22. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 328/27 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 79/112/EEC on the 
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and 
advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer (*) 
(86/C 328/11) 
On 29 April 1986 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 
1 and 2 September 1986 in the light of the report by Mrs Dore. 
At its 239th plenary session (meeting of 17 September 1986), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following opinion by a majority, with four abstentions: 
1. General comments 
1.1. By eliminating national derogations concerning 
labelling, allowed under Directive 79/112/EEC, and 
by introducing new horizontal labelling rules made 
necessary by technological, economic and social devel­
opments, this proposal for a directive aims to contribute 
to the completion of the internal market and to help 
ensure better and identical consumer information 
throughout the Community. 
1.2. If an internal Community market is to be estab­
lished, a high level of information is required to ensure 
fair cdmpetition between manufacturers and to enable 
consumers to make informed choices. 
1.3. The proposal for a directive also extends the 
number of cases where labelling measures can be adopt­
ed under a simplified procedure. Paragraphs 3, 6, 8, 9, 
ll, 15 and 17 of Article 1 of the current proposal for a 
directive specify new cases in addition to those already 
provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC (Articles 6 (4) (d), 
6 (5) (b) second indent, 7 (1) (3), 8 (4) final paragraph, 9 
(4) final paragraph, 16 (2) final paragraph and 19). 
1.4. The Committee feels that the increase in the. 
number of labelling measures which can be adopted 
under a simplified procedure is justified by the technical 
nature of the measures in question and by the need to 
speed up the process of harmonization. The Committee 
is not, however, in favour of the new simplified pro­
cedure introduced by Article 1 (20) of the proposal for 
a directive, and in this connection would refer to the 
comments set out in point 3.6 of the Preliminary Draft 
Report of the Section for the Protection of the Environ-
(J) OJ No C 194, 23. 5. 1986, p. 5. ment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs on the Com­
mission communication to the Council and to the Euro­
pean Parliament entitled Completion of the Internal 
Market: Community Legislation on Foodstuffs (rappor­
teur: Mr Hilkens). 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 1, paragraph 1 (extension of the scope 
of the directive to cover restaurants, hospitals, canteens 
and other similar mass caterers) 
2.1.1. The Committee endorses this provision, which 
extends the field of application of Community labelling 
and presentation rules to cover foodstuffs used by mass 
caterers. This will help to ensure clear information on 
foodstuffs in a fast-growing sector. 
2.1.2. In view of the increasing number of people 
taking meals outside the home the Committee would 
like to see common principles and rules governing con­
sumer information on meals provided by mass caterers 
laid down in the near future. 
2.2. Article 1, paragraphs 4 and 5 (mandatory indi­
cation of direct treatment with ionizing radiation) 
2.2.1. The Committee appreciates the value of the 
Commission proposal, which will enable consumers to 
identify foodstuffs treated with ionizing radiation (X 
or gamma rays, or beams of accelerated electrons). 
2.2.2. Given the present lack of Community legis­
lation authorizing this type of treatment, and also in 
order to take account of differences in national legis­
lation, the Committee feels that the seventh recital in 
the preamble concerning the mandatory indication of 
this type of treatment should be amended to read as 
follows: 
No C 328/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 12. 86 
'Whereas authorization to treat certain types of 
foodstuffs with ionizing radiation has been granted 
in several Member States and whereas consumers 
should be informed of such treatment'. 
2.2.2.1. Contrary to the Commission proposal 
(Article 1 (5)), Article 6 (5) (b) of the basic Directive 
should not therefore be amended. 
2.2.3. In the interests of consumers and the food 
industry the Committee would like to see a common 
wording or means of identification for this kind of 
treatment throughout the Community. 
2.3. Article 1, paragraphs 7 and 23 (abolition of 
the provision enabling flavourings to be indicated in 
accordance with national legislation, and addition of a 
'flavouring(s)' category to Annex 1) 
2.3.1. The Committee is in favour of a single Com­
munity rule governing the indication of flavourings. 
2.3.2. The Committee would like Article 1, para­
graph 23 to be worded more precisely. The present 
wording to the effect that the designation 'flavouring' 
may be supplemented by an indication of the animal 
or vegetable origin of the aromatizers used would not 
seem to be entirely satisfactory. Work currently being 
carried out on the definition of categories of flavourings 
should be taken into account in determining what 
additional indications may be given to make the desig­
nation 'flavouring' more explicit. 
2.4. Article 1, paragraph 10 (abolition of the obli­
gation to specify net quantities of spices and herbs of 
less than five grams) 
2.4.1. The Committee notes that this measure is jus­
tified by practical problems of application. 
2.4.2. The Committee would like to see the possi­
bility of a threshold higher than five grams examined 
at the earliest opportunity. 
2.5. Article 1, paragraph 12 (abolition of the right 
to permit "use before...' dates for microbiologically 
highly perishable foodstuffs) 
2.5.1. 'Use before' dates have been adopted by a large 
majority of Member States to indicate the minimum 
durability of microbiologically highly perishable food­
stuffs. 
2.5.2. The 'use before' formula would seem to have 
a number of advantages for consumers, the food indus­
try and the inspection authorities. From the consumer's 
point of view it has the merit of greater force than the 'best before' formula and it highlights the perishability 
of certain foodstuffs. It has not posed any particular 
application problems for the industry and it has facili­
tated close monitoring of products that are sensitive 
from the health angle. The advantage for the inspection 
authorities is that the imperative nature of this method 
of indicating minimum durability makes it possible to 
prohibit the sale of a product once the date has been 
reached. 
2.5.3. If, as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, 
'use before' and 'best before' dates mean the same thing 
to the consumer, one solution would be to employ only 
the 'use before' formula. This might, however, have 
one or two unwanted consequences, e.g.: 
— there would be a tendency to extend the minimum 
durability period of some products, 
— it would be more difficult to sell products which 
have passed the date of minimum durability but 
which are still quite fit for consumption, thus lead­
ing to a high level of waste. 
2.5.4. The Commission proposal, whilst having the 
merit of laying down a common Community rule for 
expressing the date of minimum durability, is not there­
fore entirely satisfactory on this point. 
2.5.5. The Committee therefore proposes that the 
possibility of employing 'use before' dates be retained 
in the case of microbiologically highly perishable food­
stuffs. Parallel with this, Community provisions should 
be quickly adopted laying down standard conditions for 
the use of this indication (list of foodstuffs concerned — 
fixing of the period) with the threefold objective of 
improving consumer information as regards a, label 
indication which could have health implications, of 
offering greater legal certainty to the food industry and 
of facilitating trade. 
2.6. Article 1, paragraph 13 (abolition of the right 
to permit the expression of the minimum durability of 
a foodstuff otherwise than in, terms of the date of 
minimum durability) 
2.6.1. This Commission proposal appears justified 
in the light of the above proposal that 'use before' 
dates be retained for microbiologically highly perishable 
foodstuffs. 
22. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 328/29 
2.7. Article 1, paragraphs 14 and 22 (drawing-up of 
a single list of foodstuffs which do not require indi­
cation of the date of minimum durability) 
21 A. The Committee welcomes the Commission 
proposal that there be a single list of foodstuffs which 
do not require indication of the date of minimum 
durability. The Committee feels that this solution, 
which would abolish the possibility of derogations by 
individual governments, is the most favourable one 
from the point of view of consumers, who are particu­
larly attentive to date markings, and also for the indus­
try, which would then have a single legal system, thus 
facilitating trade. 
2.7.2. There might, however, be application prob­
lems for manufacturers in those Member States which 
had national derogations from the requirement to indi­
cate minimum durability dates for ice creams in general, 
for foodstuffs whose minimum durability exceeds 
18 months and for deep-frozen foodstuffs. Under the 
new Commission proposal these foodstuffs, with the 
exception of ice cream in single portions for immediate 
consumption, will no longer be exempt from the 
requirement to indicate the date of minimum durability. 
2.7.3. The Committee feels that special deadlines 
could be fixed for the application of the provision 
to ice creams, foodstuffs whose minimum durability 
exceeds 18 months and deep-frozen foodstuffs. These 
adaptation periods could be established in the light of 
specific studies, taking particular account of the practi­
cal experience of Member States which have made date 
indication compulsory for these three types of product. 
2.8. Article 1, paragraph 16 (right to give label par­
ticulars on the commercial documents only in the case 
of foodstuffs pre-packaged and marketed at a stage 
prior to their sale to the ultimate consumer) 
2.8.1. The Committee wonders about the practical 
implications of the Commission proposal contained in 
Article 1, paragraph 16, which permits label particulars 
to be given only on the commercial documents relating 
to the foodstuff in question. This new possibility could, 
for example, make it easier for the labelling operations 
to be transferred from the manufacturing stage to the 
distribution stage. 
Done at Brussels, 17 September 1986. 2.8.2. It would seeem that this provision is to apply 
to pre-packaged foodstuffs intended for the ultimate 
consumer but which are at a stage prior to their sale 
to the ultimate consumer. This poses two problems: 
— the concept of ultimate consumer has not been 
defined, 
— what labelling rules will be applied to pre-packaged 
foodstuffs intended for restaurants, hospitals, can­
teens and other similar mass caterers? 
2.8.3. In theory this provision might allow pre-pack­
aged foodstuffs such as canned goods and packets of 
frozen food to enter into circulation in the Community 
without carrying on their packaging any of the label 
particulars specified in Directive 79/112/EEC. This 
could give rise to certain risks. The absence of labels 
might prevent identification by the inspection authori­
ties in cases where a specific foodstuff recognizable by 
its label was known to pose a health risk. Also, the 
commercial documents with the label particulars might 
get lost, and above all it would be difficult to link 
the label particulars (the date for instance) on the 
commercial documents with a given batch of non-
labelled foodstuffs. 
2.8.4. The Committee feels therefore that the Com­
mission proposal contained in Article 1, paragraph 16, 
does not go far enough and needs supplementing on 
three points: 
— detailed rules applicable to restaurants, hospitals, 
canteens and similar mass caterers, 
— a requirement that the commercial documents with 
all the label particulars should accompany the food­
stuffs to which they relate; 
— introduction of specific arrangements making it easy 
for the documents with the label particulars to be 
linked definitely with the pre-packaged foodstuffs 
so as to enable these foodstuffs to be checked before 
sale to the ultimate consumer and ensure certainty 
in commercial transactions. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR