Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock production` (97/C 133/11)

On 11 September 1996 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 February 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Jan Olsson.

At its 343rd plenary session (meeting of 26 February 1997) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 88 votes to two, with 17 abstentions.

1. General comments

1.1. Whilst the Committee welcomes the Commission proposal to introduce common rules on organic livestock production, it notes that the proposal is long overdue. The result is that the European consumer has had to grapple with increasingly perplexing national rules.

1.2. Organic production has been increasing as a result of a growth in demand, but with marked differences in the various Member States. This new market also attracts cowboy producers and distributors.

1.3. In view of the above, the Committee believes there is a need to boost consumer confidence in organic products as well as to encourage environmental practices in agriculture in general.

1.4. When a consumer buys organic livestock products, he is, above all, making a conscious decision to back natural-cycle production methods, in which finite resources are exploited as effectively and as carefully as possible. Organic production should therefore be able to spearhead development towards a society which prioritizes cyclical principles and sustainable consumption.

1.5. Another very important reason why many consumers choose organic products is ethical concern over animal health and welfare.

1.6. If organic production is to win the confidence of consumers, it must fulfil certain clear, consistent criteria, throughout the Member States, and arrangements for monitoring these criteria must be reliable.

1.7. Consumers are particularly attracted by the idea of having a wider range of organic products at acceptable prices. Organically grown food should not be just a niche product for a few consumers; all citizens should be able to put organic fare on their dining table.

1.8. The Committee would therefore point out that a regulation on organic farming should not put unreasonable obstacles - in terms of regulations and cost - in the way of farmers who wish to convert to organic farming methods. Section 2 suggests ways of removing some of these obstacles.

1.9. The Committee notes that in many respects the provisions of the proposed regulation are far too general, and do not differ from the rules and good practice applied to conventional methods.

1.10. If the rules governing organic production are too general and imprecise, the impact of the regulation will be weakened.

1.11. At the same time, the Committee feels that the regulation in some places goes into excessive detail (e.g. the rules on minimum age for slaughter).

1.12. The Committee would therefore suggest that the regulation and its annexes should confine themselves to establishing the minimum requirements which distinguish organic production and which must be respected for produce to be marketed as 'organic`. These requirements are specified in section 2.

1.13. The Committee does, however, realize that the large regional variations within the EU regarding natural conditions and climate, together with differences between different species of animal, make complete harmonization impossible. A certain degree of flexibility must therefore be provided for, to enable Member States to introduce national provisions which do not clash with the basic requirements for organic production, and without leading to distortion of competition. The national certification authorities should comply with EC standards 45011 and 45012.

1.14. The Committee believes that rules based on these variations must be decided by national inspection authorities, in cooperation with the relevant producer organizations, inspection authorities and consumer representatives. The decision should then be referred to the Commission and the Member States for possible objections, in which case the provisions of Article 14 of Regulation 2092/91 would apply.

1.15. A revision of the regulation to take on board the above principles would be a step towards a welcome simplification of EU agricultural regulations, and would increase awareness and confidence amongst consumers and the general public. Moreover, a simplification based on clear criteria would make it easier for the EU to conclude an international agreement on trade in organic produce which would be acceptable to both producers and consumers, and would secure a level playing field for both imported and Community produce.

2. Specific comments

In the light of the above, the Committee feels that the preamble and annex should only contain the basic requirements which are a feature of organic production, and establish the criteria for national derogations. General statements which also apply to conventional production but are not legally binding can be deleted from the draft regulation.

2.1. General principles

2.1.1. The Committee feels that this subheading should, first of all, establish a number of basic requirements which organic production must fulfil, thereby indicating the features which distinguish it from conventional production.

2.1.2. The Committee considers these basic requirements to be the following:

- animals must be fed principally with organically farmed vegetable produce;

- animals must enjoy the freedom of movement and living conditions needed to satisfy their natural requirements;

- sick animals must be given allopathic treatment, given that this is consistent with normal animal care and legislation on animal protection;

- the number of animals per unit of area must be limited in order to avoid all forms of pollution, and to comply with the nitrates directive's ceiling of 2 units of cattle per hectare. National inspection authorities must be able to set a lower stocking density than the directive's nitrogen ceiling demands (170 kg N/ha);

- organic stockfarmers who are unable to produce all their own feed or who do not have enough acreage for effluent spreading, must work in cooperation with other organic farmers within a reasonable area, in order to maintain a complete organic farming cycle;

- embryo transfers, the use of synthetic substances to stimulate growth and genetic engineering shall be forbidden;

- genetically engineered substances shall be forbidden in organically produced fodder and processed foods;

- conventional stockfarming within the same production unit can only be permitted during the conversion period, and must be completely separate from organic stockfarming. The conversion period may last for five years at the most, so that it does not become too costly for the farmer;

- animal mutilation shall only be permitted as a means of improving the health, welfare and/or hygiene of the livestock, and of ensuring human safety. National inspection authorities shall have the power to authorize castration and de-horning, where certain types of production require this;

- organically reared livestock must be identifiable in the slaughterhouse; the marking system recently proposed by the EU Commission will make this easier. The animal's identity must be discernible on the various parts of the carcass, so that the processing industry can use raw materials in the production of composite organic produce.

2.2. Origin of the animals

2.2.1. The Committee broadly endorses the proposed 10 % ceiling on conventionally-reared, young female livestock which may be brought into an existing herd or flock. However, in exceptional cases only, the inspection authorities must have the option to raise this to a maximum of 30 %, in order to provide for quicker growth in organic production, which fulfils the requirements set out in the Commission proposal.

2.2.2. The Committee agrees with the Commission's proposals on bringing conventionally-reared pullets, chicks, calves, piglets and bees into organic livestock holdings, but considers that the transitional period must be extended until 31 December 2005.

2.3. Conversion periods

2.3.1. The Committee believes that it should be possible to use meadows and fodder crops undergoing conversion to organic farming methods as fodder for livestock on livestock holdings undergoing conversion.

2.3.2. This means that the agricultural holding will be able to convert its livestock and crops at one and the same time.

2.3.3. This would also require regular monitoring of the conversion period itself.

2.3.4. It is the Committee's view that the conversion period for crop production should be fixed at one year. The national inspection authorities already have the option to do this, but a clearly established one-year ceiling would clarify the rules, and, not least, do away with the need for a consumer-unfriendly labelling system during the conversion period.

2.4. Feed

2.4.1. Whilst the key principle of the proposal is that an agricultural holding should produce its own animal feed, the Committee feels that geography and climate should be given special consideration, so as to allow for the transport of organic feed, and for it to be exchanged - commercially or otherwise - between agricultural holdings.

2.4.2. The Committee calls for the minimum intake of organic feed to be raised to 70 % per day, with a 90 % minimum yearly average.

2.4.3. The Committee endorses the Commission proposal to raise the minimum percentage of roughage in feedingstuffs to 60 %, but feels that the national inspection authorities should be allowed to authorize a 50 % minimum should production requirements demand.

2.4.4. The annexes to the regulation contain lists of other feedingstuffs, permissible feed supplements and other products allowed in organic livestock farming.

2.4.5. Experience has shown that it is a complicated procedure to draw up and amend inclusive lists of this kind. It hinders the development of new products, and the lists do not pay sufficient attention to the different climates and traditions in individual regions.

2.4.6. In some regions, the dictates of the climate are such that, in order to achieve sustainable organic production, the option must be available to use feed preservatives such as formic and propionic acid. This derogation could be accepted provided that the Member States apply the procedure suggested by the Committee in point 1.14.

2.4.7. In the Committee's view, permission should be given for the use of feedingstuffs which provide pigs and fowl with an adequate source of animal proteins, in a form natural to these species. Alternatively, the use of synthetic amino-acids should be permitted: this would reduce nitrogen leakage in the surrounding environment, since less acreage is needed to grow protein-rich crops. Organic feedingstuffs of animal origin must be labelled.

2.4.8. The Committee feels that the Commission should in the first instance draw up more precise criteria on the requirements that animal feed and other feed supplements need to fulfil for inclusion in the list of other feedingstuffs. The procedure advocated in point 1.14 could provide cover for the special conditions relating to certain regions and certain species of animal.

2.5. Disease prevention and veterinary treatment

2.5.1. The Committee endorses the Commission's proposed ban on allopathic preventive treatment, but feels that veterinary authorities should be able to make exceptions to protect the health of a whole herd and avert life-threatening epidemics.

2.5.2. The Committee would emphasize that sick animals must receive adequate treatment under veterinary control, in accordance with existing regulations on animal protection.

2.5.3. The Committee agrees with the Commission's proposal that the qualifying period after treatment with synthetic drugs should be twice as long as for conventional production.

In the Committee's view, where treatment is administered more than twice a year, it should not be possible to sell the products as 'organic`, and the relevant inspection bodies should investigate the causes of the disease and ensure that the farmer sees to it that the causes are remedied.

2.5.4. The regulation bans the use of substances to stimulate growth. The Committee would emphasize that this ban must, of necessity, apply to all herds/flocks regardless of species.

2.5.5. No substances other than formic acid should be permitted in apiculture.

2.6. Livestock housing, free-range areas, etc.

It is the Committee's view that the Commission proposal on livestock housing, free-range areas and storage facilities for livestock effluents and silage liquor, provides an appropriate general framework. Housing conditions have an important influence on meat quality, and the organic label requires high standards. However, in view of the climatic and other differences from one country to another, the Member States must be given a degree of flexibility, without leading to distortion of competition.

Brussels, 26 February 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

APPENDIX to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments were defeated during the debate:

Point 2.1.2, first indent:

Replace with the following:

'- herbivores must be fed, as early as possible, solely on organically farmed plant produce;`

Reason

The current wording might not provide an adequate guarantee for the consumer.

Result of the vote

For: 33, against: 39, abstentions: 17.

Point 2.1.2, fourth indent

Replace 'in order to avoid all forms of pollution` with 'in order to reduce pollution`.

Reason

It is not always possible to avoid pollution, but it can be reduced.

Result of the vote

For: 31, against: 40, abstentions: 18.