Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs
Date: 2003-08-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: egg, egg product, foodstuffs legislation, health legislation, labelling, marketing standard, per capita consumption, preparation for market, production statistics, traceability

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 6.8.2003
COM(2003) 479 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL

with regard to developments in consumption, washing and marking of eggs

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

amending Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs

(presented by the Commission)

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL

with regard to developments in consumption, washing and marking of eggs

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

2.

3.

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

4.

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

Summary and conclusions ........................................................................................... 3

Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3

Developments of egg consumption.............................................................................. 4

Eggs in shell versus egg products ................................................................................ 4

Consumption of table eggs by farming methods ......................................................... 5

Marketing channels ...................................................................................................... 6

Producer and retail prices............................................................................................. 6

Hygiene legislation and washing of eggs..................................................................... 7

Council Decision 94/371/EC ....................................................................................... 7

Recasting of food hygiene legislation (hygiene legislation proposals)........................ 7

Washing of eggs........................................................................................................... 9

4.3.1.

State of the art ............................................................................................................ 10

4.3.2. Developments in Sweden........................................................................................... 10

5.

5.1.

5.2.

Marking of table eggs................................................................................................. 12

Welfare Directive and Farm register.......................................................................... 12

Marking of table eggs................................................................................................. 13

5.2.1.

Eggs produced in the EU............................................................................................ 13

5.2.2.

Imported eggs............................................................................................................. 14

6.

Recommendations and proposals............................................................................... 15

2

1.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This report replies to the request from the Council to examine egg consumption trends and the
questions of egg hygiene, washing and marking to identify producer and production method.
Based  amongst  other  on  ad-hoc  expert  group  meetings  and  data  collected  from  trade
organisations  and  Member  States,  it  describes  consumption  and  marketing  patterns  with
regard  to  eggs  from  different  farming  methods  and  aims  to  identify  and  propose  possible
measures to adapt the common marketing standards for eggs.

The report arrives at the following conclusions and recommendations:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

In  order  both  to  improve  traceability  of  eggs  and  information  of  consumers  the
stamping of table eggs with a code designating the producer’s distinguishing number
and permitting the farming method to be identified should be implemented as from
1 January 2004 as provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 5/2001 amending Regulation
(EEC) No 1907/90.

In order to facilitate control of egg sales in local markets, also eggs sold by producers
from their own production in these markets should be stamped.

Washing of table eggs under strict surveillance should be authorised for a transitional
period  of  three  years  for  packing  establishments  which  on  1  June  2003  had  been
approved  to  this  end.  The  European  Food  Safety  Authority  should  prepare  a
comprehensive scientific report on washing of table eggs by 31 December 2005.

The  Commission  will promote  campaigns  run  by  professional organisations  aiming
at information of consumers about the new rules for egg marking.

The Commission will adapt Regulation (EEC) No  1274/91  with a  view  to  provide,
on  the  one  hand,  for  sufficient  flexibility  in  particular  for  small  producers  on  the
question  where  eggs  should  be  stamped  (farm  or  packing  centre)  and,  on  the  other
hand, for additional guarantees to prevent fraudulent practices in trade at the level of
producers, packers and wholesalers.

The  Commission  will  also  propose  adaptations  to  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1274/91
concerning identification marking of establishments (collectors, packing centres) and
will  take  the  necessary  measures  to  avoid  any  overlapping  between  marketing
standards  and  future  Community  rules  on  hygiene  in  particular  as  regards  the
approval of such establishments.

2.

INTRODUCTION

On  19  December  2000  the  Council  introduced  into  the  marketing  standards  for  eggs
compulsory  marking  of  table  eggs  in  the  Community  with  a  producer  code  permitting  the
farming method to be identified.

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  5/2001  amending  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1907/90  on  certain
marketing standards  for  eggs1  laid  down  that  this  provision  should  apply  as  from  1 January
2004.

1

OJ L 2, 5.1.2001, p. 1.

3

                                                
In the same Regulation the Council asked the Commission to present a report in the following
terms: "The Commission shall submit to the Council by no later than 30 June 2003 a report
on developments with regard to egg consumption, the wishes of consumers and of consumers
organisations  and  the  issue  of  egg  marking  and  egg  monitoring,  together  with  suitable
proposals".

This  report  should  furthermore  according  to  the  recitals  6  of  the  said  Regulation,  look  at
"developments in the area of food hygiene rules, particularly as regards washed eggs, and on
the outcome of World Trade Organisation negotiations".

On 16 December 2002 the Council reached political agreement on a proposal for a Regulation
of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific hygiene rules for food of
animal  origin,  with  the  inclusion  in  the  Council's  minutes  of  certain  declarations  from  the
Commission.  In  particular,  the  Commission  confirms  that,  pursuant  to  Regulation  (EEC)
No 1907/90 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 5/2001, it will submit a report to the Council
by 30 June 2003, together with appropriate proposals. The report will discuss in particular the
relationship between hygiene legislation and  legislation on the  marketing of eggs, including
identification marking, approval of establishments and washing of eggs.

The  present  report  answers  these  requests.  It  is  based,  amongst  other,  on  two  expert  group
meetings to which representatives from producer, trade and consumer organisations had been
invited. Furthermore, the question of egg washing has been examined with experts and during
a visit to Sweden.  Finally, this report does not  refer  to  WTO  negotiations as  these talks  are
still in preparatory stage.

3.

DEVELOPMENTS OF EGG CONSUMPTION

3.1.

Eggs in shell versus egg products

Human egg consumption is mainly followed on the basis of two data series:

(a)

(b)

Consumer purchases of eggs;

Supply balance sheets.

Household panel data usually cover purchases of eggs in shell only and thus represent a part
of total egg consumption not including household purchases of egg products or egg contents
of foodstuff and consumption in catering.

In  supply  balance  sheets  total  human  egg  consumption  is  calculated  by  adding/deducting
import/export of eggs and egg products to (estimated) production of eggs, taking into account
of other than food uses (eggs for hatching and technical use, losses, change in stocks).

Total human egg consumption calculated from supply balance sheets and expressed in kg per
capita is shown in Table 1 for the Member States since 1986 (Austria, Sweden, Finland: since
1991).

4

Average EU per capita  consumption  looks  to  have  been  rather  stable  since  1990  oscillating
between 12,5 and 13,5 kg. This stability is the combined results of divergent developments in
three  groups  of  countries.  In  certain  Member  States  (UK,  Spain,  Italy,  Ireland)  two  periods
can be distinguished:

– 
– 

until the early nineties: a drop and
in recent years: a recovery of per-capita consumption.

A second  group of countries  registers a drop of consumption  (Germany until early  nineties,
Finland,  less  in  Sweden),  whereas  finally  in  the  Netherlands,  Portugal  and  Italy  in  the  very
last years consumption is rising.

Of  particular  importance  for  the  development  of  overall  egg  consumption  in  developed
countries is the growing consumption of convenience food as a result of social trends (single-
person  households  and  out-of-home  work  of  women  increasing).  As  a  consequence,  egg
products  and/or  food  containing  eggs  more  and  more  replace  the  use  of  eggs  in  shell  by
households and catering.

Although  there  are  no  comprehensive  statistics  in  the  EU  to  provide  reliable  data  various
sources  confirm  this  trend.  2002  estimates  point  to  a  20%  share  of  all  table  eggs  being
processed by the egg product industry. This figure is expected to reach more than 30% over
the next ten years, similarly to the development in the USA, where today already one third of
all table eggs produced are being processed.

3.2.

Consumption of table eggs by farming methods

In parallel with growing awareness of animal welfare questions in Central and North-Western
Europe demand for eggs from other than caged hens has steadily increased since the seventies
and egg farming has adapted to these changes.

Within the Common Marketing Standards for eggs provision has been made as early as 1985
(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1831/84 and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1943/85) for
harmonised criteria, labelling and control of "alternative" farming methods (free range, deep
litter, perchery/barn).

These  farming  methods  were  defined  in  2001  to  take  account  of  Council  Directive
1999/74/EC on the protection of laying hens and summarised in only three categories as from
2002:

– 
– 
– 

free range,
barn,
cage.

On the basis of data collected by Member States in the framework of the marketing standards
regulations, the evolution of alternative hen numbers in the Community can be illustrated. As
shown in Table 2, the total number increased from some 10 Mio in 1991 to 39 Mio in 2002,
or from 3% to 14% of all hens. UK, A, IRL, DK and NL score more than 20%, whereas E, EL
and P have no or only few hens in non-cage commercial units.

Regarding retail sales, free range and barn eggs reach higher shares in particular in exporting
countries like NL as well as in DK and A (close to 50%) where supermarket chains, on their
own  initiative  and/or  under  pressure  from  animal  welfare  groups,  have  greatly  reduced  or
even stopped sales of cage eggs. Partial data are available from Germany where packed eggs

5

with  "special  marketing  terms"2  have  increased  their  share  in  total  retail  sales  of  eggs  from
26% in 1998 to 39 % in 2002 (source: ZMP). For the UK it is estimated that by 2012 the egg
market  will  be  50%  cage  and  50%  alternative,  of  which  42%  free  range,  8%  barn  (source:
EUWEP, expert group meeting February 2003).

The  organic  egg  market  is  of  minor  importance.  According  to  a  study  published  in  2002
production  of  organic  eggs  in  2000  reached  1,3%  on  EU  average,  DK  being  the  notable
exception with 15% (see Table 3).

Sales of alternative eggs have been partly reduced in 2002 in some countries following slower
growth of consumer income (source: ZMP).

3.3.

Marketing channels

The Commission has invited representatives of producers, trade and consumers to two expert
group  meetings  to  examine  consumption  trends  and  questions  of  egg  marking  (July  2002,
February 2003). The experts were amongst other asked to supply data on sales and purchasing
patterns for table eggs. Unfortunately data received are not representative for the Community
as information was made available for few Member States only (see Tables 4a and 4b).

The following conclusions are therefore valid only for the Member States shown:

– 

– 

direct  sales  from  farmers  to  consumers  are  generally  not  more  than  10%  except
Austria (organic and free range eggs) and Germany. For the latter country, however,
changed data collection as from 2003 has resulted in significantly different pattern;
direct sales (at the farm, door-to-door, local markets) of formerly nearly 50% of  all
household purchases have fallen to 22%;

the  share  of  producer-packers  various  greatly  according  to  Member  State  (E:  99%,
F: 35%  for  cage  eggs)  and  method  of  production  (no  producer-packer  for  free
range/organic eggs in France, but share between 30% and 85% in A).

3.4.

Producer and retail prices

Data supplied by the expert group for up to 5 Member States illustrate that at retail barn/deep
litter eggs are on average 60% more expensive than standard cage eggs. For free range eggs
and  organic  eggs  consumers  are  asked  to  pay  95%  and  150%  higher  prices.  These  price
differences  are  lower  when  discount  retailers  (ALDI  etc.)  get  more  involved  in  the  sale  of
alternative eggs.

The price differences are in contrast to:

– 

– 

2

3

declaration by the consumer representative in the expert group of February 2003 that
consumers are ready to pay 40% more for alternative eggs;
the  production  costs  for  eggs3  of  different  types  show  smaller  differences  than  the
respective retail prices i.e. retail margins are higher for alternative eggs.

Methods of farming incl. organic, "corn eggs".
Assuming that 2002 was an "average" year for producers were prices received were at or slightly above
break even.

6

                                                
4.

HYGIENE LEGISLATION AND WASHING OF EGGS

4.1.

Council Decision 94/371/EC

Council  Decision  94/371/EC  lays  down  certain  specific  public  health  conditions  for  the
placing  on  the  market  of  hens'  eggs  belonging  to  the  following  types:  class  A  eggs,  non-
refrigerated or non-preserved class B eggs and ungraded eggs. However, it does not apply to
eggs intended for the production of egg products.

Its  major  objectives  are  to  regulate  critical  steps  of  the  production  and  marketing  chain  of
eggs:

(cid:1) 

storage and transportation:

the  Decision  states  that  eggs  must  be  kept  dry,  out  of  direct  sunshine  and  stored  and
transported at a preferably constant temperature at the producer's premises until sale to
the consumer;

(cid:1) 

delivery to the consumer:

the  Decision  sets  out  the  maximum  time  limit  for  delivering  eggs  to  the  consumer  at
21 days after laying. In addition, it defines the sell-by date as a period corresponding to
the date of minimum durability less seven days.

Some  of  these  provisions  have  been  taken  into  account  when  recasting  the  existing
Community legislation on food hygiene, as described below.

4.2.

Recasting of food hygiene legislation (hygiene legislation proposals)

One  of  the  key  elements  of  the  White  Paper  on  Food  Safety,  which  was  adopted  by  the
Commission  in  January  2000,  is  the  hygiene  package.  This  package,  which  comprises  five
legislative acts, will create a single transparent hygiene policy and will merge, harmonise and
simplify  EU  hygiene  legislation  previously  covered  by  17  separate  directives.  It  has  thus
resulted  in  five  proposals  for  Regulations  relating  to  food  hygiene,  official  controls  and
animal health problems.

Good progress was made in the legislative process for this package since it was submitted to
the Council and the European Parliament on 24 July  2000  for  adoption  by  co-decision.  The
fourth proposal was adopted and published in December 2002. Moreover, the Council reached
political agreement on the first proposal in June 2002 and in December 2002  on the second
proposal.  It  agreed,  however,  that  it  would  not  adopt  a  common  position  until  it  had  made
sufficient  progress  on  other  elements  of  the  package  (mainly  the  third  proposal)  so  as  to
ensure their consistency.

The  leitmotif throughout the  recasting  of  the  hygiene  rules,  and  particularly  in  the  two  first
proposals, is that food operators bear full and prime responsibility for the safety of the food
they produce. The implementation of hazard analysis and control principles (HACCP) and the
observance  of  hygiene  rules  must  ensure  this  safety.  This  is  in  line  with  the  internationally
accepted approach  advocated by the Codex Alimentarius.  In  addition,  provision  is  made  for
hygiene rules to be applied at all levels of the food chain, from primary production to delivery
to the final consumer ('from the farm to the table').

The first proposal of the package (called Hygiene 1) aims at establishing a common basis for
hygiene to be respected by all business operators. This proposal covers all food from animal

7

origin  as  well  as  from  plant  origin  and  provides  for  the  establishment  of  guides  to  good
practice  by  the  food  sectors  in  order  to  give  guidance  to  food  business  operators  on  food
safety  and  the  implementation  of  HACCP.  It  also  gives  flexibility  for  food  businesses  in
remote areas, for traditional food production and for the implementation of HACCP in small
businesses and provides for the registration of all food businesses by the competent authority.

The  second  proposal  (called  Hygiene  2)  aims  at  establishing  detailed  hygiene  rules  to  be
respected by all food business operators handling food of animal origin (including eggs and
egg products). This proposal applies to unprocessed and processed products of animal origin,
but  also  to  products  of  animal  origin  used  in  the  manufacture  of  composite  products  made
from products of plant origin and processed products of animal origin.

The third proposal (called Hygiene 3) lays down specific rules for the organisation of official
controls on products of animal origin and more precisely on meat, molluscs, fishery products,
milk and milk products. They will apply in addition to the  general rules provided  for in the
proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  official  food  and  feed  safety  controls.  The  fourth  proposal
(called Hygiene 4) aims to define the measures that need to be taken in order to prevent the
spread of animal diseases through products of animal origin. Finally, a separate fifth proposal
(called  Hygiene  5)  to  repeal  the  existing  legislation  with  respect  to  the  above  subjects  has
been attached to complete the exercise.

The  main  provisions,  which  will  affect  the  egg  sector,  are  those  contained  in  the  two  first
proposals of this package.

(cid:1)  At the level of primary production, egg producers will have to adopt good practice and
take actions in order to ensure that food and food sources are produced under hygienic
conditions.  Their  activities  will  have  to  be  carried  out  in  accordance  with  general
hygienic rules specifically developed for primary production (Hygiene 1 - Annex I) and,
where necessary, with the specific  hygienic  rules  concerning  the storage and  transport
of  eggs  (Hygiene  2  -  Annex  III,  Section  X,  Chapter  I).  They  will  be  subject  to
registration by the competent authority.

(cid:1) 

For all the following production stages, the implementation of the HACCP system will
become  mandatory.  Collectors, packing  centres  and  establishments  manufacturing  egg
products will have to put in place, implement and maintain permanent procedures based
on the HACCP principles to verify that the products they place on the market are safe.
To  that  end,  they  may  use  guides  or  codes  to  good  practice  developed  to  serve  as
support tools for the operations they carry out.

In addition, they will have to comply with general and specific hygienic rules:

(cid:1)  the  general  hygiene  rules  (Hygiene  1  -  Annex  II)  refer  to  requirements  with  which,  in
particular,  the  infrastructure  and  the  equipment  used  in  all  food  businesses  will  have  to
comply;

(cid:1)  the specific hygiene rules (Hygiene 2 - Annex  III, Section X, Chapters I and II) simplify
the  requirements  laid  down  in  Decision  94/371/EC  (see  point  4.1)  and  in  Directive
89/437/EEC on hygiene and health problems  affecting the production and placing on the
market of egg products.

8

– 

From a general point of view, the marketing of products of animal origin produced in
the  Community  will  only  be  authorised  if  they  have  been  processed  entirely  in
establishments, which are registered, or, where necessary, approved by the competent
authority.  The  activities  of  collectors,  packing  centres  and  establishments
manufacturing egg products will be subject to approval. Similarly,  the  placing  on  the
market of a product of animal origin handled in an establishment subject to approval
will  in  principle  only  be  authorised  if  it  bears  an  identification  mark  indicating  the
approval  number  of  the  establishment.  The  draft  common  position  of  the  Council
reached  in  December  2002  on  the  specific  hygiene  rules  provides  that  "an
identification  mark  is  not  necessary  for  eggs  in  respect  of  which  Regulation  (EEC)
No 1907/90 lays down requirements concerning labelling or marking". It means that
the  register  and  identification  of  collectors  and  packing  centres  continues  to  be
covered by common marketing standards;

– 

from a specific point of view, as regards eggs, the current requirements relating to the
storage  and transport of  eggs  are  maintained  in  the  proposal  (Hygiene  2).  Similarly,
the  maximum  date  for  the  delivery  of  eggs  to  consumer  is  still  fixed  at  21  days.
However, the date of minimum durability is no more defined.

4.3.

Washing of eggs

The practice of washing eggs of class A for human consumption is forbidden by the European
Union legislation. A fresh egg of class A should be produced in a way that ensures it is fit for
human consumption. Washed eggs should be downgraded. This is in contrast to certain third
country  attitudes,  such  as  USA,  Japan  and  Australia  where  washing  of  eggs  is  commonly
practised.

Among  the  Member  States,  it  is  only  in  Sweden  that  table  eggs  are  commonly  washed,  in
order  to  meet  a  consumer  preference.  Even  in  other  Member  States,  like  UK  and  Italy,  the
consumers may have the idea that a washed egg is safer. This idea in the mind of consumers
has  emerged  as  a  consequence  of  repeated  food  poisoning  cases,  caused  by  egg-borne
Salmonella enteriditis and media campaigns on this subject. The increased use of alternative
systems  and  the  consequently  higher  percentage  of  non-cage  eggs  available  on  the  market
may produce a higher number of dirty eggs. These dirty eggs must be downgraded and sell at
a lower price, which causes a loss of income to the producers. This explains why the washing
of eggs still attracts interest.

Nevertheless, it should be taken into account that a cuticle membrane, that is an organic layer,
covers the whole surface of an egg. Under normal conditions and good handling practices, the
cuticle  protects  the  egg  against  dehydration  and  offers  a  natural  barrier  to  the  common
contaminants present in the flora that colonises the surface of the egg. The egg content can be
contaminated  in  a  vertical  way,  when  the  layer's  ovaries  or  oviduct  are  infected,  and  in  a
horizontal way, when contaminants, originating  for  example  from  faecal  material  or  dust  in
the  nest,  can  get  through  the  shell  inside  the  egg.  The  washing  of  eggs  cannot  change  the
situation of a vertical transmission of contaminants. In case of a horizontal transmission, the
cuticle offers a natural barrier and when not handled properly, damage of the cuticle can cause
a higher fragility of the egg and the risk of contamination of its content rises. Risk of damage
of the cuticle can be caused by:

– 

– 

presence  of  water  on  the  shell  (also  a  simple  condensation  can  damage  the  cuticle
when the egg is packed wet),

presence of iron in the wash water,

9

– 

– 

– 

faecal contamination on the shell and, in this case,

physical brushing to remove the dirtiness,

high pressure (while washing for example), etc.

For these reasons, the practice of cleaning eggs must be carried out very gently and carefully,
to avoid the destruction of the natural cuticle and subsequent lowering of quality of the egg.

4.3.1.

State of the art

The washing of table eggs of class A is not permitted by European legislation. Article 5(2) of
Commission  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1274/91  of  15  May  1991  introducing  detailed  rules  for
implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs4 states
that  "Grade  'A'  eggs  shall  not  be  washed  or  cleaned  by  any  other  means  before  or  after
grading."  Because  of  this  provision,  washed  eggs  must  be  downgraded  to  class  B  eggs  but
this practise is rarely applied within EU, with the exception of Sweden. The reluctance shown
within EU to allow the practice of washing eggs comes from the possibility of deterioration of
the cuticle, as described above.

The EU legislation provides for the merging of present class B  and C eggs into class B  and
that, starting from 1 January 2004, class B eggs should not be sold as table eggs any longer.
This creates a concern in Sweden where the washing of eggs is a common habit and certain
consumers' preference goes in favour of buying washed eggs.

In  countries  where  egg  washing  is  permitted,  this  practise  is  seen  as  a  fairly  low  risk
operation.

Nowadays,  the  practice  of  egg  washing  and  equipment  available  on  the  market  make  the
whole practise more accountable than before. The current commercial egg-washing machines
are friendlier on the egg.

Currently, the commercial general process for egg washing can be divided into four stages:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

wetting

washing

rinsing and

drying.

The  normal  grading  and  packing  operation  as  carried  out  in  installations  not  using
washing would then follow.

The cost affordable by medium and large-sized packing centres, with an insignificant increase
of the egg price. The costs are estimated at € 0,01 per egg washed and  could be considered
negligible when the consumer is ready to pay for it.

4.3.2. Developments in Sweden

The  washing  of  eggs  has  been  going  on  in  Sweden  for  the  past  forty  years.  The  Swedish
consumer  attitude  is  to  prefer  washed  eggs,  after  a  campaign  of  information,  with  a  strong

4

OJ L 121, 16.5.1991, p. 11.

10

                                                
demand upon washing from catering sector, especially for hospitals. A little more than 50% of
table eggs are washed in Sweden.

The Swedish authorities asked the European Commission to be allowed to continue to wash
table eggs for their internal market. Commission services has held one working group meeting
in May 2003 and a two-day visit to Sweden that took place on 5 and 6 June 2003, where the
Commission  was  assisted  by  a  senior  expert  on  egg  washing  from  UK.  The  visit  gave  an
opportunity  to  see  in-line  egg  washing  machinery  and  to  discuss  egg  washing  with
representative of the competent authority including National Food Administration inspectors,
who were present throughout the visit. Visits were made to two egg packing centres - one did
not wash eggs, the other did. The views expressed highlighted the range of opinions that have
been a feature of the debate on egg washing. The egg product industry requires clean products
and also the hatcheries wash  or  disinfect  eggs.  The  Swedish  base  their  reasons  for  washing
table eggs on the possible risks of presence on the shell of parasites, bacteria, viruses, fungus,
dust, urate. They see major risk when moving layers from traditional cages to floor production
or enriched cages, where layers are more in contact with litter, manure and micro-organisms
living  in  the  environment.  Moreover,  they  consider  that  unwashed  eggs  can  cause  a  cross-
contamination from the eggshell in the refrigerators and when handling eggs, with other food.
At  present,  table  eggs  in  Sweden  are  stored  at  controlled  temperature.  The  chain  for
temperature control involves producers, lorries, packing stations, retailers and shops up to the
consumer. Eggs are kept at the standardised temperature of 10-15°C.

There are few egg packers at the moment in Sweden, half of them not washing eggs and half
washing  eggs  and  marketing  them  as  class  B.  Re-washing  dirty  eggs  already  washed  is  not
permitted - this is an important safeguard.

In many ways, the systems operating are similar to those in place in countries outside the EU
where washing is routinely undertaken.

The  washing  process  itself  appears  to  treat  the  eggs  carefully,  with  just  gentle  brushing.
However,  there  was  inadequate  information  on  the  effect  of  the  washing  process  upon  the
structure  of  the  eggshell  and  the  possibility  of  cuticle  damage.  Machine  manufacturers
generally do not hold this information because egg-washing practices  are seen as being safe
and well established in other countries. Whilst this second packing centre visited has data on
shelf life of eggs (total bacterial counts of shells and egg content, Haugh Units and air space
height) through the studies undertaken in conjunction with the Swedish Institute for Food and
Biotechnology, recommendations were made for more direct ways of evaluating the effect of
washing practices upon shell quality.

Discussions  held  highlighted  that  the  competent  authority  was  very  supportive  of  a
continuation  of  egg  washing  in  Sweden.  Certain  retailers  and  institutional  buyers  (e.g.
hospitals) insisted on washed eggs, regarding them as cleaner and safer. It was feared that the
loss  of  washing  would  lead  to  some  of  these  buyers  switching  to  the  use  of  egg  products
instead of shell eggs and that this market could then be affected by cheap imports from other
countries.  The  procedures  used  by  the  NFA  for  inspections  of  packing  premises  were
explained. At present,  the  number  of  in-line  egg  washing  machines  in  Sweden  is  limited  to
only  around  4-5  in  total,  but  these  pack  a  high  percentage  of  eggs.  Some  95%  of  the
production industry uses white shelled eggs and only 5% are brown. Small amounts of dirt are
more visible on white than on brown-shelled eggs.

In the absence of approval for egg washing on an organised basis, there will continue to be a
huge temptation for Swedish producers to illegally wash eggs on the farm, using sub-standard

11

equipment  with  inadequate  safeguards.  Prohibition  of  illegal  washing  is  difficult  to  enforce
and the temptation is likely to increase as thresholds for dirt get tougher and countries move
towards  non-cage  production  systems  in  which  first  quality  eggs  are  more  valuable  but  the
likelihood of dirt contamination on shells is greater.

In  conclusion,  from  a  technical  perspective,  allowance  should  be  made  for  table  eggs  to  be
washed  on  a  voluntary  basis  in  Sweden  on  the  basis  of  a  temporary  derogation  in  common
marketing standards. These washed eggs should conform with criteria of class A eggs and be
labelled  as  "washed  eggs" on the pack.  This  derogation  should  be  limited  to  establishments
already  washing  eggs  at  present  and  subject  to  the  adoption  of  the  strictest  standards  and
controls  including  of  prior  approval  of  equipment  used.  This  view  is  based  on  previous
studies of the subject as well as the findings of the visit.

A long-standing argument against egg washing, and its authorisation all over European Union
is that it may be used to cover up poor husbandry and hygiene standards on farms and packing
centres. Egg washing should be available only to those who are prepared to adopt the highest
standards both at farm and packing centre level. In recognition that poor washing can make an
egg  more  vulnerable,  only  those  businesses  with  a  'food  hygiene'  mentality  should  be
permitted to wash eggs. This need not exclude smaller operators.

5.

MARKING OF TABLE EGGS

5.1.

Welfare Directive and Farm register

Directive  1999/74/EC  lays  down  specific  requirements  for  the  protection  of  laying  hens.  It
defines minimum standards for various systems of farming and allows the Member States to
choose the most appropriate system or systems. Article 7 of this directive requires that every
establishment  covered  by  its  scope  shall  be  registered  by  the  competent  authority  of  the
Member State and given a distinguishing number. This number is foreseen as the medium for
tracing eggs placed on the market for human consumption.

The  arrangements  for  the  implementation  of  the  registration  are  laid  down  in  Commission
Directive  2002/4/EC  of  30  January  20025.  The  Member  States  were  obliged  to  adopt  the
necessary  legislation  establishing  a  registration  system  at  national  level  by  31  March  2003
and, by 31 May 2003, to register all establishments with 350 or more laying hens, allocating
the distinguishing code to them.

In May 2003 formal notices according to Article 226 EC were sent to 13 Member States. By
17 June  2003,  only  four  Member  States  had  notified  full  transposition  and  two  only  partial
transposition.

Directive 2002/4/EC defines the necessary data required for registration. Furthermore, it lays
down the structure of the number, which shall be composed of a code for the farming method
as defined in the marketing standards (1 = free range, 2 = barn, 3 = cage), two digit letter ISO
code  for  the  Member  State  and  an  identification  of  the  establishment.  Regarding  the  last
element, Member States are free to use already existing registration numbers, used for other
purposes.

5

OJ L 30, 21.1.2002, p. 44.

12

                                                
5.2.

Marking of table eggs

5.2.1.

Eggs produced in the EU

Detailed rules for the stamping of class  A  eggshell with  "a code designating the producer's
distinguishing  number  and  permitting  the  farming  method  to  be  identified",  according  to
Article  7(1)(a),  be  determined  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  laid  down  in  Article  20  of
Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1907/90,  i.e.  by  Commission  implementing  Regulation
following the Management Committee procedure.

The  Commission  will  therefore  propose  amendments  to  Commission  Regulation  (EEC)
No 1274/91  introducing  detailed  rules  for  implementing  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1907/90  on
certain marketing standards for eggs.

These will, regarding the use of the farm code, the indication of the farming method and other
related matters, concern the following points in particular:

– 

farm code and other indications on eggs:

– 

– 

– 

The farm code as defined by Directive 2002/4/EC must be stamped on eggs.  Apart
from  this  compulsory  code  the  indication  of  the  farming  method  in  full  on  eggs
should be optional;

an explanation of the farm code may be given on the pack (inside or outside);

the  main  question  is  the  place  of  stamping  table  eggs,  at  farm  or  in  the  packing
centre. Stamping at the farm has the obvious advantage that the origin of the eggs is
clearly  identifiable  and  later  "mistakes"  (fraudulent  practices)  are  avoided.  On  the
other  hand,  cost  and  handling  problems  are  becoming  more  important  on  smaller
units. Furthermore,  farm stamping covers all eggs  and  not only table  eggs (80% of
total  production)  while  "double"  stamping  will  also  happen  (farm:  code;  packing
centre: dates).

It is therefore appropriate  to  consider  a  flexible  approach  i.e.  provide  the  option  to
stamp  at  farm  or  packing  centre  where  in  the  latter  case  additional  conditions
regarding separation of individual suppliers should be laid down. This corresponds to
the majority view expressed in the expert groups by representatives of all groups and
doesn't hinder the use and further development of certification schemes based on and
promoting farm stamping of eggs;

in order to improve the traceability of eggs in case of sales at weekly markets, it is
proposed to repeal the derogation to exempt the farmers' sales at local markets from
the  labelling  provisions  of  Article  7(1)(a).  In  fact,  experience  has  shown  that  such
sales are often not limited to the farmers' own production and local authorities are not
in  a  position  to  stop  such  fraudulent  practices.  To  help  the  correct  application  of
marketing standards at local market, it should be further proposed that:

– 

– 

ungraded eggs leaving packing centres to other packing centres shall always be
stamped with the farm code,

all  ungraded  eggs  traded  between  Member  States  must  be  stamped  with  the
farm code.

13

5.2.2.

Imported eggs

The  Code  stamping  of  table  eggs  marketed  in  the  Community  applies  to  imported  eggs  as
well. Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 provides that the Commission
shall evaluate the labelling methods in force in exporting third countries.

Depending upon the findings two types of codes are envisaged:

– 

– 

if in certain countries procedures are equivalent to Community rules, imported eggs
may  be  given  a  distinguishing  code  as  referred  to  in  Article  7(1)(a)  of  Regulation
(EEC) No 1907/90;

if procedures are not considered to be equivalent a distinguishing code shall be given
enabling the unspecified nature of the farming method and the country of origin to be
identified.

The  detailed  rules  for  stamping  imported  eggs  will  be  laid  down  in  the  Commission’s
implementing Regulation.

The  control  of  the  compliance  with  these  rules  should  be  left  to  the  national  competent
authorities  in  charge  of  monitoring  the  compliance  with  the  relevant  health  and  veterinary
rules. In fact EU veterinary legislation regarding imports of eggs in shell from third countries
is  not  yet  fully  harmonised.  It  is  left  to  Member  States  to  approve  packing  stations  in  EU-
approved  third  countries  from  which  eggs  in  shell  may  be  imported  into  the  respective
Member State.

Table 6 shows the list of third countries from which eggs in shell were imported during the
last  three  years  2000-2002.  Most  of  these  imports  were  for  inward  processing.  For  certain
imports under “normal” regime cif prices seem to indicate other than hen table eggs (Mexico:
special  pathogen  free  fertilised  eggs;  USA:  hatching  eggs;  China,  Taiwan,  Singapore:  quail
eggs).

Taking  this  into  account  the  Commission  has  written  to  the  following  10  third  countries
asking for  information  on  egg  grading  and  labelling  rules,  criteria  for  farming  methods  and
farm registers operated: Czech Republic, Hungary,  Lithuania, Poland, Norway, Switzerland,
USA, Canada, Israel, PR China.

By 20 June 2003 had replied: Czech Republic, Lithuania, Switzerland, Israel.

Lithuania  and  Israel  have  declared  that  their  shell  egg  export  to  the  EU  concern  eggs  for
processing. Switzerland has indicated that in 2002 no exports of eggs to EU were registered
and that in view of the high production costs compared to those in the Community it  is  not
likely that commercial exports will take place.

Farm  register  exists  in  Switzerland  and  Israel.  Lithuania  is  finalising  the  preparation  of  the
procedure  for  the  registration  of  egg  farms  according  to  Directive  2002/4/EC,  which  is
planned to enter into force in June 2003. In Switzerland (no caged hens) and Israel, table eggs
must be stamped with the country of origin (CH) or the name or trademark of the approved
contractor (packing centre) and the weight category (Israel). Stamping the farming method or
producer code is not compulsory in both countries.

It  results  from  the  documentation  so  far  received  from  four  countries,  that  only  Lithuania
would  fully  qualify  for  full  equivalence  in  conformity  with  Article  7(1)(b)  of  Regulation
(EEC) No 1907/90 provided that implementation of the Directive 2002/4/EC is achieved by

14

1 January  2004.  Further  information  is  requested  from  Czech  Republic  regarding  some
questions outstanding (type of farming and farm register) as well as from Hungary and Poland
which have so far not replied.

6.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSALS

Having examined consumption trends as well as the questions  of  egg hygiene,  washing and
marking the Commission recommends the following steps and measures to be undertaken

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

In  order  both  to  improve  traceability  of  eggs  and  information  of  consumers  the
stamping of table eggs with a code designating the producer’s distinguishing number
and permitting the farming method to be identified should be implemented as from
1 January 2004 as provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 5/2001 amending Regulation
(EEC) No 1907/90.

In order to facilitate control of egg sales in local markets, also eggs sold by producers
from their own production in these markets should be stamped.

Washing of table eggs under strict surveillance should be authorised for a transitional
period  of  three  years  for  packing  establishments  which  on  1  June  2003  had  been
approved  to  this  end.  The  European  Food  Safety  Authority  should  prepare  a
comprehensive scientific report on washing of table eggs by 31 December 2005.

The  Commission  will promote  campaigns run  by  professional  organisations aiming
at information of consumers about the new rules for egg marking.

The Commission will adapt Regulation (EEC) No  1274/91  with a  view  to  provide,
on  the  one  hand,  for  sufficient  flexibility  in  particular  for  small  producers  on  the
question  where  eggs  should  be  stamped  (farm  or  packing  centre)  and,  on  the  other
hand, for additional guarantees to prevent fraudulent practices in trade at the level of
producers, packers and wholesalers.

The  Commission  will  also  propose  adaptations  to  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1274/91
concerning identification marking of establishments (collectors, packing centres) and
will  take  the  necessary  measures  to  avoid  any  overlapping  between  marketing
standards  and  future  Community  rules  on  hygiene  in  particular  as  regards  the
approval of such establishments.

15

Year

BLEU

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

EU

Table 1 – Egg consumption per capita

in kg

14,52

14,80

16,33

11,87

16,26

15,41

11,29

10,50

10,96

14,33

14,36

15,88

12,46

16,15

15,53

11,25

11,70

12,26

12,04

15,60

12,66

16,27

16,38

10,70

11,58

12,46

14,19

14,82

12,36

15,85

15,57

9,46

10,42

9,38

9,71

9,96

13,33

14,66

14,40

11,90

16,27

14,99

9,92

10,39

10,60

6,94

7,03

7,18

7,44

7,54

13,13

13,58

13,15

11,50

12,37

13,88

15,03

14,72

11,28

15,24

14,99

11,43

11,27

9,26

12,03

7,75

13,16

12,07

10,64

14,11

15,76

14,13

11,13

14,40

14,96

10,51

11,57

10,21

11,88

8,20

13,29

12,23

10,33

14,12

14,95

13,21

11,05

14,70

14,66

9,79

10,67

11,31

13,88

8,40

10,71

12,27

10,22

14,35

16,08

13,32

10,85

14,35

15,75

8,64

10,51

13,20

13,71

8,68

10,40

10,08

10,21

14,51

15,86

13,74

10,59

14,69

15,96

9,44

10,52

15,27

13,79

8,37

11,82

11,96

10,02

14,47

14,06

13,64

10,73

13,02

16,00

7,45

10,28

12,17

13,90

8,26

10,99

12,45

10,71

14,43

15,16

13,93

10,63

14,35

15,55

7,45

9,86

13,32

14,43

8,25

10,40

12,21

10,86

16,18

16,25

13,66

10,75

13,78

15,72

6,07

10,52

14,40

14,03

8,84

10,18

12,25

10,49

14,52

14,51

13,74

10,55

15,10

15,95

7,10

11,79

14,51

13,38

8,92

9,95

11,84

10,08

13,60

13,96

13,63

10,91

18,01

15,87

9,75

14,72

14,63

13,24

9,21

10,02

11,92

10,36

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

9,86

9,53

9,07

9,44

11,80

11,43

9,83

10,99

12,26

9,74

11,13

11,97

12,99

14,62

13,55

11,59

15,64

15,77

9,71

13,02

13,85

13,13

2002 e

14,44

15,44

13,61

11,19

16,02

15,35

9,21

13,06

15,88

13,83

2003 f

12,87

15,35

13,26

11,02

16,06

15,30

9,14

12,94

11,09

13,49

e = estimation; f = forecast.

16

13,76

13,91

13,90

13,09

13,18

12,96

12,77

12,37

12,60

12,67

12,51

12,58

12,62

12,89

13,56

13,24

13,26

12,85

Free range

Semi-intensive

Deep litter (barn)

Perchery

TOTAL alternative

TOTAL laying hens

Year

1991
1993
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002

1991
1993
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1991
1993
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1991
1993
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1991
1993
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002

2002

Table 2 – Alternative egg production: average number of laying hens (1991-2002)

BLEU

DK

D

EL

E

F

5 317
5 774
4 465
18 377
28 217
60 756
71 760
96 836
156 042

17 596
43 752
28 117
20 742
21 052
14 891
29 844
36 129
51 026

137 539
127 922
212 872
209 263
282 370
266 457
275 468
378 573
364 102

41 107
22 960
21 524
9 538
8 607
10 387
10 142
8 838
9 849

201 559
200 408
266 978
257 920
340 246
352 491
387 214
520 376
581 019

45 491
76 220
340 597
381 724
352 828
370 236
393 599
311 024

349 792
297 181
570 356
666 669
719 362
655 642
640 174
536 735

5 500
53 100
42 000
30 060
23 200
19 500
9 300

395 283
378 901
964 053
1 090 393
1 102 250
1 049 078
1 053 273
857 059

259 302
206 736
778 123
1 524 451
1 381 085
1 801 535
2 267 166
2 899 353
3 160 936
4 507 493

17 026
24 126
44 268
31 136
140 934
139 523
197 147
217 422
246 991

1 122 524
1 322 887
2 458 605
2 353 942
2 112 330
2 411 497
2 544 508
2 534 619
2 688 802
3 221 584
48 780
6 290
19 683
22 274
34 062
31 315
54 059
66 128
123 074

1 447 632
1 560 039
3 300 679
3 931 803
3 668 411
4 383 870
5 062 880
5 717 522
6 219 803
7 729 077

2 200

n.d.

135 974
750 000
621 506
1 100 000
1 150 000
1 180 000
1 270 000
1 482 000
2 109 806

923 640
120 000
2 028 056
1 700 000
2 000 000
1 370 000
1 889 460
2 112 000
3 047 661

420 234

103 197

8 914
248 282
450 000
1 309 370

88 130

18 000

79 680
590 090
590 080
635 960

1 567 978
870 000
2 770 759
2 800 000
3 150 000
2 638 594
3 997 832
4 634 080
7 102 797

IRL

133 062
201 822
215 647
219 000
281 673
318 000
364 526
435 215
469 750
509 686

55 100

4 960
4 320

23 000
30 960
44 900

133 062
206 782
219 967
219 000
281 673
318 000
387 526
466 175
514 650
564 786

I

n.d.
n.d.

15 850
18 281

n.d.
n.d.

7 727

20 123
39 573
163 020

n.d.
n.d.
174 119
166 304
249 175
249 387
449 790
599 150
699 853

n.d.
n.d.

12 435
23 458

n.d.
n.d.
174 119
166 304
256 902
249 387
469 913
667 008
904 612

NL

486 929
766 488
970 989
1 853 136
2 175 000
2 650 000
3 500 000
4 144 311
4 579 992

88 201
99 274
91 158
118 000
141 000
175 000
230 000
226 957

2 932 076
3 431 460
3 435 299
3 578 470
3 835 300
4 027 000
4 200 000
4 710 000
4 447 359
4 994 359

414 963
254 870
190 550
108 840
114 000
135 000
160 000
292 660

2 932 076
4 421 553
4 555 931
4 831 167
5 915 276
6 457 000
7 160 000
8 600 000
9 111 287
9 574 351

A

-
-

286 668
285 157
344 466
456 433
542 992
589 007
680 557
773 815

-
-

310
563
1 280
259
3 585
5 068
2 002

-
-

360 503
439 363
555 817
630 716
692 375
753 274
732 592
853 860

-
-

18 600
27 600
43 034
17 875
20 393
14 012
9 709

-
-

666 081
752 683
944 597
1 105 283
1 259 345
1 361 361
1 424 860
1 627 675

P

30 000

16 322

FIN

-
-
n.d.

-
-
n.d.

-
-
n.d.
25 058
100 975
141 467
149 800
157 400
197 900
251 400

-
-
n.d.

S

-
-

15 552

-
-

2 720
30 093

-
-

550 000
800 000
324 012
356 987
500 169
472 865
396 759

-
-

130 000
135 000
301 306
476 243
430 350
415 086
698 796

-
-
n.d.
25 058
100 975
141 467
149 800
157 400
197 900
251 400

-
-

680 000
935 000
625 318
833 230
930 519
890 671
1 141 200

16 322

UK

EU

2 649 087
3 760 000
3 993 661
4 192 831
4 589 317
5 153 516
6 019 357
6 281 793
6 555 983
6 926 041

8 161

50 637
44 421

1 860 929
979 364
1 230 000
1 066 604
1 066 183
1 222 207
1 338 392
1 953 774
2 039 050
2 031 365

3 636 612
4 990 000
5 060 265
5 259 014
5 811 524
6 491 908
8 023 768
8 365 264
8 587 348
8 786 970

3 228 233
5 487 481
6 720 487
8 407 372
9 636 256
11 059 043
13 036 408
15 022 071
16 941 685
16 555 412

276 079
1 185 375
2 199 715
1 843 036
2 287 713
1 665 414
2 311 574
2 637 844
3 782 070

5 179 450
5 816 553
7 504 448
7 799 706
7 623 524
8 117 351
9 058 828
9 883 763
10 640 880
10 383 372
1 684 673
1 756 916
1 568 101
1 465 545
1 705 082
2 073 217
3 215 915
3 331 877
3 869 362

12 627 683
14 738 062
17 992 751
19 515 659
21 252 575
22 915 025
27 622 725
30 875 555
35 233 997
(26 938 784)

12 069 000

3 553 000 45 821 000

7 013 000 42 615 000 53 560 000

2 121 000 51 394 000 32 738 000

5 762 000

5 731 000

3 715 000

5 106 000 32 907 000

304 107 002

17

Table 3 – Share of organic egg production and consumption - 2000
(%)

Member State

Production
(volume)

Consumption
(value)

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

EU average

0,3

15,1

1,4

0,0

0,1

2,1

n.d.

0,3

5,6

0,3

3,5

n.d.

1,2

2,1

2,0

1,3

0,5

8,1

1,3

0,0

0,1

1,6

n.d.

0,4

n.d.

1,3

2,2

n.d.

1,1

1,3

1,9

1,2

Source: U. Hamm e.a.: Analysis of the European market for organic food, 2002.

18

Table 4a – Sales channels for table eggs

E

< 1
< 1
91
8
< 1
< 1
99

E

E

10

90

< 1

E

Cage eggs

% of sales

producers to consumers

- on the farm
- on local markets
to the home
-
TOTAL

wholesale markets
packing centres
Industry
retailer/catering
Export

% share of producer-packers on total output

Barn and deep litter eggs

% of sales

producers to consumers

- on the farm
- on local markets
to the home
-
TOTAL

wholesale markets
packing centres
Industry
retailer/catering
Export

% share of producer-packers on total output

Free range eggs

% of sales

producers to consumers

- on the farm
- on local markets
to the home
-
TOTAL

wholesale markets
packing centres
Industry
retailer/catering
Export

% share of producer-packers on total output

Organic eggs

% of sales

producers to consumers

- on the farm
- on local markets
to the home
-
TOTAL

wholesale markets
packing centres
Industry
retailer/catering
Export

% share of producer-packers on total output

Source: Expert group February 2003

F

10
10
0
83
7
0
0
35

F

10
10

90

2

F

10
10

90

0

F

10
10

90

0

A

2
2
2
6
13
40
6
35
0
90

A

barn

deep litter

6
2
0
8

75
2
15
0
90

2
2
2
6

1
90
1
2
30

A

10
10
2
22
1
15
1
61
0
85

A

15
15
5
35
1
15
1
48
0
50

Table 4b – Household purchases of eggs, Germany

OLD PANEL

NEW PANEL

2000

2001

2002

Jan. - April 2003

farm, door to door
weekly market
discount
consumer market
other

40
9
28
13
11

19

39
9
29
13
10

38
9
32
13
8

14
8
46
20
12

Table 5 – Production costs and retail prices for eggs - 2002

(€/100 eggs)

Type of eggs

Member State

Production costs

Retail price

Standard cage

Barn / deep litter

Free range

Organic

D

F

E

NL

A

D

NL

A

D

F

A

D

F

NL

A

4,20

4,60

4,10

4,40

4,30

5,50

5,44

4,90

6,40

6,73

5,30

-

11,00

10,70

7,70

(a)

(a)

9,3

14,4

9,0

9,9

min. 8,6

16,3

13,4

min. 14,5

17,2

23,7

min. 20,3

28,7

31,7

20,0

min. 35,0

(M)

(2001)

(M)

(2001)

(M)

(2001)

(M)

(2001)

(2001)

(2001)

Source: Expert group ZMP, LEI (a).

Table 6 – Imports of table eggs - average 2000-2002

TOTAL

NORMAL REGIME

INWARD PROCESSING

t

€/t

t

Czech Republic

1 808

Lithuania

Hungary

Poland

Norway

Switzerland

USA

Canada

Mexico

Chile

Israel

Singapore

China

Taiwan

Hong Kong

TOTAL

Source: Comext

347

250

2 011

240

5

4 223

14

24

1

1 824

3

185

3

4

10 947

989

112

230

1 065

58

5

1 091

14

24

1

967

3

185

3

4

4 756

613,0

581,2

1 711,9

554,2

647,5

1 044,2

889,7

1 146,3

13 173,7

9 008,8

563,5

3 493,6

1 809,0

3 517,3

2 480,2

777,9

20

€/t

620,1

708,8

1 777,9

539,7

825,4

1 044,2

1 639,5

1 146,3

13 173,7

9 008,8

586,6

3 493,6

1 809,0

3 517,3

2 480,2

1 010,0

t

€/t

794

213

20

718

181

602,7

521,1

952,4

594,9

590,2

3 132

628,5

857

537,3

5 916

603,8

60.000.000

50.000.000

40.000.000

30.000.000

20.000.000

10.000.000

0

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Graph 1  -  LAYING HENS TOTAL / ALTERNATIVE
(2001)

FR

IT

DE

ES

NL

GB

BE

GR

PT

AT

SE

DK

FI

IE

TOTAL

ALTERNATIVE

Graph 2  -  % LAYING HENS CAGE / ALTERNATIVE
 (2001)

IE

AT

GB

NL

DK

SE

DE

FR

FI

BE

IT

PT

GR

ES

CAGE

ALTERNATIVE

21

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

By Regulation (EC) No 5/2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing
standards  for  eggs  the  Council  introduced  compulsory  marking  of  table  eggs  in  the
Community  with  a  producer  code  permitting  the  farming  method  to  be  identified  as  from
1 January 2004.

In the same Regulation the Council asked the Commission to present a report in the following
terms: " The Commission shall submit to the Council by no later than 30 June 2003 a report
on developments with regard to egg consumption, the wishes of consumers and of consumers
organisations  and  the  issue  of  egg  marking  and  monitoring,  together  with  suitable
proposals".

This  report  should  furthermore,  according  to  recital  6  of  the  said  Regulation,  look  at
"developments in the area of food hygiene rules, particularly as regards washed eggs, and on
the outcome of World Trade Organisation negotiations".

The  present  report  answers  these  requests.  It  is  based,  amongst  other,  on  two  expert  group
meetings to which representative from producers, trade and consumers organisations had been
invited. Furthermore, the question of egg washing has been examined with experts and during
a visit to Sweden.  Finally, this report does not  refer  to  WTO  negotiations as  these talks  are
still in a preparatory stage.

The main conclusions of the report are:

1.

2.

3.

4.

In order to facilitate control of egg sales in local markets, also eggs sold by producers
from their own production in these markets should be stamped.

Washing of table eggs under strict surveillance should be authorised for a transitional
period  of  three  years  for  packing  establishments,  which,  on  1  June  2003  had  been
approved  to  this  end.  The  European  Food  Safety  Authority  should  prepare  a
comprehensive scientific report on washing of table eggs by 31 December 2005.

The  Commission  will promote campaigns  run by professional  organisations aiming
at information of consumers about the new rules for egg marking.

The Commission will adapt Regulation  (EEC) No  1274/91  with a  view  to  provide,
on  the  one  hand,  for  sufficient  flexibility  in  particular  for  small  producers  on  the
question  where  eggs  should  be  stamped  (farm  or  packing  centre)  and,  on  the  other
hand, for additional guarantees to prevent fraudulent practices in trade at the level of
producers, packers and wholesalers. Within this Regulation the Commission will also
propose  adaptations  concerning  identification  marking  of  packing  centres  and  will
take the necessary measures to avoid any overlapping between marketing standards
and future Community rules on hygiene in particular as regards the approval of such
establishments.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 should therefore be amended as regards the first and
the second conclusion.

22

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

amending Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common
organisation of the market in eggs6, and in particular Article 2(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission7,

Whereas:

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

Community legislation provides, starting from 1 January 2004, for only two categories
of  eggs.  Class  B  eggs  should  not  be  sold  as  table  eggs  any  longer.  This  creates  a
certain  concern  especially  in  some  Member  States  where  the  washing  of  eggs  is
common  and  the  consumer's  preference  is  in  favour  of  buying  washed  eggs.  The
Commission  has  therefore  been  asked  to  allow  the  practice  of  washing  eggs  to
continue.

Allowance  should  be  made  for  table  eggs  to  be  washed  on  a  voluntary  basis  on  the
basis of a derogation. In this case, washed eggs should conform with criteria of class A
eggs but should be labelled as "washed eggs" on the pack. This derogation should be
subject to the adoption of strict standards and controls by the competent authority and
followed up by in depth-scientific studies on egg washing.

The  provisions  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1907/908  have  in  the  past  not  been
applied  for  egg  sales  by  the  producers  on  local  markets  except  auction  markets.
Control  of  this  derogation  has  proved  to  be  difficult  in  particular  regarding  its
limitation  to  the  farmers’  own  production.  In  order  to  facilitate  controls  producers
should be obliged to stamp table eggs destined for being sold in local markets.

Following the merging of class B and C as from 1 January 2004, class B eggs can only
be  sold  to  the  food  and  non-food  industry.  Certain  provisions  regarding  marking  of
these eggs and their packs should be adapted.

(5) 

Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 should therefore be amended,

6

7

8

OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 49. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003 (OJ L 122,
16.5.2003, p. 1).
OJ C …, …, p. …
OJ L 173, 6.7.1990, p. 5. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 5/2001 (OJ L 2, 5.1.2001,
p. 1).

23

                                                
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 is hereby amended as follows:

(1)

In Article 2(3), the following second subparagraph is added:

"Eggs  sold  by  the  producer  in  a  local  public  market  shall  however  be  stamped  in
accordance with Article 7(1)(a)."

(2)

In Article 6, the following paragraph 4 is added:

"4.

Packing centres that have been authorised to wash table eggs on 1 June 2003 at
the latest may, for a transitional period until 31 December 2006, be authorised
to continue to wash eggs, under strict surveillance of the competent authority,
for delivery to the final consumer.

Eggs  referred  to  in  the  first  subparagraph  shall  be  in  conformity  with  the
criteria  of  class A eggs but  shall be  graded  as  "washed  eggs"  and  labelled  as
such on the packs.

Member States shall inform the Commission and other Member States on the
names  and  addresses  of  the  packing  centres  authorised  and  the  surveillance
measures applied."

(3)

Article 7(1)(a) is replaced by the following:

"(a) A  code  designating  the  producer's  distinguishing  number  and  permitting  the
farming  method  to  be  identified  shall  be  stamped  on  class  A  eggs  and  on
"washed eggs" within the meaning of Article 6(4)."

(4)

In Article 8, paragraphs (2) and (3) are replaced by the following:

"2. Class A eggs which no longer have the characteristics fixed for that grade shall
be  downgraded  to  class  B.  They  shall  be  delivered  directly  to  food  industry
undertakings  approved  in  accordance  with  Directive  89/437/EEC  or  the  non-
food industry, and their packs be clearly marked to show this destination."

(5)

(6)

In Article 10(1), point (f) is deleted.

In Article 15(b), point (ee) is replaced by the following:

"(ee) the  date  of  packing  and  the  date  of  minimum  durability  followed  by
appropriate  storage  recommendations,  for  class  A  eggs,  and  the  packing  date
for class B eggs".

24

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in
the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 January 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the Council
The President

25

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

5.0

5.1

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

BUDGET HEADING:
B1-2310

APPROPRIATIONS:
EUR 8 million (budget 2003)

TITLE:
Proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  amending  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1907/90  on  certain  marketing
standards for eggs

LEGAL BASIS:
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75

AIMS:
Implementing rules on marketing standards for eggs.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

CHARGED TO THE EC BUDGET

NATIONAL AUTHORITIES
OTHER

EXPENDITURE
-
(REFUNDS/INTERVENTIONS)
-
-
REVENUE
-
(LEVIES/CUSTOMS DUTIES)
-

NATIONAL

OWN RESOURCES OF THE EC

5.0.1 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE
5.1.1 ESTIMATED REVENUE

5.2 METHOD OF CALCULATION:

12 MONTH
PERIOD

(EUR million)
-

CURRENT
FINANCIAL
YEAR 2003
(EUR million)
-

FOLLOWING
FINANCIAL
YEAR 2004
(EUR million)
-

-

-

-

2005

2006

2007

2008

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

6.0

6.1

CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE
RELEVANT CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET?

CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF
THE CURRENT BUDGET?

6.2 WILL A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET BE NECESSARY?

6.3 WILL APPROPRIATIONS NEED TO BE ENTERED IN FUTURE BUDGETS?

YES / NO

YES / NO

YES / NO

YES / NO

OBSERVATIONS:

The measure as such has no financial implications.

26