3112.90 Official^oumal of the European Communities ^loCoB32B91 
Conclusion 
The Commissions aims and intentions can only he 
vigorously endorsed, but it would certainly be difficult 
to include in one directive all the highly complex pro^ 
visionsneededto stamp out money laundering effect 
tively. 
But the choice of a brief document including only 
essential provisions and, among otherthings, not dwelL 
ing on procedures for putting principles into practice 
involves inconveniences which the Committee must 
condemn. 
As the majority of member States have endorsed bind 
ing rules, such as those of theVienna Convention, one might hope that unanimous agreement can be reached 
onsettingupatechnicallyeffectiveprocessforstamping 
out money laundering. 
Phe above assessment of the proposals articles has 
certainly led to some additional technical proposals 
being put forward, but it cannot claim to have filled in 
the gaps in an obviously incomplete blueprint. As the 
Committee cannot tackle the whole issue withanew 
te^t, if feels that the proposal must be givenaclearer 
and more specific aim, by taloing the tasl^force^sRec 
ommendations and maloing them binding, in line with 
the decision of the Houston Summit of ]uly 1990. 
Foone at Brussels, 19 September 1990. 
o^^^o^o^^^^^o^^Co^^r^ 
Alt^rro^A^^Ot^ 
Opmionon the proposal foraCouncil Regulation laying down the health rules for the 
production and placmg on the market of raw nulk, of nulk for the manufacture of milk^ 
based products and of milkbased products^) 
(90BG332B27) 
On 23 Eebruaryl990 the council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 ofthePreatyestablishingthe European Community,ontheabovementioned 
proposal. 
The Section for Agriculture and Eisheries,whichwas responsible for preparing the Com^ 
mittee^s worsen the subject, adopted its Opinion on 12]ulyl990.The Rapporteur was 
^Blr Gardner. 
At its279th plenary session (meetingof 19September 1990), theEconomicandSocial 
committee adopted the following Opinion with no votes against and two abstentions. 
1. introduction 2. General comments 
1.1. Phis proposal is necessarytoprotectthe consumer 
in the market without frontiers and the Committee 
accepts it subject to the reservations below. 2.1. The Committee sees threeoverall problems with 
this proposals 
d^oi^ooe^^.i^D.u^ 2.1.1. Public health is not divisibleand smaller estabD 
lishments merely endanger fewer people. All establish^ 
ments must therefore be covered by proper health rules, 
No C 332/92 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
the details of which should be adapted to the type and 
size of the establishment. 
2.1.1.1. This is another proposal which does not 
include in the 'whereas' or in the text, appropriate 
reference to the general hygiene Directive being worked 
out by another part of the Commission, though Article 
1.2 of COM(89) 492 final (proposal for general health 
rules for certain products of animal origin), clearly 
states that 'the present regulations shall apply without 
prejudice to future horizontal hygiene legislation on 
foodstuffs'. 
It is essential that this proposal should provide for 
compliance with that Directive where necessary. That 
is particularly important for the establishments which 
may be exempted from these rules. While exemption 
from some of the detailed rules is reasonable, this 
would leave the establishments concerned without any 
alternative Community rules and could thus present a 
danger to the public. 
2.1.2. Milk health rules are divided into two separate 
proposals, this one and that on heat treated drinking 
milk. There are numerous cross references between the 
two and their interplay is extremely confusing. The 
Commission would be better advised to re-write them 
as one document after having taken the Committee's 
comments into account. 
2.1.3. Quality rules are very important. However, 
their presence in a health rule proposal weakens the 
focus on health. Quality rules should therefore be part 
of separate quality proposals. 
2.2. The Commission proposal, particularly the Ger­
man text, unfortunately contains a number of errors in 
the translation of specific technical terms. The import­
ance of the hygiene rules makes it particularly import­
ant that their wording be as free as possible of interpret­
ation and the translation carried out with care. 
3. Detailed comments 
3.1. Preamble 
3.1.1. Given our general comments, there should be 
a further 'whereas': 
'Whereas the granting of the derogations from spec­
ific Community health rules to certain establish­
ments does not affect compliance with the require­
ments of Directive No ../.. of on the protection 
of human health by monitoring the wholesomeness 
of food and observing basic principles of hygiene 
during the production, handling and sale.' 3.2. Article 1.1 
3.2.1. The scope should be clarified by adding: 
'... as defined in Annex II of the Treaty.' 
3.3. Article 1.2 
3.3.1. For reasons given in the general comments, 
the Committee would prefer these exemptions to be 
deleted. However, if they are maintained, the following 
additions are essential: 
3.3.1.1. Firstly the first sentence must be changed to: 
'This Regulation except for chapter IV. 1 A and B 
shall not apply to the direct sale... 
This is necessary to ensure that unsafe milk products 
are not sold.' 
3.3.1.2. And secondly, a paragraph should be added 
at the end: 
'The establishments however have to comply with 
the requirements of Directive No / of on 
the protection of human health by monitoring the 
wholesomeness of food and observing basic prin­
ciples of hygiene during the production, handling 
and sale.' 
3.3.2. This change should ensure that basic hygiene 
rules can be enforced by the competent authorities. 
3.4. Article 2.1 
The reference to 'equivalent effect' is obscure. 
3.5. Article 2.2 
'Authorized physical treatment' should be replaced by 
'recognized physical treatment'. 
3.6. Article 2.3 
3.6.1. This definition needs revising. The present 
version is less than clear. We understand that ice-cream 
made from whole milk and vegetable fat is covered but 
not ice-cream from skimmed milk and vegetable fat. 
Equally skimmed milk powder is covered but not filled 
milk powder. From a hygiene view the same rules must 
obviously apply to both types of product. 
3.7. Article 4 
3.7.1. Add a new point: 
'5. Member States or regions may ban the sale of 
raw milk on their territory for health reasons.' 
31.12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/93 
3.7.2. This is currently the case in Scotland where 
banning raw milk has considerably reduced the number 
of food poisoning cases. 
3.8. Article 6.9 
3.8.1. Add at the end: 
'or have been subjected to hygiene requirements 
sufficient to satisfy the same criteria in the finished 
product.' 
3.9. Article 7.1 
3.9.1. Raw milk products can constitute a potential 
health risk. The Committee does not agree with leaving 
significant derogations affecting public health to a com­
mittee procedure without any involvement by the pub­
lic. The list of raw milk products should be part of this 
instrument or an amendment thereof. It is particularly 
important that the list be published where the public 
has access to it. 
3.10. Articles 7.3 and 7.4 
3.10.1. These are totally unacceptable as they stand. 
As drafted at present, products covered by them could 
contain food-poisoning organisms, antibiotic residues 
etc. At the very least, references to exemptions from 
Article 6(1) to (4) must be changed to: 
'exempted from Article 6.1 (except for compliance 
with chapter II of the Annex), 6.2, 6.3 (except for 
chapter IV. 1 A and B of the Annex) and 6.4.' 
3.10.2. Aside from that, it needs to be emphasized 
that the requirements of the Directive on general food 
hygiene, mentioned under Article 1.2 must continue to 
apply to the establishments concerned. 
3.10.3. Finally, the word 'traditional' in 7.3 and 'long 
period' in 7.4 need defining. 
3.11. Article 8 
3.11.1. These derogations as they stand are not 
acceptable and indeed would appear to contradict 
Article 36 of the Treaty. They are an extreme case 
where the interplay of the two proposals destroys trans­
parency: Article 6.2 refers to Article 3(2) of the heat-
treated milk proposal which in turn refers to Annex B. 
chapter V. 
3.11.2. The net result is to exempt premises from 
daily cleaning, daily disinfection of containers and work 
places etc. This Article should be deleted. If it were 
maintained despite the objections of the Committee, the term 'limited production' must be quantified and it 
must be made clear that the General Hygiene Directive 
mentioned under Article 1.2 continues to apply to these 
establishments. 
3.11.3. Whenever derogations are applied for, or 
granted, they should be made public by the competent 
authority. 
3.12. Articles 9 —12 
3.12.1. Some of the measures to be proposed by the 
Commission may affect the general public interest as 
well as consumer interests generally. In such cases the 
Commission's draft of 'measures to be taken' should 
also be sent to the Economic and Social Committee. 
3.13. Chapter U. 1 and 3 
3.13.1. In the table, change last point to: 
'Antibiotics (per ml): not detectable by recognized 
biological methods.' 
3.13.2. The present 'undetectable' is impracticable. 
3.13.3. Also the Commission should agree standards 
for aflatoxin Ml and then include these. 
3.13.4. Plate counts and somatic cell counts at the 
levels given in the proposal, are quality and animal 
husbandry criteria, which have little relevance to public 
health. They should be in separate proposals dealing 
with these subjects. 
3.13.5. If they are retained in this proposal, it must 
be made clear that they are indicative standards only 
and not rejection ones. 
3.14. Chapter ILl.b 
3.14.1. Having standards for Staph, aureus only is 
illogical. Either these should be deleted or preferably, 
there should be standards for all pathogens. 
3.15. Chapter 111.2 
3.15.1. Any such standards should be set by a 
Council measure, not by a Committee procedure. 
3.16. Chapter IV. 1 
3.16.1. This chapter contains a confusing mixture of 
public health and quality standards. 
No C 332/94 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
3.16.2. The Committee would emphasize that pro­
tection of the consumer is best served by having GMP 
(Good Manufacturing Practice) principles and manu­
facture based on HACCP (Hazard Analysis of Critical 
Control Points). With such an approach it is necessary 
to have microbiological criteria for the manufacturer 
to verify that GMP has been applied. 
3.16.3. Only the figures for pathogens and for faecal 
(44 °C) coliforms are actual health standards which 
must be strictly observed. The proposal must make 
the distinction clearer and say that the table must be 
interpreted in this light. 
3.16.4. Aside from this the table needs changes as 
follows: 
Done at Brussels, 19 September 1990. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. This proposal deals with health rules governing 
meat which has undergone some treatment and includes 
such products as ham, salami and other sausages, salted 
beef, etc. 
C1) OJ No C 84, 2. 4. 1990, p. 89. — Not all pathogens are relevant to all products. 
Listeria for instance is not relevant to powdered 
milk. 
— The term 'Other pathogens' is too vague and needs 
differentiating by product and type of pathogen. 
For instance yersinia enterocolitica is relevant to 
pasteurised milk but not to UHT. 
3.17. Chapter IV.l.b 
3.17.1. Organoleptic tests are quality, not health 
standards. 
3.18. Chapter V 
3.18.1. In the English version, change 'inspection' to 
'control' throughout to conform with the original 
French text. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
1.2. The Committee welcomes the proposal in prin­
ciple, but wants a number of changes as shown below. 
2. General remarks 
2.1. This is another proposal which does not include 
in the 'whereas' or in the text, appropriate reference to Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the health rules for the 
production and placing on the market of meat products (1) 
(90/C 332/28) 
On 21 February 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovemen-
tioned proposal. 
The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Com­
mittee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 12 July 1990. The Rapporteur was 
Mr Gardner. 
At its 279th plenary session (meeting of 19 September 1990) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion by 68 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions.