21. 5. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 124/15 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) laying down general health Rules 
for the production and placing on the market of products of animal origin and specific health 
Rules for certain products of animal origin 
(90/C 124/06) 
On 22 November 1989 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 9 March 1990. The Rapporteur was 
Mr. Gardner. 
At its 275th plenary session (meeting of 28 March 1990) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. This proposal deals with hygiene rules for ani­
mal-based food products. It also sets up a Community-
wide system for dealing with hygiene-related problems 
for these. 
1.2. The Committee strongly supports the proposal 
in principle though a number of detailed changes is 
necessary. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The proposal has some important defects. 
2.1.1. It is incomplete. It provides brief general 
health Rules for products where individual Community 
Rules exist and detailed hygiene and product retrieval 
Rules for the remaining products. 
2.1.2. However, no list has been presented to the 
Committee to indicate those products which are 
covered and which are not, although it has been indi­
cated that such information is available. Unless such a 
list is incorporated before the Regulation is fully issued, 
neither governments nor the public will know to which 
products these Rules apply. 
2.1.2.1. See also 4.1. 
2.1.3. The proposal cuts accross and is in parts 
incompatible with the Directives on the 'Official control 
of foodstuffs' (14 June 1989) (!) and on 'Indications or 
marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs' 
(14 June 1989) (2). It therefore needs modifying to bring 
it in line with these Directives. 
2.1.4. There is no requirement for educating farmers, 
managers and operatives in hygienic practices. Appro­
priate training and education are a prerequisite for its 
effective implementation. 
(*) OJ No L 186, 30. 6. 1989, p. 23. 
(2) OJ No L 186, 30. 6. 1989, p. 21. 2.1.5. See also 3.3 and 6.3.4. 
2.1.6. It pre-empts the general food hygiene Directive 
on which the Commission is working. 
2.1.7. The Committee therefore wants the proposal 
delayed until the list in 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 is available and 
the hygiene Directive is passed. The detailed comments 
below are without prejudice to this overall view. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 1 
a) The proposal is a Regulation. It should be for a 
Directive. Public health and its enforcement are 
subject to a considerable body of existing law in 
Member States and these laws have obtained the 
required results in quite different ways. Also 
enforcement varies between centralization in some 
and total local authority control in other Member 
States. 
A Directive is much more readily adaptable to 
national legal structures. 
See also comments under 3.5. 
b) Article 1.1 
To clarify the scope of the proposal both indents should 
be changed to read: 
'... products of animal origin as defined in Annex 
II of Article 38 of the Treaty'. 
c) Article 1.2 
Re the future general hygiene directive see comments 
under 2.1.6 and 2.1.7. 
No C 124/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 21.5.90 
3.2. Article 2 
3.2.1. One has to cover products such as gelatine 
sold for industrial use and petfoods sold frozen or 
chilled which have to be of human consumption quality, 
because they can be used in the kitchen without further 
processing. The definition for 'products of animal ori­
gin' must therefore be changed to: 
'whether processed or not and whether intended or 
not for human consumption'. 
3.2.2. A great deal of the detail in the proposal, 
though eminently desirable, would be impossible in 
practice to apply in many small farms, retail stores, 
restaurants and artisanal establishments. The definition 
of 'establishment' therefore has to be changed appropri­
ately. 
3.3. Article 4 
3.3.1. This Article shows the importance of edu­
cation and training. Hazard analysis of critical control 
points (HACCP) is an important concept in modern 
food technology but a good deal of training will be 
necessary as this Article covers such diverse operators 
as farmers making cheese, butchers making sausages, 
etc. 
3.3.2. Equally such operators at present would have 
neither the knowledge nor the facilities for taking mic­
robiological samples and the record-keeping require­
ment is too onerous for small operators. This section 
therefore needs revising. 
3.3.3. The second indent should be modified to read: 
'— take samples in line with HACCP analysis for 
examination ...' 
(Incidentally, the term HACCP or its equivalent is 
missing from some of the other language versions.) 
3.4. Article 5.1 
3.4.1. In some countries, the competent authority is 
decentralized to local level and provision must be made 
to cover this fact. 
3.5. Article 5.3 
3.5.1. There must be provision for the possibility 
that a product has been held or withdrawn on the basis of tests the results of which are later shown to be 
erroneous. Provision must be made for releasing these 
and where appropriate for compensating the farmers, 
manufacturers, etc. in such cases, equally there should 
be an appeals procedure. This is one of the reasons 
for making this proposal a Directive—national law 
normally covers such contingencies. 
3.6. Article 5, general 
3.6.1. There must be provision for replicate samples 
and an appeal procedure as provided by Articles 7 and 
12 of the Directive on official control of foodstuffs. 
3.7. Article 13.2 
a) The Communitee notes that Article 15 of the official 
control Directive already provides for a list of 
official national laboratories, published in the OJ 
of the EC. 
b) First line, change to: 
'... the Commission must designate ... one or more 
Community reference laboratories'. 
3.8. Article 14 
3.8.1. This should read: 
'The Commission must establish recommendations 
with guidelines for good manufacturing practices 
(GMP) in consultation with the economic operators 
involved'. 
'The Commission must also establish guidelines for 
good laboratory practice (GLP) for the reference 
laboraties.' 
3.8.2. However, there should be one set of GMP for 
all foods rather than separate ones for animal-based 
foods. 
4. Chapter III 
4.1. Article 16 
4.1.1. This Article divides products into those that 
are concerned by the detailed hygiene Rules and those 
that are not because they are covered by specific prod­
uct-related Regulations or Directives. 
4.1.2. It is essential that the Commission incorporate 
a detailed list showing which products are covered by 
which set of Rules. 
21. 5. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 124/17 
4.2. Article 17 
a) This Article implement the detailed provisions of 
the Annexes. The latter are written for products 
which are bacteriologically sensitive. However, 
there are products covered by this proposal, such 
as honey, where these requirement only apply in 
part. Provision therefore must be made either in 
this Article or elsewhere for partial exemption as 
appropriate. 
b) In 1.1 and 1.3 change to: 
'... packed and/or wrapped...' 
to fit in with Article 2. 
5. Chapter IV 
5.1. Article 22 
5.1.1. The activities of this committee must be coor­
dinated with those of the Standing Committee for Food­
stuffs established under the official control Directive (1). 
5.2. Article 25 
5.2.1. Given the considerable and costly adaptations 
involved for compliance with parts of the Annex and 
the educational effort involved in this proposal, a start­
ing date of 1 January 1993 for the whole of its seems 
illusory. 
6. Annex 
6.1. Chapters I-III are in line with good modern 
practice. However, they are obviously geared to larger 
producers and as noted under 3.3.2, there must be 
suitable derogations for small enterprises. As noted in 
4.2 partial drogations are necessary for products that 
are not bacteriologically sensitive. 
6.2. Chapter 1 
6.2.1. Point 7, second paragraph to be changed to: 
'... present minimal risk for direct or indirect con­
tamination.' 
6.2.1.1. The present 'no risk' is unrealistic. 6.3. Chapter II 
6.3.1. Here and elsewhere, when Commission 
inspectors are involved, it must be made clear that these 
inspectors have to observe the same confidentiality 
concerning production processes, recipes, etc. as 
national ones have to at present and as required by 
Article 12 of the Council Directive on official control 
of foodstuffs of 14 June 1989 (89/397/EEC) (2). 
6.3.2. Point 1 b 
6.3.2.1. Vermin etc. must also be prevented from 
entering as far possible. The prohibition of insects 
cannot apply to honey producers. 
6.3.3. Point 1 e 
6.3.3.1. This point is ill-defined and meaningless. All 
persons are a possible source of infection. Does this 
intend to cover persons suffering from gastro-intestinal 
infections? In any case, it needs re-wording. 
6.3.4. Point 5 
6.3.4.1. Given our comments under 3.2 the second 
line should be changed to: 
'... not intended for human consumption which are 
made from unfit materials, under the following 
conditions....' 
6.3.5. Point 6 
6.3.5.1. An annual check-up for 'no impediment' is 
of very dubious value owing to the transient nature 
of most relevant infections. It is more important to 
recognize the value of personal hygiene and infectious 
diseases and to treat these as the critical control point 
in itself. Control here lies with the individual employees, 
backed up by management enforcement—avoidance 
of work when known to be suffering from ingectious 
conditions (to be listed) and good hand washing on 
entrance to production area are key. Effective education 
is therefore vital. It is also essential that national in­
surance schemes facilitate employees in staying away 
from work if necessary and not to penalize them. 
6.4. Chapter V 
6.4.1. This chapter needs revising to take account of 
the Council Directive on lot marking of 14 June 1989 
(89/396/EEC) (1). Reference must be made to this Direc-
(*) OJ No L 186, 30. 6. 1989, p. 21. (2) OJ No L 186, 30. 6. 1989, p. 23. 
No C 124/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 5. 90 
tive and incompatibilities removed. For instance the 
letter L is used for marking the package meaning 'Lot' 
in the marking directive and for 'Luxembourg' in this 
proosal. Also the letters EEC are redundant. 
6.4.2. Provision must be made for imported products 
by giving the address of the importer in accordance 
Done at Brussels, 28 March 1990. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Council Directive has two basic objectives. 
1.1.1. To facilitate mobility. 
The Directive sets out to encourage mobility in those 
professions which fall under it. 
There is a particularly pressing need for more mobility 
in this area of civil aviation as a result of existing 
personnel shortages in the individual countries; this 
could be relieved at Community level. 
The problem is especially acute with regard to pilots 
working for small airlines and air traffic controllers. with Directive 79/112/EEC(1) and making the importer 
responsibile for batch identification. The petfoods 
under 3.2 must be labelled in accordance with the 
animal feedingstuff Directives. 
(!) OJ No L 33, 8. 2. 1979, p. 1. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
1.1.2. To maintain safety standards 
against a background of increased 
mobility. 
Intra-Community mobility must be underpinned by 
certain safety guarantees. This will mean making the 
award of a licence subject to certain minimum skill 
and experience requirements, and will require uniform 
training throughout the Community. 
1.2. The objectives will be achieved via harmonized 
requirements for admission to the professions in ques­
tion and training in the various skills required. These 
requirements and training will need to be based on 
compulsory, Community-wide minimum standards, 
and the consequent allocation of responsibilities at 
Community level will need to be spelt out. Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on mutual acceptance of personnel licences 
for the exercise of functions in civil aviation (*) 
(90/ C 124/07) 
On 20 December 1989 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 84 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 14 March 1990 in the light of the 
report by Mr Velasco Mancebo. 
At its 275th plenary session (meeting of 28 March 1990) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by a large majority with 5 abstentions. 
(!) OJ No C 10, 16. 1. 1990, p. 12. 1.3. Article 1 of the Commission's draft indicates 
that the proposal will cover flying crew (pilots, flight