Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on agricultural product quality policy {SEC(2009) 670} {SEC(2009) 671}
Date: 2009-05-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, agricultural product, foodstuff, product quality, production improvement

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 28.5.2009 
COM(2009) 234 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

on agricultural product quality policy 

{SEC(2009) 670} 
{SEC(2009) 671} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

on agricultural product quality policy 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

6. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4 

Current agricultural product quality measures............................................................. 4 

Policy development...................................................................................................... 5 

EU agricultural quality measures ................................................................................. 7 

EU farming requirements............................................................................................. 7 

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

Geographical indications............................................................................................ 10 

Organic farming ......................................................................................................... 11 

Traditional specialities ............................................................................................... 12 

Development of EU framework for quality policy .................................................... 12 

Coherence of new EU schemes.................................................................................. 12 

Guidelines for private and national food certification schemes................................. 12 

Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 13 

EN 

3 

   EN 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Buying food and drink produced in the EU means buying quality, chosen from a rich diversity 
of  products  reflecting  the  different  traditions  and  regions  in  the  Community.  Consumers 
around the world know this: the EU’s agri-food sector has a reputation for high quality thanks 
to decades or even centuries of hard work, investment, innovation and attention to excellence. 

This tradition of high quality operates in several ways. At a basic level, all farmers in the EU 
are  legally  bound  to  respect  some  of  the  most  stringent  farming  requirements  in  the  world. 
Among other things, these relate to environmental protection, animal welfare and the use of 
pesticides  and  veterinary  products.  Beyond  these  ‘baseline’  requirements,  farmers  and  food 
producers use their expertise and imagination to give their products other, individual qualities 
valued by consumers. 

This  quest  for  quality  is  a  vital  part  of  the  EU  agri-food  sector’s  strategy  in  the  global 
marketplace.  The  EU  remains  an  important  producer  of  basic  commodities,  but  the  lion’s 
share (two thirds by value) of its annual agri-food exports worth around €70  billion a year are 
‘finished products’, such as meat, dairy products, wine and vegetable oils. 

The EU’s agri-food sector will need to build on this approach in the years ahead to sustain its 
competitiveness  and  profitability.  For  farmers  as  for  food  producers,  doing  this  means  two 
things: first, offering products with the qualities that customers want; and second, informing 
customers clearly about the qualities of their products.  

2. 

CURRENT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY MEASURES 

An  essential  goal  of  agricultural  quality  policy  is  to  inform  buyers  and  consumers  about 
product  characteristics  and  farming  attributes1.  Unless  buyers  and  consumers  have  accurate, 
useful  and  guaranteed  information  about  these  characteristics  and  attributes,  they  cannot  be 
expected to pay a fair price. 

Agricultural quality policy has evolved over time. However, this evolution has taken place on 
a  piecemeal  basis  —  instrument  by  instrument,  sector  by  sector.  Combining  the  various 
instruments  into  a  more  coherent  whole  and  developing  the  overall  policy  would  help  it  to 
deliver  even  stronger  results.  This  further  development  must  be  sufficiently  flexible,  take 
account of the private and national schemes that dominate the market and ensure innovation. 
The full picture is shown in Figure 1. 

Schemes can be either ‘certification-type’ or ‘labelling-type’. Certification is best when the 
undertakings  made  are  complex;  these  are  usually  laid  down  in  a  detailed  specification  and 
checked periodically (e.g. annually), for example by a certifying body. Labelling measures are 
best  for  relatively  straightforward  claims  that  are  normally  self-declared  by  producers  and 
subject to official controls. 

1 

EN 

'qualities' 

Agricultural  product 
(physical,  chemical, 
microbiological and organoleptic features – size, appearance, taste, look, ingredients, etc.) and 'farming 
attributes'  (production  method,  type  of  animal  husbandry,  use  of  processing  techniques,  place  of 
farming and of production, etc.). 

'product  characteristics' 

includes  both 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
Both certification and labelling can show that a product meets baseline standards. They can 
also  both  be  used  to  indicate  value-adding  qualities  beyond  baseline  standards  —  either 
product characteristics or farming attributes. 

EU agricultural product quality 
schemes: geographical indications, 
traditional specialities guaranteed, 
organic farming scheme, 
product of the EU's outermost regions.

Reserved terms in EU 
marketing standards: 
e.g. ‘traditional method' 
sparkling wine, 
'free range' eggs.

Private and national food quality 
certification schemes: value-adding 
product characteristics and farming 
attributes. 

Private assurance 
certification 
schemes 
guaranteeing 
‘baseline’ standards 
have been met

Private and national logos 
and brands (non-certified) 
indicating product 
characteristics and farming 
attributes, e.g. ‘product from 
national park’

EU marketing standards
and product directives:
– product classes, e.g. 
'extra', ‘class 1'
– origin / place of farming
– product identities: e.g. 
'milk', 'chocolate'

n
o
i
t
a
i
t
n
e
r
e
f
f
i

D

e
n

i
l
e
s
a
B

Scheme / Certification

Labelling         

Figure 1. Quality and assurance certification schemes and marketing standards  

3. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT 

Consultations on the development of agricultural product quality policy began in 2006 with a 
stakeholder  hearing2,  followed  by  a  conference  in  Brussels3  on  5-6  February  2007.  The 
Commission  also  launched  policy  reviews  of  the  schemes  for  geographical  indications  for 
agricultural  products  and  foodstuffs  and  for  traditional  specialities  guaranteed.  This  work 
culminated in the Green Paper4 consultation and the High Level Conference on Agricultural 
Product Quality held in Prague5 on 12-13 March 2009.  

The  main  messages  from  stakeholders  included  strong  support  for  the  EU’s  main  quality 
schemes  (geographical  indications  and  organic  farming)  and  marketing  standards,  but 
also  called  for  simplification  and  streamlining.  Farmers,  producers  and  consumers  urged 
greater use of place of farming labelling. On the other hand, processors and retailers warned 
that it can be difficult to track the farming origins of ingredients in processed foodstuffs. For 
all  schemes  —  EU,  private  and  national  —  defence  of  the  single  market  and  simplification 

2 

3 
4 

5 

11-12.5.2006, Brussels. 
http://foodqualityschemes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/documents/ReportSTKHHearing_final.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/events/qualityconference/index_en.htm 
Green  Paper  on  agricultural  product  quality:  product  standards,  farming  requirements  and  quality 
schemes – COM(2008) 641, 15.10.2008. 
Conference  conclusions,  see  Council  document,  Brussels,  18  March  2009,  No  7696/09,  AGRI  114, 
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st07/st07696.en09.pdf 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
were  also  strong  messages.  Some  stakeholders,  especially  processors,  warned  against 
developing incoherent schemes that could cause confusion in the marketplace. 

In the light of these consultations and examination of the current measures, the Commission 
has  identified  three  main  issues  to  be  addressed  in  developing  agricultural  product  quality 
policy, namely: 

–  Information:  to  improve  communication  between  farmers,  buyers  and  consumers  about 

agricultural product qualities; 

–  Coherence:  to  increase  the  coherence  of  EU  agricultural  product  quality  policy 

instruments; 

–  Complexity: to make it easier for farmers, producers and consumers to use and understand 

the various schemes and labelling terms. 

The  strategic  orientations  set  out  in  this  Communication  will  now  form  the  focus  of  the 
Commission’s debate on future policy. Agricultural product quality policy should contribute 
to achievement of the objectives of the CAP. In particular, sustainability of farming systems 
should be further enhanced through quality policy, and the farming attributes of products of 
such systems should be better known and communicated to citizens and consumers. 

Against this background, it is proposed to develop agricultural product quality policy through 
a structured approach (see Figure 2), comprising: 

–  For  certification-type  schemes,  the  development  of  guidelines  for  good  functioning  of 

certification schemes, and ensuring coherence of any new EU schemes6. 

–  For  labelling-type  measures,  development  of  EU marketing  standards  within  the  single 

Common Market Organisation. 

In addition, existing EU schemes and marketing standards should be simplified and clarified 
wherever possible. 

6 

Stakeholder comments concerned notably the introduction of the Ecolabel and its potential overlap with 
the  existing  organic  scheme.  The  Commission  will  undertake  a  study  on  this  question.  In  addition, 
Commission is working on Communications on Fair Trade and Animal Welfare Labelling, and plans to 
introduce minimum criteria for voluntary sustainable fisheries labels. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
COMMUNITY GUIDELINES + 
CRITERIA FOR EU SCHEMES

MARKETING STANDARD 
DEVELOPMENT (single CMO)

CE RT IFIC AT ION-TYPE

LAB ELLING-TYPE

PRIVATE OR NATIONAL

EU SCHEMES

MARKETING STANDARDS

B iodiv er sity
Orga nic (pr iv at e s che me )
Or ganolept ic quality
Tra ditiona l
Mounta in c er tified
Anim al welfa re
C ar bon foot print
Fair tr a de
Inte gra ted produc tion

RESERVED TERMS (valu e-added):
free ran ge
trad itional meth od

For food ?

CLASSIFICATION:
extra, class  1, clas s 2
large , me dium, small

I

I

N
O
T
A
T
N
E
R
E
F
F
D

I

I

E
N
L
E
S
A
B

Far m  a ss ure d
Good agr ic ultura l pr ac tice  
c e rtified

PRO DUCT IDENTITY:
butter, fru it juice, chocolate,  wine

ORIGIN / PLACE OF FARMING 
LABELL ING:
b eef, win e, fru it and vegetables, 
hone y, o live oil, orga nic produce

Figure 2. Structure for development of agricultural quality and assurance certification schemes 
and marketing standards  

4. 

EU AGRICULTURAL QUALITY MEASURES 

4.1. 

EU farming requirements 

The  Green  Paper  asked  how  farmers  can  best  show  that  they  have  complied  with  basic  EU 
requirements,  such  as  environmental  rules,  animal  welfare  standards,  and  strict  controls  on 
use  of  pesticides  and  animal  health  products.  Two  possibilities  were  raised:  an  ‘EU 
requirements’ label or logo, or obligatory place-of-farming labelling. 

An ‘EU requirements’ label would be shown on all products (EU or imported) that had been 
farmed  in  line  with  EU  minimum  requirements.  In  the  Green  Paper  responses,  the 
overwhelming  view  from  consumers,  farmers,  processors  and  retailers  and  others,  was 
opposed to such a label. 

On the other hand, many respondents supported greater use of place-of-farming labelling as 
giving  useful  basic  information  about  agricultural  products.  This  is  taken  up  in  the  next 
section on marketing standards. 

4.2.  Marketing standards 

Marketing  standards  and  product  directives  contain  technical  descriptions  of  agricultural 
products,  their  composition,  characteristics  and  the  production  methods  used.  Fisheries 
products are also covered by a specific marketing regime. They have been adopted not only 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
by the EU, but also by multilateral bodies7. There are four types of information contained in 
marketing standards (see Box 1).  

1. RESERVED TERMS:  

Examples:  ‘free  range’  eggs;  ‘barn’  eggs,  'first  cold 
pressed'  extra  virgin  and  virgin  olive  oil,  ‘traditional 
method’ sparkling wine 

2. PRODUCT 
CLASSIFICATION:  

Examples: fruit: extra, class 1, class 2 

eggs: large, medium, small 

3. PRODUCT IDENTITY: 

Examples:  definitions  of  butter,  fruit  juice,  chocolate, 
wine, extra virgin olive oil 

4. ORIGIN or PLACE OF 
FARMING LABELLING: 

Examples: fruit and vegetables: place of harvest 

olive oil: place of harvest and of pressing 

Box 1: Types of marketing standard 

In their responses to the Green Paper, farmers and producers, processors, traders and retailers 
supported marketing standards, saying they are needed for sellers to demonstrate the quality 
of product they offer, and for purchasers to know what they are buying. However, there were 
also calls for simplification. EU marketing standards were criticised for being too detailed, too 
prescriptive  —  relying  on  compulsory  rules  when  voluntary  rules  would  suffice  —  and  for 
being too cumbersome to adapt quickly to changing market circumstances. 

Many respondents to the Green Paper also wanted ‘optional reserved terms’8 to be developed, 
for example to define what can be called ‘mountain product’ and ‘low carbon’. In addition, 
consumers and farmers called for greater use of ‘place of farming’ labelling (see Box 2). 

The Commission intends to address the following aspects of marketing standards: 

–  need for general basic standard: 

Compulsory  rules  could  be  laid  out  in  a  general  basic  marketing  standard.  This 
would  cover  those  matters  where  a  voluntary  approach  might  distort  the  single 
market  or  compulsory  labelling  is  necessary  to  provide  consumers  with  basic 
information about products. 

–  place-of-farming labelling: 

To respond to many consumers’ and farmers’ preferences for labelling that identifies 
the  place  where  agricultural  product  was  farmed,  the  Commission  will  consider 
appropriate  labelling  within  marketing  standards  for  agricultural  products,  while 
taking  into  account  the  specificities  of  some  sectors,  in  particular  concerning 
processed agricultural products. 

7 
8 

e.g. Codex Alimentarius Commission and the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE). 
‘Optional’ reserved terms do not have to be used to describe product in commerce or on labels, but if 
they are used, the product must correspond to the definition laid down. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Place of farming labelling 

A high proportion of consumers (over 60%) consider that it is important to receive origin 
or place-of-farming labelling, when specifically asked. Processors, traders and retailers are 
more  sceptical,  and  point  to  considerable  obstacles  for  multi-ingredient  and  other 
processed products, for example dairy products.9  

Obligatory  country  of  origin  labelling  and/or  place  of  farming  labelling  has  been 
introduced  in  Australia  (all  agricultural  products  and  foodstuffs)  and  the  US  (selected 
agricultural  product  sectors),  among  other  countries.  In  the  EU,  obligatory  place  of 
farming labelling applies to beef and veal, fruit and vegetables, eggs, poultry meat, wine, 
honey, olive oil (from 2009) and EU organic products (from 2010). Origin labelling also 
applies to aquaculture products. 

Box 2: Demand for place of farming labelling 

–  optional reserved terms: 

Optional reserved terms should be used where it is necessary to define information 
about product qualities for consumers (e.g. ‘first cold pressed’ extra virgin and virgin 
olive  oil).  As  a  possible  alternative  to  EU  legislation,  the  Commission  will 
investigate  further  the  option  of  using  CEN,  the  European  Committee  for 
Standardisation, for detailed rules of this type. 

In  addition,  the  Commission  will  examine  the  feasibility  of  laying  down  specific 
optional reserved terms for ‘product of mountain farming’ and ‘traditional product’ 
(see also section 4.5 below). 

One  way  of  setting  more  appropriate  marketing  standards  could  be  to  ask  stakeholders  to 
develop the rules themselves. This is already done for the development of industrial standards 
under CEN (see Box 3). 

The European Committee for Standardisation (CEN)  

CEN  is  a  private  entity  with  30  national  members,  from  EU  Member  States,  and  EFTA 
countries.  CEN  activities  are  the  result  of  collective  activities  of  stakeholders, 
manufacturers,  users,  research  organizations,  government  departments,  and  consumers. 
CEN  develops  voluntary European  Standards  (ENs).  These  become  the  single  common 
standard  in  all  30  countries.  ENs  help  build  a  European  Internal  Market  for  goods  and 
services and assist international trade. 

Box 3: CEN 

–  international standards: 

The Commission will continue to refer to and contribute actively to the development 
of international standards. 

9 

'Place of farming' in the context of marketing standards refers to the place of harvest of crop products, 
birth and raising of livestock, the place of milking for dairy cows, and so on. 'Origin' may refer, in the 
case of a processed product, to the place of last substantial transformation, and therefore not necessarily 
to the 'place of farming' of the agricultural product. The horizontal regulation of labelling of origin and 
of provenance covering all food products is included within the Commission Proposal for a Regulation 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  provision  of  food  information  to  consumers  – 
COM(2008) 40. This proposal is under consideration in the European Parliament and the Council. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
4.3. 

Geographical indications 

Geographical indications are names that identify products10 as originating in a territory where 
a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the product is essentially attributable to its 
geographical origin11. The geographical indications schemes provide protection of intellectual 
property rights for products described by registered geographical indications; and marketing 
assistance,  primarily  by  conveying  information  as  to  compliance  with  the  geographical 
indication system. The schemes enhance the credibility of products in the eyes of consumers 
and enable fair competition between producers 

There  are  three  schemes  (for  wines,  for  spirit  drinks,  and  for  agricultural  products  and 
foodstuffs)  and  two  instruments,  the  PDO  (protected  designation  of  origin)  and  the  PGI 
(protected geographical indication). 

Replies to the Green Paper and earlier stakeholder consultations showed widespread support 
for  the  EU  geographical  indications  system  and  interest  in  better  protection  of  EU 
geographical indications in non-EU countries. However, the geographical indication systems 
need to be looked at and simplified. Stakeholders pointed out the need to retain the reputation 
of products and ensure use of sustainable farming methods as well as a range of issues and 
possible  improvements  in  the  operation  of  current  schemes.  Greater  clarity  is  needed  in  the 
relation  between  the  different  types  of  intellectual  property  and  in  the  use  of  generic  terms. 
Registration procedures are too long. 

Representatives of producers of geographical indication products have called for greater rights 
and  control  over  their  use  —  for  example,  to  control  production  (using  quotas)12,  and  to 
control the use of geographical indication names on the packaging of processed products. 

In the Commission’s view, while the EU geographical indications system is essentially sound 
and delivers benefits to consumers and producers, the need for simplification, greater clarity 
and  streamlining  warrant  a  legislative  reform.  It  is  also  true  that  not  all  the  registered 
geographical indications have a reputation and a commercial potential that transcend national 
borders.  The  Commission  will  therefore  prepare  the  ground  for  a  possible  recast  of  the 
geographical indications legislation on the following lines: 

–  Simplification: further consideration should be given to bringing together the three systems 
for  wines,  spirits,  and  agricultural  products  and  foodstuffs  into  a  single  regulatory 
structure, while preserving the specificities of each system. Further simplification options 
should be examined: maybe merging the existing PDO and PGI instruments and providing 
for  different  levels  of  EU  protection.  Any  new  system  should  preserve  the  link  with  the 
area of production, the collective nature of the geographical indication, and guarantee EU 
recognition.  It  should  keep  aiming  at  improving  consumer  recognition  of  geographical 
indications  and  ensuring  efficient  enforcement  and  promotion  of  a  credible  system  of 
geographical indications. 

–  Clarification of intellectual property rights, and particularly the relation between different 

types of intellectual property; 

10 
11 
12 

The geographical indication system covers also fisheries products. 
As defined in WTO TRIPS Agreement Article 22(1). 
The Commission will prepare a report of the impact of ending milk quotas on production and marketing 
of cheese covered by geographical indications. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
–  Generic terms (i.e. names that have become the common name for an agricultural product 
or  foodstuff):  the  Commission  will  consider  whether  any  clarifications  are  needed,  in 
particular  in  identifying  generic  terms  and  the  scope  of  protection  of  registered 
geographical indications on some generic terms; 

–  Information  where  necessary  on  the  place  of  farming  of  raw  materials  where  this  is 

different from the place indicated by the geographical indication; 

–  Possible extension of certification requirements to different operators in the supply chain 

(such as importers and distributors) as is the case for organic products. 

On several issues, the Commission concludes that guidelines need to be developed on: 

–  using  geographical  indications  as  advertised  ingredients  on  the  labels  of  processed 

products; 

–  encouraging producer groups to include sustainability criteria in product specifications. 

In the international context, the geographical indications system is well established in the EU 
and in many non-EU countries. However, in some trading partners, specific legislation does 
not  exist  or  EU  names  are  not  widely  protected  within  the  non-EU-country  systems.  The 
Commission proposes: 

–  to  seek  enhanced  protection  in  non-EU  countries  through  improvements  to  the  WTO 

agreement, and through bilateral agreements with trading partners; 

–  to  include  geographical  indications  in  the  scope  of  the  ‘Anti-counterfeiting  trade 
agreement’  as  well  as  the  forthcoming  ‘European  observatory  on  counterfeiting  and 
piracy’; 

–  that  non-EU  geographical  indications  protected  in  the  EU  from  bilateral  agreements  are 

protected in principle in official EU register(s).  

Finally,  the  Commission  wants  to  shorten  processes  by  streamlining  administrative 
procedures:  although  registration  periods  have  improved  considerably  since  2006,  the 
Commission  intends  to  reduce  delays  by  completing  its  analysis  and  reaching  the  final 
decision  more  quickly,  partly  by  early  rejection  of  clearly  insufficient  submissions,  whilst 
fully observing the regulations in force. 

4.4. 

Organic farming 

Since 1991, the EU organic farming regulation has protected the identity and the added value 
of the ‘organic’, ‘biological’, ‘ecological’, ‘eco’ and ‘bio’ labels. Organic farming is defined 
in  EU  legislation  and  at  international  level  in  a  Codex  Alimentarius  guideline.  This  means 
consumers  can  be  confident  of  the  quality  of  organic  products  and  it  facilitates  trade  in  the 
single market and with non-EU countries. 

EU organic legislation was revised13 in 2007 as part of the 2004 Organic Action Plan. But the 
level of market segmentation along national lines is a persistent problem in the EU, partly due 

13 

Inter alia, the regulation now covers aquaculture. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
to the lack of mutual acceptance between private organic labelling schemes and a proliferation 
of organic logos.  

The Commission plans the following developments for organic farming policy: 

–  a new EU organic logo is under development. It will apply obligatorily to all EU farmed 
products from 2010, and should help to break down barriers to trade in organic products in 
the single market; 

–  a  report  on  the  application  of  the  new  regulation  will  be  presented  to  Council  and 

Parliament in 2011; 

–  in order to foster trade in organic products, the Commission will seek mutual recognition 
of organic standards with non-EU countries and will contribute to the development of the 
Codex Alimentarius organic guideline.  

4.5. 

Traditional specialities 

The  EU  scheme  for  registration  of  ‘traditional  specialities  guaranteed’  was  intended  to 
identify  and  protect  the  names  of  traditional  products.  However,  with  only  20  registrations 
since 1992, it has clearly failed to reach its potential. Despite the low take-up, responses from 
stakeholders to consultations have revealed support for the current scheme. 

The  Commission  proposes  to  investigate  the  feasibility  of  introducing  the  term  ‘traditional 
product’  as  a  reserved  term  defined  within  marketing  standards  (see  section  4.2  above)  and 
abolishing the current scheme. 

5. 

DEVELOPMENT OF EU FRAMEWORK FOR QUALITY POLICY 

5.1. 

Coherence of new EU schemes 

In addition to the existing EU quality schemes, the Commission is considering the possibility 
to  develop  a  framework  for  animal  welfare  labelling  and, subject to  a  feasibility study, will 
extend the Ecolabel to food and feed. Council has asked the Commission to look at labelling 
options  in  the  complex  area  of  carbon  footprint.  Stakeholders  have  proposed  further  EU 
schemes  particularly  in  the  environmental  sphere,  such  as  product  of  high-nature  value 
farming. 

The  Commission  intends  to  ensure  coherence  of  future  EU  agricultural  product  quality 
schemes and initiatives by proactively assessing the value added and advisability of any new 
schemes such as those mentioned above in collaboration with all services concerned. 

5.2. 

Guidelines for private and national food certification schemes 

Private  and  national  food  certification  schemes  have  the  potential  to  meet  the  information 
needs  of  consumers  and  buyers  about  agricultural  product  characteristics  and  farming 
attributes.  

Performance  in  the  market  is  likely  to  continue  to  be  the  main  determinant  of  success  or 
failure  of  private  schemes,  which  will  evolve  according  to  how  well  they  meet  consumer 

EN 

12 

   EN 

demand,  how  much  consumers  are  willing  to  pay  for  certified  goods,  and  how  expensive 
scheme participation is for farmers and producers. 

Some stakeholders have argued that private schemes can have drawbacks: threats to the single 
market, questions as to the transparency of schemes (and credibility of the claims) particularly 
for  schemes  that  certify  to  baseline  requirements,  potential  for  misleading  consumers, 
tendency for schemes to be mistaken for official standards, burdens on farmers (particularly 
where they have to join several schemes) and impacts on international trade14, especially with 
developing countries (see Box 4). 

Developing countries 

Private certification schemes can act as catalysts for developing country access to the EU 
market.  Viewed  positively,  private  schemes  present  an  opportunity  that  developing 
countries can use to their advantage by providing a common language within the supply 
chain and gaining the confidence of EU consumers in food product quality. The need to 
comply  with  standards  can  act  as  an  incentive  for  the  modernisation  of  developing 
countries’ export supply chains. It is also argued that increased attention to the adoption 
of ‘good practices’ in agriculture and food manufacture could also benefit the domestic 
population, producers, and the environment. 

On  the  other  hand,  private  scheme  requirements  can  be  difficult  to  meet  for  some 
producers in certain developing countries. In the light of compliance costs, international 
donor assistance plays an important role in securing participation of small and medium-
sized businesses, and smallholder farmers in developing countries. 

Box 4. Food quality certification schemes in the international context 

On the positive side, the Commission notes that the issue of consumer confusion arising from 
different schemes with similar objectives is being taken up by initiatives such as the ISEAL 
Code  of  Good  Practice15,  which  claims  to  be  the  international  reference  for  setting  credible 
voluntary  social  and  environmental  standards.  Moreover,  proponents  of  existing  schemes 
claim they have already taken major steps to harmonise. 

In the light of these developments and stakeholder comments in response to the Green Paper, 
the Commission does not support legislation for private and national certification schemes at 
this stage. While recognising the private status of schemes, the Commission plans to develop 
good practice guidelines for the operation of schemes relating to agricultural product quality. 
The guidelines will be drawn up in consultation with stakeholders. 

6. 

CONCLUSION 

The  strategic  orientations  set  out  in  this  Communication  offer  a  logical  framework  for  the 
future  policy  on  agricultural  product  quality.  Comments  from  the  other  Institutions  but  also 
from stakeholders will help to further refine and clarify these suggestions. 

Taking into account comments on this Communication, and in the light of any further analysis 
where necessary, the Commission will: 

14 
15 

Discussions on private standards are ongoing in the WTO SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary) Committee. 
The  ISEAL  Alliance  defines  and  codifies  best  practice  at  international  level  for  the  design  and 
implementation of social and environmental standards. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
–  develop  guidelines  for  agricultural  product  quality  certification  schemes  in  consultation 

with the Advisory Group on Quality; 

–  prepare  the  ground  for  possible  legislative  initiatives  on  geographical  indications, 
traditional  specialities  guaranteed,  and  marketing  standards,  including  optional  reserved 
terms; 

–  investigate the potential for using the CEN standard setting body; 

–  improve recognition of EU quality schemes in non-EU countries. 

This  overall  approach  and  practical  steps  should, 
improve 
communication  between  farmers,  buyers  and  consumers  on  the  quality  of  agricultural 
products, unify EU rules on agricultural product quality, and simplify schemes and labels. 

the  medium 

term, 

in 

EN 

14 

   EN