Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on: - the 'General principles of food law in the European Union (Commission Green Paper)', and - 'Consumer health and food safety (Communication from the Commission)'
Date: 1997-10-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: approximation of laws, consumer protection, food inspection, foodstuffs legislation, public health

21. 1. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/61

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘General principles of food law in the European Union (Commission Green Paper)’,

and

— ‘Consumer health and food safety (Communication from the Commission)’

(98/C 19/19)

On 12 May 1997 (green paper) and on 14 May 1997 (communication) the Commission decided
to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing
the European Community, on the above-mentioned green paper and communication.

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
7 October 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Jaschick.

At its 349th plenary session (meeting of 29 October 1997), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 93 votes to five, with five abstentions.

I. THE GREEN PAPER ON THE GENERAL PRIN-
CIPLES OF FOOD LAW IN THE EUROPEAN
UNION

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The green paper is concerned with the substantive
provisions of Community food law. By taking a stand
and inviting comments on a large number of specific
questions, the Paper seeks to launch a public debate on
how far:

— current food law meets the needs and expectations
of consumers, producers, manufacturers and traders;

— measures to improve monitoring and inspection
systems meet the fundamental objective of ensuring
a safe and wholesome supply of food;

— measures designed to further develop Community
food law in the future are necessary and appropriate.

1.2. On the basis of the reactions to the paper, the
Commission will subsequently consider the need for
a) a general directive on food law in society, b) the
consolidation or reworking of existing legislation, c) pro-
posals of a non-legislative nature, for example changes
in procedures and working methods.

2. General comments

2.1.
The Committee welcomes the Commission’s
intention to use the green paper to trigger a wide-ranging
public debate on European food legislation and the
Community’s future food policy. It sees the green paper
as a valuable basis for discussions and as an opportunity

to make European food legislation more transparent
and more efficient so that high-quality food supplies
can be guaranteed. The Committee notes, however, that
a comprehensive, integrated EU food policy upon which
the different pieces of food law could be based, does not
yet exist. Such a comprehensive policy that sets out the
general principles of food law should be developed as
soon as possible. As a first step, this could be done in a
possible white paper on food law and food policy. In
addition, the Committee would also call upon the
Commission to present a proposal for a general food
law directive.

The Committee would underline the importance
2.2.
of consumer protection, consumer safety and the main-
tenance of a high level of public health standards and
welcomes in the as yet unratified Amsterdam Treaty the
provisions strengthening Articles 129 and 129(a) to give
consumers a firm guarantee that health problems take
precedence over economic interests.

2.2.1. With a view to ensuring a high level of public
health and consumer protection, the ESC attaches
particular importance to the strict application of the
precautionary principle, so that where there is scientific
uncertainty and no possibility of carrying out a compre-
hensive risk assessment, the approach taken to risk
management must reflect that uncertainty. The Com-
mittee emphasizes, however, that an approach that
allows anything that is not directly damaging to health
alone is not satisfactory from a consumer point of view.
It therefore stresses the need for a clear commitment to
the principle of preventative health and consumer
protection. Both this principle and the precautionary
principle should be incorporated into the general food
law directive referred to above.

C 19/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 98

2.2.2.
The Committee would nevertheless point out
that there is usually no such thing as a zero risk and
life’s general risks by and large have to be accepted. The
consumer also bears responsibilities, particularly in the
food sector, and the ESC is not unaware of this.

Against this background, the ESC continues to
2.2.3.
take the view that legislative and other provisions must
be as simple as possible and only go into detail where
necessary; consumer confidence after all cannot be
achieved by introducing highly complicated and
extremely detailed rules and regulations. It is much more
important to increase consumer awareness of existing
legislation and proven methods of guaranteeing the
availability of high-quality foodstuffs. Consumer confi-
dence can also be increased by making Europe’s system
more transparent.

2.3.
The Committee would wish to make it clear that
considerable progress has already been made in the past
to ensure that a high level of consumer protection goes
hand in hand with the establishment of the internal
market. Securing the free movement of goods will
continue to be of great importance in the future.

2.4.
The Committee stresses the importance of the
international dimension of these questions and under-
lines the need for common basic principles in world
trade to ensure that consumer interests are protected
and that the European economy remains competitive.

The Committee assumes that the green paper’s
2.5.
recommended review of food legislation will encourage
consumer confidence in European food laws, their
safeguards and the manner in which they are implement-
ed and monitored.

3. Specific comments on the various parts of the green

paper

3.1.

Introduction (Part I)

3.1.1.
The Committee agrees with the Commission
(see Part I, 4) that food policy-making should take due
account of innovation and competitiveness requirements
as well as other socio-economic policy directions. The
observance of international standards such as the Codex
Alimentarius is of particular importance in this respect
as long as decision-making reflects the principles of
excellence, independence and transparency. These cri-
teria should be used to benchmark the EU’s regulatory
environment against the general legal framework in
place in competing economies. It will also be necessary
to create a system whereby the EU’s regulatory system
can be adjusted more quickly than in the past to new

scientific knowledge and innovations. This will enable
the European food industry to retain its international
competitiveness and keep abreast of innovations.

3.1.2.
The Committee is of the view that the Com-
munity undoubtedly has a role to play in the field of
nutrition (Part I, 5). In this connection it is vital to
promote consumer education and information so that
the consumer is placed in a position where he can
make informed purchasing decisions (1). The Committee
nevertheless feels that it is inappropriate to introduce
Community rules and regulations on nutrition because
of the wide range of nutritional habits in Europe.
Community intervention here should be kept to the
basic minimum.

3.2. Simplification and rationalization of EU food law

(Part II)

3.2.1.
A simplification and rationalization of EU food
law would be welcome provided that this does not
endanger the necessary safety standards. In carrying out
this task, the quality of legislation must come before
quantity. Simplification must not, however, lead to a
renationalization of the European rules and regulations
needed in the single market. It is also particularly
important to examine how national legislative initiatives
detrimental to the free movement of goods are adequately
countered at European level.

3.2.2.
A distinction also needs to be made between
self regulation in the foodstuffs sector and the use of
voluntary instruments at European level (Part II, 4). In
principle, we would lay stress on the food industry’s
need to shoulder its own responsibilities. However, the
extent to which this should take a ‘self-regulatory’ form
must depend on the individual case in question. Without
prejudice to existing safety requirements, the use of
voluntary instruments must also in principle be examined
before the introduction of legislation. The Committee
takes the view that the principle of mutual recognition
should also be accepted in the case of voluntary Member
State instruments, even where there are no grounds for
the immediate application of such instruments. Only if
voluntary instruments in the internal market are accepted
beyond national borders can the emergence of ‘de facto’
trade barriers be avoided.

3.2.3.
The question of whether preference should be
given to general or detailed regulations, to vertical or
horizontal provisions in the internal market (Part II, 3
and Part II, 5), cannot be answered comprehensively.
General and horizontal approaches are basically prefer-
able but cannot be transformed into an incontrovertible
principle. It is more important to consider what approach

(1) This view is expressed in several ESC opinions, most

recently in CES 888/96 — OJ C 295, 17. 10. 1996.

21. 1. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/63

is appropriate to the particular circumstances. Thus, in
exceptional circumstances and where a case presents
specific difficulties, it may be necessary to have detailed
and/or vertical regulations.

3.2.4. With regard to national legislative initiatives
(Part II, 7), the Committee supports the approach set
out in the green paper and takes the view that, contrary
to what is stated in Directive 83/189/EEC, the burden
of providing evidence that national laws are not detri-
mental to the internal market should lie with the Member
States. With regard to the notification of national
legislation, the Committee approves the extension of
powers provided under the labelling, contaminants and
hygiene rules to cover the entire Community foodstuff
sector. The Committee also welcomes the development
of clear principles for evaluating new national legislative
initiatives; this likewise implies the striking of a proper
balance between the subsidiarity principle and the
justifiable need for national
legislation, on the one
hand, and the requirements of European legislative
standardization, on the other.

3.2.5.
In the fields of processing aids, the addition
of vitamins and minerals to foodstuffs and dietary
supplements (Part II, 8), the Committee agrees with the
Commission that the principle of mutual recognition
can offer no solution to detrimental effects in the internal
market, and that further consultations on the content of
laws in these areas should therefore be initiated (1).

3.3. Review of
(Part III)

existing Community

legislation

3.3.1. With regard to the adaptation of Community
legislation to innovation and technical progress
(Part III, 4), the Committee feels that only purely
technical rules should be dealt with under the committee
procedure. Questions of principle and sensitive questions
from the point of view of the consumer with far-reaching
importance should be the subject of a political decision.

The introduction of a European-wide defi-
3.3.2.
nition of ‘food’ and other generally important concepts
(Part III, 5) is welcomed by the Committee. Such
definitions should form part of a general foodstuffs
regulation containing other basic requirements. This is
the only way of ensuring that European food law is
applied uniformly throughout the European Union.

(1) It should be recalled that the Commission has recently
launched a consultation in view of possible Community
legislation in this field; a discussion paper has been prepared
on the subject, presenting two options (an approach
based on product safety and an approach based on the
recommended daily intake).

3.3.2.1. However, the proposed definition of a food-
stuff raises, as is also indicated in the green paper,
questions with regard to its general use for primary
products which can be used as foodstuffs or foodstuff
additives or processed into industrial products. Nonethe-
less the Committee supports the proposal that the
definition based on the Codex Alimentarius be used. An
exception could be made for primary products in respect
of which it is clear from the outset that they will at no
time and in no way enter the food chain.

The task of simplifying and rationalizing legis-
3.3.3.
lation in the field of Community food hygiene (Part III, 6)
has now begun and the move is particularly welcomed
by the Committee.

3.3.3.1.
The numerous vertical directives with their
specific provisions for sensitive categories of product
(e.g. meat and fish preparations, milk products, etc.) are
incoherent, especially for firms subject to more than one
set of provisions, and give rise to considerable red tape
and expenditure on permits. The Committee is therefore
pleased with the European Commission’s proposal to
consolidate legislation into a single text and to launch a
consultation exercise in connection with the planned
simplification of vertical provisions.

The green paper points to a welcome shift in
3.3.3.2.
policy in favour of thinking based on the general
directive on food hygiene (Directive 93/43/EEC). The
ESC shares the Commission’s view that a coherent and
consistent body of legislation relating to food hygiene
can best be achieved by the application of HACCP (2)
principles and by limiting detailed prescriptive pro-
visions to cases where they are regarded as essential. In
this context the Committee is of the opinion that, in
addition to the proposals already submitted, both
vertical and horizontal hygiene requirements should be
consolidated in a single text. It notes, however, that this
would require clarification of the legal basis of such a
document since current rules and regulations are based
on different Treaty articles.

3.3.3.3. HACCP principles should apply to the whole
food chain (from ‘stable to table’), notwithstanding the
size or type of establishment. Specific consultations with
SMEs and agricultural enterprises are therefore required
if such enterprises are to be in a position where they can
apply these principles.

3.3.3.4.
The Committee considers that it is necessary
to be consistent and press on down the road of
simplification and rationalization. Particular attention
should therefore be paid to the need for a clear definition

(2) ‘HACCP’ (a self-checking system) stands for Hazard

Analysis and Critical Control Points.

C 19/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 98

of the scope of any future provisions (cf. point 3.3.3.2)
— something which can be achieved first and foremost
by laying down general and practical definitions. The
Committee is of the view that the scope of veterinary
hygiene rules should not be widened to include the retail
supply of foodstuffs of animal origin since the retail
trade is already covered by the general provisions
currently laid down in the directive on food hygiene
(Directive 93/43/EEC) which guarantees compliance
with appropriate hygiene standards.

3.3.3.5. With regard to primary products of non-
animal origin the Committee is of the view that pesticide
residues and contaminants constitute critical areas from
the point of view of safety and hygiene. Legislative
provisions on pesticide residues and contaminants
should therefore be drawn up where they do not
already exist and where they are felt to be necessary;
European-level scientific committees should be involved
in the drawing up of such provisions and the most
stringent scientific standards should be set. Furthermore,
there should be strict enforcement of pesticide residue
limits. In drawing up pesticide legislation, industrial
safety requirements should also be borne in mind. Since
rules guaranteeing safety and hygiene standards need to
be restricted to key areas, a more general set of provisions
is not needed.

The Committee underlines the importance of
3.3.4.
foodstuff quality and points out that high standards
have already been achieved. Rules on quality (Part III, 7)
only need to be harmonized where a health link is
established; preservation of the diversity of European
products is another reason why rules on quality should
not be harmonized. Any trade barriers resulting from
national quality requirements must be countered by
the consistent application of the principle of mutual
recognition. By taking this line, problems stemming
from different national quality requirements would be
limited to the question of correct product labelling. Help
for consumers in making purchasing decisions would
be provided by the latest amendments to Directive
79/112/EEC introducing the principle of the quantitative
declaration of ingredients.

The Committee would also recall Council
3.3.4.1.
Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 on certificates of specific
character for agricultural products and foodstuffs and
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection
of geographical indications and designations of origin
for agricultural products and for foodstuffs — two
regulations which created instruments for diversification
in the field of foodstuff quality. In terms of use,
however, these regulations have so far been of secondary
importance.

3.3.5.
The Committee would emphasize the growing
importance of foodstuff labelling rules (Part III, 8) in
helping the consumer make purchasing decisions. The
labelling of foodstuffs thus has an important role to
play in the internal market. This means fulfilling the
three essential requirements of labelling, viz. product
identification, consumer information and product mar-
keting. To fulfil these requirements, clearly recognizable,
legible, simple, understandable, interesting and informa-
tive labelling is needed which will not mislead the
consumer. Attention must also be paid to increasing
consumer wishes and growing consumer interest in
receiving specific information. This relates inter alia to
foodstuffs containing or derived from GMOs, pro-
duction methods, the indication of packaging dates and
compound ingredients of finished products. With respect
to this latter question, the Committee believes that the
25 % rule should be abolished.

3.3.5.1.
The limits to labelling must however also be
recognized and efforts made to open up new channels
of information such as free telephone numbers, barcode
scanners in shops, data banks, the Internet, etc. A look
at the more than 40 European pieces of legislation on
foodstuff labelling (the vast majority of which are
mandatory), combined with the fact that the information
on the labels is more and more detailed and hard for
consumers to understand, reveals the need to review
labelling provisions in the interests of consumers. In
carrying out this review, mandatory labelling should be
confined to the essential
information required for
purchasing decisions, whilst opportunities for the pro-
vision of information on all other questions should be
available on a voluntary basis.

The Committee is of

3.3.5.2.
the opinion that
nutritional labelling should be made compulsory (1).
Before doing so, however, this type of labelling should
be made more effective. To that end, major information
and education campaigns will be needed, as consumers
are not particularly well versed in nutritional labelling
at the present time and so do not really know what to
make off it. In addition, careful attention needs to
be paid to the way the information is presented to
consumers, so that it is understandable and useful to
them (2).

3.3.5.3.
The Committee considers that codification
is needed in the case of the food labelling Directive
79/112/EEC. Vertical
labelling provisions should be
incorporated in the consolidated text insofar as they
also regulate horizontal labelling questions. They could
be consolidated altogether in Directive 79/112/EEC.
However, labelling elements particular to certain prod-

3.3.4.2.
In the view of the Committee, quality pro-
visions with no link to health should be removed from
veterinary legislation for reasons of coherence and
consistency.

(1) The ESC also made this request in its opinion on consumer
policy priorities (cf. OJ C 295, 7. 10. 1996 — points 2.6.3
and 2.6.7).

(2) OJ C 295, 7. 10. 1996.

21. 1. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/65

ucts should continue to be contained in specific vertical
regulations. Insofar as horizontal labelling features of
specific groups of products are modified, they should
again be incorporated in the horizontal regulation.

3.3.5.4.
The Committee would point out that Direc-
tive 79/112/EEC also regulates the question of advertis-
ing. As a matter of general principle, advertising and
labelling should not come into conflict, i.e. advertising
should be complementary to rather than at odds with
labelling.

3.3.5.4.1.
Advertising claims, particularly those relat-
ing to health and diseases, pose problems in the Internal
Market because of varying practices in the Member
States. This happens despite the fact that Directive
79/112/EEC [Article 2(1)(b)] contains a general provision
stating that the labelling must not attribute to a foodstuff
of general use the property of preventing, treating or
curing a human disease, nor must it suggest that it
possesses such properties. This general provision is by
and large sufficient to regulate the question of advertising
in relation to diseases. In this respect a uniform interpre-
tation and application of Article 2(1)(b) of Directive
79/112/EEC is nevertheless required in all Member
States of the Community. Regarding health claims no
such general rules exist. Consequently, although such
claims may not be, strictly speaking, misleading in terms
of current EC legislation,
they may contribute to
misunderstanding and misinformation about food and
nutrition.

Therefore, the following principles should perhaps be
incorporated in Article 2 of Directive 79/112/EEC in the
form of a clarifying amendment:

— advertising messages stating that a foodstuff is
suitable for treating or curing diseases shall be
prohibited;

— health claims shall be allowed provided that they
reflect significant agreement among qualified experts
supported by the totality of publicly available evi-
dence and which contribute to inform consumers
about the relationship between health and diet. Also,
a framework for the enforcement of health claims
should be established;

— advertising messages referring to nutritional values
and healthy eating habits, and to the importance of
nutrients and healthy eating habits in maintaining
good health and reducing the risk of disease, shall
be allowed, under the condition that these messages
are also supported by scientific evidence.

3.4. Maintenance of a high level of protection (Part IV)

3.4.1.
The Committee supports the Commission’s
stance in favour of the strict application of the pre-
cautionary principle to food safety and food legislation
(Part IV, 2).

3.4.2.
Extending the scope of the safeguard clause
contained in Article 10 of the general directive on the
hygiene of foodstuffs (Council Directive 93/43/EEC) to
include intra-Community trade (Part IV, 4) is not in
principle necessary since the directive on product safety,
which contains effective provisions on the appropriate
reaction of the authorities when there is a risk of delay,
affects intra-Community trade. If additional, general
safeguard clauses are drawn up, they should for reasons
of consistency be based on existing veterinary regu-
lations.

3.4.3.
The introduction of a general obligation to
ensure that food is safe and wholesome (Part IV, 7) is to
be welcomed. Such an obligation would reduce the
number of regulations required in this area.

The Committee welcomes accommodation
3.4.3.1.
of the ‘due diligence’ defence, i.e. the principle existing
in some Member States whereby a business can never
be liable to criminal or administrative penalties for
bringing a product on to the market if it has taken all
the steps which could reasonably be expected of it to
ensure that the foodstuff meets legal requirements. The
extent to which this principle can be incorporated into
different national legal systems nevertheless needs to be
examined. Room should nevertheless be found at the
very least for a statement of the basic principle at stake.
However it also needs to be said that ‘due diligence
defence’ is a legal feature of the common law system
and as such is incompatible with continental European
legal systems which link criminal liability to actual
wrong doing and have enshrined the principle of ‘in
dubio pro reo’ in their legal systems.

3.4.4.
The ESC, in line with what has been said in a
number of previous opinions, reiterates its view that the
scope of Directive 85/374/EEC on liability for defective
products (Part IV, 8) should be extended to cover
unprocessed primary agricultural products (1). Account
should nevertheless be taken of the specific character-
istics of these products and the fact that detailed specific
provisions already exist in this field. In the forthcoming
months the ESC will tackle the question of liability for
primary agricultural products again, as it will be

(1) See on this question the views expressed in the ESC opinion
of 31. 12. 1991 (OJ C 339) on completion of the internal
market and consumer production. The opinion underlined
the potential risks that the completion of the internal
market could entail in the absence of proper monitoring
and controls. It called for a consistent product safety
policy recommending the inclusion of farm products and
unforeseeable risks in the product liability directive. This
position was reaffirmed in point 2.7 of the ESC Opinion
on BSE (OJ C 295, 7. 10. 1996).

C 19/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 98

consulted on the Commission proposal to amend Direc-
tive 85/374/EEC to include these products within its
scope.

3.4.5. With regard to the question of how the new
aspirations of consumers are to be taken sufficiently
into account (Part IV, 9), the Committee would draw
attention to the green paper’s statement that ‘experience
suggests that where there is a genuine consumer demand
for more information about certain aspects of a food-
stuff, this demand will frequently be met by producers
and distributors on a voluntary basis, for example,
through labelling, telephone information lines or the
Internet’. Information about rapidly changing aspi-
rations should also continue to be made available on a
voluntary basis. Responding to the new aspirations of
consumers is a way of helping to strengthen consumer
confidence.

3.5. Ensuring the effective implementation of internal

market rules (Part V)

3.5.1.
The Committee’s basic feeling here is that the
harmonization and adoption of legislative provisions
will only be successful if the provisions are transposed,
implemented and monitored effectively and uniformly
throughout the European Union (Part V, 2). In this
respect improvements are needed at all three levels.
Thought needs to be given to the extent to which the
necessary exchange of information between representa-
tives from Member States, producers, industry, com-
merce, employees and consumers should be insti-
tutionalized. Consideration should also be given to the
case for inviting interested parties to meetings of the
Standing Foodstuffs Committee.

3.5.1.1.
The Advisory Committee on Foodstuffs
should also be consulted in connection with the drawing
up of regular Commission reports on progress in
implementing and monitoring legislation. This Advisory
Committee should also be regularly consulted on all
draft food legislation — a field where it has a vital role
to play. Another institution already in place is the ESC
itself. There is also a role here for the Advisory Veterinary
Committee.

3.5.1.2.
If internal market legislation is to be effec-
tively implemented, it is necessary for decision-takers in
Member States, e.g. the authorities and courts, to be
informed about the current legal situation and brought
up to date with European legislation by attending
refresher courses in advanced training establishments.
The social partners in individual sectors of the economy
also have a key role to play here since they are involved
in social dialogue and can, for example, attend highly
important basic and advanced in-house courses on the
implementation of food legislation.

3.5.2.
The Commission proposal that food legislation
should include a general principle calling for equivalent,
effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions in the
different Member States (Part V, 4) is welcome from the
point of view of ensuring equal terms of competition
and an equally high level of consumer protection. The
ESC is aware here that national proportionality must be
taken into account.

3.5.3.
The principle of mutual recognition will con-
tinue unchanged to be of great importance in non-
harmonized areas (Part V, 5). It would also be a good
idea for the Commission to identify and assess problems
and cases of inadequate information arising for con-
sumers in the non-harmonized areas.

3.6. The external dimension

The Committee agrees with the Commission
3.6.1.
that imported foodstuffs from non-member countries
must meet exactly the same requirements as products
produced within the Community.

3.6.2. With regard to the multilateral dimension and
the ever-increasing importance of world trade, it is
necessary for the European food industry and European
consumer interests to be represented as effectively as
possible in hard-fought world trade negotiations and in
relevant international bodies such as the WTO and the
Codex Alimentarius. European interests need to be
pushed more effectively than in the past and this can be
done by coordinating and pooling efforts. To achieve
this goal the European Community, its Member States,
and the members of the European Economic Area will
have to work together more intensively than has so far
been the case.

3.6.2.1.
The Committee considers that the European
Community needs to play an active role in the aforemen-
tioned bodies. Steps need to be taken to ensure that
should the European Union become a direct member,
EU representation is no less effective than that of
individual Member States.

3.6.2.2.
In this context, the Committee would also
call upon the Community and the Member States to
actively promote the European viewpoint that in cases
of scientific doubt consumer interests take precedence
over economic considerations.

3.6.3.
In the context of the bilateral dimension of
food legislation (Part VI, 3), mention could also be made
of the fact that, in view of the different attitudes in the
US and the EU on food standards issues (GMOs,
Hormones, BST), the Committee should continue dis-
cussions with its US counterparts in the context of the
Transatlantic Civil Society Dialogue.

II. THE COMMUNICATION ON CONSUMER

HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY

1. General comments

1.1.

Back in July 1996, in its Opinions on the BSE

21. 1. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/67

crisis (1) and on priorities for consumer policy (1), the
Economic and Social Committee expressed its concern
about food safety and invited the Commission to
strengthen the authority of monitoring systems so as to
reassure consumers that health concerns took precedence
over economic interests. In this context the Committee
welcomes the amendments to Articles 129 and 129a
contained in the Amsterdam Treaty.

1.2.
The ESC also drew attention to the misfunc-
tioning of the relationship between scientific advice and
the decision-making processes and called upon the
Council, Commission, Parliament and Member States
to take all appropriate measures to ensure that food
products were safe for consumers and that the present
situation did not deteriorate.

The Committee welcomes the communication as
1.3.
an essential step towards a consistent policy in the fields
of food, cosmetics, animal nutrition, animal health and
animal welfare, and sees it as an opportunity to build
up consumer confidence, as was underlined during the
debate that took place in the Environment Section
on 8 May 1997 following the presentation of the
communication by Commissioner Emma Bonino.

1.4.
In expressing its views, it also welcomes President
Santer’s statement at the February plenary session
inviting the ESC as an institution representing different
interests and components of society to provide a specific
input in this field and to develop a permanent and open
dialogue with all interested parties on new complex
topics involving ethical, scientific, social and economic
issues.

1.4.1. However, regrettably, the ESC is nowhere
mentioned in the actual communication. As a matter
of principle, whenever the European Parliament is
consulted, so must the ESC.

The ESC firmly supports the strengthening of
1.5.
experts’ committees but
feels that changes to the
resolution governing detailed procedures — on which
the Commission is required by the end of 1998 to submit
in accordance with the
a proposal to the Council
declaration on the final act as set out in Article 18(e) of
the Amsterdam Treaty — are also extremely important.
In the view of the ESC, any revision of the resolution on
detailed procedures should accommodate the need to
precisely define the powers invested in the Commission
to enact implementing measures, especially in terms of

(1) OJ C 295, 7. 10. 1996.

the content and scope of such powers. Carefully defining
in advance the scope and limits to the power to enact
implementing legislation would then give legitimacy to
the greater independence and more extensive decision-
making powers enjoyed by the Commission.

2. Specific comments

2.1.
The Committee underlines the importance of
scientific advice by the scientific committees, regarding
it as a basis for legislation on the protection of consumer
health. The Committee likewise supports the call for
excellence, independence and transparency.

2.1.1.
The ESC considers that a multidisciplinary
approach is needed to be able to fulfil the tasks of
scientific committees. The discussions and conclusions
reached by these committees, including dissenting mi-
nority views, should be accessible to the public. The
independence of committee members is a sine qua non
here although realism must also come into the equation.
What is really needed in the committees are highly
competent scientists who have already had experience
of and carried out work in a wide variety of areas. The
committee chairman, however, must always be notified
of any conflict of interest before a given meeting takes
place.

The increasing tendency to consult scientific
2.1.2.
committees is to be welcomed as long as decision-making
reflects the principles of excellence, independence and
transparency. Such consultations should be obligatory
where health problems are concerned. This is particu-
larly important in the context of international trade and
the high profile of science in the WTO and SPS (sanitary
and phytosanitary measures) Agreements.

2.1.3.
The establishment of a scientific steering com-
mittee to coordinate different committees and to take
decisions on the involvement of several committees
where multiple expertise is needed, is welcomed by the
ESC.

2.2.
The legislator must be guided by the precaution-
ary principle where safe conclusions are not reached
despite calling on the expertise of highly qualified
specialists and using all available scientific information.
Legislation should in principle be drawn up on the basis
of scientific evidence; in other words in cases where the
scientific basis is insufficient or there are uncertainties,
the Commission must adopt an approach to legislation
which reflects these uncertainties. It must be remembered
that there is no such thing as a zero risk and that what
is needed in these cases is a political decision on
acceptable risks.

C 19/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 98

2.3.
As far as control and inspection services are
concerned, the Committee would emphasize the need
for effective and appropriately funded mechanisms.

2.3.1.
The Committee supports the proposed intro-
duction of a new approach which would embrace
the monitoring of the whole food production chain
(involving both animal and plant products) but would
be limited to the ‘monitoring of monitoring’. Monitoring
methods will have to be reviewed and systems for
inspecting the performance of the competent authorities
introduced. The required level of transparency must
be achieved in a non-discriminatory manner whilst
respecting confidentiality thresholds. The new approach
must not however jeopardize consumer protection.

The application of an externally audited quality
2.3.2.
control system (e.g. EN 45004) to the management of
the control services is regarded as opportune by the
Committee since it would signify bringing control service

management up to the current requirements of a modern
administration.

The establishment of a strong and efficient
2.3.3.
authority for control and inspection services is supported
by the ESC (1). The task of this authority is to ‘monitor
monitoring’. The new authority should therefore be
expected to meet the most stringent conditions of
excellence, transparency and independence.

2.3.4.
A general foodstuff agency, such as exists in
the USA (FDA), is not regarded by the Committee as
necessary. The advantages of such an agency over the
existing system in Europe are not obvious so no action
should be taken in Europe to set up such an agency.

(1) In its opinion of 27 November 1996 on the Proposal for a
Council Regulation (EC) establishing a European Agency
for veterinary and phytosanitary inspection (OJ C 66,
3. 3. 1997) the ESC expressed doubts as to whether the
conversion of the existing office into an agency was really
necessary.

Brussels, 29 October 1997.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

21. 1. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/69

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Defeated amendments

The following amendments, which were supported by more than one quarter of the votes cast, were
defeated during the debate:

Point 3.2.5

Replace by the original text of point 3.2.5, as follows:

‘In the fields of processing aids, the addition of vitamins and minerals to foodstuffs, and dietary
supplements (1) (Part II, 8), priority should be given to the principle of mutual recognition. The Committee
considers that further Community legislation is needed in these fields only in cases where obstacles to
trade cannot be totally eliminated by mutual recognition.’

Result of the vote

For: 34, against: 39, abstentions: 14.

Point 3.3.3.3

The second sentence should be replaced by the following:

‘Specific checks are therefore required to establish to what extent these can actually be applied by SMEs
and agricultural enterprises.’

Result of the vote

For: 28, against: 56, abstentions: 15.

Point 3.3.5

Delete the last two sentences, from ‘This relates inter alia ...’ to ‘.... should be abolished’.

Result of the vote

For: 32, against: 56, abstentions: 18.

Point 3.3.5.2

Replace this point by the original text, as follows:

‘As far as nutritional labelling is concerned, the Committee would refer to its comments in the opinion
on “priorities for consumer policy” (2). This opinion has already made the point that consumers are not
very interested in nutritional labelling; this may be due to the fact that consumers are not particularly
well versed in nutritional information at the present time and so do not really know what to make of it.
The Committee also said in this opinion that “major information and education campaigns will be
needed to make nutritional labelling more effective”. Consumer understanding of existing labelling
systems must therefore be improved before there is any discussion of further labelling requirements.’

Result of the vote

For: 30, against: 69, abstentions: 7.

(1) It should be recalled that the Commission has recently launched a consultation in view of possible
Community legislation in this field; a discussion paper has been prepared on the subject, presenting
two options (an approach based on product safety and an approach based on the recommended daily
intake).

(2) OJ C 295, 7. 10. 1996.