Evaluation of the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance for fresh, chilled and frozen meat of swine, sheep, goats and poultry
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: common agricultural policy, rural development

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

Brussels,  

FACTUAL SUMMARY  
OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE  
EVALUATION OF THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING FOR CERTAIN MEATS 

Disclaimer:  This  document  should  be  regarded  solely  as  a  summary  of  the  contributions  made  by 
stakeholders  in  the public consultation  in  the framework of the  evaluation.  It  cannot  in  any  circum-
stances be regarded as the official position of the Commission or its services. 

 
 
 
 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

In August 2019, the European Commission launched its evaluation to assess whether the rules 
on food information to consumers as regards the mandatory origin labelling for fresh, chilled 
and frozen meat of pigs, sheep, goats and poultry,  as applied in Members States are effective, 
efficient, coherent, relevant and bring EU added value in view of its objectives, current needs 
and problems.  

The  public  consultation  was  conducted  from  9  December  2019  to  2  March  2020  using 
EU Survey, via the European Commission’s website1, in all official EU languages excluding 
Irish.  

2.  OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES  

A total of 146 contributions were received from 19 EU Member States2 and Brazil, with dif-
ferent levels of replies, as depicted by Figure 1. 

1   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-3112936/public-consultation_en  
2   Including  the United Kingdom (UK).  There  were  no contributions from Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece,  Croatia, 

Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and Sweden. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 1. Number of respondents to the public consultation by country of origin 

AT

BE

CZ

DE

DK

EE

ES

FI

FR

HU

IE

IT

LV

LU

MT

NL

PT

RO

UK

BR

1 

1 

6 

9 

9 

4 

8 

15 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

3 

2 

1 

72 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Note:  AT-Austria,  BE-Belgium,  CZ-Czechia,  DE-Germany,  DK-Denmark,  EE-Estonia,  ES-Spain,  FI-Finland,  FR-France,  HU-
Hungary,  IE-Ireland,  IT-Italy,  LV-Latvia,  LU-Luxembourg,  MT-Malta,  NL-Netherlands,  PT-Portugal,  RO-Romania,  UK-United 
Kingdom, BR-Brazil. 

2.1. Profile of the respondents  

EU  citizens  provided  the  most  contributions  to  this  consultation  accounting  for  62%  of  all 
respondents (N=91). Companies constituted 18% of all respondents (N=26) and business as-
sociations constituted 6% (N=6), therefore companies and business associations together rep-
resented  22%  (N=32).  Of  all  the  respondents,  public  authorities  constituted  3%,  academ-
ic/research institutions 1%, NGOs 4%, trade unions 3%, consumer organisations 1% and non-
EU citizens 1%. The remaining 3% of respondents identified themselves as ’others’. 

3 

 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Number of respondents to the public consultation per general category of respondents 

Public authority; 4 

Trade union; 5 

Academic/research 
institution; 1 

Business 
association; 6 

Other ; 4 

Non EU citizen; 1 

NGO; 6 

Company/business 
association; 26 

Consumer 
organisation; 2 

EU citizen; 91 

2.2. Profile of the stakeholders replying as individuals and subdivision of meat sector 

To understand better their interest, respondents who replied as an individual in their personal 
capacity, were requested to indicate the stakeholder category they represented. Some respond-
ents (i.e. 73% out of 146) provided an answer. The most represented categories of stakehold-
ers  were  individual  citizens  (constituting  63%  of  all  respondents).  Least  numerous  were  the 
main  actors  in  the  value  chain:  farmers  (12%),  slaughterhouse  operators/processors  (9%), 
traders  (3%)  and  retailers  (1%).  In  addition  to  that,  NGOs  represented  1%  of  the  total  and 
‘others’ accounted for 11%. 

In relation to the meat sector, the most represented meat categories were pig meat (19%) and 
poultry meat (19%), followed by sheep meat (14%) and goat meat (11%). All together, they 
represented 63% of the respondents, while 37% declared ‘none in particular’3.  

3   Beef was out of the scope of this evaluation. Via two uploaded documents a few stakeholders requested con-

si-deration for rabbit meat and horse meat.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Figure 3. Public consultation individual respondents per stakeholder category  

Slaughterhouse 
operator/process
or; 10 

Trader; 3 

Farmer; 13 

Retailer; 1 

Other; 12 

NGO; 1 

Individual citizen; 
67 

Figure 4. Public consultation respondents per meat sector they are most familiar with  

None in 
particular; 42 

Pig meat; 21 

Poultry meat; 21 

Goat meat; 12 

Sheep meat; 16 

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  data  used  in  this  factual  summary  represent  the  views  of  the 
respondents and might not be representative for the EU, for individual Member States, and/or 
the individual categories of stakeholders. To prepare the data for analysis, the responses have 
also been screened to eliminate for duplicates and campaigns4.  

4   Where respondents have responded to a public consultation with the same answers this may be coincidence or 

it may be part of a co-ordinated campaign. No campaigns were detected.  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Only 39 respondents  chose to  make their  full personal  details  (i.e.  name, organisation name 
and size, transparency register number, country of origin) available for publication with their 
contribution, with the large majority (107) opting for anonymity. 

3.  ANALYSIS OF RESULTS  

In general, a majority of the respondents gave a positive answer to the  questions, i.e. totally 
agreed  and  tended  to  agree  with  the  question  asked.  No  striking  differences  were  found  be-
tween the different respondent groups.  

A  high  majority  of  respondents  (87%  of  115  replies  provided  to  the  specific  question)  had 
already seen the origin indication on the label of pre-packed meat (37% on sheep meat, 26% 
on  poultry  meat,  12%  on  pig  meat  and  12%  on  goat  meat).  Furthermore,  a  majority  of  re-
spondents  (57%  of  112  replies  provided  to  the  specific  question)  were  unaware  that  these 
indications were mandatory across the EU. 

3.1. Effectiveness of the EU policy 

Out of 115 respondents providing replies to the specific question, a high majority was of the 
opinion that the  EU origin  labelling  rules, in  the  meat  sectors  they were familiar with,  con-
tributed  strongly  or  moderately  to  providing  adequate  and  transparent  information  to 
consumers  (77%),  and  to  helping  consumers  make  informed  decisions  (76%).  A  lower 
majority  considered  that  origin  labelling  contributed  to  create  a  level  playing  field  in 
these sectors (59%) and to any tendency for ‘re-nationalisation’ of the EU common market 
in these sectors (63%).  

Figure 5. EU origin labelling rules help consumers (in %) 

Transparent information to consumers

13% 

26% 

38% 

3% 

4% 

Consumers make informed decisions

12% 

30% 

33% 

3% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

18% 

0% 

1% 

14% 

Create playing level field

10% 

16% 

33% 

5% 

8% 

2% 

2% 

24% 

Tendency to re-nationalisation

10% 

15% 

38% 

4% 

14% 

0% 

1% 

18% 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Very strong positive contribution
Moderate positive contribution

Strong positive contribution
Moderate negative contribution

Note: 79% (N=115) of the respondents provided replies  on transparent information, consumers informed deci-
sions and level playing field, and 77% (N=113) tendency to re-nationalisation. 

3.2. Efficiency of the EU policy 

As depicted in Figure 6, 27% of the respondents agreed or tended to agree that the EU origin 
labelling provided good value for money for consumers, while 63% found limited or no val-
ue added of the EU origin labelling. 

6 

 
 
 
 
In relation to the meat supply chain, a large majority of respondents (68%) found that the EU 
rules were positive to the meat supply chain, compared to 9% having a negative opinion, with 
one fourth of the respondents having no opinion. 

Figure 6. EU origin labelling rules provide value for money for consumers (in %) 

42% 

18% 

22% 

9% 

10% 

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Very good value for
money

Good value for
money

Limited good value
for money

No value for money

No opinion

Note: 79% (N=115) of the respondents provided replies to the question 

Figure 7. EU origin labelling rules are positive to the meat supply chain (in %) 

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

58% 

10% 

6% 

3% 

23% 

Very positive

Positive

Negative

Very negative

No opinion

Note: 79% (N=115) of the respondents provided replies to the question 

Respondents  are  split  on  whether  there  is  potential  for simplification  of  the  EU rules  on 
origin  labelling  that  could  improve  efficiency,  with  49%  replying  ‘yes’  and  51%  ‘no’ 
(N=114).  

3.3. Coherence of the EU policy 

The  majority  of  the  respondents  (79%)  were  strongly  or  moderately  positive  about  the  con-
sistency between the EU  origin labelling rules and other EU  interventions (N=115).  On 
the other hand, only 33% of the respondents were positive about the consistency between the 
EU origin labelling rules and other requirements of the same Regulation5, with 54% of 
the respondents giving a negative view.  

5   Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  1337/2013  of  13  December  2013  laying  down  rules  and 
conditions as regards the indication of the country of origin or place of provenance for fresh, chilled and fro-

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 8. Consistency between aims of the EU policy (in %) 

36% 

32% 

10% 

12% 

10% 

5% 

6% 

54% 

23% 

12% 

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Other EU interventions

Other requirements of the same Regulation

Very strongly consistent

Strongly consistent

Moderately consistent

Not consistent

No opinion

Note: 79% (N=115) of the respondents provided replies to the question 

3.4. Relevance of the EU policy 

The majority of the respondents were very or moderately positive about the relevance of the 
EU  origin  labelling  rules  for  the  supply  chain  needs  (66%),  for  the  consumer  needs 
(80%), and for the national enforcement authorities´ needs (55%).  In each case, negative 
responses were rather low, between 10 to 16%. 

Figure 9. Consistency of EU policy with different needs (in %) 

Supply chain needs

11% 

29% 

26% 

10% 

25% 

Consumer needs

12% 

21% 

47% 

16% 

4% 

National enforcement authorities needs

4% 

24% 

27% 

10% 

35% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Fit very well

Fit well

Fit moderately well

Do not fit

No opinion

Note: 79% (N=115) of the respondents provided replies on supply chain needs, and 78% (N=114) on consumer 
needs and needs of national enforcement authorities. 

A high number of respondents  (86%) agreed  that origin labelling ought to be extended to 
processed meat or to meat that was to be exported, whereas 14% of the respondents disa-
greed (N=115).  

zen  meat  of  swine,  sheep,  goats  and  poultry  (falling  within  the  respective  Combined  Nomenclature  codes 
listed in Annex XI to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011). 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
3.5. EU added value of the EU policy 

Out of 112 responses, half (51%) said that they did not know whether the policy has brought 
EU added value, but positive replies  (33%) were double of those that said that there was no 
added value in the EU policy (16%).  

9