Commission Staff Working Document - Improving price transparency along the food supply chain for consumers and policy makers - Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions- A better functioning food supply chain in Europe {COM(2009) 591 final}
Date: 2009-10-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-foodstuffs, competition, consumer price, food price, foodstuff, impact study, price fluctuation, price of agricultural produce, restriction on competition, supply

EN

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 28.10.2009 
SEC(2009) 1446 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Improving price transparency along the food supply chain for consumers and 
policy makers 

Accompanying document to the 

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

A better functioning food supply chain in Europe 

{COM(2009) 591 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Consumers' overall perception of the food market ...................................................... 3 

Collection of price levels of comparable consumer products at the level of the 
European Union and the Member States...................................................................... 5 

Further developments of the European Food Prices Monitoring tool........................ 11 

Price comparison tools for food products .................................................................. 12 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 14 

ANNEX 1: Consumer Prices for Individual Products across Member-States ......................... 16 

ANNEX 2: Comparison of Consumer Prices and Commodity Prices ..................................... 17 

EN 

2 

   EN 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Improving price transparency along the food supply chain for consumers and policy 
makers 

1. 

1. 

2. 

CONSUMERS' OVERALL PERCEPTION OF THE FOOD MARKET  

The  Commission  has  studied  consumers'  perception  of  the  food  market  through  a 
Consumer Satisfaction survey1 for three markets (meat, fruit and vegetables and non-
alcoholic  beverages).  The  survey  shows,  among  other  issues,  whether  consumers 
perceive  prices  given  by  retailers  as  transparent;  whether  consumers  are  able  to 
compare prices and the kind of problems consumers encounter while buying food.  

Figure 1 shows consumers' overall satisfaction with four aspects of the functioning of 
the  market:  price  (whether  retailer  offers  reasonable  value  for  money),  quality  of 
services, trust (whether retailer is trustworthy and adheres to the rules set in place to 
protect  consumers)  and  market  factors  (such  as  competition,  price  and  quality 
comparability between retailers, cross-border purchasing). 

Figure 1. Levels of consumers overall satisfaction  

   EU27 Overall satisfaction

EU27 Over all dissatisf action

s
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
c
d
e
i
f
s
i
t
a
s

7
2
U
E
%

80

75

70

65

60

55

Overall price
Overall quality of ser vices
Overall trust
Overall market factors

Meat

Fruit and
vegetables

Non-alcoholic
beverages

s
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
c

i

d
e
i
f
s
i
t
a
s
s
d
7
2
U
E
%

5

4

3

2

1

0

Meat

Fruit and
vegetables

Non-alcoholic
bever ages

Source: IPSOS Consumer Satisfaction survey, 2008 

3. 

4. 

Consumers'  opinions  on  whether  retailers  offer  reasonable  value  for  money  vary 
depending  on  the  market.  Consumers  are  quite  satisfied  with  the  non-alcoholic 
beverages  and  meat  sectors  (68%  and  66%  respectively)  but  less  so  for  fruit  and 
vegetables  (62%).  One  of  the  possible  reasons  is  that  it  is  probably  easier  for 
consumers to evaluate and compare beverages than vegetables.  

Most European consumers seem to be satisfied with the choice of prices in the three 
food markets, although less so again for fruit and vegetables (69% for non-alcoholic 
beverages,  65%  for  meat,  61%  for  fruit  and  vegetables).  The  fruit  and  vegetables 
market  also  shows  the  greatest  differences  between  Member  States.  In  fact  the 

1 

Consumer Satisfaction survey conducted for the European Commission by IPSOS Belgium in 2008 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
percentage  of  dissatisfied  consumers  in  SE,  DK  and  EE  ranks  between  15%  and 
20%, considerably above the EU27 average of 4.7%. 

5. 

The majority of EU consumers agree that in the three markets prices are clear and 
accurate, i.e. consumers know exactly what they are going to pay before paying for 
the  product.  The  percentage  of  consumer  satisfied  with  price  presentation  (non-
alcoholic beverages: 75%; meat: 74%; fruit and vegetables: 71%) is higher than the 
corresponding figure for the other areas considered e.g. product labelling or choice of 
prices. This suggests that in most cases prices are rather clearly displayed in shops. 
In addition, although the majority of problems reported by consumers in the survey 
are  generated  by  the  quality  of  food  products,  consumers  also  have  problems  with 
prices, and perceive them as too high, not properly indicated or advertised (figure 2).  

Figure 2: Consumers' negative experiences  

Market

Fresh fruit and vegetables

Meat

Non-alcoholic beverages

% of 
consumers 
who have 
experienced 
1-4 problems Type of problem

EU27: 12% quality of the product: 83%
prices: 16%
quality of the service: 8%

EU27: 7% quality of the product: 74%
prices: 15%
quality of the service: 10%
EU27: 3% quality of the product: 42%
prices: 23%
quality of the service: 16%

% of consumers who 
communicated the 
problem to the retailer

EU27: 61%
EU15: 62%
NMS12: 54%
EU27: 70%
EU15: 73%
NMS12: 53%
EU27: 64%
EU15: 66%
NMS12: 58%

% of consumers 
satisfied with the way 
their retailer dealt with 
their complaint

% of consumers who 
took further actions 
against their retailer

EU27: 77%

EU27: 3%

EU27: 77%

EU27: 5%

EU27: 64%

EU27: 6%

Source: IPSOS Consumer Satisfaction survey, 2008 

6. 

Most  EU  consumers  agree  that  it  is  easy  to  compare  prices  of  products  at  their 
retailer (71% for non-alcoholic beverages, 65% for fruit and vegetables and 67% for 
the meat sector). However, comparability of prices between different retailers seems 
to be problematic: only 63%, 60% and 58% respectively. Moreover, consumers are 
less satisfied with this aspect than with e.g. opening hours or transparency of prices. 
Comparability  of  prices  between  different  retailers  causes  more  difficulties  in  the 
food sectors than in other markets (Figure 3). This might be related to the nature of 
food products and also the sales channels used in food markets, where the share of 
traditional trade is higher than in non-food markets. However, this data suggests that 
there  may  be  a  need  for  development  of  appropriate,  widely  accessible  tools  that 
would provide consumers with possibility to compare prices of food products. 

Figure 3: EU27 average % of consumers satisfied with comparability of prices  

Price comparability between retailers

Fresh  fruit 
and 
vegetables

59

Non-
alcoholic 
beverages

Entert ainmen
t and leisure 
goods

63

62

Meat

58

Other  HH 
electrical 
equipment

67

Clothing and 
f ootwear
64  

ICT

66

Source: IPSOS Consumer Satisfaction survey, 2008 

7. 

Transparency  and  comparability  of  prices  is  a  key  issue,  for  consumers  and 
policymakers.  Consumers  need  accessible,  accurate  and  timely  information  on 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
8. 

2. 

9. 

prices. Policymakers also need reliable data to assess the functioning of the markets 
of goods across the European Union and at national level.  

Two  initiatives  are  needed:  one  for  policymakers  to  collect  data  at  EU  level  by 
Eurostat  and  national  statistical  offices,  and  one  for  consumers,  through  price 
comparison websites covering national markets.  

COLLECTION  OF  PRICE  LEVELS  OF  COMPARABLE  CONSUMER  PRODUCTS  AT  THE 
LEVEL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE MEMBER STATES 

A comparison of the general level of food prices across the EU using indices from 
the Purchasing Power Parity exercise carried out by Eurostat every 3 years and then 
updated  by  Harmonised  Index  of  Consumer  Prices  shows  important  differences  in 
price levels between the Member States.  

Figure 4: Indices of food and non-alcoholic beverages 

Indices of food and non-alcoholic beverages 2008

0
0
1
=
7
2
U
E

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

K
D

E

I

I

F

U
L

E
S

T

I

E
B

T
A

Y
C

E
D

K
U

R
F

L
E

I

S

S
E

T
M

L
N

E
E

T
P

V
L

U
H

Z
C

K
S

T
L

L
P

O
R

G
B

7
2
U
E

Source: Eurostat Purchasing Power Parity indices

10. 

11. 

Below  the  European  average  are  Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Latvia, 
Lithuania,  Hungary,  Malta,  Poland,  Romania,  Slovenia,  Slovakia,  the  Netherlands, 
Portugal,  and  Spain.  The  most  expensive  countries  as  far  as  food  is  concerned  are 
Denmark,  Finland,  Ireland,  Luxembourg  and  Sweden.  The  differences  between 
countries generally mirror the overall standard of living in the Member States2, with 
some  exceptions  e.g.  the  low  prices  level  of  food  in  the  Netherlands.  It  is  also 
noteworthy that the United Kingdom has lower prices than e.g. Ireland and Sweden 
even if it is on a comparable standard of living. 

In  addition  to  the  analysis  based  on  Purchasing  Power  Parities,  the  collection  and 
analysis  of  prices  at  the  product  level  across  the  internal  market  has  also  been 
developed  to  help  policymakers  at  EU  and  national  level  to  benchmark  consumer 
markets across the EU. To this end, the products should be sufficiently comparable 
across  the  countries  and  also  sufficiently  representative  of  price  developments  in 
their respective markets in the European Union as a whole. The collection of prices 

2 

As  the  proxy  for  the  standard  of  living  is  used  the  actual  individual  consumption  (individual 
consumption and public expenditures on health and education) in euros per inhabitant. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of consumer products is also intended to serve as an input to the analysis of particular 
food supply chains.  

12. 

13. 

14. 

The first collection of prices of comparable consumer products which forms part of 
the  EU  food  prices  monitoring  tool  has  been  conducted  for  the  Consumer  Markets 
Scoreboard  published  in  2009.  An  example  of  analysis  based  on  this  data  is 
presented  below.  It  is  mostly  based  on  the  data  published  by  Eurostat  in  February 
2009.  The  publication  was  an  experiment  on  the  basis  of  the  samples  of  prices 
gathered by the National Statistical Institutes of the Member States for the monthly 
Harmonised  Index  of  Consumer  Prices  (HICP)  statistics3.  It  shows  the  potential 
future applications of the data once they are collected regularly as a part of the EU 
food prices monitoring tool. 

The  price  data  were  collected  in  June  2008.  The  samples  of  products  surveyed  are 
representative  for  the  consumption  patterns  of  the  particular  Member  States  and 
therefore differ to some extent from each other.  

The  table  of  prices  collected  and  recalculated  into  Euros  according  to  June  2008 
exchange rates is attached as Annex 1 in the end of the document. 

15. 

It should be kept in mind that: 

–  The  general  product  description  allows  for  differences  between  the  product 

descriptions used in the individual Member States. 

–  Product  descriptions  used  in  the  individual  countries  may  allow  for  a  smaller  or 
larger  variability  of  products  within  the  samples.  In  some  cases  the  national 
product  descriptions  used  exceeded  some  qualifications  as  given  in  the  general 
product descriptions. This was indicated by footnotes in the Eurostat document or 
the product was deleted from the table depending on whether the deviation from 
the  general  product  description  was  expected  to  have  significant  impact  on  the 
price level. 

–  Products,  even  when  physically  comparable  may  have  very  different  market 
positions across countries national markets. E.g. mineral water may be a locally-
sourced  everyday  purchase  for  many  families  in  countries  like  IT  or  ES,  but  an 
occasional purchase for only a small proportion of households in others (e.g. UK). 
Ground  coffee  may  be  another  example  of  a  product  with  a  different  market 
position in different countries.  

–  The number of countries for which the prices of products according to the general 
product  descriptions  were  available  for  publication  varies  across  products  (from 
21 as a maximum to 8 for natural yoghurt). 

The graph below provides the information about degree of differentiation (measured 
by  coefficient  of  variation  –  the  standard  deviation  divided  by  the  mean)  for  the 
sample of products for which experimental data was released by Eurostat. 

research 

report  going 

A 
into  more  detail  can  be 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/hicp/documents/Tab/Tab/04_METH_CPR_-
_FEB_2009_WEB_0.pdf 

found  on 

the  Eurostat  website: 

16. 

3 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
Figure 5: Dispersion of price levels for selected products across Member States 

Coefficient of variation of prices selected food products across Member States; June 2008

Mineral water
Loaf of white bread
Chicken eggs
Ice cream
Minced beef
Tomato Ketchup
Sausage
Natural yoghurt
Potatoes
Pork, cutlet (escalope)
Olive Oil
Coffee
Long-grain, white rice
Black tea
Milk chocolate
Orange juice
Whole chicken
Wheat flour
Jam
Tinned pink tuna
Carrots
Spaghetti
Apples
Fresh milk, unskimmed
Butter
White sugar

70%

58%

49%
48%

44%

42%
42%
41%
41%
40%

A high coefficient of 
variation means that there 
are strong differences in 
price levels of a product 
between Member States

36%
35%
34%

32%

29%
28%
27%
27%
26%
25%
24%

22%
22%
21%

19%

14%

Average for analysed 
food products: 34%

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

Source:

Based on experimental prices’ collection – see the European food prices monitoring tool

The  degree  of  differentiation  of  prices  varies  from  one  product  to  another.  Several 
factors, such as differences in standard of living, differences in levels of value added 
tax, or the cultural preferences of the population may explain some of the differences 
in  price  levels.  Limited  intra-EU  trade  flows  of  food  products  make  food  markets 
mostly  local  and  contribute  to  the  dispersion  of  price  levels  across  Member  States. 
However, other factors, such as market dynamics and competition intensity may also 
play a role. For example, two products which are often locally-sourced and similar 
such  as  potatoes  and  carrots  display  very  different  price  dispersion  (~40%  for 
potatoes and ~20% for carrots). 

As to this particular data source, the variation is often related to the differences in 
product  description  between  the  countries.  This  may  be  the  case  of  white  bread 
(according  to  different  culinary  traditions),  chicken  eggs  (different  sizes),  and 
minced  beef  (sometimes  replaced  by  minced  pork).  On  the  other  hand,  the  highest 
differentiated prices of mineral water seem to be more difficult to explain by product 
difference. The differentiation of prices of ice cream or sausages cannot be explained 
by differentiated product descriptions either.  

Cultural  habits  and  taste  preferences  vary  widely  across  the  European  Union.  This 
may  explain  the  high  variation  of  the  prices  of  bread,  because  different  kinds  of 
bread are covered by the price collection in different countries. This may be the case 
for olive oil, which is produced locally and commonly consumed in Southern Europe 
but much less so in Northern and Eastern Europe. 

Another  explanation  of  differences  in  price  levels  lies  in  the  tradability  of  the 
considered food products. In general, food is produced locally, with some exceptions. 
One  may  be  sugar,  the  prices  of  which  are  homogenous.  On  the  other  hand,  the 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
21. 

differentiation of prices of mineral water may be explained by the local origin of the 
product.  

The  general  standard  of  living  of  the  population  can  influence  food  prices  in 
different  ways.  First,  if  food  is  produced  locally,  the  labour  costs  may  be  lower  or 
higher.  Finally,  the  providers  may  adjust  to  the  level  of  purchasing  power, 
differentiating prices between countries (in particular in the case of multinationals). 
The dispersion of the majority of retail food prices is lower than the dispersion of the 
standard of living across Member States (around 0.50). It is to be expected that price 
levels are higher in richer countries. In contrast, it is worrying if price differentiation 
is  high  and  not  connected  to  the  differences  in  the  standard  of  living  of  particular 
countries.  The  graph  below  captures  this  relationship  on  two  axes.  The  horizontal 
one shows the variation of prices of a given food product. The vertical axis shows the 
correlation  between  the  prices  of  the  product  by  country  and  the  standard  of  living 
(actual individual consumption) per inhabitant in this country. The graph is divided 
into  4  parts  by  the  median  of  variation  and  by  the  0,4  correlation  threshold 
(separating highly and weakly correlated items for this number of variables). 

Figure 6: Comparison of price variations and consumption levels 

n
o
i
t
p
m
u
s
n
o
c
l
a
u
d
i
v
i
d
n

i

l
a
u
t
c
a
h
t
i

w
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
r
r
o
c
n
o
s
r
a
e
P

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

Apples

Whole chicken

Chicken eggs

Potatoes

Sausage

Minced beef

Carrots

Long-grain rice

Tinned pink tuna

Natural youghurt

Loaf of w hite bread

Pork cutlet

Sugar

Wheat flour

Fresh m ilk unskim m ed

Spaghetti

Tom ato ketchup

Jam

Black tea

Orange juice

Butter

Milk chocolate

Ice cream

Mineral w ater

Coffee

Olive oil

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Price variation across Member States

Source: own calculations based on Eurostat data 

22. 

The  different  quadrants  of  this  graph  correspond  to  different  situations.  Prices  of 
products  in  the  upper  right  hand-side  quadrant  (such  as  minced  beef)  are  highly 
differentiated, but they are also rather closely correlated with the standard of living. 
The  may  be  qualified  as  fragmented  and  connected to local conditions  (labour cost 
and purchasing power of the population). Prices in both left-hand quadrants are little 
differentiated. Thus those markets may be qualified as more integrated. In most cases 
prices are also correlated with the standard of living.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
23. 

24. 

The  lower  quadrant  on  the  right-hand  side  of  this  graph  indicates  products  where 
market malfunctioning may be the case. The products we find here are characterised 
by relatively high price variation and, at the same time, low correlation with the level 
of living. Thus, obviously, the markets are fragmented and, moreover, the standard of 
living does not explain variation. The products in this quadrant are: ice cream, olive 
oil,  mineral  water  and  coffee.  In  the  case  of  olive  oil  it  may  be  explained  by  the 
"cultural" and local character of this good: it is particularly expensive in the Czech 
Republic, Hungary and Poland, where it is not a good of everyday use, contrary to 
Spain or Portugal, where it is in common use. In the case of coffee, some outliers are 
due to different package size (coffee in smaller packages is more expensive when the 
price is further recalculated into common units). Finally, ice cream and mineral water 
are  difficult  to  explain.  As  the  first  round  of  the  collection  was  experimental,  it  is 
difficult to identify precise reasons of differences in some cases.  

The  collection  of  prices  of  consumer  goods  also  permits  some  analysis  of  the 
performance of the food supply chain. The analysis covers only the simplest food 
supply  chains,  for  which  it  is  easy  to  identify  the  agricultural  input  (minced  beef, 
pork cutlet, whole chicken, fresh milk, eggs). Tables in Annex 2 show that prices of 
some  agricultural  commodities  are  much  more  harmonized  than  prices  of  listed 
consumer  products.  This  is  the  case  of  minced  beef  (indicator  of  variation  of 
consumer  prices  0.44  and  of  bulls  carcass  0.25),  of  pork  (cutlets  0.40;  pig  meat 
carcass 0.09) and of eggs (consumer prices of eggs 0.49 ; and of eggs sold by farms – 
0.34).  Consumer  markets  for  these  products  were  more  fragmented  than  related 
agricultural  commodity  markets.  In  some  cases  (minced  beef,  eggs)  it  may  be  the 
impact  of  differences  in  consumer  product  descriptions.  In  the  case  of  milk,  the 
situation  is  the  reverse  (consumer  markets  are  less  fragmented  than  those  of 
agricultural goods)4. A direct comparison of consumer prices of final output and of 
unit prices of agricultural input gives very different results across countries. It should 
be however kept in mind that agricultural prices like consumer prices are taken for 
June  2008,  which  was  a  peak  of  commodity  prices.  The  peak  in  consumer  price 
indices for food products came only later in 2008 or early 2009. 

4 

Milk prices at farm-gate level may significantly differ across Member States. However, this is mainly 
linked to the product-mix of the dairy industry and to the perishability of the product which limits its 
tradability (as compared to other agricultural products). 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
Figure 7: Ratio consumer price (minced beef) to commodity price (carcass) 

BEEF

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

BG CZ DK IT

LV LT LU HU MT PL RO FI UK

Source: Annex 2

Figure 8: Ratio consumer price (pork cutlet) to commodity price (carcass) 

PORK

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

CZ EL IT LV LT LU HU MT AT PL PT RO SK FI

Source: Annex 2

Figure 9: Ratio consumer price (whole chicken) to commodity price (carcass) 

CHICKEN

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

BG CZ EE IE EL ES IT CY LV LT HU MT AT PL PT RO SL SK UK

Source: Annex 2

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
Figure 10: Ratio consumer price (fresh milk) to commodity price (milk producer price) 

MILK

4,0
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0

BG CZ DK EE IE EL ES CY LV LT LU HU AT PL PT SL SK FI UK

Source: Annex 2

Figure 11: Ratio consumer price (chicken eggs) to commodity price (fresh shell eggs) 

EGGS

4,0
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0

BG CZ DK IE EL ES CY LV LT HU MT AT PL PT RO SL SK FI UK

Source: Annex 2

25. 

3. 

26. 

This example shows the potential of future analyses of food supply chain based on 
the level of prices at different stages. 

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN FOOD PRICES MONITORING TOOL  

The  comparison  of  food  prices  as  paid  by  consumer  across  Europe  set  out  in  this 
paper based on the available data suggests a number of possible improvements: 

•  A  much  broader  number  of  prices  of  comparable  food  products,  covering 

categories of food as detailed as possible. 

•  Indices  of  price  developments  that  are  in  a  classification  coherent  with  the  one 

used for price levels. 

•  As  consumer  prices  change  quickly  and  there  may  be  a  need  to  take  actions 
rapidly, there may be a need for more frequent, preferably monthly, availability of 
detailed prices of food.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
4. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

30. 

•  The analysis revealed the need for a more detailed classification of food products 
into processed and non-processed. Moreover, a more detailed classification would 
help detect differences in price behaviour due to the length of food supply chain. 

PRICE COMPARISON TOOLS FOR FOOD PRODUCTS 

The wider development of price comparison tools such as website in Member States 
would help consumers be better informed about differences in prices in their home. 
These differences might be very significant. Consumers aware of the prices of food 
products  would  be  able  to  switch  to  another  retailer  in  order  to  save  money.  Such 
behaviour  could  influence  retailers  and  put  pressure  on  them  to  revise  their  price 
levels. 

The need for price comparison tools was examined by the Belgian institute CRIOC-
OIVO (Research and Information Centre for the Consumer Organisations). In August 
2007  they  interviewed  484  Belgian  consumers  by  phone  asking  about  their 
perceptions of 17 chosen commercial price comparison websites. The results showed 
that  34%  of  the  respondents  who  actually  bought  goods  on  the  Internet  used  the 
websites to compare between the same products and search for the cheapest offer and 
70%  of  all  respondents  perceive  such  tools  as  useful.  Respondents  also  stressed  a 
need  for  transparency  and  reliability  of  such  websites,  which  could  be  obtained  if 
public authorities played a watchdog role and certified these information services.5 

Consultation  with  stakeholders  revealed  that  there  is  a  strong  desire  for  price 
comparison services and that they would contribute to better informed choices made 
by  consumers.  Most  consumer  organisations  regard  it  a  necessity  and  support  it 
strongly.  However,  they  often  mention  a  problem  of  financing  such  initiatives. 
Usually  consumer  organisations  do  not  have  sufficient  resources  to  conduct  price 
comparison  surveys  on  a  regular  basis.  However,  in  several  EU  countries  price 
comparing tools have been developed with financial support from the government.  

The  website  www.precenimocene.si,  managed  by 
the  Slovene  Consumers' 
Association and supported financially by the Ministry of Economy in Slovenia is a 
good  example.  It  provides  consumers  with  a  database  including  8  food  product 
groups, divided into 59 subgroups (e.g. Coffee, Beer) and over 1700 different prices. 
Consumers can check a price of a detailed product given per unit across 8 stores: 4 
hypermarkets,  1  supermarket  and  3  discounters,  belonging  to  7  retailer  chains.  The 
Slovene  Consumers  Association  claims  they  are  satisfied  with  the  system: 
"Consumers,  media  and  renowned  Slovene  economists  have  praised  our  activity, 
citing  our  activities  as  one  of  the  important  reasons  that  the  price  increases  were 
reduced in the first half of 2008 and stabilised in September."6 Through the website, 
the NGO also educates consumers, making them aware that “Special offer does not 
always mean the best price" or advising them to compare the unit prices.  

5 
6 

For more details see http://www.oivo-crioc.org/files/fr/3098fr.pdf 
Information about the website was sent by ZPS – Slovene Consumers Association to DG SANCO B1 
on 16.10.2008 and updated in May 2009  

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
31. 

32. 

33. 

34. 

Another example is the Italian Mister Prezzi7 , operated by the Ministry of Economic 
Development. It covers 16 food categories and data is updated on a monthly basis. In 
Cyprus,  the  consumer  authorities  carry  out  weekly  price  observations,  results  of 
which are provided for consumers on-line.  

Good practice can also be found in Ireland. In July 2009 the Irish National Consumer 
Agency published their latest grocery survey report, which focuses on grocery prices 
collected  across  the  country  in  a  number  of  retailers.  The  report  differentiates 
between branded products and retailers' own brands – separate data collections have 
been dedicated to each group. Apart from the report, the agency's website provides 
consumers  with  specific  data.  The  grocery  price  check  survey  is  carried  out 
biannually, starting from June 2007.8 

Apart  from  the  public  bodies,  there  are  also  private  initiatives.  In  the  UK  the 
website www.mysupermarket.co.uk allows consumers to create a basket of products 
and  check  in  which  retailer  chain  they  are  able  to  obtain  the  best  offer.  They  can 
choose  between  4  grocery  retailers9.  The  information  is  updated  regularly  and 
includes current promotions. 

Price  comparison  services  are  developing  and  consumers  tend  to  use  them  more 
often. However, they are still not very common for food products. On the one hand, 
many  private  price  comparison  websites profit  from producers' advertisements, and 
not  many  food  producers  use  this  means  to  advertise  their  products.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  possible  that  consumers  perceive  savings  that  could  be  obtained  by 
choosing the cheapest individual food products as rather minor comparing to savings 
which could be achieved due to comparing prices of e.g. electronic goods, whereas 
European  households  actually  spend  twice  as  much  on  food  products  than  on 
furnishing and household equipments. 

Consumer satisfaction survey – Price comparison on the internet 

The consumer satisfaction survey revealed that: 

•  Fresh  fruits  and  vegetables  market:  Only  3%  of  EU  consumers  have  used  the 
internet  to  compare  prices  of  fresh  fruit  and  vegetables.  However,  12%  did  so  in 
Denmark, 10% in the UK and 9% in Slovakia.10 

•  Meat: Only 3% of EU consumers have used the Internet to compare prices of meat. 

However, 11% have in Denmark, 9% in Slovakia and 7% in the UK.11 

35. 

In some Member States food prices are collected and presented to the consumers as 
regular reports.  

7 
8 

9 
10 

11 

http://www.osservaprezzi.it/livelli/livellideiprezzi.asp 
http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/News_+_Research/Press%20Releases/Biannual_grocery_survey_ 
July_2009.html 
Based on ranking of the UK top grocery retailers in 2008 drawn up by PlanetRetail 
"Survey  on  consumer  satisfaction  with  the  retail  distribution  of  goods"  by  IPSOS  Belgium  for  the 
European Commission, Health and consumer Protection Directorate-General", March 2009 
Idem 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
36. 

37. 

38. 

39. 

5. 

40. 

41. 

12 

13 

14 
15 

Test-Achats,  the  Belgian  consumers'  organisation,  conducts  a  yearly  survey 
comparing  prices  of  basic  consumer  products  across  different  retailers  in  different 
parts  of  the  country.  KEPKA,  a  Greek  consumer  NGO,  compares  prices  across 
borders.  The  report  from  May  2008  comparing  prices  between  Greece  and  Berlin 
showed  that  prices  in  Greece  were  on  average  30-40%  higher.  These  results  have 
been  sent  to  the  Greek  competition  authorities.  After  publication  of  the  report,  in 
May 2008, the Greek government accepted they had to take some action12. 

Private price comparison websites have developed together with the development of 
the Internet. They work as a valuable source of traffic for many Internet traders (e.g. 
a group of European price comparison sites, which operate in 7 countries, claims to 
have more than 26,5 million unique visitors per month13). An increase in the usage of 
price  comparison  services  has  been  observed  in  the  current  economic  downturn, 
which  can  be  explained  by  consumers'  higher  price-sensitivity.  43%  of  on-line 
traders who responded to a survey conducted in the US in August-September 2008 
claimed  that,  comparing  to  the  previous  year,  they  had  observed  an  increase  in  the 
proportion of sales coming through from the price comparison websites14. In Europe 
such services are particularly popular in the UK. From June 2007 to June 2008 the 
major  UK  price  comparison  services'  providers  recorded  a  significant  increase  in 
traffic on their sites.  

Private  price  comparison  websites  use  different  methodologies  of  price  collection. 
Most  often  they  obtain  data  directly  from  retailers,  or  from  specialised  businesses 
which compile data feeds from a number of merchants. Price engines can also scan 
retailers' sites in order to gather price data.15  

This  has  not  been  without  problems,  with  price  comparison  sites  in  the  financial 
services  sector  sometimes  being  accused  of  misleading  consumers.  The  Office  of 
Fair  Trading  in  the  UK  has  launched  a  study  into  pricing  on  the  internet  for  all 
sectors to examine these issues. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Price  comparison  tools  are  perceived  by  consumers  as  well  as  by  consumer 
organisations as a useful and sometimes powerful tool, both in everyday purchasing 
decisions as well as in drawing attention to possible problems concerning food prices 
at a national level.  

In order to make them an even more helpful and powerful tool, these services should 
be  more  accessible  for  consumers  and  national  authorities.  However,  it  is  also 
necessary to ensure a good reliability of price comparison services. The methodology 
of  price  collection  used  should  be  sound  and  aimed  at  delivering  objective,  non-
biased results.  

Information  obtained  in  the  course  of  an  interview  with  a  KEPKA  representative,  conducted  in  May 
2009. 
"Power to the Consumer: How Web Technology Is Influencing Behaviour", Euromonitor International : 
Strategy Briefing, February 2009 
Idem 
Idem 

EN 

14 

   EN 

                                                 
42. 

Experience and knowledge regarding price comparison services should be gathered 
from  different  operators  in  order  to  prepare  a  set  of  guidelines  which  could  be 
applied by either national authorities, NGOs or other bodies willing to develop such 
a tool in their country.  

EN 

15 

   EN 

ANNEX 1: CONSUMER PRICES FOR INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTS ACROSS MEMBER-STATES 

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

LV

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SL

SK

FI

SE

UK

MEAN ST. DEV.

IND. 
VARIATI
ON

COUNT

Long-grain, white 
rice

Wheat flour

Loaf of white bread

Spaghetti

Minced beef

Pork, cutlet 
(escalope)

Whole chicken

Sausage

Tinned pink tuna

Fresh milk, 
unskimmed

Natural yoghurt

Chicken eggs

Butter

Olive Oil

Apples

Carrots

Potatoes

White sugar

Jam 

Milk chocolate

Ice Cream

Tomato Ketchup

Coffee

Black Tea

Mineral Water

Orange Juice

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

EN 

1,32

1,32

-

0,63

0,56

0,92

0,74

0,92

4,69

-

-

-

1,23

-

2,46

1,23

-

_

1,04

1,31

0,85

1,77

2,08

2,84

-

1,33

-

2,47

2,07

2,48

1,82

2,86

3,17

8,58

-

4,57

2,41

2,51

-

-

-

-

4,86

8,73

5,17

0,78

0,82

1,09

1,01

1,71

-

1

1,13

3,34

1,04

1,14

1,91

-

11,32

-

1,36

1,59

2,38

0,7

1

1,34

0,42

0,68

1,12

0,87

0,84

1,31

2,6

3,91

6,85

7,53

-

-

1,94

6,76

3,09

1,37

1,64

1,64

6,08

9,03

9,03

-

1,77

1,77

0,22

0,34

0,34

1,16

1,1

1,1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,4

3,04

4,37

3,63

-

-

5,93

6,95

-

-

-

-

-

3

-

-

0,81

1,12

1,31

0,94

-

-

-

-

1,56

-

-

-

3,06

2,11

1,31

1,3

-

-

-

-

5,71

3,41

1,92

1,85

0,88

1,37

1,02

1,04

0,44

1,56

0,61

0,9

0,96

1,04

0,84

0,92

-

-

2,5

1,96

-

4,12

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,68

3,02

-

-

-

-

6,29

1,39

0,86

2,09

-

-

0,32

-

-

1,13

1,75

1,39

0,85

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,06

1,9

1,59

1,3

3,26

1,07

2,17

-

-

-

1,13

0,71

0,7

1,01

0,57

0,9

1,91

1,66

1,39

3,28

1,03

1,29

1,9

2,05

1,87

2,97

2,51

1,48

8,99

8,06

-

-

3,57

3,26

8,37

6,78

5,38

5,33

4,39

7,46

5,15

3,22

4,11

3,47

2,86

2,48

5,18

2,97

2,33

-

-

-

-

-

6,6

-

-

-

-

-

9,89

3,59

2,94

10,15

-

4,71

1,22

0,84

0,79

1,26

0,9

0,72

-

1,62

-

3,52

-

1,64

2,01

1,32

1,25

3,32

1,21

1,02

1,99

1,97

1,59

1,35

1,7

2,14

1,64

-

5,03

-

6,74

8,9

10,42

7,29

1,93

-

1,58

1,78

2,85

1,56

1,46

1,17

1,17

1,05

0,83

1,4

0,81

1,05

0,94

0,69

0,54

0,9

1,33

0,64

0,39

-

-

-

6,59

-

1,04

1,07

0,93

0,96

0,87

0,77

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,28

3,76

2,94

2,47

-

9,84

8,87

16,29

2,25

4,51

3,96

3,02

1,24

1,69

4,4

-

3,52

9,18

8,5

9,13

8,17

9,09

8,51

19,78

-

-

0,7

1,23

1,21

1,09

1,79

1,47

0,69

-

-

0,47

0,43

0,65

0,3

0,27

1,07

1,2

1,35

1,41

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

16 

2,01

1,96

1

1,49

-

1,29

2,11

1,02

0,63

0,79

0,65

0,91

0,5

0,61

4,9

1,08

2,17

0,98

1,94

1,23

3,28

2,44

-

1,3

2,45

-

3,09

-

3,42

8,89

3,72

5,74

5,81

-

-

-

2,03

2,13

-

8,52

4,95

12,41

4,28

1,87

2,66

2,43

3,28

2,53

-

4,13

-

3,64

7,84

6,62

8,78

-

-

-

-

-

3

6,27

8,5

1,01

0,84

0,8

1,32

0,79

0,72

0,93

1,73

2,02

3,04

-

-

-

-

3,39

1,19

1,24

0,97

1,64

1,14

1,94

1,52

1,35

1,67

1,74

7,97

11,47

4,74

-

-

-

1,72

1,54

-

-

1,84

1,39

1,39

1,3

1,64

1,6

2,19

1,28

0,91

0,74

0,73

1,27

1,01

1,71

1,1

0,62

0,65

0,47

0,63

0,57

0,74

1,08

0,78

0,97

0,87

0,81

0,93

1,05

4,76

3,58

5,97

3,38

-

4,04

-

7,89

9,43

-

6,73

8,59

8,39

8,75

5,76

2,6

3,35

4,49

-

-

2,73

4,93

2,43

6,96

8,87

10,4

1,99

1,64

1,39

-

-

-

-

-

1,46

1,5

2,77

2,9

7,91

5,61

0,72

-

0,34

0,4

1,56

0,34

0,38

0,34

1,09

1,26

1,27

2,01

1,55

-

1,28

1,01

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,71

0,58

0,34

0,85

0,81

0,22

0,27

1,75

2,05

1,19

0,58

1,82

2,07

0,45

0,22

6,96

5,61

2,48

0,44

-

6,08

2,42

0,4

3,64

3,15

0,84

0,27

4,72

5,42

2,25

0,42

6,28

7,02

1,28

0,25

0,91

0,95

0,2

0,21

-

2,04

0,83

0,41

3,03

1,83

0,89

0,49

1,4

1,6

0,3

0,19

-

7,55

2,74

0,36

1,93

1,76

0,38

0,22

1,01

1,07

0,25

0,24

-

0,76

0,31

0,41

1,08

0,95

0,13

0,14

-

-

-

3,68

0,94

0,26

9,01

2,6

0,29

3,59

1,73

0,48

2,38

2,69

1,12

0,42

11,38

9,07

3,14

0,35

-

-

1,38

0,45

0,32

0,5

0,35

0,7

2,18

1,34

0,37

0,28

18

20

20

17

13

14

20

12

9

21

8

20

18

11

20

22

21

21

13

11

15

14

17

14

16

19

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 2: COMPARISON OF CONSUMER PRICES AND COMMODITY PRICES 

BEEF

Young bulls 
carcass (cat. 
AR3)
1 kg

Minced beef 
1 kg

PORK

CHICKEN

MILK

EGGS

RATIO
minced beef/ 
carcass

Pork cutlet
1 kg

Pig meat carcass
(cat. E)
1kg

RATIO
cutlet/carcass

Whole chicken
1 kg

Whole chicken 
carcass
1 kg

RATIO
whole chicken/ 
carcass

Fresh milk
1 l

Milk producer 
price
1 l

RATIO
fresh milk/ milk 
producer price

Chicken eggs 
(10) 

Fresh shell eggs
1 kg

RATIO
chicken eggs/fresh 
shell eggs

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

LV

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SL

SK

FI

SE

UK

Mean

St.deviation

Ind.variation

-

2,86

3,17

8,58

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,99

-

3,57

3,26

8,37

6,78

5,38

-

-

3,09

-

3,42

-

-

8,52

-

6,96

5,61

2,48

0,44

2,63

2,43

2,99

3,26

3,08

2,52

3,42

4,14

2,96

3,07

3,60

0,00

2,35

2,43

3,15

2,50

3,58

3,05

3,12

2,74

3,16

2,30

2,96

2,77

3,51

3,20

3,37

2,88

0,72

0,25

-

1,18

1,06

2,63

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,50

-

1,52

1,34

2,66

2,71

1,50

-

-

1,13

-

1,49

-

-

2,43

-

2,06

-

-

-

-

-

4,57

-

-

-

-

5,40

-

-

8,06

-

5,33

4,39

7,46

5,15

3,22

-

8,89

3,72

5,74

5,81

-

4,95

12,41

-

-

6,08

2,42

0,40

1,57

1,75

1,87

1,38

1,72

1,57

1,49

1,92

1,66

1,52

1,61

1,46

1,86

1,81

1,72

1,76

1,58

1,53

1,66

1,74

1,69

1,83

1,59

1,86

1,46

1,59

1,60

1,65

0,17

0,09

-

-

2,44

-

-

-

-

2,81

-

-

5,01

-

2,86

2,42

4,34

2,93

2,04

-

5,35

2,13

3,40

3,17

-

2,67

8,49

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,41

2,51

-

-

3,04

4,37

3,63

3,00

-

4,11

3,47

2,86

2,48

5,18

2,97

2,33

-

4,28

1,87

2,66

2,43

3,28

2,53

-

-

3,64

3,15

0,84

0,27

1,78

1,60

2,10

2,06

2,29

2,14

1,79

2,15

1,61

2,25

2,07

2,47

1,98

1,62

0,00

2,16

1,71

1,75

1,90

1,52

1,82

1,71

2,04

1,94

2,23

2,12

1,42

1,83

0,47

0,25

-

1,51

1,20

-

-

1,42

2,44

1,68

1,87

-

1,98

1,41

1,45

1,53

-

1,37

1,37

-

2,25

1,23

1,46

1,42

1,61

1,30

-

-

2,57

-

-

-

-

0,78

0,82

1,09

-

0,81

1,12

1,31

0,94

-

-

1,22

0,84

0,79

1,26

0,90

0,72

-

1,01

0,84

0,80

1,32

0,79

0,72

0,93

-

0,91

0,95

0,20

0,21

0,30

0,30

0,34

0,32

0,33

0,29

0,33

0,43

0,37

0,34

0,38

0,49

0,26

0,23

0,36

0,32

0,00

0,32

0,38

0,31

0,35

0,00

0,32

0,33

0,44

0,34

0,31

0,31

0,11

0,33

-

2,62

2,39

3,36

-

2,80

3,41

3,04

2,53

-

-

2,51

3,27

3,41

3,50

2,79

-

-

2,64

2,73

2,29

-

2,44

2,16

2,11

-

2,97

-

-

-

Source: Annex 1 and European Commission, DG AGRI, based on information sent by Member States 

-

1,00

1,13

3,34

-

-

3,06

2,11

1,31

-

-

2,01

1,32

1,25

3,32

1,21

1,02

-

3,39

1,19

1,24

0,97

1,64

1,14

1,94

-

3,03

1,83

0,89

0,49

0,81

0,79

0,98

1,56

0,86

1,25

1,50

1,32

0,97

0,94

1,48

1,70

1,32

1,13

0,00

1,15

0,81

0,70

0,92

1,17

0,94

0,82

1,27

1,02

1,20

1,95

1,17

1,09

0,37

0,34

-

1,27

1,15

2,14

-

-

2,03

1,60

1,35

-

-

1,18

1,00

1,11

-

1,05

1,26

-

3,70

1,02

1,32

1,19

1,30

1,12

1,62

-

2,60

-

-

-

EN 

17 

EN