EN Official Journal of the European Union C 18/5

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The Community agricultural model: production quality and communication with consumers as factors of competitiveness’ (exploratory opinion)

2011/C 18/02

Rapporteur: Carlos TRÍAS PINTO

On 20 January 2010, the Spanish EU Presidency decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on

The Community agricultural model: production quality and communication with consumers as factors of competitiveness

(exploratory opinion).

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 25 March 2010.

At its 462nd plenary session, held on 28 and 29 April 2010 (meeting of 28 April), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 116 votes to one, with five abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 The EESC recommends strengthening quality policy and communication to consumers as key factors in boosting the competitiveness of the European agrifood industry and improving the brand image of agriculture. To this end, it is essential to:

— encourage the espousal of the social, environmental, health and animal welfare aspects relating to agricultural production, harnessing new tools based on information and communication technologies (ICTs);

— improve the consistency and coherence of existing accreditation instruments by means of guidelines for clarification, harmonisation and simplification;

— strengthen channels for dialogue between producers, industry players, distributors and consumers, and develop effective strategies for communicating with the public.

1.2 More specifically, the EESC proposes implementing various measures:

1.2.1 Tools

— Harnessing ICTs as a communication tool. ICTs are present in our daily lives, but are not yet used in the purchasing process. By incorporating them into the supermarket shelves as an information tool, it would be possible to regularly update information (agricultural products are subject to high rotation) and for it to be selected by consumers or obtained from anywhere.

— Traceability as a tool to ensure that claims are reliable. The production chain involves a variety of players who are responsible for the different social and environmental aspects comprised by integral quality. Traceability would not only indicate which players are involved but also how they have handled the product, together with any related indicators.

1.2.2 Instruments

— Incorporate integral quality criteria into existing voluntary schemes such as the EU ecolabel in order to extend its scope to agricultural products, or into existing quality standards such as the Protected Designations of Origin or Protected Geographical Indications.

— Create a new voluntary certification scheme for socio-environmental factors, so that consumers can assess the integral quality of products quickly, simply and reliably.

1.2.3 Strategies

— Promotion of European quality. The EESC proposes promoting communication campaigns for European agricultural products, emphasising the high standards of quality and diversity that they meet.

— Promotion and adoption of measures. The Administration has the opportunity to make use of the tools available to it to promote socially and environmentally responsible agricultural products: public procurement, differentiated taxation, information campaigns and production incentives.

2. Introduction

2.1 Day by day, our society becomes more sensitive to the major social and environmental challenges, stemming from the perception of the effects of climate change, the gradual depletion of natural resources and the increasingly unbalanced distribution of wealth.

2.2 Paradoxically, this gradual awareness is rarely backed by consumer decisions (so-called conscious, responsible consumption), which unfortunately highlights the growing gap between consumers’ theoretical position (1) and their daily practices.

2.3 However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that, in times of major economic uncertainty, it is very complex to constantly introduce variables such as social and environmental impact into the traditional price-product equation (2), particularly when this influences the amount paid by the consumer. And yet we cannot conceal the fact that the socio-economic crisis has coincided with the environmental crisis, and that we cannot consider one without the other. In other words, as Jacques Delors said, the crisis of values is that we live in a world in which anything can be bought. Therefore, our values will have to be re-evaluated.

2.4 Fortunately, within the EU we have an agricultural production system based on strict health, environmental, social and animal welfare standards which could be defined as an integral quality system and which undeniably bring us added value with regard to the rest of the world – but also bring competitive risks.

2.5 Many of the aspects that comprise integral quality are included in legislation or form part of the practices of the European agrifood industry and are therefore already being met by products and producers. Unfortunately, this is not the case for many products imported from outside the EU. This difference means that there is an increasing gap between the prices of agricultural produce from the EU and that from non-EU countries, thus eroding the competitiveness of the European products.

2.6 This focus on quality – the product of deep-rooted tradition and significant efforts to achieve excellence – must, as is occurring today, move from being a competitive risk to a greater development opportunity. To achieve this, new strategies must be considered that will enhance the key attributes of our production model and guide consumers towards prioritising European products, placing specific emphasis on consumer communication policies by employing a wide variety of means and, in particular, by harnessing information and communication technologies (ICT) to implement powerful consumer information and education tools (3).

2.7 In parallel, consideration must be given to the necessary technical and economic support in order to maintain the progress of the multifunctional agricultural paradigm, ensuring that European farms remain viable, producers receive fair prices and stable, high-quality jobs are maintained – a key issue for the endurance of the model.

2.8 The EESC therefore emphasises that to improve competitiveness through agricultural quality and consumer communication policies, there must also be measures to rebalance the agrifood value chain, which is currently subject to much price distortion owing to the abuse of dominant positions by certain operators (4).

3. Consumers, quality and socio-environmental factors

3.1 The EESC has on a number of previous occasions affirmed its commitment to sustainable development as a means of achieving environmental, economic and social development in the European Union. This commitment could strengthen the existing European agricultural model, revising the current concept of quality, which focuses on traditional qualitative aspects inherent in the product (flavour, appearance, size, etc.), to include other criteria relating to the production context, such as social, environmental, health, safety and animal welfare aspects. It will be called ‘integral quality’, based on the new indicators of excellence.

3.1.1 For example, various criteria or indicators could be considered, among others (5):

Environmental impact: — Type of irrigation — Energy consumption relating to the product — Distance from point of production — Type of waste — Waste management

Social factors: — Compliance with legislation in country of origin — Relation between retail price and price paid to producer — Type of employment contract (fixed/open term) — Hiring of disabled people — Gender equality

Animal welfare: — Type of breeding and lairaging — Type of feed — Transport system — Slaughtering method

3.2 This new integral quality framework is what will enable European products to stand out from those from other countries, as they already comply with many of the aspects mentioned due to the regulations imposed by the EU and the Member States, which are much stricter than in other producer countries. The problem lies in the fact that consumers are unaware of most of the aspects that are regulated, which means they do not take them into account when purchasing products, particularly if the consumer has doubts as to the truthfulness of the claims made. Therefore, it will be necessary to educate and inform consumers in order to drive demand for products that involve better practices.

3.3 Food safety has not been mentioned as it is not considered merely a criterion of excellence but, rather, an essential factor in European citizens’ right to health. The EESC reiterates its concern about the lax attitude that continues to authorise foods to be imported without full traceability (owing to the Commission and Member States’ dubious interpretation of food legislation) or to be treated with synthetic products banned in the EU. Their marketing means that consumers are being deceived and unfair practices are being allowed at the expense of European producers.

4. Traceability as a tool for information

4.1 In the agrifood sector, various initiatives (6) are emerging in order to trace the movements of a product throughout its life-cycle: Some are mandatory (such as for beef in the EU) while others are voluntary (different distribution chains or carbon footprint type initiatives).

4.2 The EESC points out that this tool could have a new (initially voluntary) application in the field of quality, through the inclusion of various product-related socio-environmental indicators or aspects, in order to make it easier for consumers to read product information. The EESC therefore proposes that this powerful, reliable tool, along with the ensuing certifications or checks, be harnessed so that consumers can make purchasing choices in a conscious fashion, backed by accurate, real data.

4.3 It will be necessary to set up systems to publicise the relevant indicators, ranging from traditional information on labels – whether this takes the form of an evaluative scale (such as the energy efficiency label), a logo (ecolabel, designation of origin) or a claim (recyclable product) – to the use of ICT.

5. Potential of Information and Communication Technologies to inform consumers of agricultural product quality

5.1 To date, the main source of product information for consumers has been the label. Although labelling plays a key role in ensuring that information is transparent, there is an increasing number of voluntary or mandatory references that appear in this limited space, that could make the messages difficult to discern and understand – not only because of the accumulation of messages, but also because of their complexity (such as the codes used on eggs, on which the farming method, country of origin and producer's identification number are printed).

5.2 Moreover, agricultural products have one important specific feature: their high rotation on shelves, due to the seasonality of products and the variability of the provider throughout the year or even the season.

5.3 Moreover, many citizens are already familiar with information and communication technology (ICT), which has significantly evolved when it comes to representing and storing information (e.g. QR codes (7)) and affordability. As regards consumer information, consideration should be given to the use of existing personal devices (e.g. mobile phones) or fixed devices (touch screens, LCD screens), as well as the Internet at the pre- and post-sales stage.

5.4 Countries such as Italy are already using this technology to improve consumer information and product quality accreditation systems:

— The ‘Campagna amica’ farmers’ markets show that the price spread between production and consumption allows for broad margins that can ensure affordable purchases for families while sustaining farmers’ revenues.

— ‘Tac salva mozzarella’ is the first analysis system that shows whether a mozzarella has really been made with fresh milk or with older, frozen or refrigerated curds. New technology is a concrete tool that defends farmers and consumers from food counterfeiting.

5.5 On the basis of these factors, the EESC proposes conducting a study on the potential benefits of ICT to improve consumer information, particularly those benefits which could be useful during purchases, as it is usually on the shop floor that the consumer makes the decision to buy.

6. Labelling and the new indicators of excellence

6.1 Broadening the scope of the EU ecolabel (European flower) to food products

6.1.1 The European label is a distinctive stamp of environmental quality. The starting point for establishing the environmental quality criteria to be met by goods or services with the EU ecolabel is the lifecycle analysis, in order to ensure that the product meets certain environmental requirements throughout its useful life.

6.1.2 Once the study planned by the Commission (8) has been carried out (by 31 December 2011) the EESC will state its opinion on the subject, with two key conditions to be taken into account:

— the inclusion of a new mark in the already dense labelling on food products;

— possible conceptual confusion with the organic product label (Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products).

6.1.3 Positive aspects to be considered include the fact that consumers might be familiar with the symbol after seeing it on other products, and the existence of broader criteria than those used for organic production.

6.1.4 The EESC proposes that, in the context of the study to be carried out, the Commission analyses the possibility of including, for food products, socio-economic criteria (such as animal welfare, equal opportunities, etc.) as a pilot test for the entire scheme, without overstepping the framework set by Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 regulating ecolabelling.

6.2 Inclusion of environmental and social criteria in the different quality standards in existence

6.2.1 It is well-known, as the EESC has pointed out on a number of occasions, that there are many quality schemes for agricultural products in the EU, and many private certifications and labels, whose objectives include:

— guaranteeing the safety and quality of products for the end-consumer;

— adding greater value to products in order to increase the competitiveness of market operators (producers, processors and distributors).

6.2.2 Owing to the wide variety of references, both public and private, within the EU's field of action, the abovementioned objectives lose much of their impact and may have the opposite effects to those intended, resulting in:

— consumer confusion due to unfamiliarity with the different schemes;

— lack of consumer trust in labels or certifications;

— creation of conflict between producers who follow certification/labelling systems and those who do not. There can even be conflicts between producers with different certification/labelling schemes;

— lack of protection for local certified products (at EU level) in comparison with non-EU countries.

6.2.3 In this context, it would be useful for the EU to promote actions to simplify and reduce the number of quality schemes for agricultural produce from the EU.

6.2.4 In the framework of this unification of schemes and/or criteria, the EESC proposes that the Commission promote the inclusion of environmental and social criteria as minimum requirements in the existing official certification schemes (or that it modify them): organic farming label, Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG), etc.

6.2.5 It would also be necessary to incorporate those indicators of excellence in certain marketing standards, particularly those in which they are partially included (such as the possible optional reserved terms for ‘upland’ or ‘low carbon-emission’ products (9).

6.2.6 With regard to private certifications, the EU should establish minimum requirements for all standards, including environmental and social indicators, and should promote the harmonisation and unification of the various types of certification: one example would be the COSMOS standard (http://www.cosmos-standard.org), which brings together different European certification bodies under a single reference for the certification of natural, organic cosmetics, based on simple prevention- and safety-based rules at all production levels, from raw material to end-product. This certification is set to come into use from April 2010.

6.3 Creation of a new voluntary certification scheme for socio-environmental aspects

6.3.1 The aim is to promote a new excellence certification scheme that takes social and environmental aspects into account, ensuring that the environmental impact of agricultural products is kept to a minimum throughout their lifecycle, while guaranteeing compliance with social requirements such as equality, fair pay or a balanced value chain.

6.3.2 This would involve including new information on the label so that products (and/or producers) with exemplary social or environmental standards will stand out from the rest. The establishment of such systems is currently being studied by various public and private-sector organisations.

6.3.3 The new scheme would have to comply with the requirements laid down in the ISO 1402X standards which call, inter alia, for accuracy, verifiability, relevance and truthfulness. While it is being set up, the guiding principles of the scheme will need to be considered, such as:

— whether it should be qualitative (logo or other evaluative system) or quantitative (list of indicators and values);

— whether it should be self-declared or subject to a certification process;

— whether the indicators are mandatory (YES/NO), points-based or combined;

— how to ensure that the system is transparent.

7. Promotion of European products (European quality)

7.1 Although the Committee has already commented on the non-use of the EU requirements label (NAT 413 (10), it is necessary to promote the quality values (extended to include environmental aspects) of European agricultural products in order to improve their position vis-à-vis third countries.

7.2 The EESC calls on the Commission to promote specific communication tools and instruments for the agrifood sector, stressing the quality standards of European products, based on consensus between stakeholders. In this connection, despite differences, there are in other sectors standards which help the consumer to identify quality products, such as the energy efficiency label (labelling and classification of products in accordance with the energy efficiency, which has brought about a clear move to more efficient products) or the mark (compliance with safety standards for the sale of the products in Europe, which obliges third country imports to comply with European standards).

7.3 It is also necessary to do more to promote information on quality (in most cases compliance with mandatory requirements) via information campaigns and slogans publicising the product's main quality characteristics. These campaigns could be general (e.g. organic produce campaign) or specific to a product or group of products.

8. Integrated Product Policy

8.1 The Green Paper of 7 February 2001 on Integrated Product Quality speaks of the adoption of measures to promote environmentally-friendly agricultural products using all the tools available to the administration, ranging from purchasing to information, as well as differentiated taxation. The Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan deals with the same subject, but with particular emphasis on industrial products and virtually no reference to products of agricultural origin.

8.2 Other areas which should be developed include the potential of public procurement (currently the focus is exclusively on issues such as organic or integrated agriculture and animal welfare) and incentives for responsible production (with subsidies for socially and environmentally sound products), as well as consumer information. In this connection, it is very important to stress the need to include indicators of excellence as a benchmark for quality products. Currently many consumers still associate the concept of quality with well-known products or other intrinsic product characteristics. Some consumers also assume that an organic agricultural product is necessarily also excellent in social and environmental terms, which is not always necessarily the case.

8.3 Only with the interaction of these factors, where supply and demand come together, will it be possible to break the dichotomy between ethical beliefs and actual behaviour, both for consumers and for producers and distributors.

8.4 Lastly, the EESC proposes that an impact assessment be carried out in order to find out the pros and cons that introducing the proposed measures would have for the Community agricultural model.

Brussels, 28 April 2010. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Mario SEPI

(1) The Eurobarometer survey published in July 2009 highlights that four out of five Europeans say they take into account the environmental impact of the products they buy, and for the most part are in favour of implementing measures to improve the environmental behaviour of products.

(2) The purchasing decision is also conditioned by aspects inherent to the product, such as its appearance, prestige, nutritional qualities, etc., and by consumers themselves (time available, proximity, etc.).

(3) In the broad sense, i.e. including potential consumers: it should also reach schoolchildren, extending the scope of consumer education tools to include them.

(4) Communication COM(2009) 591 – A better functioning food supply chain in Europe.

(5) Given as examples only, in order to illustrate the different types of indicators for the various aspects of integral quality. Specific indicators would need to be drawn up to suit the product and its degree of processing.

(6) www.tracefood.org or www.foodtraceability.eu.

(7) The QR (Quick Reference) code is a matrix or bar code that stores data and can be read using a portable camera device or webcam.

(8) As indicated in Article 6 of the draft proposal to revise the EU Ecolabel regulation (European Parliament legislative resolution of 2 April 2009 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Community Ecolabel scheme (COM(2008)401 – C6-0279/2008 – 2008/0152(COD)).

(9) Communication COM(2009) 234 on agricultural product quality policy.

(10) OJ C 218, 11.9.2009.