Green Paper on agricultural product quality: product standards, farming requirements and quality schemes
Date: 2008-10-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural product, foodstuff, marketing standard, product quality, production improvement

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 15.10.2008 
COM(2008) 641 final 

GREEN PAPER 

on agricultural product quality: 
product standards, farming requirements and quality schemes 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
GREEN PAPER 

on agricultural product quality: 
product standards, farming requirements and quality schemes 

In  this  consultation  exercise,  the  Commission  is  seeking  the  views  of  all  organisations  and 
citizens interested in the quality of agricultural products.  

Responses  are  encouraged  from  farmers  and  producers  of  food,  non-governmental 
organisations, processors, retailers, distributors, traders, consumers, and public bodies. 

Respondents are welcome to reply to part or all of the Green Paper. Responses should be sent 
by Wednesday, 31 December 2008 to: 

AGRI-QUALITY@ec.europa.eu 

or to: 

Green Paper ‘Quality’ 
Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development 
European Commission 
B-1049 Bruxelles/1049 Brussels 

The contributions received will be published on the internet, together with the identity of the 
contributor (name, town, country)1. If you expressly object to the publication of your personal 
data,  your  contribution  will  either  be  published  in  anonymous  form  or  the  contribution  will 
not  be  published.  Please  refer  to  the  'Information  Notice'  concerning  the  Commission's 
website and giving more details on personal data protection at: 

http://www.ec.europa.eu/geninfo/legal_notices_en.htm 

Further information can be found on the Green Paper website: 

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/policy/index_en.htm 

1 

EN 

Personal data will be treated by the Commission in compliance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of 18 
December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the 
Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).  

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 4 

PART I: PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND MARKETING STANDARDS ........................................ 6 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

EU farming requirements............................................................................................. 6 

Marketing standards ..................................................................................................... 7 

Obligatory elements of marketing standards................................................................ 7 

Reserved terms within marketing standards ................................................................ 8 

Simplifying marketing standards ................................................................................. 9 

PART II: SPECIFIC EU QUALITY SCHEMES................................................................................. 11 

3. 

3.1 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

3.5. 

3.6. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Geographical indications............................................................................................ 11 

Protection and enforcement of geographical indications ........................................... 12 

Criteria for registration of geographical indications .................................................. 13 

Protection of EU geographical indications in third countries .................................... 14 

Geographical indications as ingredients in processed products................................. 14 

Origin of raw materials in a protected geographical indication................................. 15 

Coherence and simplification of geographical indication systems ............................ 15 

Traditional specialities guaranteed............................................................................. 15 

Organic farming ......................................................................................................... 16 

Quality products policy for the Outermost Regions .................................................. 17 

Further EU schemes ................................................................................................... 17 

PART III: CERTIFICATION SCHEMES .......................................................................................... 18 

8. 

8.1. 

8.2. 

8.3. 

8.4. 

Food quality certification schemes............................................................................. 18 

Effectiveness of certification schemes in delivering policy objectives ..................... 19 

EU oversight............................................................................................................... 20 

Reducing burdens and costs ....................................................................................... 20 

International dimension.............................................................................................. 21 

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 21 

EN 

3 

   EN 

INTRODUCTION 

As  globalisation  spreads,  products  from  emerging  countries  with  low  production  costs  are 
putting  greater  pressure  on  EU  farmers.  There  is  growing  competition  for  both  agricultural 
commodities and value-added products. Faced with these new commercial challenges, the EU 
farmers’ most potent weapon is ‘quality’. The EU has an advantage on quality given the very 
high  level  of  safety  ensured  across  the  food  chain  by  EU  legislation  in  which  farmers,  and 
producers more globally, have invested. However, there are more aspects which can reinforce 
quality in the more global sense of the term. 

Quality is about meeting consumer expectations. The agricultural product qualities addressed 
in  this  Green  Paper  are  the  product  characteristics,  such  as  farming  methods  used,  place  of 
farming, etc., that a farmer wants to be better known and a consumer wants to know. Quality 
is  an  issue  for  every  farmer  and  every  buyer,  whether  they  are  dealing  with  commodities 
produced to baseline standards or with the high-end quality products in which Europe excels. 
This  Green  Paper  is  without  prejudice  to  issues  of  quality  linked  to  food  safety  which  are 
already  covered  by  other  Commission  actions  such  as  nutritional  labelling,  animal  welfare, 
etc. 

Market and societal demands 

In times of high commodity prices, the incentive to increase the volume of production should 
not be used as an excuse to lower standards. Consumers want food to be affordable and good 
value  for  money.  But  consumers  and  traders  have  many  other  demands  on  the  value  and 
quality of the products they buy, apart from price. Meeting these demands is a big challenge 
for farmers.  

The demands of the market are diverse and multiplying. The most significant issues in the EU 
are  hygiene  and  food  safety  (a  ‘non-negotiable  must’),  health  and  nutritional  value,  and 
societal  demands.  Moreover,  consumers  increasingly  pay  attention  to  the  contribution  made 
by  farming  on  sustainability,  climate  change,  food  security  and  development,  biodiversity, 
animal welfare, and water scarcity. As the pre-eminent user of land, farming is a key factor in 
the territorial development of regions, landscapes and valuable environmental areas. Last but 
not  least,  consumers  with  growing  disposable  income  –  in  many  parts  of  the  world  –  are 
demanding taste, tradition and authenticity in their food as well as the application of higher 
animal welfare standards. 

Instead of seeing these demands as a burden, EU farmers have a real opportunity to turn them 
to their advantage – by delivering exactly what consumers want, clearly distinguishing their 
products in the marketplace, and gaining premiums in return. 

The  EU's  agricultural  policy  must  support  farmers’  efforts  to  win  the  quality  challenge.  EU 
schemes  and  regulations  are  already  trying  to  do  this,  essentially  in  two  ways:  baseline 
measures and quality measures. 

Baseline measures 

EU regulations lay down some of the most stringent baseline production requirements in the 
world covering safety and hygiene, product identity and composition, environmental care, and 
plant and animal health and animal welfare, thus reflecting the clearly stated democratic wish 
of EU consumers and citizens. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

Quality measures and schemes at EU level 

Many  EU  farmers  are  constantly  on  the  lookout  for  fresh  and  unique  ways  to  create  new 
market outlets and increase their profits. These include: 

•  producing  'premium'  products  which  offer  the  consumer  something  over  and 
above baseline requirements –whether in the form of special characteristics, such 
as taste, origin, etc., or in the method of production; 

•  giving  consumers  confidence  in  EU  quality  schemes  and  in  the  claims  that 

producers make for their "premium products"; 

•  helping  consumers  in  choosing,  and/or  deciding  whether  to  pay  more  for  a 

particular product; 

•  protecting the names of food products, wines and spirit drinks that depend on their 
place  of  production  and  the  savoir-faire  of  local  producers  for  their  special 
characteristics  or  reputation  by  means  of  geographical  indications,  such  as 
‘Chablis’,  ‘Prosciutto  di  Parma’,  ‘Scotch  whisky’,  ‘Café  de  Colombia’,  ‘Sitia 
Lasithiou  Kritis’,  ‘Szegedi  szalámi’,  ‘Queso  Manchego’,  and  ‘Nürnberger 
Lebkuchen’; 

•  regulating  the  organic  sector  by  laying  down  strict  requirements,  as  more  and 
more consumers are attracted to the production methods used in organic farming 
and look specifically for foods with an organic label; 

•  registering  the  names  of  traditional  products  under  an  EU  scheme  designed  to 

promote traditional foods and drinks; 

•  promoting products specific to the EU's outermost regions; 

•  setting  EU  marketing  standards  in  many  sectors  to  define  specific  product 
qualities, (such as ‘extra-virgin’ for olive oil, ‘Class I’ for fruit and vegetables and 
‘free-range’ for eggs); 

•  encouraging  certification  schemes  set  up  by  public  and  private  bodies  to  better 
the  EU  about  farming  methods  and  product 

inform  consumers  across 
characteristics. 

Green Paper 

Against this background the Commission has decided to launch a reflection on how to ensure 
the  most  suitable  policy  and  regulatory  framework  to  protect  and  promote  quality  of 
agricultural products, without creating additional costs or burdens As a first step it intends to 
launch  a  wide  consultation  on  whether  the  existing  instruments  are  adequate,  or  how  they 
could be improved and what new initiatives could be launched.  

Part  I  looks  at  baseline  farming  requirements  and  EU-backed  product  marketing  standards, 
including those laying down specific product qualities; 

EN 

5 

   EN 

Part  II  looks  at  existing  quality  schemes  covering  geographical  indications,  ‘traditional 
specialities guaranteed (TSG)’, products of outermost regions, and the operation of the single 
market in products of organic farming;  

Part  III  looks  at  certification  schemes,  mainly  in  the  private  sector,  that  help  producers  tell 
buyers and consumers about their product. 

PART I: PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND MARKETING STANDARDS 

1. 

EU FARMING REQUIREMENTS 

Farmers in the EU adhere to a range of farming requirements and all EU-produced food has 
been  farmed  in  line  with  these  rules.  They  are  aimed  not  only  at  ensuring  that  hygiene  and 
safety standards are met for the final foodstuffs placed on the market, but also include societal 
concerns (such as environmental, ethical, social…). 

For  farmers,  this  means  taking  due  care  in  selecting  and  applying  pesticides  and  fertilisers, 
respecting  hygiene  rules,  preventing  animal  and  plant  diseases,  ensuring  farm  workers  are 
trained and adequately protected, providing proper welfare conditions for farm animals, and 
protecting the environment. 

For consumers, this means being confident that acceptable production requirements, including 
the  legitimate  societal  concerns  mentioned  above,  have  been  followed  for  all  EU-farmed 
products. 

These farming requirements are continually evolving as a function of the demands of society. 
They  should  be  an  important  part  of  the  quality  of  food  offered  for  sale  and  an  asset  that 
farmers can promote. Yet there is an apparent lack of success in telling consumers that these 
farming requirements exist and have been followed in the production of food.  

However, many of these farming requirements — those not referring to product hygiene and 
safety — such as environmental and animal welfare rules do not necessarily apply in respect 
of  imported  foodstuffs.  Why  this  discrepancy?  Farming  standards,  protection  of  the 
environment, animal welfare, and worker safety are matters regulated by the governments of 
the  countries  where  the  farming  takes  place.  So,  while  the  EU  can  and  does  insist  that 
imported foods meet minimum product standards, especially concerning hygiene and safety, 
the checking of the farming methods used in the production of imported agricultural products 
and foods is a matter for the legislation in the country of production. 

A  better  connection  needs  to  be  made  between  the  farming  requirements  beyond  product 
hygiene and safety matters followed by all EU farmers and the product that results. If these 
farming  requirements  were  more  widely  known  and  recognised  by  consumers,  they  could 
become a potential marketing advantage. 

However,  these  concerns  have  to  be  met  without  creating  barriers  to  the  functioning  of  the 
single market or distortions of competition. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

Question 1:  

How could the requirements and standards met by farmers that go beyond product hygiene 
and safety be made better known?  

What would be the advantages and disadvantages of 

–  developing  new  EU  schemes  with  one  or  several  symbols  or  logos  indicating 
compliance  with  EU  farming  requirements,  other  than  those  related  to  hygiene  and 
safety? Should a non-EU product which complies with EU production requirements be 
also eligible to use such an EU quality scheme? 

–  having  an  obligatory  indication  of  the  place  of  production  of  primary  products 

(EU/non EU)? 

2. 

MARKETING STANDARDS 

EU  marketing  standards  are  regulations  that  lay  down  definitions  of  products,  minimum 
product standards, product categories, and labelling requirements to inform consumers for a 
significant number of agricultural products and some processed foods2. They should operate 
to  help  farmers  deliver  the  qualities  of  product  that  consumers  expect,  avoid  consumer 
disappointment, and facilitate price comparisons for different qualities of product. Marketing 
standards have been adopted to replace various national standards, and thus facilitate trade in 
the single market. 

Not all foods are subject  to  EU-level  marketing standards. For example, in  the arable  crops 
sector  (wheat,  maize,  legumes,  etc.)  commodities  are  traded  according  to  official 
international,  national  or  privately  established  grading  and  classification  standards.  For 
products  sold  to  consumers  that  are  not  covered  by  EU  marketing  standards,  general 
consumer  protection  and  labelling  rules  apply  with  the  aim  of  ensuring  consumers  are  not 
misled. 

While  some  EU  marketing  standards  have  been  straightforward  to  develop,  others  have 
proved controversial. The process of revising marketing standards by means of EU regulation 
can also be cumbersome.  

In  this  Green  Paper,  the  Commission  is  consulting  on  three  general  issues  relating  to 
marketing  standards:  how  the  obligatory  parts  of  EU  marketing  standards  should  be 
developed;  whether  the  use  of  optional  terms  (also  called  ‘reserved’  terms)  could  be 
expanded; and what the options are for simplifying the rulemaking process itself. 

2.1. 

Obligatory elements of marketing standards 

Product  identities:  Most  EU  marketing  standards  define  the  agricultural  products  or 
foodstuffs they cover in a way that sets out clear, common rules for the product description. 

2 

Products covered by marketing standards: beef and veal, eggs, fresh and processed fruit and vegetables, 
honey, hops, milk and milk products, olive oil, pig meat, poultry, sheep meat, sugar, wine, cocoa and 
chocolate products, coffee extracts and chicory extracts, fruit juice, fruit jams, jellies and marmalades, 
etc., spirit drinks, and butter, margarine and blends. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
For example, the term ‘juice’ may not be used if the fruit juice has been diluted. Similarly, the 
term ‘milk’ cannot be used to refer to soya drinks. 

Farming requirements: In some cases, such as for fresh fruit and vegetables or poultry meat, 
marketing standards also set absolute stringent requirements for ‘sound, fair and marketable’ 
quality, which is a precondition for sale to consumers. Fresh fruit and vegetables may not be 
sold  to  consumers  if  they  have  gone  off  or  are  rotten,  blemished,  dirty,  damaged  by  pests, 
underdeveloped or, in the case of fruit, unripe. These requirements also include minimum size 
requirements (indicating maturity). This can lead to  fruit and vegetables that are edible (i.e. 
safe to eat) being excluded from the fresh produce market and either used for processing or 
destroyed.  

include  compulsory 
Quality  and  size  classifications:  Several  marketing  standards 
classification schemes. Originally these were introduced for reasons of market transparency, 
to  allow  buyers  to  compare  the  prices  of  known  product  classes  or  categories.  Poultry 
carcasses and cuts must be classified in Class A or Class B depending on quality criteria, such 
as  the  technical  description  of  the  shape  and  form  of  the  carcass  and  any  damage  to  the 
carcass. Eggs must be sized in one of four size classes — 'XL', 'L', 'M' and 'S' — and classified 
according to the farming method: 'cage', 'barn', 'free-range' or 'organic'. Similarly, some fruit 
and vegetables must be graded as 'Extra', 'Class I' or 'Class II'. This means that all such fruit 
must be graded before it can be put on sale. 

For  the  compulsory  aspects  of  marketing  standards,  the  main  issues  are  whether  the  rule  is 
necessary  to  meet  legitimate  policy  objectives,  whether  the  costs  in  terms  of  red-tape  are 
proportionate, and whether its application has unwanted consequences — such as inhibiting 
the marketing of innovative or uncommon products, or the destruction of comestible produce.  

Question 2: 

How does laying down product identities in marketing standards in EU legislation affect 
consumers, traders and producers? What are the benefits and drawbacks? 

Should the retail sale of products that do meet hygiene and safety requirements, but do not 
meet the marketing standard for aesthetic or similar reasons, be allowed? If so, should such 
products require specific information for the consumer? 

Could  compulsory  quality  and  size  classifications  be  made  optional  as  'optional  reserved 
terms' (as set out in the section 2.2 below)? 

2.2. 

Reserved terms within marketing standards 

Optional  reserved  terms  are  defined  by  law.  They  tell  buyers  that  the  product  on  which  the 
reserved  term  is  used  corresponds  to  a  defined  farming  method  or  product  characteristic. 
Reserved  terms  in  marketing  standards  are  intended  to  provide  the  consumer  with  useful, 
accurate, technical information. Reserved terms should help farmers too by identifying value-
added  characteristics  or  farming  methods  and  thus  secure  an  additional  financial  return  for 
additional production costs. 

Optional reserved terms are also used to identify categories or qualities of product. However, 
the product may be sold without using any of these optional terms, for example: 

EN 

8 

   EN 

–  according  to the  marketing  standards for poultry meat, the use of the optional terms ‘fed 
with …’,  ‘extensive  indoor’,  ‘free-range’,  or  ‘traditional  free-range’,  are  restricted  to 
product which has been farmed using defined methods; 

–  the term ‘cold extraction’ can only be used on virgin and extra-virgin olive oils that have 

been subject to the defined process – but the term does not have to be used. 

Reserved  terms  used  optionally  offer  the  potential  to  provide  fixed  definitions  where 
necessary, enabling farmers to communicate specific product attributes and farming methods. 

On the other hand, farmers and first-stage producers of food in different agricultural sectors 
wanting to communicate the use of particular farming methods to consumers frequently use 
words like ‘farmhouse’, ‘mountain’, ‘low carbon’, ‘natural’, etc. These descriptive terms can 
be used as long as they meet any national definition applicable as well as the general standard 
of not misleading consumers. These words and the farming practices behind them lend appeal 
to  products.  Therefore  consumers  may  be  misled  if  for  instance  words  implying  the  use  of 
extensive farming methods are used on the product of more intensive agriculture. The recent 
emergence  of  diverse  labels  claiming  use  of  farming  methods  that  have  reduced  impact  on 
climate change has led to a certain amount of confusion. There may, therefore, be a need to 
define such farming terms at EU level in particular sectors. 

Question 3: 

To  what  extent  is  it  necessary  to  lay  down  definitions  of  ‘optional  reserved  terms’  in 
marketing standards at EU level? 

Should  definitions  for  general  reserved  terms  describing  farming  methods  in  particular 
sectors,  such  as  ‘mountain  product’,  ‘farmhouse’  and  ‘low  carbon’,  be  laid  down  by  the 
EU? 

2.3. 

Simplifying marketing standards 

In  order  to  develop  EU  marketing  standards  in  general,  we  need  to  look  at  ways  of 
simplifying  rule-making,  either  within  the  Commission,  or  by  transferring  the  task  to  other 
bodies, or by referring to international standards.  

Simplification should also take into account the administrative burdens on public authorities 
and on stakeholders. For example, the obligatory grading (e.g. sizing) of fruit and vegetables 
imposes costs on producers and requires public authorities to control compliance. 

Many  EU  marketing  standards  are  based  on  those  agreed  internationally  in  the  Codex 
Alimentarius or the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE). Where they 
are relevant, these international standards are used as the basis for EU marketing standards. In 
the  case  of  arable  crops,  for  which  no  EU  marketing  standards  have  been  adopted, 
international standards are referred to in national standards or used directly by private traders, 
in  contrast  to  the  mandatory  EU  standards  which  are  applied  for  some  fruit  and  vegetables. 
The  EU  also  contributes  to  the  setting  of  international  standards  and  EU  standards  are 
sometimes used as a basis for international standards. 

As market demands change and technology advances, marketing standards can become partly 
out  of  date,  and  need  adjustment  and  updating.  Broadly  speaking,  there  are  two  ways  of 
keeping pace. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

Self regulation 

The  operators  in  the  sector  concerned  can  be  entrusted  to  lay  down  and  monitor  marketing 
standards,  including  product  identities,  product  classifications  and  reserved  terms.  Where 
international standards exist, these can simply be used by producers and traders in commercial 
transactions. 

Traders and business people in a particular sector can take the initiative themselves to develop 
reference  standards  or  codes  of  practice.  This  process  is  known  as  self-regulation. 
Administrative costs for public enforcement are low, as any disputes are resolved between the 
parties  concerned,  e.g.  by  arbitration.  In  contrast,  standards  enforced  by  public  authorities 
entail costs of inspections and controls, backed up by court proceedings where necessary. 

Self-regulation  has  the  advantage  that  policy  is  made,  implemented  and  enforced  by 
practitioners  close  to  what  is  actually  happening  in  the  market.  The  procedures  for  drafting 
standards can be simpler and allow more flexibility and faster adjustment in a dynamic market 
environment.  At  the  same  time,  the  technical  regulations  are  only  applicable  to  those 
businesses  that  have  undertaken  to  respecting  them  (also  referred  to  as  "inter  pares" 
arrangements, or arrangements between signatory parties). 

Examples of self regulation may be found in the potato trade and fruit juice sector. 

Simplified EU regulation 

Another  way  to  keep  marketing  standards  up  to  date  is  to  simplify  the  EU  approval  and 
revision of marketing standards, by means of co-regulation, direct reference  to  international 
standards and applying voluntary schemes where applicable. 

–  Co-regulation is the process whereby a Community legislative act entrusts the attainment 
of  clearly  defined  objectives  to  stakeholders,  who  are  recognised  in  the  field.  For 
marketing standards, the legislator would concentrate on the essential aspects of the legal 
act,  whereas  representatives  of  the  parties  concerned  would  be  asked  to  complete  the 
legislation  and  lay  down  the  technical  data  and  specifications  on  the  basis  of  their 
experience.  

–  EU  laws  could  simply  make  reference  to  internationally  agreed  standards.  This  would 
avoid  the  process  of  EU  rulemaking  for  marketing  standards.  However,  international 
standards are normally adopted in only a few languages, and certainly only a minority of 
official EU languages.  

–  Lastly, the substance of existing rules could be simplified and streamlined, for example by 
means of a critical review (see the discussion above on the different aspects of marketing 
standards, in particular ‘reserved terms’) and the drafting of a new, harmonised framework 
for marketing standards, as has now been initiated in the fruit and vegetables sector.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

Question 4: 

To what extent could the drafting, implementation and control of marketing standards 
(or parts of them) be left to self-regulation? 

If marketing standards (or parts of them) remain governed by EU law, what would be 
the advantages and disadvantages, including in respect of the administrative burden, of: 

–  using co-regulation? 

–  referring to international standards? 

–  keeping the current legislative approach (while simplifying the substance as much as 

possible)? 

PART II: SPECIFIC EU QUALITY SCHEMES 

Four specific EU quality schemes have been introduced to develop geographical indications, 
organic farming, traditional specialities, and product from outermost regions of the EU. These 
schemes identify to consumers products having specific qualities  resulting  from a  particular 
origin and/or farming method. In order that consumers can be confident that the label claims 
are  justified,  compliance  with  the  specification  is  monitored  by  public  authorities  or  by  a 
private certifying body. Farmers producing the genuine products are protected against being 
undercut by imitation products sold under the protected names. They should therefore be able 
to secure a premium price for their additional care and efforts. 

The  four  schemes  are  intended  to  correspond  to  particular  market  demands  for  products 
having  these  particular  qualities.  The  purpose  of  this  Green  Paper  is  to  examine  in  depth 
different aspects of these schemes as well as the potential for any additional EU scheme.  

3. 

GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS 

A  ‘geographical  indication’  is  a  name  describing  an  agricultural  product  or  foodstuff  that 
owes  its  characteristics  or  its  reputation  to  the  geographical  area  from  which  it  originates. 
Many  consumers  in  the  EU,  and  increasingly  throughout  the  world,  looking  for  quality 
products  will  seek  out  and  pay  a  premium  for  authentic  products  from  a  particular 
geographical  area.  For  farmers  and  producers,  geographical  indications  can  provide  an 
important  source  of  revenue  and  security  as  well  as  having  the  satisfaction  and  pride  in 
producing quality products that form a part of Europe's heritage. 

This  explains  why  the  EU  created  registers  of  geographical  indications  for  agricultural 
products  and  foodstuffs,  wines  and  spirits,  designed  to  facilitate  intellectual  property 
protection  to  the  names  of  qualifying  products.  'Geographical  indication'  includes  both  the 
‘Protected Designation of Origin’ (PDO) and the ‘Protected Geographical Indications’ (PGI). 
For a name to qualify as a PDO, all the steps of production3 must in principle take place in the 
geographical area and the product’s characteristics must be exclusively or essentially due to 

3 

e.g. sourcing of raw materials; cleaning and grading; processing; maturing; preparation or final product, 
etc. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
its  geographical  origin.  For  a  name  to  qualify  as  PGI  at  least  one  step  of  production  has  to 
take  place  in  the  area,  and  the  link  to  the  area  concerned  can  be  justified  by  reason  of  a 
specific quality, reputation or other characteristic linked to the geographical area.  

The EU GI system is of course open to third-country producers. 

3.1. 

Protection and enforcement of geographical indications 

Protection 

A  registered  geographical  indication  provides  intellectual  property  protection,  and  entitles 
producers  and  others  trading  or  selling  the  original  product  to  use  the  registered  name.  The 
registered  name  may  not  be  used  on  similar  products,  even  accompanied  by  terms  such  as 
‘like’, ‘type’, ‘kind’, or if they evoke the name or use it in translation.  

Registration and protection of a geographical indication can lead to conflicts with any existing 
users (or potential users) of the name, such as holders of trademarks or users of plant variety 
names and animal breed names that contain a geographical indication. Some users claim that a 
name  is  used  in  a  generic  sense  since  a  name  that  is  generic  cannot  be  registered  as  a 
geographical indication. Legislative rules exist to try to resolve these issues of conflict and the 
question of generic status has been largely clarified by the European Court of Justice. 

In order to allow a better identification of products under a protected GI, the EU has created 
symbols to be used on products marketed under registered names.  

Enforcement 

Checks  that  farmers  have  adhered  to  the  product  specification  are  undertaken  by  public 
authorities  or  by  private  certification  bodies.  In  addition,  Member  States  conduct 
administrative  controls  on  the  use  of  registered  names  on  products  in  distribution  and  retail 
under specific legislation on wines and spirits and as part of the official control of EU food 
law for other products. 

These  controls  by  public  authorities  on  geographical  indications  distinguish  the  instrument 
from trademark protection. Trademarks are a private law instrument. The owner has to defend 
the trademark, if necessary by taking private legal action.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

Question 5: 

Is  there  a  need  to  clarify  or  adjust  any  aspects  of  the  rules  laying  down  the  rights  of 
geographical indication users and other users (or potential users) of a name? 

What criteria should be used to determine that a name is generic?  

Are any changes needed in the geographical indications scheme in respect of: 

–  the extent of protection? 

–  the enforcement of the protection? 

–  the agricultural products and foodstuffs covered? 

Should the use of alternative instruments, such as trademark protection, be more actively 
encouraged? 

3.2. 

Criteria for registration of geographical indications 

It  is  essential  that  registrations  meet  consumer  expectations  for  quality  products  in  order  to 
maintain confidence in the geographical indications system. In total, about 3 000 geographical 
indications for wines, spirits and agricultural products and foodstuffs have been registered or 
are  under  examination.  Many  of  the  applications  now  submitted  are  for  products  which  are 
mainly  sold  on  local  or  regional  markets.  For  some  names  for  processed  foods,  the  link 
between  the  place  and  the  production  rests  on  the  processing  rather  than  the  farming  of  the 
ingredients  and  on  the  reputation  attached  to  the  product.  The  raw  materials  may  therefore 
come from outside the area, and this might not be what the consumer is expecting. 

For  many  products  the  quality  and  reputation  does  not  rest  exclusively  on  factors  linked  to 
origin  and/or  the  savoir  faire  of  local  producers.  Sustainability  criteria  can  also  make  an 
important  contribution  to  the  quality  of  the  product  and  in  meeting  consumer  expectations, 
such as: 

–  contribution of the product to the economy of a local area, 

–  environmental sustainability of farming methods, 

–  economic viability of the product and potential for export, 

–  for processed food products, the requirement that all raw materials must also come from an 

area surrounding the zone of processing of the product. 

Question 6: 

Should  additional  criteria  be  introduced  to  restrict  applications  for  geographical 
indications?  In  particular,  should  the  criteria  for  protected  geographical  indications,  as 
distinct  from  protected  designations  of  origin,  be  made  stricter  to  emphasise  the  link 
between the product and the geographical area? 

Should specific sustainability and other criteria be included as part of the specification, 
whether  or  not  they  are  intrinsically  linked  to  origin?  What  would  be  the  benefits  and 
drawbacks? 

EN 

13 

   EN 

3.3. 

Protection of EU geographical indications in third countries 

Some geographical indications have considerable export potential in high-end markets. Where 
consumers  look  for  quality  products,  EU  exporters  can  play  to  their  strengths.  However, 
successful geographical indications also make tempting targets for copying and usurpation. In 
order  to  encourage  EU  exporters  to  market  quality  products  outside  the  EU  and  to  protect 
their investment, it is essential to provide legal protection of EU geographical indications. 

Some countries outside the EU have specific systems for protecting geographical indications, 
while others use trademark law, labelling law, or a combination of legal instruments for this 
purpose. 

Geographical  indications  are  protected  under  various  multilateral  agreements.  The  EU  has 
concluded  a  number  of  bilateral  agreements,  particularly  in  the  wine  sector.  The  EU  is 
seeking  improved  protection  and  registration  at  the  multilateral  (WTO)  level  and  through 
negotiation of a large number of bilateral agreements for all agricultural products. In bilateral 
agreements,  the  approach  has  been  to  seek  protection  for  the  whole  of  the  EU’s  list  of 
geographical  indications.  However,  with  many  of  the  3 000  geographical  indications  now 
protected  in  the  EU  being  for  products  sold  mainly  at  local  or  regional  level,  the  question 
arises on the pursuit of international protection of all these names. 

Question 7: 

What kind of difficulties do users of geographical indications face when trying to ensure 
protection in countries outside the EU?  

What should the EU do to protect geographical indications in the most effective way in 
third countries? 

3.4. 

Geographical indications as ingredients in processed products 

Labels  of  processed  and  prepared  products  often  cite  significant  ingredients.  Where  an 
ingredient is covered by a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) or Protected Geographical 
Indication (PGI), the producer of the processed product may wish to advertise the presence of 
this ingredient by using the registered name. However, producers of the ingredient may object 
to the use of the registered name to market a processed product.  

General  rules  on  consumer  information  include  provisions  on  how  such  ingredients  may  be 
advertised to prevent misleading consumers. For example, if an ingredient is used in the sales 
designation, the proportion of the ingredient must be stated in the ingredients list.  

Question 8: 

Have  any  difficulties  arisen  from  the  advertising  of  PGI/PDO  ingredients  used  in 
processed products/prepared foods? 

EN 

14 

   EN 

3.5. 

Origin of raw materials in a protected geographical indication 

To comply with the PGI definition, only one step of the production process need take place in 
the area that gives rise to the name. For many PGIs (and some PDOs) of processed products, 
the raw materials are sourced from outside the area concerned. Some consumers may expect 
the  raw  materials  to  come  from  the  area  while  others  may  expect  the  specialist  producers 
inside  the  geographical  area  choose  the  best  quality  raw  material  from  whatever  origin. 
Consumer expectations may also differ depending on the type of product.  

Question 9: 

What  are  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  identifying  the  origin  of  raw  materials  in 
cases  where  they  come  from  somewhere  else  than  the  location  of  the  geographical 
indication?  

3.6. 

Coherence and simplification of geographical indication systems 

There  are  presently  three  systems  of  registration  and  protection  of  agricultural  geographical 
indications in the EU: one for agricultural products and foodstuffs, one for spirit drinks and 
one  for  wine.  This  is  partly  the  result  of  specificities  of  the  products  concerned  and  the 
progressive implementation of a protection system for each type of product.  

While  the  bases  for  the  three  systems  are  similar:  type  of  protection,  definitions, 
administrative  enforcement,  relationship  with  trademarks,  rules  on  coexistence  with 
homonymous  names,  creation  of  a  register,  and  role  of  a  product  specification,  there  are 
procedural  and  other  differences  based  on  specific  requirements  for  the  product  types.  For 
example, both the PDO and PGI instruments are available for wines and agricultural products 
and foodstuffs, but only PGIs can be registered for spirit drinks. 

Question 10: 

Should the three EU systems for protection of geographical indications be simplified and 
harmonised  and,  if  so,  to  what  extent?  Alternatively,  should  they  continue  to  develop  as 
separate registration instruments?  

4. 

TRADITIONAL SPECIALITIES GUARANTEED 

‘Traditional  specialities  guaranteed’  (TSGs)  are  the  names  of  agricultural  products  or 
foodstuffs  that  are  produced  using  traditional  raw  materials  or  traditional  methods  of 
production,  or  that  have  traditional  composition.  The  scheme  covers  agricultural  products 
intended for human consumption and a variety of  foodstuffs  like  beer, confectionery, pasta, 
pre-cooked meals, soups, ice-creams and sorbets. 

Since  its  introduction  in  1992,  only  20  TSG  names  have  been  registered.  Some  30  product 
names are awaiting registration. Even if all of these were registered, the number is very low. 
Few of the registered names are significant in economic terms.  

In  most  cases,  registration  serves  only  to  identify  the  traditional  form  of  the  product:  non-
traditional  products  can  continue  to  use  the  name.  More  than  two  thirds  of  applicants  have 
opted for this kind  of registration, without reserving the name. As an alternative option, the 
name can be registered exclusively, in which case, it can only be used to describe the product 

EN 

15 

   EN 

made in accordance with the specification, whether or not it bears the indication 'traditional 
speciality  guaranteed',  the  acronym  ‘TSG’  or  the  EU  logo.  This  shows  that  most  TSG 
registrations serve only to identify the traditional product, and not to protect the name. 

Any producer who allows the requisite checks to be carried out may produce and market the 
traditional  product  under  the  scheme.  However,  it  appears  that  few  operators  outside  the 
country from which the initial application was made have taken advantage of this provision in 
the TSG regulation. 

Question 11: 

Given  the  low  take-up  of  the  TSG  scheme,  is  there  a  better  way  of  identifying  and 
promoting traditional speciality products?  

5. 

ORGANIC FARMING 

Consumer demand for organically produced foods has seen a steady increase in recent years 
with the growth in demand exceeding the growth in supply. Farmers and consumers rely on 
the integrity of the organic system to ensure that the product has been produced in line with 
the claims. Controls, undertaken by public authorities or by certification bodies, are essential 
to maintain confidence in the system and to justify the premium prices. 

The  market  for  organic  food  in  the  EU  continues  to  be  fragmented  along  national  lines. 
National supermarkets tend to stock products certified by national certifiers, notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  they  are  all  operating  under  the  common  EU  organic  standard.  The  current 
challenge  for  the  EU  therefore  is  to  create  a  functioning  internal  market  for  organically 
produced  products  without  losing  or  diluting  the  reputation  and  credibility  of  the  organic 
label.  

Since 1991, the EU has applied a standard laying down organic farming rules for European 
producers and processors, and for third country exporters wishing to place organic products 
on  the  EU  market.  The  EU  standard  follows  closely  the  organic  farming  rules  set  out  in  an 
international  standard  adopted  by  Codex  Alimentarius,  which  facilitates  recognition  of  EU 
organic product exported to other countries. 

Strategic and political objectives for the organic farming sector were agreed in 2004 and set 
out  in  the  EU  Action  Plan  for  Organic  Food  and  Farming.  The  most  significant  legislative 
result has been a new organic farming regulation, adopted in June 2007. Given the very recent 
adoption of this new legislation, the Commission wishes to focus the consultation on how the 
market in organic products works, rather than on the policy detail of the legislation.  

Question 12: 

What  factors  might  inhibit  the  development  of  a  single  EU  market  in  organic  products? 
How can the single EU market in organic products be made to work better? 

EN 

16 

   EN 

6. 

QUALITY PRODUCTS POLICY FOR THE OUTERMOST REGIONS 

The legislation concerning the specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions4 of 
the  EU  provides  for  the  introduction  of  a  graphic  symbol  designed  to  ensure  greater 
awareness  and  consumption  of  quality  agricultural  products,  whether  natural  or  processed, 
specific to the outermost regions. The use of the symbol is monitored by bodies appointed by 
the  national  authorities  and  the  conditions  for  using  it  are  developed  by  trade  organisations 
concerned.  The  agricultural  products  for  which  the  symbol  may  be  used  must  meet 
requirements  defined  by  reference  to  EU  rules  or,  in  absence  of  such  rules,  to  international 
standards.  

Where necessary, additional specific requirements may be adopted in respect of products from 
the outermost  regions on a  proposal from  the representative trade organisations. So far, this 
possibility has been used by producers in the Spanish and French outermost regions (e.g. for 
pineapples,  bananas,  melons  and  other  exotic  fruits  from  Guadeloupe,  Martinique  and  la 
Réunion  and  for  bananas,  tomatoes,  cucumbers  and  other  fruits  and  vegetables  as  well  as 
flowers and wine produced in the Canary Islands).  

These  initiatives  are  intended  to  motivate  farmers  to  respect  quality  requirements  for  their 
products,  and  add  value  to  the  local  production  of  regions  which  are  handicapped  by  their 
remoteness  from  the  EU  mainland  and  insularity,  and  by  difficult  geographical  and 
meteorological  conditions.  In  this  way,  the  graphic  symbol  and  associated  production 
requirements should contribute to making the agricultural sector more competitive both on the 
local and on the external market. 

Question 13: 

To  what  extent  has  use  of  the  graphic  symbols  for  the  EU's  outermost  regions  increased 
awareness of products from the outermost regions? 

How  should  these  initiatives  be  developed  in  order  to  increase  the  volume  of  quality 
agricultural products originating from the outermost regions? 

7. 

FURTHER EU SCHEMES 

The  current  EU  quality  schemes  deal  with  geographical  origin,  traditional  product,  product 
from certain region, and organic farming and represent the cornerstone of EU quality policy. 
There are a number of candidates for further EU schemes, including  product  of  high-nature 
value or mountain areas, welfare quality5, an EU origin label and extension of the Ecolabel 
scheme to processed agricultural products. Innovation could also be encouraged. 

Any new EU-level quality scheme must correspond to policy needs at EU level that cannot be 
adequately met by a national or private-sector scheme or other instrument. In the framework 
of  the  Health  Check  of  the  common  agriculture  policy,  the  challenges  of  climate  change 

4 

5 

The  French  Overseas  Departments  of  Guyana,  Martinique,  Guadeloupe  and  la  Réunion,  the  Spanish 
Canary Islands and the Portuguese Azores and Madeira. 
http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone:  Welfare  Quality®  is  a  project  funded  by  the  European 
Commission. It is an integrated project in the sixth framework programme. The research programme is 
designed  to  develop  European  standards  for  on-farm  welfare  assessment  and  product  information 
systems as well as practical strategies for improving animal welfare. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

                                                 
impacts,  conservation  of  biodiversity,  and  water  use  were  highlighted  as  among  the  highest 
priorities.  

The Commission would evaluate for possible new schemes if further legislation is necessary 
or if in some cases, drawing up a set of guidelines might be considered sufficient. 

Mandatory schemes might have advantages in particular for legally and scientifically complex 
backgrounds (e.g. animal welfare). In other cases, voluntary schemes could be sufficient and 
designed to assist scheme owners in developing and improving schemes. 

The  administrative  burden  for  farmers  and  other  stakeholders,  as  well  as  Member  State 
administrations  and  the  Commission,  must  be  taken  into  account,  in  line  with  principles  of 
better regulation policy. 

Question 14: 

Are there any pressing issues for which existing schemes and arrangements are inadequate 
and for which there is a strong case for an EU level scheme?  

Should  the  Commission  consider  mandatory  schemes  in  certain  cases,  for  example,  those 
with  a  complex  legal  and  scientific  background  or  those  needed  to  secure  high  consumer 
acceptance? 

If so, how can the administrative burdens on stakeholders and public authorities be kept as 
light as possible? 

PART III: CERTIFICATION SCHEMES 

8. 

FOOD QUALITY CERTIFICATION SCHEMES  

Recent years have seen a substantial growth in private and national food quality certification 
schemes. For retailers, these provide a means of reacting to changing consumer demand and 
of  delivering  to  consumers  products  with  specific  qualities,  whether  they  be  product 
characteristics  or  production  methods.  For  consumers,  the  fact  that  the  schemes  rely  on 
certification  provides  an  additional  guarantee  that  the  label  claim  can  be  relied  on.  For 
farmers,  they  represent  both  a  cost  and  an  opportunity  to  communicate  product  qualities  to 
consumers.  

Certification  schemes  in  the  EU  range  from  compliance  with  compulsory  production 
standards  to  additional  requirements  relating  to  environmental  protection,  animal  welfare, 
organoleptic qualities, worker welfare, fair trade, climate change concerns, ethical, religious 
or cultural considerations, farming methods, and origin. 

The  food  industry  and  retailers  may  rely  on  quality  certification  for  extra  assurance  about 
products  supplied.  This  provides  legal  security  that  the  farmers  have  followed  the  correct 
standards and so underpins the retailer’s reputation. 

However,  the  proliferation  of  schemes  and  labels  in  recent  years  has  given  rise  to  concerns 
about the transparency of schemes' requirements, the credibility of the claims made and their 
possible effects on equitable commercial relations.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

In this consultation, the Commission is seeking views on the operation of these largely private 
schemes and their impact on farmers both inside and outside the EU, including in developing 
countries. 

8.1. 

Effectiveness of certification schemes in delivering policy objectives 

Large  retailers  can  use  certification  schemes  as  a  way  of  ensuring  or  imposing  compliance 
with  certain  production  and  delivery  conditions.  The  rise  of  schemes  over  the  years  has 
reflected retailers' assessments of consumer demands to know more about the food they buy. 
The  main  concerns  for  many  consumers  are  hygiene  and  safety,  and  price.  For  consumers 
seeking  quality  products  with  particular  characteristics  or  resulting  from  particular  farming 
methods, some of the main drivers of innovation include: 

–  a  desire  for  consumers  to  reconnect  with  agriculture  and  give  preference  to  local  and 

seasonal products from farming systems that sustain both nature and society; 

–  the environmental concerns of combating climate change, managing natural resources such 

as water and soil more efficiently, and preserving biodiversity; 

–  promotion of nutritional qualities of foodstuffs; 

–  societal  concerns:  the  Fair  Trade  label  is  an  example  of  a  scheme  based  on  the  strategic 
intention  to  help  producers  and  workers  (chiefly  in  developing  countries)  move  from  a 
position  of  economic  and  social  vulnerability  to  one  of  security  and  economic  self-
sufficiency; 

–  animal welfare: private schemes promoted by animal welfare groups and farmers working 
with  retailers  and  the  scientific  community.  These  animal  welfare  schemes  generally 
certify that higher than the minimum requirements are met, for marketing purposes. 

These policy drivers may explain, at least in part, the emergence of a tremendous variety of 
certification  schemes.  However,  the  creation  and  use  of  a  certification  scheme  is  in  some 
cases dependent on there being a market demand. 

Schemes that ensure compliance with existing legal requirements are referred to as ‘baseline 
schemes’. Instead of ‘adding’ particular quality requirements, these schemes take regulatory 
baseline  requirements,  develop  them  into  detailed  rules  for  operators  (requiring  additional 
record-keeping, for example) and apply checks to ensure that these are followed. This type of 
scheme  is  then  used  to  advertise  production  ‘certified’  or  ‘assured’  as  complying  with  the 
relevant standard, be it hygiene, etc. Often, such schemes operate at the business-to-business 
level,  assuring  businesses  that  the  relevant  standards  and  requirements  for  the  product 
supplied  have  been  followed.  These  schemes  can  be  designed  to  protect  the  business' 
reputation and reduce the likelihood and impact of any liability claims. Currently, the fact that 
a product respects these baseline schemes is not communicated to the end consumers. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

Question 15: 

To what extent can certification schemes for quality products meet the main societal demands 
concerning product characteristics and farming methods?  

To  what  extent  is  there  a  risk  of  consumers  being  misled  by  certification  schemes  assuring 
compliance with baseline requirements? 

What  are  the  costs  and  benefits  for  farmers  and  other  producers  of  food  (often  small  and 
medium-sized enterprises) in adhering to certification schemes? 

Should a more active involvement of producers' organisations be promoted? 

8.2. 

EU oversight 

Because  certification  schemes  are  so  varied,  the  legal  framework  governing  their  use  is 
complex  and  spread  across  various  policy  areas.  Certification  schemes  are  subject  to  some 
constraints, namely: 

–  the  rules  of  the  internal  market.  Certification  services  should  be  freely  available  across 

borders. Schemes should not result in de facto barriers to trade in the internal market; 

–  rules on competition; 

–  consumer  information  and  labelling  requirements.  Are  consumers  aware  of  what  lies 

behind a label claim? 

–  specific legislation on the subject covered by the certification scheme. 

The  Commission  sees  no  need  in  principle  for  further  legislation  to  specifically  address 
certification schemes on these issues, but drawing up a set of guidelines could be considered. 
These should be designed to assist scheme-owners in developing and improving schemes. 

Question 16: 

Could  EU  guidelines  be  sufficient  to  contribute  to  a  more  coherent  development  of 
certification  schemes?  What  criteria  would  need  to  be  included  in  such  a  guide  or 
guidelines?  

8.3. 

Reducing burdens and costs 

The  main  costs  of  joining  certification  schemes fall  into  two  groups:  ‘direct’  and  ‘indirect’. 
Direct costs relate to membership fees, third-party inspection and certification. Indirect costs 
relate  to  compliance  with  certification  scheme  standards  (investment  costs  for  upgrading 
facilities) and recurring production costs. 

The  need  to  participate in  more  than  one  scheme  appears  to  involve  a  significant  (financial 
and  administrative)  burden,  especially  for  small-scale producers. If a farmer does not join a 
particular scheme, his product may be excluded from certain market outlets. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
The  certification  and  control  requirements  applying  to  private  schemes  have  to  be  added  to 
the official control requirements.  

Question 17: 

How  can  the  administrative  costs  and  burdens  of  belonging  to  one  or  more  quality 
certification schemes be reduced?  

8.4. 

International dimension 

In  international  trade,  certification  schemes  can  serve  to  promote  and  market  products  with 
certain  quality  characteristics.  Given  that  most  of  the  current  schemes  are  privately  owned, 
whether  by  farmers/producers,  the  food  industry  or  retailers,  European  Commission 
involvement is minimal.  

For  farmers  in  developing  countries  supplying  the  EU  market,  private  certification  schemes 
represent  both  a  cost  and  an  opportunity.  Farmers  may  have  difficulties  meeting  the 
requirements  imposed.  However,  if  they  can  be  certified  under  a  scheme  used  by  an  EU 
retailer, they may be in a better position to sell into the EU.  

In  relation  to  animal  welfare,  the  existence  of  extensive  conditions  of  farming  especially  in 
developing countries could represent an important opportunity for developing trade in welfare 
friendly products as the certification of the production method could provide EU consumers 
with appropriate guarantees for the farming conditions. 

Question 18: 

How  can  private  certification  schemes  be  used  to  assist  EU  exports  and  promote 
European quality products in export markets?  

How can the EU facilitate market access for producers in developing countries who need 
to comply with private certification schemes in order to supply particular retailers? 

CONCLUSION 

This has been a general presentation of agricultural product quality policy. The purpose of the 
Green  Paper  is  to  provoke  debate  and  written  contributions.  Therefore  all  interested  parties 
and  stakeholders  are  invited  to  respond.  As  set  out  in  the  Commission's  communication  on 
'Better regulation', policy development should be as transparent as possible and steps should 
only be taken after listening carefully to stakeholders. 

The Green Paper is therefore the first step on the path of policy making. Contributions from 
respondents  will  provide  the  basis  for  the  Commission's  reflections  in  shaping  a  policy 
options  paper,  a  Communication,  which  under  current  planning  will  be  published  in  May 
2009. The success of this Green Paper consultation relies on the willingness of a wide range 
of  stakeholders  to  share  and  to  explain  their  concerns,  analysis  and  ideas  in  this  essential 
public process.  

EN 

21 

   EN 

The Commission will publish and examine the contributions and publish its own feedback. 

Question 19: 

Respondents are invited to raise any other issues concerning agricultural product quality 
policy that have not been covered. 

EN 

22 

   EN