­
ever, since the requirements differ for highly perishable 
and other feedingstuffs, the meaning of 'highly perish­
able feedingstuffs' and 'other feedingstuffs' ought to be 
defined better. 
3.8.2. The main reason for making indication of the 
date of manufacture compulsory is to make checks 
easier. The user, however, is more interested in the date 
of expiry. 
Done at Brussels, 23 November 1988. 3.8.2.1. To make it less rigid. Article 5d (2) could be 
reworded as follows: 'manufactured 'x' months or 'x' 
months and year(s) before the minimum storage life 
expiry date indicated.' 
3.9. Article 5e, which sanctions the right to supply 
additional information subject to a number of con­
ditions, can be endorsed. The stipulation that no claims 
can be made about therapeutic properties might seem 
over-strict. However, it is justified by the requirement 
that any additional information should relate to 'objec­
tive or quantifiable factors which can be substantiated'. 
Nonetheless, an acceptable compromise might be to 
allow therapeutic properties to be indicated only when 
they relate to illnesses caused by malnutrition. 
3.10. The Commission proposes to amend Article 10 
by adding a point (d) which makes it possible to estab­
lish a list of ingredients whose use is prohibited in 
compound feedingstuffs in the interests of human and 
animal health. 
3.10.1. In practice, the Commission is proposing to 
change the positive list of ingredients into a negative 
list. 
3.10.2. Such an amendment can be considered useful 
on account of the high number of ingredients available 
and the ongoing technological developments which are 
constantly extending the number of ingredients. 
3.10.3. However, it is necessary to be particularly 
severe and exhaustive when drawing up a list of pro­
hibited ingredients. 
3.11. The annex which contains general provisions 
in part A and rules for the declaration of analytical 
constituents in part B can be generally endorsed. 
3.11.1. The declarations with regard to methionine 
and lysine cannot be required as long as Community 
methods of analysis are not available. 
3.11.2. If some of the rules in the Directive have to 
be amended, part B should be altered accordingly. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE