Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘proposal for a Council Regulation on the common organisation of the market in olive oil and table olives and amending Regulation (EEC) No. 827/68’ (COM(2003) 698 final – 2003/0279 (CNS))
Date: 2004-02-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: agricultural trade, common organisation of markets, marketing year, olive, olive oil, product designation

C 110/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘proposal for a Council Regu-
lation on the common organisation of the market in olive oil and table olives and amending Regu-
lation (EEC) No. 827/68’

(COM(2003) 698 final – 2003/0279 (CNS))

(2004/C 110/07)

On 1 December 2003, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 36 and Article 37(2), third paragraph, of the Treaty establishing the European Community,
on the above-mentioned proposal.

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 5 February 2004. The rapporteur was Mrs
Santiago.

At its 406th plenary session held on 25 and 26 February 2004 (meeting of 25 February), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 103 votes to three with two absten-
tions:

1. Introduction

with which would be more effective if they were integrated
into the relevant COM.

The Commission is proposing to amend the Oils and
1.1
Fats Regulation, 136/66 EEC, which will no longer be in force
after 1 November 2004. The new Regulation will cover olive
oil and table olives, comprising measures for the internal
market, trade with third countries and the promotion of quality
in the broad sense of the term. The Commission is proposing
that, after an interim marketing year in 2004 of eight months,
and starting in 2005, the marketing year for olive oil should
run from 1 July. It is also proposing that the current private
storage measures for olive oil should be retained and that the
refunds relating both to the export and the manufacture of
foodstuffs preserved in olive oil should be repealed. The
existing quality and traceability measures will also have to be
reinforced.

2. General comments

The EESC welcomes the legislative simplification entailed
2.1
in the new proposal to which it would nevertheless wish to
add the following comments:

Operators' organisations — Article 7. Approved opera-
2.2
tors' organisations should comprise only producers' organisa-
tions and interbranch organisations and no others. The
Committee feels that in this way the interests of producers and
processors would be better protected than at present with inter-
vention from parties outside the sector.

2.3 Work — Article 8. Three-year programmes aimed at
improving quality, the environmental impact of olive cultiva-
tion and product information dissemination and promotion
should also be able to be carried out in non-Member and
Member States already producing or beginning to produce
olive oil, be they new or potential consumers, such as France,
Australia, Peru and others.

2.3.1
The EESC feels that it is most important for the sector
that the quality strategy be promoted, and it stresses the need
to step up financial support for such measures, compliance

2.3.2
The EESC would draw the Commission's attention to
the key work carried out by the International Olive Oil Council
(IOOC) on such important
the promotion and
it stresses that the IOOC
improvement of olive oil quality;
should continue to develop these activities, with the appro-
priate checks.

issues as

The EESC feels that the work programmes of opera-
2.3.3
tors' organisations should include measures to concentrate
supply and market own-brand oils in the production sector
itself.

2.4
Trade with third countries — Article 11. Partial or full
suspension of common customs duties for olive oil does not
seem to be necessary for a product which is not perishable and
the market for which is growing. The Commission justifies this
measure in the fourteenth whereas of its proposal, referring to
the need to ensure an adequate supply of the internal market,
while in parallel underlining the fact that olive oil exports have
doubled in the last ten years.

Export refunds.

2.5
It would be wise to maintain these
refunds for a given period of time so that the parties concerned
can become aware of the impact of the present reform on
developments in both EU olive oil production and prices. Main-
taining these arrangements, which in practice have no financial
impact given that export refunds have been set at zero since
1998, would nonetheless mean that such refunds could be
brought into play in the event of any major market upsets
resulting from the proposal in hand; this would secure compe-
titiveness for Community olive oil on the world market.

Aid for private storage. This system — which has
2.6
already proven ineffective since it is not tailored to the realities
of the market — must be a flexible automatic trigger system,
designed only to be used to resolve major crises in the sector. It
is also necessary to update the trigger prices in the light of the
present price references.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/25

2.7
Quality standards. The EESC reiterates the need for a
total ban within the EU on blends of olive oil with other vege-
table oils (1).

2.8
Designation of origin. In order to protect and promote
quality, the EESC further stresses that the origin of olive oil
must be determined by the place of origin of the olives used.

2.7.1
The technical difficulty involved in analysing and
monitoring blends, the percentage of olive oil included and the
quality thereof, makes it difficult to check strict compliance
with Article 6 of Regulation 1019/2002. This opens the door
to fraud, which only contributes to the deteriorating quality
and image of olive oil, in addition to being detrimental to the
consumer.

2.9
The EESC would alert the Commission and the producer
countries to the serious problems affecting the olive-pomace oil
sub-sector as a result of the so-called benzopyrene crisis which
has — since it began in July 2001 — caused major losses in
the sector, reflected in a 70 % drop in the price and a 50 % fall
in consumption, in comparison with the situation before the
crisis.

2.7.2
The introduction of other food oils mixed with olive
oil not only is damaging to this high quality product, but also
means that consumers are buying a product which, compared
to olive oil, is acknowledged as being of inferior food quality.

The EESC urges the Commission to set maximum
2.9.1
levels for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
in olive-
pomace oil; such a move has been pending for more than two
years and this has been seriously detrimental to the sector.

Brussels, 25 February 2004.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

(1) NAT/102; OJ C 221 of 7.8.2001, pp. 68-73.