Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs'
Date: 2000-03-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: animal nutrition, labelling, manufactured feedingstuffs, marketing

C 140/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2000

from chemical impurities resulting from their manufacturing
process and from technical auxiliaries ...’. This clause has

proved inadequate; the annex to the current directive should
therefore set a maximum level for nickel.

Brussels, 29 March 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘European Parliament and Council
Directive amending Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs’

(2000/C 140/05)

On 23 March 2000, the Council of the European Union decided to consult the Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Community on the ‘European
Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound
feedingstuffs’.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 March 2000. The rapporteur
was Mr Nielsen.

At its 371st plenary session (meeting of 29 March 2000) the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 78 votes to one.

1. Background

The EU’s extensive and complex legislation on feeding-
1.1.
stuffs seeks as far as possible to combine safety and health
considerations,
information on content and use, and free
competition and trade aspects. In the current proposal, the
Commission is proposing the introduction of mandatory
‘open’ declarations for compounds, in the form of detailed
information concerning the qualitative and quantitative com-
position of feedingstuffs. To date ‘closed’ declarations have
indicated feed material categories without providing more
detailed particulars of quality or quantity. However, to avoid
unsubstantiated and misleading claims, it will in future still
only be permissible to report objective or measurable quantities
that can be shown.

1.2.
Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of
compound feedingstuffs (1), as last amended by Directive
90/44/EEC (2), lays down rules for labelling as regards compo-
sition and use. When Directive 90/44/EEC was adopted in
1990, quantitative determination of the feed materials used

(1) OJ L 86, 6.4.1979, p. 30.
(2) OJ L 27, 31.1.1990, p. 35.

apparently raised verification problems, mainly because of the
nature of the materials used, the complexity of the mixtures or
the manufacturing methods. It was therefore decided not to
require indication of the quantity of feed materials. Further,
a number of materials were grouped under a common
denomination and the information provided relates to categor-
ies of ingredients.

1.3.
Open, as opposed to closed, declarations for com-
pounds have since been the subject of heated discussion. Since
February 1997 the European Parliament and its Temporary
Committee of inquiry into BSE have consistently pressed for a
mandatory, open declaration containing qualitative details of
the ingredients and origin of the feed materials; quantitative
indications have been recommended on several occasions. The
Commission and the Standing Committee for feedingstuffs
have also pointed out that to require quantitative and qualitat-
ive labelling presupposes that such information can be con-
trolled, and that labelling should be based on recognised
methods of analysis. However, at a Standing Committee
meeting during the ‘dioxin crisis’ in July 1999, most Member
States supported an optional, open declaration.

18.5.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 140/13

1.4.
The Commission’s proposal recognises the advantages
of an open declaration for users, while the BSE crisis and dioxin
pollution cases bear out the need for detailed information. The
qualitative and quantitative indication of feed materials in
feedingstuffs for production animals would seem to continue
to cause problems but labelling control based on analyses can,
in the Commission’s view, be supplemented by checks on the
producer’s documents, including checks carried out by the
official authorities of the country of origin.

1.5.
In the light of the above, the Commission is proposing
‘at this stage’ mandatory indication of all feed materials and
the quantities of such materials in compound feedingstuffs for
production animals.

2. General comments

2.1.
Opinions differ on the extent to which the existing
rules have proved effective. Generally, on production-related
grounds, the agricultural sector calls for maximum trans-
parency in the form of open declarations, while the animal
feed industry continues to oppose open declarations on
grounds of the difficulty of controlling the labelling declar-
ation, the need to protect product development and intellectual
property rights to compounds, along with the practical
problems of indicating changing feed formulas on labels.
Another of the industry’s claims is that an open declaration
instils a false sense of security as well as that conditions will be
more stringent than for foodstuffs. In addition, traditions and
practices in the Member States differ. For instance, farmers and
industry in the Netherlands wish to be able to retain the
traditional Dutch system whereby animal feed cooperatives
are checked by an independent institute (‘De Schothorst’),
which tests the quality and composition of compound feeding-
stuffs at the place of production. Concurrently animal feed
producers are required to provide, on a confidential basis, any
relevant information requested by an individual farmer.

2.2.
In the ESC’s view, the animal feed industry’s arguments
are justified to some extent but at the same time the increasing
need for livestock producers to know the exact composition
of feedingstuffs, combined with growing pressure from buyers
for documentation from previous links in the production
chain, militate for a change. Another major factor is the need
to upgrade the priority of
food safety aspects and the
authorities’ increasing demand for documentation to be able
to trace pollution and undesirable substances back to the
source.

2.3.
An optional open declaration would be inconsistent
with the desired information and transparency, besides dis-
torting terms of competition between animal feed producers.
In addition, optional and mandatory open declarations require
the same possibilities of control. Transparency must take
precedence over protection of operators’ product develop-
ment. Protection of intellectual property rights is not an issue
since compound feedingstuffs are normally not patented.
Quite apart
feed industry’s claim that
mandatory open declarations would curb the development of
new, improved feedingstuffs, the ESC feels that transparency is
a suitable starting point as it must be regarded as conducive to
fairer competition and provide greater incentive to produce
the best possible compounds.

from the animal

2.4.
The problem of altering labels when food formulas
change can, as suggested by the Commission, be solved if the
open declaration with feed materials indicated in percentage
by weight can be displayed on another label or in a special
accompanying document. In future self regulation by animal
feed producers, certification of internal control systems, regis-
tration of batches, etc. will be increasingly necessary under
pressure from both buyers and public authorities. The ESC
therefore feels that control of documents, to back up analysis
results, will become normal practice in future. So far, however,
control of documents has not proved necessary in Member
States which, on a voluntary basis, have a practice of open
labelling with attendant controls.

The ESC agrees with the proposed amendment’s
2.5.
exclusion of pet food. As the current legislation on these
products can be considered adequate,
the status quo is
preserved. There will therefore continue to be scope for a
mandatory, partly open declaration (with the possibility of
indicating feed material categories instead of the feed materials
themselves) or an optional open declaration.

2.6.
In the light of the above, the ESC can support the
Commission’s proposal as reflected in the explanations and
reasons given in the text.

3. Special comments

3.1.
The ESC regrets that it is impossible for the layman to
get a clear overview of the impact of the drafting changes in a
proposal like the present one because of the absence of a
consolidated text incorporating all amendments made since
the adoption of the original text in 1979. Hence it is not

C 140/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2000

possible to comment on the details of
the Commission
proposal. For purposes of transparency, the ESC also urges

that consolidated texts be at the very least made available at all
times, via CELEX.

Brussels, 29 March 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Annual Report of the Cohesion Fund
(1998)’

(2000/C 140/06)

On 18 October 1999, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the ‘Annual Report of the Cohesion
Fund (1998)’.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was
responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 March 2000.
The rapporteur was Mr Victor Hugo Sequeira.

At its 371st plenary session of 29 and 30 March 2000, (meeting of 29 March), the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 83 votes to one.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
In accordance with the Cohesion Fund Regulation, the
Economic and Social Committee was again asked to issue its
opinion on the 1998 Annual Report of the Cohesion Fund.
This instrument was set up with the aim of boosting economic
and social cohesion within the European Union and providing
for environmental and transport sector
financial support
projects in Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain for the 1993-
1999 period.

This fund has an initial budgetary allocation of ECU
1.2.
15 510 million (1) for a period which runs beyond the period
of the current Community Support Framework (CSF II), since
it fully incorporates the cohesion financial instrument in force
between 1 April 1993 and 26 May 1994.

2. General comments

nevertheless reiterate a concern already voiced in its opinions
of previous years regarding the late presentation of this report
by the Commission.

2.2.
The present report has been issued even later than the
1997 report. This makes it impracticable for the Commission
to take suitable action to correct any errors or follow-up
concerns or proposals expressed by the Committee or any
other body. This point is particularly important in the year
currently under consideration, since 1999 is the last year of
the Cohesion Fund under the 1994/99 Community Support
Framework.

2.3.
The Committee welcomes some of the improvements
made to the presentation of the report, especially those relating
to its structure and the summaries of some chapters and
points, which make the document more concise and easier to
understand.

2.1.
The Committee welcomes the opportunity to express
its views on the 1998 Cohesion Fund report, but it would

(1) At 1992 prices. After adjustment this sum amounts to Euro

16 750,8 million.

2.4.
The Committee is pleased to note the results of the
conditionality study carried out by the Commission, which
revealed that the four Member States benefiting from the
Cohesion Fund were complying with the established macro-
economic standards.