Orth, E.

Archive of European Integration

3 July 1974 English Edition European Communities ii EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Working Documents 1974-1975 DOCUMENT 162/74/ANNEX OPINION of the Committee on Public Health and the Environment on the Communication from the Commission of the European Communities to the Council (Doc. 108/74) on the resolution concerning/~nimal and plant health and animal nutrition Draftsman: Mrs E. ORTH PE 37 .255/fin. 1-' The \_:orr,mitteo on Public Health and t.ho Environment cLppointed Mrs ORTi, draftsman of the opinion on 6 June 1974. It considered the draft opinion at its meeting of l July 1974 and adopted it unanimously. The following were present: Mr Della Briotta, chairman; Mr Jahn, vice-chairman; Mrs Orth, draftsrnan of the opinion; Mr Albertsen, , ., ' .. Mr Bregegere, Mr Eisrna, Mr Martens, Mr Noe, Mr Petersen, Mr Prernoli and Lord St Oswald. PE 37.255/fin. 1. When the Counci.l. adopted the ti.rnetabi.e toe the foodstuf.h:1 sector in its industrial policy on 17 December 1973 1 , .i.t :Lnv1.ted fin? Comri,ission ~~0 submit to it as soon as possible a similar time-table for the approximation of laws in other sectors of agricul-ture and food productio:1. The Commission then complied with this invitation by submitting a proposal for a Council resolution concerning animal and plant health ar~d animal nutrition with a timetable (Annexes 1 to 3). As the recitals to the draft resolu-tion state, this timetable is of a flexible nature and may be modified so as to take account of a.ny changes in priority which might prove necessary during its implementation. 2. In 1968 the Commission drew up a work progran:une which is still in 2 force today, and part of which has already been carried through. The Cormnunication from the Commission to the council on the draft resolution does not however state which proposals a.re still before the Council and which have been adopted, nor does ':his document connect up coherently with the programme adopted in 1968. The Conunission thought it desirable, for the implementation of a further section of the programme, to draw up this timetable. It is not however stated which section of the programme is meant. Examination of the programme shows, moreover, that this timetable does not, in fact, refer to any specific section of the prograrnn1e. It would certainly have been more logical for the Commission to draw up a comprehensive document showing what progress had been achieved in the work envisaged in the original programme, and what was still to be done, with a timetable for its definitive realization. 'I'his would undoubtedly have facilitated the work of the European Parliament, which was invited at short notice to g.1ve i.ts opinion on a document:. whi.ch is in no way complete. In its explanatory statement the Commission concedes that the pro-posed resolution does not cover dl.l the amendments to existing directives which might be proposed for the easing of controls. 3. In drawing up the annexes the Commission has not sc,;,;, f 1: to use explanatory footnotes. For example, where a:Lready l OJ No. C 117, 31.12.1973, p .. L 2 C OJ No. 22, 18.3.1968, p.18. - 2 .• PE 37. 255/fin. ' exist a:, documents, the d,)cument. numi;e.n~ should have been given. This :r:ay be an unimport.ant , but it is typical of the manner in wt.:.ch this communication has been drawn up. 4. Annex II deals mainly with pesticides, and includes two proposals concerning tolerance levels for pesticide residues which are sup-posed to be adopted this year. This seems optimistic if one considers that a proposal for a ;c·()gulation establishing maximum levels for cide residues on fruit and vegetables has been before the Council since 1968 and has still not been adopted. In its answer to a written question on this point by ¥rr JAim1 the Commission stated that agreement on the proposal had been reached among the six Member States of the original Community, but that it had been blocked in consequence of the enlargement, since the new Member States could not see their way to accepting it. The Commis-sion has therefore been working on draft requlations to supplement its first proposal. Is the Commission, knowing the difficulties the first proposal encountered, seriously of the opinion that the Council will adopt, by :n i.:tLlly 1974 a proposal on tolerance levels for pesticide residues on and in food and vegetables, as the timetable envisages (Annex 2,I)? It seems somewhat unreasonable to set goals knowing that they are unrealistic. 5. In general it is to be noted with regret that a substantial part of the March 1968 programme has still not been carried out. Thus, for instance, the Council has not been able to come to an agreement on the following Com..'Uission proposals, some submitted before 1968: 1 ·- Directive on questions of health and foodstuffs law relating to 2 trade in meat products , - Directive on questions of health and animal disease law relating to the import of cattle, pigs and fresh meat from third countries 2 , - Measures under animz.11 health law against tuberculosis and brucE~l los is , - Compulsory or optional , · tng of pork for trichina, Measures against salmonelloses in meat-processing plants, - Hygiene in indoor milking, OJ No. C 49, 29.4.1974, p.4~ 2 Accordinq to the earlier program:me these proposals were to be by the Council before 31 Ma:cch 1968. - 3 - PE 37 .255/fin. Horman<:, subn l CtilJ j lt itJi c rnieat -·· Me:,"<:3 ,ires against salmonelloses in stock-:::-dis i ng ses, 'I'reatment of meat with ionizing and ultra-violet radiat.ion, Pharmaceutical preparations used in Substances which ,cray leave r"'s idm,,s in meat, eg':JS and milk (anti-biotics, thyrostatic substances, tenderizE~:c:; etc) , - inedible animal products (horns, cla·~is, hid<:'S,, wool etc.) , insofar as they may be carriers of infectious diseases. 6. 'l'hese few examples suffice to illustrate clearly the inabili. ty of the Council to create thoroughgoing Community regulations in tbese fields although the European Economic Conununity has exist,1d for more than 16 years. In these circumstances the Corrun.ittee on Public Health and the Environment questions the appropriateness of up a new pro-gramme when disappointing experience hitherto of the chiatory work-ing methods of the Committee of Permanent: RepresentaU.ves and the Council of Ministers suggests little pros.pect of timely realization. Furthermore, as already shown, substantial parts of the 1968 programme are still awaiting implementation. 7. In general, the European Parliament, and o.lso the Economic and Social 8. Committee, have repeatedly the Conmnssion and the Council to harmonize Member States' legislation in the field of food legislation in the broadest sense, which certainly :Lncludes animal and plant health and animal nutritim,, not in a tary and step-by-step manner but in one go, by means of 'ho:r:izontal' directives layinq down fie \e.g. on pa ing, marking, compositio.n and cm additives) for all_ foodstuffs. It is becoming increas see why the Conunun i ty doei'i:l ,iot ;:'Allow U:c,lf ,.,o be qui ded by pro·--gressi.ve extend th.e1.r of p. 1cation to the r l\1ernbe1: Stat(.H3 and wt1e.re possible Exemplary foodstuffs ion is of 1-~· t:t ··. tIS•B to Member State within the Common lY.tarket as States do not follow suit., since the co1,,,,:,;\:ers ni this ·,;:,grc,::ssive Member State will have to confine themselves to 6omt'):c,t.:L if they desire hygienically and e . ., 4 _, PE 37 .. 25 fin .. \ 2roducts of a luw0:.r fatand.a.r.d frou o·che:: M<.mber States ;nust be turned bcc,ck &t the frontie,:~·s of t.he p:r.oqrfcssj ve country, both to preserve the validity of the foodstuffs i,1 force in the country and to protect domestic producers, who nmst obse,·\<'. this goodstuffs legislation, from unfair . com_;;ieti tion. the obstacles to trade ar It is plain that .:;.bout pre-cisely the opposite of what was from tl"1e 6"::;tting up of the European Economic Commur.i ty. In v1.ew of the inaction of the Council of Ministers we are ir, the Community still unfortunately far from creating conditions for trade similar to those e~i 1.n a national market, although this has tor many years beer; called for by the European Parliament in its capacity of spokesman for the public. 9. ThE.:: Co:rn..'Uittee on Public Health a:cd the Environn,ent repeats its call for the Council fin;;,lly to cease contenting ic:self in it,,, lEn·moniza-tion measures with agr,er.m:,,.- denominator. The Council should instead -- ;;_.r,,':. triis is p0.rr- ~ .:.2. of animal and plant heal t"h a21d animal nutrition uno:er '.:!is cuss ion here -be g·uided by d1e most pr:::gresz:_ve national regulati")rs j;; each case, 10, '.Fnis call from the Committee not only corresponds to the general contemporary trend towards a better quality of life, but also rests on the spirit and the lettf.;r of the EEC Treaty names as one of tr1t1 :;;ssent ·.a1 ob and i: :},e :;:n1,0,~r: '.:y the co~~--t~u .. ~ of its constant improvement of t·:,,s, 1 i peoples. In Article 2 t.ll<>" Com1mm:,_ ty is defin.ed as follows: 'to promote throughout the ,._";:::i:ro..'1tc;n.i ty a harmoaious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced exp&nsion, an increase in stability, an accelerated of the standard of l.iving and closer relations between the States belonging to .: .;,_ I .l ,._. '.l:he Council must finally meet these little attention. , to which i·c has hitherto paid :.!.1. The Committee on Agric·:.ltui::e, as the cc:i:mmi.ttee ::cer,ponsible, is re-quested to take account of 1e above considerations in .i.1:s report. In particular, ths Comrr,itt1:-:,,,, ,>:;,.;:,lJcC Health a,,d the Environment considers it essential for ':h•':! fo:c:Lowi:ng points to be included in the motion for a reso.Lutioa 1. Cannot conceal 1:t.:z c~pticisrr~ ,:;:onc0rtLLr,.J of the new progranw:.~, Ln view nf s1..1bstan-tial parts of :::'le 1968 programme have sti.11 not ~ceen reul.ized, in consequence o t1;a i unf / ,. cy ot che Ccun. - 5 -· PE 37. 255/fin. 2. Nctes with regret that the present state of harmoniza-tion in the areas of animal and plant health and animal nutrition still falls far short of conditions similar to those existing in a na-cional market, although such a situation has for many years been called for and is expressly provided for in the Treaties; 3. Again calls on the Council, in its future harmoniza-tion work in the areas named, to be guided in accord-ance with the spirit and the letter of the EEC Treaty by the most progressive national regulations in each case, and to adopt them for the whole Community, instead of being content - as has hitherto unfortunately almost always been the case - with agreement at the lowest common denominator. - 6 - PE 37. 255/fin. i ~1 

OPINION
of the Committee on Public Health and the Environment
on the Communication from the Commission of the European Communities to
the Council (Doc. 108/74) on the resolution concerning animal and plant health
and animal nutrition. EP Working Document, Document 1974-1975 162/74/ANNEX, 3 July 1974

http://aei.pitt.edu/97747/1/1974%2D75.74.162.annex.pdf

OPINION of the Committee on Public Health and the Environment on the Communication from the Commission of the European Communities to the Council (Doc. 108/74) on the resolution concerning animal and plant health and animal nutrition. EP Working Document, Document 1974-1975 162/74/ANNEX, 3 July 1974

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archive of European Integration