EN    EN EN
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 28.10.2009 
SEC(2009) 1446 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Improving price transparency along the food supply chain for consumers and 
policy makers  
 
Accompanying document to the  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
 
A better functioning food supply chain in Europe 
  
{COM(2009) 591 final} 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Consumers' overall perception of the food market ...................................................... 3 
2. Collection of price levels of comparable  consumer products at  the level of the 
European Union and the Member States...................................................................... 5 
3. Further developments of the Europe an Food Prices Monitoring tool........................ 11 
4. Price comparison tools for food products .................................................................. 12 5. Conclusions................................................................................................................ 1 4 
ANNEX 1: Consumer Prices for Individua l Products across Member-States ......................... 16 
ANNEX 2: Comparison of Consumer Prices and Commodity Prices..................................... 17 
EN 3   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Improving price transparency along the f ood supply chain for consumers and policy 
makers 
1. CONSUMERS ' OVERALL PERCEPTION OF THE FOOD MARKET  
1. The Commission has studied consumers' perception of the food market through a 
Consumer Satisfaction survey1 for three markets (meat, fruit and vegetables and non-
alcoholic beverages). The survey shows,  among other issues, whether consumers 
perceive prices given by re tailers as transparent; whet her consumers are able to 
compare prices and the kind of problems consumers encounter while buying food.  
2. Figure 1 shows consumers' overall satisfaction with four aspects of the functioning of 
the market: price (whether retailer offers  reasonable value for money), quality of 
services, trust (whether retailer is trustworthy and adheres to the rules set in place to protect consumers) and market factors (such as competition, price and quality 
comparability between retailers, cross-border purchasing). 
Figure 1. Levels of consum ers overall satisfaction  
  E U27 Overall satisfaction
556065707580
Meat Fruit and
vegetablesN on-alcoholic
beverages% E U2 7 sati sfied con sumer s Overall price
Overall quality of services
Overall trust
Overall market factorsEU27 Ov er all dis s atisf ac t ion
012345
Me a t Fr u i t an d
vegetablesN on-alcoholic
beverages% EU27 dissatisfied consumer s
 
Source: IPSOS Consumer Satisfaction survey, 2008 
3. Consumers' opinions on whether retailers offer reasonable value for money  vary 
depending on the market. Consumers are qu ite satisfied with  the non-alcoholic 
beverages and meat sectors (68% and 66% respectively) but less so for fruit and 
vegetables (62%). One of the possible reas ons is that it is probably easier for 
consumers to evaluate and compare beverages than vegetables.  
4. Most European consumers seem to be satisfied with the choice of prices  in the three 
food markets, although less so again for fru it and vegetables (69% for non-alcoholic 
beverages, 65% for meat, 61% for fruit a nd vegetables). The fruit and vegetables 
market also shows the greatest differences between Member States. In fact the 
                                                 
1 Consumer Satisfaction survey conducted for th e European Commission by IPSOS Belgium in 2008 
EN 4   EN percentage of dissatisfied consumers in SE, DK and EE ranks between 15% and 
20%, considerably above th e EU27 average of 4.7%. 
5. The majority of EU consumers agree that in the three markets prices are clear and 
accurate , i.e. consumers know exactly what th ey are going to pay before paying for 
the product. The percentage of consumer  satisfied with price presentation (non-
alcoholic beverages: 75%; m eat: 74%; fruit and vegetables : 71%) is higher than the 
corresponding figure for the other areas consid ered e.g. product labelling or choice of 
prices. This suggests that in most cases pr ices are rather clearly displayed in shops. 
In addition, although the majority of problem s reported by consum ers in the survey 
are generated by the quality of food produc ts, consumers also have problems with 
prices, and perceive them as too high, not properly indicated or advertised (figure 2).  
Figure 2: Consumers' negative experiences  
Ma rket% of 
consumers 
who  have experienced 
1-4 problems Type of problem% of consumers who 
communicated the 
problem to the retailer% of consumers 
satisfied with the way t heir retailer dealt with 
their complaint% of consumers who 
took further act ions 
against their retailer
Fresh fruit  and vegetables EU27: 12% quality of t he product: 83% EU27: 61% EU27:  77% EU27:  3%
prices: 16% EU15: 62%
quality of t he service: 8% NMS12: 54%
Meat EU27: 7% quality of t he product: 74% EU27: 70% EU27:  77% EU27:  5%
prices: 15% EU15: 73%quality of t he service: 10% NMS12: 53%
Non-alcoholic beverages EU27: 3% quality of t he product: 42% EU27: 64% EU27:  64% EU27:  6%
prices: 23% EU15: 66%quality of t he service: 16% NMS12: 58%
 
Source: IPSOS Consumer Satisfaction survey, 2008 
6. Most EU consumers agree that it is easy to  compare prices of products at their 
retailer (71% for non-a lcoholic beverages, 65% for frui t and vegetables and 67% for 
the meat sector). However, co mparability of prices between  different retailers seems 
to be problematic: only 63%, 60% and 58%  respectively. Moreove r, consumers are 
less satisfied with this asp ect than with e.g. opening hours or transparency of prices. 
Comparability of prices between different retailers causes more difficulties in the 
food sectors than in other markets (Figure 3) . This might be related to the nature of 
food products and also the sales channels us ed in food markets, where the share of 
traditional trade is higher than in non-food markets. However, this data suggests that 
there may be a need for development of appropriate, widely accessible tools that 
would provide consumers with possibility  to compare prices of food products. 
Figure 3: EU27 average % of consumers sati sfied with comparability of prices  
Fresh fruit 
and 
vegetables MeatNon-
alcoholic 
beveragesEntert ainmen
t and leisur e 
goods ICTOther HH 
electrical 
equipmentC lothi ng and 
f ootwear
Price comparability between retailers 59 58 63 62 66 67 64  
Source: IPSOS Consumer Satisfaction survey, 2008 
7. Transparency and comparability of prices is a key issue, for consumers and 
policymakers. Consumers need accessibl e, accurate and timely information on 
EN 5   EN prices. Policymakers also need reliable da ta to assess the functioning of the markets 
of goods across the European Un ion and at national level.  
8. Two initiatives are needed: one for policym akers to collect data at EU level by 
Eurostat and national statistical offices , and one for consumers, through price 
comparison websites coveri ng national markets.  
2. COLLECTION OF PRICE LEVELS OF COMPARABLE CONSUMER PRODUCTS AT THE 
LEVEL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE MEMBER STATES  
9. A comparison of the general level of food prices across the EU using indices from 
the Purchasing Power Parity exercise carried out by Eurostat every 3 years and then 
updated by Harmonised Index of Consumer Pr ices shows important differences in 
price levels between the Member States.  
Figure 4: Indices of food and non-alcoholic beverages 
Indices of food and non-alcoholic beverages 2008
020406080100120140160
DK 
IE 
FI 
LU 
SE 
IT 
BE 
AT 
CY 
DE 
UK 
FR 
EL 
EU27 
SI 
ES 
MT 
NL 
EE 
PT 
LV 
HU 
CZ 
SK 
LT 
PL 
RO 
BG 
Source: Eurostat Purchasing Power Parity indicesEU27=100
 
10. Below the European average are Bulgaria , the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Po land, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, the Netherlands, 
Portugal, and Spain. The most expensive c ountries as far as food is concerned are 
Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg a nd Sweden. The differences between 
countries generally mirror the overall stan dard of living in the Member States2, with 
some exceptions e.g. the low prices level of  food in the Netherlands. It is also 
noteworthy that the United Kingdom has lo wer prices than e.g. Ireland and Sweden 
even if it is on a comparable standard of living. 
11. In addition to the analysis based on Purc hasing Power Parities, the collection and 
analysis of prices at the product level ac ross the internal ma rket has also been 
developed to help policymakers at EU a nd national level to benchmark consumer 
markets across the EU. To this end, the products should be sufficiently comparable 
across the countries and also sufficiently re presentative of pric e developments in 
their respective markets in the European Un ion as a whole. The collection of prices 
                                                 
2 As the proxy for the standard of living is used the actual individual consumption (individual 
consumption and public expenditures on health and education) in euros per inhabitant. 
EN 6   EN of consumer products is also intended to serve as an input to the an alysis of particular 
food supply chains.  
12. The first collection of prices of comparab le consumer products which forms part of 
the EU food prices monitoring tool has been conducted for the Consumer Markets 
Scoreboard published in 2009. An example of  analysis based on  this data is 
presented below. It is mostly based on the data  published by Eurostat in February 
2009. The publication was an experiment on the basis of the samples of prices 
gathered by the National Statistical Institutes of the Member States for the monthly Harmonised Index of Consumer  Prices (HICP) statistics
3. It shows the potential 
future applications of the data once they ar e collected regularly as a part of the EU 
food prices monitoring tool. 
13. The price data were collected in June 2008. The samples of products surveyed are 
representative for the consumption pattern s of the particular Member States and 
therefore differ to some extent from each other.  
14. The table of prices collected and recalcu lated into Euros according to June 2008 
exchange rates is attached as Annex 1 in the end of the document. 
15. It should be kept in mind that: 
– The general product description allows  for differences between the product 
descriptions used in the individual Member States. 
– Product descriptions used in  the individual countries ma y allow for a smaller or 
larger variability of products within th e samples. In some cases the national 
product descriptions used ex ceeded some qualifications as given in the general 
product descriptions. This was indicated by footnotes in the Eurostat document or 
the product was deleted from the table de pending on whether the deviation from 
the general product description was expect ed to have significant impact on the 
price level. 
– Products, even when physically comparab le may have very different market 
positions across countries national markets.  E.g. mineral water may be a locally-
sourced everyday purchase for many families in countries like IT or ES, but an occasional purchase for only a small propor tion of households in others (e.g. UK). 
Ground coffee may be another example of  a product with a different market 
position in different countries.  
– The number of countries for which the pric es of products according to the general 
product descriptions were av ailable for publication vari es across products (from 
21 as a maximum to 8 for natural yoghurt). 
16. The graph below provides the information about degree of diffe rentiation (measured 
by coefficient of variation – the standard  deviation divided by the mean) for the 
sample of products for which experime ntal data was released by Eurostat. 
                                                
 
3 A research report going into more detail can be found on the Eurostat website: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/po rtal/hicp/documents/Tab/Tab/04_METH_CPR_-
_FEB_2009_WEB_0.pdf  
EN 7   EN Figure 5: Dispersion of price levels for selected products across Member States 
Coefficient of variation of prices selected food products across Member States; June 2008
Source: Based on experimental prices’ collection – see the European food prices monitoring toolA high coefficient of 
variation means that there are strong differences in price levels of a product 
between Member States
White sugarTinned pink tuna
ButterFresh milk, unskimmedApplesSpaghettiCarrotsJamWheat flourWhole chickenOrange juiceMilk chocolateBlack teaLong-grain, white riceCoffeeOlive OilPork, cutlet (escalope)PotatoesNatural yoghurtSausageTomato KetchupMinced beefIce creamChicken eggsLoaf of white breadMineral water
14%19%21%22%22%24%25%26%27%27%28%29%32%34%35%36%40%41%41%42%42%44%48%49%58%70%
Average for analysed 
food products: 34%
 
17. The degree of differentiation of prices vari es from one product to another. Several 
factors, such as differences in standard of  living, differences in levels of value added 
tax, or the cultural preferences of the populat ion may explain some of the differences 
in price levels. Limited intra-EU trade flows of food products make food markets 
mostly local and contribute to the disper sion of price levels across Member States. 
However, other factors, such as market dynamics and competition intensity may also 
play a role. For example, two products wh ich are often locally -sourced and similar 
such as potatoes and carrots display very  different price dispersion (~40% for 
potatoes and ~20% for carrots). 
18. As to this particular data source, the variation is often related to the differences in 
product description  between the countries. This ma y be the case of white bread 
(according to different culinary traditions ), chicken eggs (different sizes), and 
minced beef (sometimes replaced by minced pork). On the other hand, the highest differentiated prices of mineral water seem  to be more difficult to explain by product 
difference. The differentiation of prices of ice cream or sausages cannot be explained 
by differentiated product descriptions either.  
19. Cultural habits and taste preferences vary  widely across the European Union. This 
may explain the high variation of the pri ces of bread, because different kinds of 
bread are covered by the pri ce collection in different count ries. This may be the case 
for olive oil, which is produced locally a nd commonly consumed in Southern Europe 
but much less so in Northern and Eastern Europe. 
20. Another explanation of differences in pri ce levels lies in the tradability of the 
considered food products. In general, food is  produced locally, with some exceptions. 
One may be sugar, the prices of which are homogenous. On the other hand, the 
EN 8   EN differentiation of prices of mineral water may be explaine d by the local origin of the 
product.  
21. The general standard of living of the population can influence food prices in 
different ways. First, if food is produced locally, the labour costs may be lower or 
higher. Finally, the providers may adju st to the level of purchasing power, 
differentiating prices between countries (in particular in the case of multinationals). 
The dispersion of the majority of retail food prices is lowe r than the dispersion of the 
standard of living across Member States (ar ound 0.50). It is to be expected that price 
levels are higher in richer countries. In cont rast, it is worrying if price differentiation 
is high and not connected to the differences  in the standard of living of particular 
countries. The graph below captures this relationship on two axes. The horizontal one shows the variation of prices of a give n food product. The vertical axis shows the 
correlation between the prices of the product by country a nd the standard of living 
(actual individual consumption)  per inhabitant in this c ountry. The graph is divided 
into 4 parts by the median of varia tion and by the 0,4 co rrelation threshold 
(separating highly and weakly correlated items for this numbe r of variables). 
Figure 6: Comparison of price va riations and consumption levels 
Long-grain rice
Wheat flourLoaf of white bread
SpaghettiMinced beef
Pork cutletWhole chicken
Sausage
Tinned pink tuna
F resh milk unskimmedNatural youghurtChicken eggs
Butter
Olive oilApples
CarrotsPotatoes
Sugar
Jam
Milk chocolateIce creamTomato ketchup
CoffeeBlack teaMineral water
Orange juice
-0.4-0.20.00.20.40.60.81.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Price variation across Member StatesPearson correlation with actual individual consumption
 
Source: own calculations based on Eurostat data 
22. The different quadrants of this graph corre spond to different situations. Prices of 
products in the upper right hand-side quadr ant (such as minced beef) are highly 
differentiated, but they are also  rather closely correlated wi th the standard of living. 
The may be qualified as fragmented and c onnected to local condi tions (labour cost 
and purchasing power of the popul ation). Prices in both left -hand quadrants are little 
differentiated. Thus those markets may be qua lified as more integrated. In most cases 
prices are also correlated w ith the standard of living.  
EN 9   EN 23. The lower quadrant on the right-hand side of this graph indicates products where 
market malfunctioning may be the case. The products we find here  are characterised 
by relatively high price variation and, at th e same time, low correlation with the level 
of living. Thus, obviously, the markets are fr agmented and, moreover, the standard of 
living does not explain variation. The products in this quadrant are: ice cream, olive 
oil, mineral water and coffee. In the case of olive oil it may be explained by the 
"cultural" and local character  of this good: it is particularly expensive in the Czech 
Republic, Hungary and Poland, where it is not  a good of everyday use, contrary to 
Spain or Portugal, where it is  in common use. In the case of coffee, some outliers are 
due to different package size (coffee in sma ller packages is more expensive when the 
price is further recalculated into common un its). Finally, ice cream and mineral water 
are difficult to explain. As the first round of the collection was experimental, it is 
difficult to identify precise reasons of differences in some cases.  
24. The collection of prices of consumer goods  also permits some analysis of the 
performance of the food supply chain . The analysis covers only the simplest food 
supply chains, for which it is easy to iden tify the agricultural input (minced beef, 
pork cutlet, whole chicken, fresh milk, eggs). Tables in Annex 2 show that prices of 
some agricultural commodities are much more harmonized than prices of listed 
consumer products. This is the case of mi nced beef (indicator of variation of 
consumer prices 0.44 and of bulls carcass 0.25), of pork (cutlets 0.40; pig meat 
carcass 0.09) and of eggs (consum er prices of eggs  0.49 ; and of eggs sold by farms – 
0.34). Consumer markets for these products were more fragmented than related 
agricultural commodity markets. In some cases (minced beef, eggs) it may be the 
impact of differences in consumer produc t descriptions. In the case of milk, the 
situation is the reverse (consumer mark ets are less fragmented than those of 
agricultural goods)4. A direct comparison of consumer  prices of final output and of 
unit prices of agricultural input gives very different results across countries. It should 
be however kept in mind that agricultural prices like consumer prices are taken for 
June 2008, which was a peak of commodity prices. The peak in consumer price 
indices for food products came onl y later in 2008 or early 2009. 
                                                 
4 Milk prices at farm-gate level may significantly di ffer across Member States. However, this is mainly 
linked to the product-mix of the dairy industry and to the perishability of the product which limits its 
tradability (as compared to other agricultural products). 
EN 10   EN Figure 7: Ratio consumer price (minced beef) to commodity price (carcass) 
BEEF
0,00,51,01,52,02,53,0
BG CZ DK IT LV LT LU HU MT PL RO FI UK
Source: Annex 2
 
Figure 8: Ratio consumer price (pork cutlet) to commodity price (carcass) 
PORK
0123456789
CZ EL IT LV LT LU HU MT AT PL PT RO SK FI
Source: Annex 2 
Figure 9: Ratio consumer price (whole chicken) to commodity price (carcass) 
CHICKEN
0,00,51,01,52,02,53,0
BG CZ EE IE EL ES IT CY LV LT HU MT AT PL PT RO SL SK UK
Source: Annex 2 
EN 11   EN Figure 10: Ratio consumer price (fresh milk) to commodity price (milk producer price) 
MILK
0,00,51,01,52,02,53,03,54,0
BG CZ DK EE IE EL ES CY LV LT LU HU AT PL PT SL SK FI UK
Source: Annex 2
 
Figure 11: Ratio consumer price (chicken eg gs) to commodity price (fresh shell eggs) 
EGGS
0,00,51,01,52,02,53,03,54,0
BG CZ DK IE EL ES CY LV LT HU MT AT PL PT RO SL SK FI UK
Source: Annex 2
 
 
25. This example shows the potential of future  analyses of food supply chain based on 
the level of prices at different stages. 
3. FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN FOOD PRICES MONITORING TOOL  
26. The comparison of food prices as paid by consumer across Europe set out in this 
paper based on the available data sugges ts a number of possible improvements: 
• A much broader number of prices of  comparable food products, covering 
categories of food as detailed as possible. 
• Indices of price developments that are in a classification coherent with the one 
used for price levels. 
• As consumer prices change quickly and there may be a need to take actions 
rapidly, there may be a need for more fre quent, preferably mont hly, availability of 
detailed prices of food.  
EN 12   EN • The analysis revealed the need for a mo re detailed classifica tion of food products 
into processed and non-processed. Moreover,  a more detailed classification would 
help detect differences in price behavi our due to the length of food supply chain. 
4. PRICE COMPARISON TOOLS FOR FOOD PRODUCTS  
27. The wider development of price comparison to ols such as website in Member States 
would help consumers be better informed a bout differences in prices in their home. 
These differences might be very significant.  Consumers aware of the prices of food 
products would be able to sw itch to another retailer in order to save money. Such 
behaviour could influence reta ilers and put pressure on th em to revise their price 
levels. 
28. The need for price comparison tools was examined by the Belgian institute CRIOC-
OIVO (Research and Information Centre for the Consumer Organisations). In August 
2007 they interviewed 484 Belgian c onsumers by phone asking about their 
perceptions of 17 chosen comm ercial price comparison websites. The results showed 
that 34% of the respondent s who actually bought goods on  the Internet used the 
websites to compare between the same products  and search for the cheapest offer and 
70% of all respondents percei ve such tools as useful. Respondents also stressed a 
need for transparency and reliability of such websites, which could be obtained if 
public authorities played a watchdog role a nd certified these information services.5 
29. Consultation with stakeholde rs revealed that there is  a strong desire for price 
comparison services and that they would contribute to better informed choices made by consumers. Most consumer organisati ons regard it a necessity and support it 
strongly. However, they often mention a problem of financi ng such initiatives. 
Usually consumer organisations do not ha ve sufficient resources to conduct price 
comparison surveys on a regular basis. Ho wever, in several EU countries price 
comparing tools have been developed with  financial support from the government.  
30. The website www.precenimocene.si
, managed by the Slovene  Consumers' 
Association and supported financially by the Ministry of Economy in Slovenia is a 
good example. It provides consumers w ith a database including 8 food product 
groups, divided into 59 subgroups (e.g. Coffee,  Beer) and over 1700 different prices. 
Consumers can check a price of a detailed product given per unit across 8 stores: 4 
hypermarkets, 1 supermarket and 3 discounter s, belonging to 7 retailer chains. The 
Slovene Consumers Association claims they are satisfied with the system: 
"Consumers, media and renowned Slovene economists have praised our activity, 
citing our activities as one of the important reasons that the price increases were reduced in the first half of 2008 and stabilised in September."
6 Through the website, 
the NGO also educates consumers, making th em aware that “Special offer does not 
always mean the best price" or advising them to compare the unit prices.  
                                                 
5 For more details see http://www.oivo-crioc.org/files/fr/3098fr.pdf  
6 Information about the website was sent by ZPS – Slovene Consumers Association to DG SANCO B1 
on 16.10.2008 and updated in May 2009  
EN 13   EN 31. Another example is the Italian Mister Prezzi7 , operated by the Ministry of Economic 
Development. It covers 16 food categories and data is upd ated on a monthly basis. In 
Cyprus, the consumer authorities carry out  weekly price observations, results of 
which are provided for consumers on-line.  
32. Good practice can also be f ound in Ireland. In July 2009 the Irish National Consumer 
Agency published their latest grocery survey  report, which focuse s on grocery prices 
collected across the country in a number of retailers. The report differentiates between branded products and retailers' own br ands – separate data collections have 
been dedicated to each group. Apart from the report, the agency's website provides 
consumers with specific data. The grocery price check survey is carried out 
biannually, starting from June 2007.
8 
33. Apart from the public bodies, there are also private initiatives . In the UK the 
website www.mysupermarket.co.uk  allows consumers to create a basket of products 
and check in which retailer chain they are able to obtain the best offer. They can 
choose between 4 grocery retailers9. The information is updated regularly and 
includes current promotions. 
34. Price comparison services are developing and consumers tend to use them more 
often. However, they are still not very common for food products. On the one hand, 
many private price comparison websites profit from producers' advertisements, and not many food producers use this means to advertise their products. On the other 
hand, it is possible that consumers percei ve savings that c ould be obtained by 
choosing the cheapest individual food products as rather minor comparing to savings 
which could be achieved due to comparing prices of e.g. electronic goods, whereas 
European households actually spend tw ice as much on food products than on 
furnishing and household equipments. 
Consumer satisfaction survey – Pr ice comparison on the internet 
The consumer satisfaction survey revealed that: 
• Fresh fruits and vegetables market : Only 3% of EU consumers have used the 
internet to compare prices of fresh fru it and vegetables. However, 12% did so in 
Denmark, 10% in the UK and 9% in Slovakia.
10 
• Meat : Only 3% of EU consumers have used th e Internet to compare prices of meat. 
However, 11% have in Denmark, 9%  in Slovakia and 7% in the UK.11 
35. In some Member States food prices are co llected and presented to the consumers as 
regular reports.  
                                                 
7 http://www.osservaprezzi. it/livelli/livellideiprezzi.asp  
8 http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/News_+_Resear ch/Press%20Releases/Biannual_grocery_survey_  
July_2009.html  
9 Based on ranking of the UK top grocery retailers in 2008 drawn up by PlanetRetail 
10 "Survey on consumer satisfaction with the retail distribution of goods" by IPSOS Belgium for the 
European Commission, Health and consumer Protection Directorate-General", March 2009 
11 Idem 
EN 14   EN 36. Test-Achats, the Belgian consumers' or ganisation, conducts  a yearly survey 
comparing prices of basic consumer products  across different reta ilers in different 
parts of the country. KEPKA, a Greek consumer NGO, compares prices across 
borders. The report from May 2008 compari ng prices between Greece and Berlin 
showed that prices in Greece were on av erage 30-40% higher. These results have 
been sent to the Greek competition authorit ies. After publication of the report, in 
May 2008, the Greek government accepted they had to take some action12. 
37. Private price comparison websites have deve loped together with the development of 
the Internet. They work as a valuable sour ce of traffic for many Internet traders (e.g. 
a group of European price comparison sites, which operate in 7 countries, claims to 
have more than 26,5 million unique visitors per month13). An increase in the usage of 
price comparison services has been obs erved in the current economic downturn, 
which can be explained by consumers' higher price-sensitivity. 43% of on-line traders who responded to a survey conduc ted in the US in August-September 2008 
claimed that, comparing to the previous ye ar, they had observed an increase in the 
proportion of sales coming through from the price comparison websites
14. In Europe 
such services are particularly popular in the UK. From June 2007 to June 2008 the major UK price comparison services' provi ders recorded a significant increase in 
traffic on their sites.  
38. Private price comparison websites use diffe rent methodologies of price collection. 
Most often they obtain data directly from retailers, or from specialised businesses 
which compile data feeds from  a number of merchants. Pr ice engines can also scan 
retailers' sites in order to gather price data.
15  
39. This has not been without problems, with price comparison sites in the financial 
services sector sometimes being accused of misleading consumers. The Office of 
Fair Trading in the UK has launched a study into pricing on the internet for all sectors to examine these issues. 
5. C
ONCLUSIONS  
40. Price comparison tools are perceived by consumers as well as by consumer 
organisations as a useful and sometimes powerful tool, both in everyday purchasing 
decisions as well as in drawing attention to possible problems concerning food prices 
at a national level.  
41. In order to make them an even more help ful and powerful tool, these services should 
be more accessible for consumers and nation al authorities. However, it is also 
necessary to ensure a good reliability of  price comparison services. The methodology 
of price collection used should be s ound and aimed at delivering objective, non-
biased results.  
                                                 
12 Information obtained in the course of an interv iew with a KEPKA representative, conducted in May 
2009. 
13 "Power to the Consumer: How Web Technology Is Influencing Behaviour", Euromonitor International : 
Strategy Briefing, February 2009 
14 Idem 
15 Idem 
EN 15   EN 42. Experience and knowledge regarding price comparison services should be gathered 
from different operators in order to pr epare a set of guidelines which could be 
applied by either national authorities, NGOs  or other bodies willing to develop such 
a tool in their country.  
 
EN 16   EN ANNEX  1: CONSUMER PRICES FOR INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTS ACROSS MEMBER -STATES  
BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SL SK FI SE UK MEAN ST. DEV.IND. 
VARIATI
ONCOUNT
Long-grain, white 
rice- 1,32 1,32 - - 1,23 - 2,46 1,23 - 2,06 1,9 1,59 1,3 3,26 1,0 7 2,17 - 2,01 1,96 1 1,49 - 1,29 2,11 - - 1,71 0,58 0,34 18
Wheat flour - 0,63 0,56 0,92 - - 1,04 1,31 0,85 - - 1,13 0,71 0,7 1,01 0,57 0, 9 - 1,02 0,63 0,79 0,65 0,91 0,5 0,61 - 0,85 0,81 0,22 0,27 20
Loaf of white bread - 0,74 0,92 4,69 - _ 1,77 2,08 2,84 - - 1,91 1,66 1,39 3,28 1,03 1,29 - 4,9 1,08 2,17 0,98 1,94 1,23 3,28 - 1,75 2,05 1,19 0,58 20
Spaghetti - - 1,33 - 2,47 2,07 2,48 1,82 - - - 1,9 2,05 1,87 2,97 2,51 1,48 - 2,44 - 1,3 2,45 - 2,03 2,13 - 1,82 2,07 0,45 0,22 17
Minced beef - 2 , 8 6 3 , 1 7 8 , 5 8 ------ 8 , 9 9 - 3 , 5 7 3 , 2 6 8 , 3 7 6 , 7 8 5 , 3 8 -- 3 , 0 9 - 3 , 4 2 -- 8 , 5 2 - 6 , 9 6 5 , 6 1 2 , 4 8 0 , 4 41 3
Pork, cutlet 
(escalope)-- 4 , 5 7 ---- 5 , 4 -- 8 , 0 6 - 5 , 3 3 4 , 3 9 7 , 4 6 5 , 1 5 3 , 2 2 - 8 , 8 9 3 , 7 2 5 , 7 4 5 , 8 1 - 4 , 9 5 1 2 , 4 1 -- 6 , 0 8 2 , 4 2 0 , 4 1 4
Whole chicken - 2,41 2,51 - - 3,04 4,37 3,63 3 - 4,11 3,47 2,86 2,48 5,18 2,97 2,33 - 4,28 1,87 2,66 2,43 3,28 2,53 - - 3,64 3,15 0,84 0,27 20
Sausage - - 4,86 8,73 - - 5,93 6,95 - - - 6,6 - - 9,89 3,59 2,94 - - 4,13 - 3,64 - 3 - - 4,72 5,42 2,25 0,42 12
Tinned pink tuna -- 5 , 1 7 ---------- 1 0 , 1 5 - 4 , 7 1 - 7 , 8 4 6 , 6 2 8 , 7 8 -- 6 , 2 7 8 , 5 - 6 , 2 8 7 , 0 2 1 , 2 8 0 , 2 5 9
Fresh milk, 
unskimmed- 0,78 0,82 1,09 - 0,81 1,12 1,31 0,94 - - 1, 22 0,84 0,79 1,26 0,9 0,72 - 1, 01 0,84 0,8 1,32 0,79 0,72 0,93 - 0,91 0,95 0,2 0,21 21
Natural yoghurt - 1 , 0 1 1 , 7 1 --------- 1 , 6 2 - 3 , 5 2 - 1 , 6 4 - 1 , 7 3 2 , 0 2 3 , 0 4 ------ 2 , 0 4 0 , 8 3 0 , 4 1 8
Chicken eggs - 1 1,13 3,34 - - 3,06 2,11 1,31 - - 2,01 1,32 1,25 3,32 1,21 1,02 - 3,39 1,19 1,24 0,97 1,64 1,14 1,94 - 3,03 1,83 0,89 0,49 20
Butter - 1,04 1,14 1,91 - - 1,3 - - - 1,99 1,97 1,59 1,35 1,7 2,14 1,64 - 1,52 1,35 1,67 1,74 - 1,72 1,54 - 1,4 1,6 0,3 0,19 18
Olive Oil -- 1 1 , 3 2 ---- 5 , 7 1 3 , 4 1 -- 5 , 0 3 - 6 , 7 4 8 , 9 1 0 , 4 2 7 , 2 9 - 7 , 9 7 1 1 , 4 7 4 , 7 4 ------ 7 , 5 5 2 , 7 4 0 , 3 61 1
Apples - 1,36 1,59 2,38 - 1,56 - 1,92 1,85 - 1,93 - 1,58 1,78 2,85 1,56 1,46 - 1,84 1,39 1,39 1,3 1,64 1,6 2,19 - 1,93 1,76 0,38 0,22 20
Carrots - 0,7 1 1,34 - 0,88 1,37 1,02 1,04 - 1,17 1,17 1,05 0,83 1,4 0,81 1,05 - 1,28 0,91 0,74 0,73 1,27 1,01 1,71 - 1,01 1,07 0,25 0,24 22
Potatoes - 0,42 0,68 1,12 - 0,44 1,56 0,61 0,9 - 0,94 0,69 0,54 0,9 1,33 0,64 0,39 - 1,1 0,62 0,65 0,47 0,63 0,57 0,74 - - 0,76 0,31 0,41 21
White sugar - 0,87 0,84 1,31 - 0,96 1,04 0,84 0,92 - - 1,04 1,07 0,93 0,96 0,87 0,77 - 1,08 0,78 0,97 0,87 0,81 0,93 1,05 - 1,08 0,95 0,13 0,14 21
Jam - 2 , 6 3 , 9 1 --- 4 , 1 2 - 3 , 0 2 ---- 3 , 2 8 3 , 7 6 2 , 9 4 2 , 4 7 - 4 , 7 6 3 , 5 8 5 , 9 7 3 , 3 8 - 4 , 0 4 --- 3 , 6 8 0 , 9 4 0 , 2 61 3
Milk chocolate - 6 , 8 5 7 , 5 3 ----------- 9 , 8 4 8 , 8 7 1 6 , 2 9 - 7 , 8 9 9 , 4 3 - 6 , 7 3 8 , 5 9 8 , 3 9 8 , 7 5 -- 9 , 0 1 2 , 6 0 , 2 91 1
Ice Cream - 1,94 6,76 3,09 - 2,5 - - - - 6,59 - - 2,25 4,51 3,96 3,02 - 5,76 2,6 3,35 4,49 - 1,46 1,5 - - 3,59 1,73 0,48 15
Tomato Ketchup - 1,37 1,64 1,64 - 1,96 - 3,68 - - - - 1,24 1,69 4,4 - 3,52 - - 2,73 4,93 2,43 - 2,77 2,9 - 2,38 2,69 1,12 0,42 14
Coffee - 6 , 0 8 9 , 0 3 9 , 0 3 ---- 6 , 2 9 - 9 , 1 8 8 , 5 9 , 1 3 8 , 1 7 9 , 0 9 8 , 5 1 1 9 , 7 8 -- 6 , 9 6 8 , 8 7 1 0 , 4 - 7 , 9 1 5 , 6 1 - 1 1 , 3 8 9 , 0 7 3 , 1 4 0 , 3 51 7
Black Tea - - 1,77 1,77 - 1,39 0,86 2,09 - - - 1,23 1,21 1,09 1,79 1,47 0,69 - 1,99 1,64 1,39 - - 0,72 - - - 1,38 0,45 0,32 14
Mineral Water - 0,22 0,34 0,34 - - - 0,32 - - - - 0,47 0,43 0,65 0,3 0,27 - 0,34 0,4 1,56 0,34 0,38 0,34 1,09 - - 0,5 0,35 0,7 16
Orange Juice - 1,16 1,1 1,1 - 1,13 1,75 1,39 0,85 - 0,7 - 1,07 1,2 1,35 1,41 - - 1,26 1,27 2,01 1,55 - 1,28 1,01 - 2,18 1,34 0,37 0,28 19 
 
EN 17   EN ANNEX  2: COMPARISON OF CONSUMER PRICES AND COMMODITY PRICES  
Minced beef 
1 kgYoung bulls 
carcass (cat. 
AR3)
1 kgRATIO
minced beef/ 
carcassPork  cutlet
1 kgPig meat carcass
(cat. E)
1kgRATIO
cutlet/carcassWhole chicken
1 kgWhole chicken 
carcass
1 kgRATIO
whole chicken/ 
carcassFresh milk
1 lMilk producer 
price
1 lRATIO
fresh milk/ milk 
producer priceChicken eggs 
(10) Fresh shell eggs
1 kgRATIO
chicken eggs/fresh 
shell eggs
BE - 2,63 - - 1,57 - -1 , 7 8 - - 0,30 - - 0,81 -
BG 2,86 2,43 1,18 - 1,75 - 2,41 1,60 1,51 0,78 0,30 2,62 1,00 0,79 1,27
CZ 3,17 2,99 1,06 4,57 1,87 2,44 2,51 2,10 1,20 0,82 0,34 2,39 1,13 0,98 1,15
DK 8,58 3,26 2,63 - 1,38 - -2 , 0 6 - 1,09 0,32 3,36 3,34 1,56 2,14
DE - 3,08 - - 1,72 - -2 , 2 9 - - 0,33 - - 0,86 -
EE - 2,52 - - 1,57 - 3,04 2,14 1,42 0,81 0,29 2,80 - 1,25 -
IE - 3,42 - - 1,49 - 4,37 1,79 2,44 1,12 0,33 3,41 3,06 1,50 2,03
EL - 4,14 - 5,40 1,92 2,81 3,63 2,15 1,68 1,31 0,43 3,04 2,11 1,32 1,60
ES - 2,96 - - 1,66 - 3,00 1,61 1,87 0,94 0,37 2,53 1,31 0,97 1,35
FR - 3,07 - - 1,52 - -2 , 2 5 - - 0,34 - - 0,94 -
IT 8,99 3,60 2,50 8,06 1,61 5,01 4,11 2,07 1,98 - 0,38 - - 1,48 -
CY - 0,00 - - 1,46 - 3,47 2,47 1,41 1,22 0,49 2,51 2,01 1,70 1,18
LV 3,57 2,35 1,52 5,33 1,86 2,86 2,86 1,98 1,45 0,84 0,26 3,27 1,32 1,32 1,00
LT 3,26 2,43 1,34 4,39 1,81 2,42 2,48 1,62 1,53 0,79 0,23 3,41 1,25 1,13 1,11
LU 8,37 3,15 2,66 7,46 1,72 4,34 5,18 0,00 - 1,26 0,36 3,50 3,32 0,00 -
HU 6,78 2,50 2,71 5,15 1,76 2,93 2,97 2,16 1,37 0,90 0,32 2,79 1,21 1,15 1,05
MT 5,38 3,58 1,50 3,22 1,58 2,04 2,33 1,71 1,37 0,72 0,00 - 1,02 0,81 1,26
NL - 3,05 - - 1,53 - -1 , 7 5 - - 0,32 - - 0,70 -
AT - 3,12 - 8,89 1,66 5,35 4,28 1,90 2,25 1,01 0,38 2,64 3,39 0,92 3,70
PL 3,09 2,74 1,13 3,72 1,74 2,13 1,87 1,52 1,23 0,84 0,31 2,73 1,19 1,17 1,02
PT - 3,16 - 5,74 1,69 3,40 2,66 1,82 1,46 0,80 0,35 2,29 1,24 0,94 1,32
RO 3,42 2,30 1,49 5,81 1,83 3,17 2,43 1,71 1,42 1,32 0,00 - 0,97 0,82 1,19
SL - 2,96 - - 1,59 - 3,28 2,04 1,61 0,79 0,32 2,44 1,64 1,27 1,30
SK - 2,77 - 4,95 1,86 2,67 2,53 1,94 1,30 0,72 0,33 2,16 1,14 1,02 1,12
FI 8,52 3,51 2,43 12,41 1,46 8,49 -2 , 2 3 - 0,93 0,44 2,11 1,94 1,20 1,62
SE - 3,20 - - 1,59 - -2 , 1 2 - - 0,34 - - 1,95 -
UK 6,96 3,37 2,06 - 1,60 - 3,64 1,42 2,57 0,91 0,31 2,97 3,03 1,17 2,60
Mean 5,61 2,88 - 6,08 1,65 - 3,15 1,83 - 0,95 0,31 - 1,83 1,09 -
St.deviation 2,48 0,72 - 2,42 0,17 - 0,84 0,47 - 0,20 0,11 - 0,89 0,37 -
Ind.variation 0,44 0,25 - 0,40 0,09 - 0,27 0,25 - 0,21 0,33 - 0,49 0,34 -EGGS BEEF PORK CHICKEN MILK
 
Source: Annex 1 and European Commission, DG AGRI, based  on information sent by Member States