COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of marketing standards (contained in the CMO Regulation, the ‘Breakfast Directives’ and CMO secondary legislation)
Date: 2020-10-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: agricultural product, agricultural trade, application of EU law, common organisation of markets, consumer information, foodstuff, labelling, marketing standard, product quality

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.10.2020  SWD(2020) 230 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of  marketing standards (contained in the CMO Regulation, the ‘Breakfast Directives’ and CMO secondary legislation) {SWD(2020) 231 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................... 2 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 3 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ................................................................... 4 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives ...................................................... 4 

2.2.  Baseline and points of comparison ............................................................................. 10 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION /STATE OF PLAY ....................................................................... 11 

4.  METHOD ............................................................................................................................. 13 

4.1. 

Short description of methodology .............................................................................. 13 

4.2.  Limitations and robustness of findings ..................................................................... 14 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ........................ 16 

5.1.  Effectiveness ................................................................................................................. 16 

5.2.  Efficiency ...................................................................................................................... 26 

5.3.  Coherence ..................................................................................................................... 29 

5.4.  Relevance ...................................................................................................................... 35 

5.5.  EU added value ............................................................................................................ 39 

6.  CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 42 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ......................................................................... 44 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION .................................................................... 46 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS ........................................................ 56 

ANNEX 4: CURRENT COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY LOGIC FOR 
INSTRUMENTS AND MEASURES – LEGISLATION OVERVIEW .................................. 59 

ANNEX 5: OVERVIEW OF THE KEY FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION BY 
PRODUCT ................................................................................................................................... 60 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
GLOSSARY 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

CAP 

CMO 

CODEX 

EU 

F&V 

GI 

MS 

RUCIP 

UNECE 

Common agricultural policy 

Common market organisation 

Codex Alimentarius 

European Union 

Fruits and vegetables 

Geographical Indications 

Member States 

Rules & practices of the inter-european trade in 
potatoes 

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 

2 

 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

EU  marketing  standards  are  a  set  of  rules  aimed  to  ensure  that  the  single  market  is 
supplied with standardised quality agricultural products that meet consumer expectations; 
for  that,  the  rules  seek  to  facilitate  trading  and  ensure  a  level  playing  field  for  EU 
producers. Marketing standards concern the external qualities of products (e.g. fruits and 
vegetables) and the non-visible qualities that result from a particular production process 
(e.g. water content in poultry meat or the percentage of oleic acid in olive oil).  

EU  marketing  standards  were  laid  down  in  the  early  days  of  the  common  agricultural 
policy (CAP) and were based on existing national and international standards that means 
they were drawn up in different times and under different conditions for specific products 
or entire sectors. 

The purpose of this evaluation is to contribute to the performance check required in the 
Commission's  policy-making  cycle,  considering  that  up  until  now  there  has  been  no 
comprehensive, cross-sector evaluation of marketing standards. 

The  geographical  coverage  of  the  evaluation  encompasses  the  European  Union  of 
28 Member  States,  including  the  United  Kingdom,  as  it  was  a  Member  State  when  the 
evaluation was carried out (from December 2018 to November 2019).  

The  examination  period  of 
implementation of the 2013 CAP reform.  

the  evaluation  covers 

the  period  following 

the 

The  evaluation  examined  all  evaluation  criteria,  i.e.  the  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
relevance, coherence and EU added value of marketing standards for food products in the 
Union of 28, as set out under the following measures:  

- 

- 

- 

the  applicable  Regulation  1308/2013  on  a  common  market  organisation1,  laying 
down  rules  concerning  marketing  standards,  definitions,  designations,  sales 
descriptions,  eligibility  criteria  and  optional  reserved  terms  for  a  broad  range  of 
sectors;  

secondary  common  market  organisation  (CMO)  legislation,  laying  down  detailed 
rules on marketing standards for specific sectors; 

the so-called ‘Breakfast Directives’, which establish specific rules on the description, 
definition,  characteristics  and  labelling  of  coffee  and  chicory  extracts,  cocoa  and 
chocolate  products,  sugars  intended  for  human  consumption,  fruit  jams,  jellies, 
marmalades  and  sweetened  chestnut  purée  intended  for  human  consumption, 
dehydrated milk, fruit juices and honey.  

The evaluation took into account other relevant applicable rules and in particular relevant 
private and international marketing standards, checks and penalties related to marketing 
rules,  across-the-board  labelling  rules  on  food  information  to  consumers,  hygiene  rules 
for food of animal origin and control rules for food and feed, animal health and  animal 
welfare. 

1  Regulation  (EU)  No  1308/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  December  2013 
establishing  a  common  organisation  of  the  markets  in  agricultural  products  and  repealing  Council 
Regulations  (EEC)  No  922/72,  (EEC)  No  234/79,  (EC)  No  1037/2001  and  (EC)  No  1234/2007,  OJ  L 
347, 20.12.2013, p. 671–854. 

3 

 
 
                                                            
The  evaluation  aimed  to  determine  whether  marketing  standards  for  food  products 
achieve their objectives in a manner that is useful and sufficient for all stakeholders, (i.e. 
producers, processors, traders, retailers, consumers, Member State' administrations), and 
that, avoids unintended side-effects (such as deadweight2).  

The  findings  of  the  evaluation  can  therefore  be  used  in  the  reflection  and  debate  on  a 
need  for  regulatory  changes  to  marketing  standards  and,  on  the  potential  for  their 
simplification.  The  findings  can  also  feed  into  a  Commission  report  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  to  the  European  Council,  which,  in  accordance  with  Article  75(6)  of 
Regulation 1308/2013, is required before any change can be made to the list of products 
covered by marketing standards. 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Marketing standards were developed at EU level to facilitate the smooth functioning of 
the internal market, to keep food of unsatisfactory quality off the market and, to provide 
clarity for consumers and a level playing field for producers, traders and retailers. These 
general objectives and expected impacts on the different stakeholders are also developed 
in the following legislative documents: 

Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 on a common market organisation 

The Common Market Organisation Regulation includes a specific section on marketing 
standards  (Part  II,  Title  II,  Chapter  I,  Section  1);  it  provides  for  marketing  standards 
(Subsection 2, Article 75), definitions, designations and sales descriptions (Subsection 2, 
Article  78)  and  optional  reserved  terms  (Subsection  3).  Figure  1  provides  a  cross-
sectoral,  global  overview  of  EU  marketing  standards,  listing  the  available  instruments 
(e.g.  classification  criteria,  indication  of  species,  presentation,  labelling  appearance, 
components,  on  production  methods,  optional  reserved  terms  etc.)  and  highlighting  the 
sectors  where  they  are  relevant.  Marketing  standards  apply  to  both  EU  and  imported 
products  and  require  compliance  with  certain  product  characteristics,  classification, 
production  methods,  packaging  methods  as  well  as  labelling/marking  requirements. 
Some  standards  constitute  a  ‘bottom  line’,  whereby  products  below  specifications  may 
not be sold in retail stores (e.g. some fruits & vegetables). In other cases, compliance is 
necessary  to  secure  a  particular  sales  designation,  such  as  ‘milk’.  Marketing  standards 
provide consumers with better products and food business operators with common sales 
descriptions, such as ‘milk’ or ‘veal’.  

In  the  Common  Market  Organisation  Regulation,  the  objective  and  scope  of  marketing 
standards in relation to agricultural product quality policy have been defined as follows: 
‘Marketing  standards  should  apply  to  enable  the  market  to  be  easily  supplied  with 
products  of  a  standardised  and  satisfactory  quality,  and  in  particular  should  relate  to 
technical  definitions,  classification,  presentation,  marking  and  labelling,  packaging, 

2  Deadweight: effects which would have arisen even if the intervention had not taken place. 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
production  method,  conservation,  storage,  transport,  related  administrative  documents, 
certification and time limits, restrictions of use and disposal.’3 

In addition to the sectors presented in Figure 1, the common market organisation for rice, 
sugar  and  cereals  provides  for  eligibility  criteria  (and  empowerments  to  further  define 
them)  that  are  relevant  for  market  mechanisms,  such  as  public  intervention  and  private 
storage4.  These  eligibility  criteria  define  the  specifications  a  product  must  have  to  be 
eligible for support.  

Figure 1 –EU marketing standards: cross-sectoral and global overview 

l
i

o
e
v
i
l

O

s
p
o
H

Sectors 

t
i
u
r
f
h
s
e
r
F

d
n
a

l

s
e
b
a
t
e
g
e
v

d
e
s
s
e
c
o
r
P

d
n
a
t
i
u
r
f

l

s
e
b
a
t
e
g
e
v

y
r
t
l
u
o
P

s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p

y
r
i
a
D

s
g
g
E

Typologies of instruments 

a: technical definitions, designation and sales 
descriptions 
b: classification criteria such as grading into 
classes, weight, sizing, age and category 
c: indication of the species, plant variety or 
animal race or commercial type 
d: presentation, labelling linked to obligatory 
marketing standards, packaging, rules to be 
applied in relation to packing centres, marking, 
year of harvesting and use of specific terms 
e: criteria such as appearance, consistency, 
conformation, product characteristics and the 
percentage of water content 
f: standards on specific substances used in 
production, or components or constituents, 
including their quantitative content, purity and 
identification 
g: standards on the type of farming and 
production method, including advanced systems 
of sustainable production 
h: standards on the frequency of collection, 
delivery, preservation and handling, the 
conservation method and temperature, storage 
and transport 

i: indication on the place of farming and/or origin 

j: restrictions as regards the use of certain 
substances and practices 
l: additional requirements for marketing of 
products in the fruit and vegetables sector 

m: certification for hops 

o: optional reserved terms by sector or by 

5
product

3  Recital 71 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 
4  Article  8  of  Regulation  1308/2013  sets  out  the  general  provisions  on  public  intervention  and  aid  for 
private storage: (a) public intervention, where products are bought up by the competent authorities of the 
Member States and stored by them until disposed of; and (b) granting of aid for private operators to store 
products.  

5  Optional  reserved  terms:  Title  II  Chapter  1  Section  1  of  Regulation  1308/2013  lays  down  rules  on 
marketing and producer organisations, in particular on marketing standards. These rules are to be divided 
between obligatory rules and optional reserved terms for agricultural products.  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Secondary common market organisation legislation 

The Commission has introduced the following secondary legislation: 

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  589/2008  lays  down  detailed  rules  for  implementing 
Council Regulation (EC) 1234/2007 as regards marketing standards for eggs, setting the 
mandatory  rules  for  marking  eggs  and  packs  as  ‘Free  range  eggs’,  ‘Barn  eggs’,  ‘Eggs 
from caged hens’ or Organic eggs, depending on the way the laying hens are kept. It also 
sets  out  the  quality  standards  for  Class  A  eggs,  concerning  e.g.  appearance  and  smell. 
Eggs  not  fulfilling  these  standards  are  Class  B  eggs  and  can  only  be  sold  to  the  food 
industry. The Regulation also contains rules on grading the eggs according to weight (S, 
M,  L  or  XL),  and  voluntary  rules  on  marking  the  eggs  according  to  freshness  or 
information on how the hens were fed.   

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  617/2008  lays  down  detailed  rules  for  implementing 
Regulation  (EC) 1234/2007 as  regards marketing standards for  eggs for hatching and 
farmyard poultry chicks, laying down rules on monthly communications on production 
data, to be collected by the Member States and notified to the Commission. 

Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  543/2011  lays  down  detailed  rules  for  the 
application of Council Regulation (EC) 1234/2007 in respect of fruit and vegetables and 
processed fruit and vegetables. The general principle for this sector is that products must 
be  'intact,  sound  and  clean',  mature,  properly  packaged  and  traceable.  Products  are 
classified as either ‘extra’, ‘class I’ or ‘class II’. Further details are laid out in ten specific 
standards  for  apples,  citruses,  pears,  kiwi,  strawberries,  lettuces,  sweet  peppers, 
peaches/nectarines, table grapes and tomatoes. The rules also provide details on methods 
of  inspection  and,  how  to  perform  conformity  checks  and  provide  definitions  for 
‘consignment’, ‘package’, ‘lot’ etc. upon imports. Commission Implementing Regulation 
1333/2011 lays down marketing standards specifically for bananas.  

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  543/2008  lays  down  detailed  rules  for  the  application  of 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  1234/2007  as  regards  the  marketing  standards  for  poultry 
meat, laying down definitions for different categories of poultry meat carcasses and cuts, 
setting minimum standards for the production of foie gras and setting the rules on quality 
grading  (class  A  and  B).  It  also  lays  down  legal  requirements  for  alternative  poultry 
production methods under the optional reserved terms (‘Fed with … % …’, ‘Extensive 
indoor’-  ‘Barn-reared’,  ‘Free-range’,  ‘Traditional  free  range’,  ‘Free  range  —  total 
freedom’), and sets legal limits for the uptake of extraneous water in poultry meat, laying 
down the methods for measuring and determining this and setting out the requirements 
for official checks in this field. It also establishes a ‘Board of Experts’ to coordinate the 
work  of  the  national  reference  laboratories  responsible  for  testing  water  content  in 
poultry meat. 

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  566/2008  lays  down  detailed  rules  for  the  application  of 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  1234/2007  as  regards  the  marketing  of  the  meat  of  bovine 
animals aged 12 months or less, providing rules on compulsory information on the label, 
rules  on  imports  and  official  controls.  Moreover,  Regulation  1760/2000  establishes  a 
system  for  identifying  and  registering  bovine  animals  and  labelling  beef  and  beef 
products.  Commission  Regulation  1825/2000  lays  down  additional  detailed  rules  on 
6 

 
 
 
labelling beef and beef products. Both Regulations provide for (post-BSE) beef labelling 
and traceability rules.  

Commission Regulation (EC) 1850/2006 of 14 December 2006 lays down detailed rules 
for the certification of hops and hop products and Commission Regulation 1295/2008 of 
18 December 2008 on the importation of hops from third countries, providing definitions 
of prepared/unprepared hops, seeded/seedless hops, etc. They also provide requirements 
that  must  be  met  to  present  hops  for  certification  (moisture  content,  leaves  and  stalks, 
hop waste), rules on sampling and approval of certification centres.  

For  milk  and  milk  products,  the  density  of  rules  is  high.  Commission  Regulation 
(EC) 445/2007  provides  detailed  rules  for  applying  Regulations  (EC)  2991/94  and 
(EEC) 1898/876  regarding  the  use  of  the  designation  ‘butter’.  Commission  Decision 
2010/791/EU on the descriptions of milk and milk products whose exact nature is known 
because  of  traditional  use  and/or  when  the  designations  are  clearly  used  to  describe  a 
characteristic  quality  of 
the  product.  Council  Directive  2001/114/EC  provides 
requirements  for  partly  or  wholly  dehydrated  preserved  milk  for  human  consumption. 
Commission  Directive  79/1067/EEC  lays  down  Community  methods  of  analysis  for 
testing partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human consumption. Commission 
Directive 87/524/EEC lays down Community methods of sampling for chemical analysis 
for  the  monitoring  of  preserved  milk  products.  Directive  (EU)  2015/2203  provides 
definitions  and  labelling  requirements  for  caseins  and  caseinates  intended  for  human 
consumption. (see also Section 3 below). 

Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  29/2012  of  13  January  2012  on  marketing 
standards for olive oil and Commission Regulation (EC) 2568/91 of 11 July 1991 on the 
characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis 
provide  requirements  for  the  packaging,  labelling,  blending,  designation  of  origin  and 
controls of all categories of olive oils (extra virgin olive oil, virgin olive oil, etc.); these 
requirements    oblige  Member  States  to  appoint  competent  monitoring  authorities  for 
conformity  checks  and  impose  reporting  obligations  and  set  out  rules  on  the  physio-
chemical and organoleptic characteristics of olive oil, olive-residue oil and  the relevant 
methods of analysis.  

Secondary legislation lays down detailed rules complementing Annex VII, Part II of the 
CMO  Regulation  providing  quality  parameters  for  wine,  new  wine  (still 
in 
fermentation), liqueur wine, sparkling wine and some other related products7. Wine 

6 Please that this regulation is no longer in force. 
7  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2019/934  of  12  March  2019  supplementing  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards wine-growing areas where the 
alcoholic  strength  may  be  increased,  authorised  oenological  practices  and  restrictions  applicable  to  the 
production and conservation of grapevine products, the minimum percentage of alcohol for by-products 
and their disposal, and publication of OIV files; 
Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2019/935  of  16  April  2019  laying  down  rules  for  the 
application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards 
analysis  methods  for  determining  the  physical,  chemical  and  organoleptic  characteristics  of  grapevine 
products and notifications of Member States decisions concerning increases in natural alcoholic strength; 
Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2019/33  of  17  October  2018  supplementing  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1308/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as  regards  applications  for  protection  of 
designations  of  origin,  geographical  indications  and  traditional  terms  in  the  wine  sector,  the  objection 
7 

 
 
                                                            
was  not  in  the  scope  of  this evaluation.  Marketing  standards  for  wine were  assessed  in 
the evaluation support study on the CAP measures applied to the wine sector8. 

The ‘Breakfast Directives’ 

Marketing  standards  established  by  the  ‘Breakfast  Directives’  have  been  drafted  under 
different  conditions  and  times  for  several  products  or  sectors,  and  predate  the  CMO 
Regulation. They were justified due to differences between national laws that could lead 
to unfair competition, mislead consumers, and thereby have a direct adverse effect on the 
establishment and functioning of the common market. They include: 

Directive  1999/4/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  February 
1999 relating to coffee extracts and chicory extracts.  

Directive 2000/36/EC  of  the European  Parliament  and of  the Council of  23 June  2000 
relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption. 

Council  Directive  Dir  2001/111/EC  of  20  December  2001  relating  to  certain  sugars 
intended for human consumption. 

Council Directive 2001/113/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to fruit jams, jellies and 
marmalades and sweetened chestnut purée intended for human consumption. 

Council Directive 2001/114/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to certain partly or wholly 
dehydrated preserved milk for human consumption. 

Council Directive 2001/112/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to fruit juices and certain 
similar products intended for human consumption. 

Council Directive 2001/110/CE of 20 December 2001 relating to honey.  

procedure,  restrictions  of  use,  amendments  to  product  specifications,  cancellation  of  protection,  and 
labelling and presentation; 
Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2019/34  of  17  October  2018  laying  down  rules  for  the 
application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards 
applications for protection of designations of origin, geographical indications and traditional terms in the 
wine  sector,  the  objection  procedure,  amendments  to  product  specifications,  the  register  of  protected 
names,  cancellation  of  protection  and  use  of  symbols,  and  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1306/2013  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council as regards an appropriate system of checks; 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/273 of 11 December 2017 supplementing Regulation (EU) 
No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the scheme of authorisations for 
vine plantings, the vineyard register, accompanying documents and certification, the inward and outward 
register,  compulsory  declarations,  notifications  and  publication  of  notified 
information,  and 
supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards 
the relevant checks and penalties. 

8 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/21c4fc5f-5064-11e9-a8ed-01aa75ed71a1 

8 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                 
 
Figure 2 - Model of intervention logic of EU marketing standards – summary 

9 

 
 
 
 
2.2.  Baseline and points of comparison 

The  evaluation  focuses  on  marketing  standards  under  the  current  Common  Market 
Organisation  Regulation,  but  some  of  these  measures  were  introduced  long  before  the 
entry into force of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013. It is therefore very difficult to establish a 
meaningful  counterfactual  analysis:  for  some  sectors,  it  would  require  going  back 
decades, at the risk of weak results. In addition, the benefits of marketing standards are 
difficult to quantify, and it would not be easy with economic modelling to capture their 
effects. Therefore, the evaluation followed a qualitative rather than quantitative approach, 
reaching  out  to  all  categories  of  stakeholders  to  assess  the  marketing  standards  as  they 
stand today.  

However,  the  sector  of  fruit  and  vegetables,  where  a  number  of  different  marketing 
standards  were  replaced  by  a  single  Regulation,  could  offer  an  example  of  recent  and 
meaningful  counterfactual  comparison.  In  2008,  Commission  Regulation  (EC) 
No. 1221/2008 repealed 26 of the 36 specific marketing standards. Thus, the 36 specific 
standards defined by 34 regulations were replaced by just 1 regulation for 11 standards 
(one general marketing standard and 10 specific ones). The general marketing standard is 
applicable to all fresh fruit and vegetables covered by the common market organisation, 
but the 10 other specific marketing standards are maintained for the following products: 
apples,  tomatoes,  strawberries,  peaches  and  nectarines,  citrus,  peppers,  kiwi,  lettuces, 
pears and grapes. The general principle here is that products must be ‘intact, sound and 
clean’, mature, properly packaged and traceable. Products are classified either as ‘extra’, 
‘class  I’  or  ‘class  II’.  Further  details  are  laid  out  for  apples,  citrus,  pears,  kiwi, 
strawberries,  lettuces,  sweet  peppers,  peaches/nectarines,  table  grapes  and  tomatoes. 
When  importing,  customs  issue  a  certificate  of  conformity  for  the  consignments.  The 
rules  also  provide  details  on  methods  of  inspection.  They  indicate  how  to  perform 
conformity checks and provide definitions for ‘consignment’, ‘package’, ‘lot’ etc. 

The pros and cons of repealing the 26 specific marketing standards were analysed in the 
2009 Study on marketing standards in the fruit and vegetable sector9. The analysis found 
that the usefulness of the marketing standards depended on the category of operators: the 
presence  of  public  or  private  marketing  standards  (EU,  UNECE  or  retailers 
specifications) seems to be essential for large-scale retailers. For packers, the presence of 
marketing standards tends to make work easier by offering a common external basis for 
all  operators (producers  – suppliers, traders and staff assigned to the packing  line). For 
producers,  thanks  to  marketing  standards  practices  can  be  adjusted  (varieties  choice, 
cultural  practices)  to  obtain  the  required  result  (share  of  extra  class,  of  class  I  and  II 
within  a  lot).  For  wholesalers,  thanks  to  marketing  standards,  big  quantities  can  be 
bought and sold without each piece having to be checked. They reduce transaction costs.  

Farmer’s associations were of the opinion that withdrawing public standardisation norms 
opens  the  space  for  multiple  private  standardisation  schemes,  each  with  its  own, 
distinctive set of rules. That is why they prefer to keep a European system for marketing 
standards  in  place.  Some  would  even  like  to  reinstate  the  26  marketing  standards 
eliminated back in 2008.   

9 https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cmef/products-
and-markets/marketing-standards-fruit-and-vegetable-sector_fr 

10 

 
 
                                                            
The  expected  impacts  on  stakeholders  are  notably  to  ensure  legal  certainty,  fair 
competition and access to adequate information and to facilitate the implementation and 
enforcement of the EU policy on quality agricultural products10. 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION /STATE OF PLAY 

Due to the large scope of the evaluation covering a wide range of products and sectors, 
and  taking  into  account  other  relevant  rules  in  addition  to  the  EU  legislation11,  it  is 
extremely  difficult  to  describe  the  implementation  of  the  marketing  standards  in  a 
generalised, all-encompassing manner.  

In addition regulations apply directly. Therefore to better understand the implementation 
of  marketing  standards,  the  approach  in  this  section  is  to  examine  information  on  non-
compliance available to the Commission, notably for poultry and olive oil, and to analyse 
judgment of the European Court of Justice, notably for dairy products.  

Overview of controls of water content in poultry meat 

Poultry,  like  all  animal  species,  has  water  naturally  present  in  it.  This  is  known  as 
physiological  water.  Commercial  poultry  processing 
in  accordance  with  good 
manufacturing  practice,  adds  an  amount  of  water  known  as  ‘extraneous  water’,  part  of 
which is technically unavoidable.  

Commission Regulation (EU) No 543/2008 sets legal limits for the amount of technically 
unavoidable water so that the ‘true extraneous’ water can be detected and consumers are 
not being disadvantaged by excess added water in the final product.  

The  system  for  monitor  and  checking  water  content  in  poultry  meat  relies  on  regular 
monitoring in slaughterhouses and checks carried out by national competent authorities 
along the marketing chain, including in slaughterhouses, cutting plants and at the stage of 
imports.  The  respective  national  reference  laboratories  (NRLs)  report  the  results  of  the 
checks (‘control data’) to the Commission each year. The control data are evaluated by 
the Joint Research Centre12 and discussed at the annual meetings of the Expert Group for 
Water Monitoring in Poultry Meat. 

Control data are reported according to product categories for which legal limits are set in 
the  Marketing  Standards  Regulation,  distinguishing  also  the  origin  of  the  poultry  meat 
(EU/non-EU).   

In the date from the most recent period (data from 2011-2017), a relatively limited share 
of  non-compliance  samples  were  reported  for  chicken  carcasses  (6-11%).  The  chicken 
carcasses originated almost exclusively in the EU (imports of whole carcasses to the EU 
are negligible). 

The  non-compliance  rate  for  poultry  cuts  ranged  from  14%  to  25%  of  the  total  control 
data  reported,  regardless  of  the  origin  of  the  poultry  meat.  This  overall  picture  masks 
differences in the non-compliance rates between poultry cuts of EU and non-EU origin 

10 https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality_en 
11 Regulations are directly applicable in all Member States. 
12 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/about/jrc-site/geel 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
and  between  various  categories  of  poultry  cuts.  The  share  of  reported  non-compliant 
imported poultry cuts is very high, ranging from 25% to 46%, while non-compliance of 
EU poultry cuts is somewhat lower between 11% and 21%. It is worth noting, however, 
that for the specific category of chicken breast of EU origin, non-compliance is also high 
(14% to 32%); this suggests that it is becoming increasingly difficult for EU producers to 
meet the legal limits, at least for this product category. 

Overview of the controls in the olive oil sector 

Non-compliance  is  a  good  way  to  analyse  the  implementation  of  marketing  standards. 
The  controlling  checks  in  the  olive  oil  sector  are  presented  as  an  example,  but  do  not 
imply any generalisation across the various sectors. 

Olive  oil,  and  in  particular  extra  virgin  olive  oil,  is  considered  a  food  category  at  high 
risk of non-compliance and fraud due to its high economic value compared to other food 
products.  

Conformity  checks  are  an  essential  tool  for  verifying  that  marketing  standards 
specifically designed for a product are effectively complied with on the EU market. 

In accordance to Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91, EU Member States should perform each 
year  at  least  one  conformity  check  per  thousand  tons  of  olive  oil  marketed  in  each 
Member State. 

Conformity  checks  should  be  performed  in  all  the  relevant  stages  of  the  supply  chain. 
Member  States  should  assess  the  level  of  risk  of  each  stage  of  the  production  and 
marketing chain and design their control plans accordingly. In producing Member States, 
all  the  stages  of  the  supply  chain  should  be  covered  by  controls,  whereas  in  non-
producing Member States, distributors and retailers are mostly controlled.  

Conformity  checks  for  olive  oils  are  based  on  a  risk  analysis,  which,  if  conducted 
effectively,  and  allows  the  competent  authorities  to  target  their  control  activities  as 
appropriate, thus ensuring the efficacy and efficiency of checks.  

Across  the  EU,  the  three  main  criteria  used  for  risk  analysis  are  the  following:  a) 
category of oil: the majority of controls is focused on bottled extra virgin olive oil; b) the 
position of operators in the marketing chain; c) the findings from previous checks. 

The following main typologies of infringements can be identified:  

  marketing of virgin olive oil as extra virgin olive oil;  
  marketing of seed oils colored with chlorophyll as extra virgin olive oil;  
  marketing of other vegetable oils (sunflower, corn, palm, etc.) blended with olive 

oil as ‘olive oil’;  

  misleading use of the indications of origin; 
  marketing of ‘lampante’ olive oil labelled as ‘extra virgin’ or ‘virgin’ olive oil. 

The EU system of conformity checks makes olive oil one of the most controlled products 
in  the  EU  food  chain.  In  particular,  the  control  requirements  include  the  minimum 
number of conformity checks to be performed annually, as set out by Regulation (EEC) 
No 2568/91, taking into account the characteristics of their domestic market and the need 
to also control other food products.  

12 

 
 
Court cases for dairy 

Another  way  to  look  at  the  implementation  of  marketing  standards  is  to  analyse  the 
European Court of Justice cases interpreting EU law. For dairy definitions, two cases are 
worth mentioning. 

In  its  judgment  of  16  December  1999,  Diät-Käse,  C-101/98,  EU:C:1999:615, the 
European  Court  of  Justice  considered  that  products,  including  ‘cheese’,  could  be 
described  using  the  designation  ‘milk  products’  only  if  they  are  products  derived 
exclusively  from  milk  and  provided  that  no  milk  constituent  has  been  replaced,  even 
partially,  during  the  manufacturing  process.  The  European  Court  of  Justice  added  that 
this  prohibition  was  introduced  because  of  the  need  to  protect  consumers  and  to  avoid 
any confusion between milk products and other food products, including those consisting 
partly  of  milk  components.  The  Court  noted  that  the  legislator,  in  the  light  of  the 
principle  of  proportionality,  clearly  considered  that  only  a  strict  ban  on  the  use  of  the 
designation ‘cheese’ for products derived from milk from which the natural milk fat has 
been removed could with certainty prevent any confusion that might arise in the mind of 
the consumer as a result of the use of the word ‘cheese’, even if accompanied by written 
explanations.   

In  its judgment of 14 June 2017,  Tofu Town, C-422/16,  EU:C:2017:458, the  European 
Court  of  Justice  stressed  the  fact  that,  whether  in  marketing  or  advertising,    the  term 
‘milk’ and the designations reserved exclusively for milk products can only be used for 
products  which  meet  the  requirements laid  down  by  Annex VII,  Part III,  to  Regulation 
No 1308/2013.  Furthermore,  for  the  producers  of  those  products,  these  rules  guarantee 
undistorted  conditions  for  competition,  and  for  consumers  the  rules  guarantee  that  the 
products with those designations meet all the same standards of quality, eliminating for 
consumers  any  confusion  surrounding  the  composition  of  the  products  they  intend  to 
purchase.   

4.  METHOD 

4.1. 

Short description of methodology  

The  strategy  to  collect  and  gather  the  vast  and  varied  evidence  base  needed  for  the 
evaluation  combined  multiple  data  collection  methods  and  tools.  In  particular,  these 
multiple  methods  and  tools  were  used  to  make  the  overall data  collection  system  more 
robust,  address  any  potential  failure  of  specific  methods/tools,  and  manage  the  related 
risks. The following methods were applied: 

Desk  research,  which  includes  compiling  relevant  legislative  texts,  documentation, 
background  information,  datasets  (mainly  concerning  trade  data)  and  reviewing  the 
available scientific and technical literature (of both a general and specialist nature). 

In-depth  structured  interviews  with  competent  authorities,  stakeholders  and 
independent experts. 

Three  different  stakeholder  surveys,  targeting  different  respondents  and  collecting  a 
substantial  part  of  the  evidence  base  needed  for  the  evaluation  from  primary  sources, 

13 

 
 
 
 
notably  Member  State’  competent  authorities  (19  responses  received),  business 
associations at both EU level and Member State level, and consumer associations. 

Focus  groups  with  business  associations,  consumer  associations  and  independent 
experts,  in  order  to  collect  relevant  information  from  primary  sources  (associations  of 
business  operators  directly  impacted  by  the  implementation  of  marketing  standards; 
consumer  associations;  academics  and  consultants  boasting  high-profile  expertise  on 
marketing standards). 

Four  thematic  case  studies,  focusing  on  specific  aspects/issues  dealing  with  the 
implementation of marketing standards set out in regulations or directives, or on specific 
issues arising from the lack of marketing standards, for fruit juices and certain similar 
products  intended  for  human  consumption  (provisions  on  minimum  Brix  level  for 
reconstituted juices13), cocoa and chocolate products (marketed for both industrial and 
final  consumer  use),  poultry  meat  sector  (optional  reserved  terms)  and  cider  (no  EU 
definition  for  cider).  The  thematic  case  studies  were  aimed  at  collecting  additional 
evidence to assess the effectiveness of EU marketing standards, and in particular to what 
extent they help to create a level playing field for producers, traders and retailers, and 
to assess the strengths and weaknesses of regulations and directives as instruments for 
setting marketing standards for the sectors/products currently not covered.  

Focus  groups  with  producers,  processors, 
traders/retailers  and  consumer 
associations were organised in the form of a multi-stage consultation process, aimed at 
feeding  qualitative  and  especially  quantitative  evidence  for  replying  to  evaluation 
questions on the efficiency of EU marketing standards. 

The methodology is described in more detail in Annex 3. 

4.2.  Limitations and robustness of findings 

The  findings  from  the  evaluation  support  study14  face  limitations  stemming  from  the 
scope  of  the  analysis,  which  encompasses  a  large  number  of  products  and  sectors  and, 
therefore leads to a lower granularity of the results compared to other studies that tackle a 
particular sector.  

Because reliable data was not always available and it was difficult to compare different 
sectors  and  draw  reliable  conclusions,  the  methods  of  the  evaluation  support  study 
focused mainly on qualitative rather than quantitative sources. 

13   The Brix level is a measure of the sugar content of an aqueous solution. With respect to reconstituted 
fruit juices, Directive 2001/112/EC establishes, also at Annex I(1)(b), that “The soluble solids content 
of the finished product shall meet the minimum Brix level for reconstituted juice specified in Annex V. 
If a juice from concentrate is manufactured from a fruit not mentioned in Annex V, the minimum Brix 
level  of  the  reconstituted  juice  shall be  the  Brix  level  of  the  juice  as  extracted  from  the  fruit  used  to 
make the concentrate”. Annex V consists in a table reporting the minimum Brix levels for reconstituted 
fruit juice and reconstituted fruit purée, which are specified for a number of fruits. 

14   Evaluation  support  study  of  the  marketing  standards  contained  in  the  common  market  organisation 
legislation: 

(CMO) 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-
policy/cmef/products-and-markets/cmo-regulation-breakfast-directives_en 

regulation, 

directives’ 

secondary 

‘breakfast 

CMO 

and 

the 

14 

 
 
 
                                                            
Given  the  wide  range  of  sectors  analysed  and  this  heavier  reliance  on  qualitative 
rather than quantitative sources, the level of detail of the analysis is uneven across 
sectors, making it difficult to establish general conclusions on marketing standards. 

15 

 
 
 
 
5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

This  chapter  builds  on  the  evaluation  support  study  (‘analysis’)  consisting  of  twelve 
questions  addressing  the  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence,  relevance,  and  EU  added 
value  of  marketing  standards,  complemented  with  information  from  other  relevant 
sources  and  the  outcome  of  a  public  consultation  carried  out  for  the  purpose  of  the 
evaluation15. 

5.1.  Effectiveness 

The  effectiveness  of  marketing  standards  in  addressing  their  objectives  is  assessed  by 
analysing  the  extent  to  which  marketing  standards  have  been  successful  in 
improving the quality of relevant products, in providing adequate and transparent 
information  and  in  promoting  the  supply  of  products  of  a  standardised  and 
satisfactory  quality.  The  analysis  also  look  at  the  extent  to  which  the  marketing 
standards  help  to  improve  economic  conditions  for  production  and  marketing  (and 
creating  a  level  playing  field  for  producers,  traders  and  retailers),  and  for  fruit  and 
vegetables, the extent to which simplification of marketing standards has made the 
policy more or less effective.  

Improving quality, providing transparent information and promoting standardised quality 

According to the analysis,  EU marketing standards have successfully achieved their 
objectives in most of the covered sectors, in terms of: 

  helping  to  improve  the  quality  of  the  concerned  products  in  the  interest  of 

producers, traders and consumers; 

  meeting  the  expectations  of  consumers  of  receiving  adequate  and  transparent 

information; 

  enabling  the  market  to  be  easily  supplied  with  products  of  a  standardised  and 

satisfactory quality. 

Relatively  few  limitations  were  identified16  and  those  that  were  identified  were  in 
specific sectors (dairy products17, olive oil18). The absence of mandatory origin labelling 
for  a  number  of  products  is  an  issue  of  relevance  to  consumers.  However,  upon  the 
existing  data  it  cannot  be  concluded  that  the  absence  of  generalised  mandatory  origin 
labelling in EU marketing standards was a serious limitation. 

15   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1457-Evaluation-of-marketing-     

standards-Regulation-EU-No-1308-2013-/public-consultation  

16   No significant limitations in terms of effectiveness were identified for the following products covered 
by the evaluation: table olives; bananas; live plants; spreadable fats intended for human consumption; 
hatching  eggs  and  poultry  chicks;  coffee  and  chicory  extracts;  cocoa  and  chocolate  products;  sugars 
intended for human consumption; dehydrated milk; honey. 

17   Improper  use  of  protected  dairy  terms  for  marketing  plant-based  products  competing  with  dairy 

products. 

18   Significant  limitations  of  marketing  standards  for  olive  oil  in  taking  into  account  the  fact  that  the 

characteristics of olive oil degrade over time. 

16 

 
 
 
                                                            
Improving quality 

The extent to which marketing standards help to improve the quality of the products was 
assessed on the basis of consultations and interviews; from these it emerged that most of 
the business associations consulted agreed on three key findings: 

  The average quality levels for a wide range of agricultural and food products in 

the EU have improved over time. 

  EU marketing standards have often contributed to this improvement. 
 

In  a  few,  very  specific  situations19,  marketing  standards  have  limited  the 
improvement of product quality. 

Providing adequate and transparent information 

The  contribution  of  marketing  standards  in  providing  adequate  and  transparent 
information  to  consumers  is  positive  overall.  But  certain  limitations  have  been 
identified, notably by the EU-level consumer association when consulted on, the absence 
of  mandatory  origin  labelling  for  a  number  of  products20  and  the  insufficient 
requirements  on  mandatory  origin  labelling  (from  a  consumer  information  standpoint), 
where they exist21. Mandatory labelling of a product’s origin already applies for several 
products covered by EU marketing standards: e.g. fresh fruit and vegetables, extra virgin 
olive oil and virgin olive oil, sheep, goat, pig and poultry meat, as well as beef.  

The  positive  judgement  on  marketing  standards  is  confirmed  by  a  survey  of  19 
competent authorities:  

  89%  of  the  respondents  considered  that  EU  marketing  standards  have  provided 
consumers  with  adequate  information,  with  6  competent  authorities  reporting 
minor shortcomings; 

  95% judged positively the effectiveness of EU marketing standards in providing 
consumers with transparent information, with 9 reporting minor shortcomings and 
3  highlighting  serious  limitations  for  consumers  to  identify  products  of 
outstandingly high quality (although it can be argued that the primary function of 
EU  marketing  standards  is  not  the  identification  of  products  of  outstanding 
quality, but the setting of common levels for minimum quality requirements). 

The positive assessment is echoed in the results of the public consultation, according 
to  which  79%  of  the  81  respondents  found  that  marketing  standards  had  a  positive 
contribution in providing adequate and transparent information to consumers, while 12% 

19   For  instance,  in  the  fruit  and  vegetables  sector,  the  replacement  of  product-specific  standards  for  26 
products by a general marketing standard, the appearance of new products/varieties on the market that 
do  not  fit  well  in  the  framework  of  the  standards  in  force.  In  most  cases,  this  shortcoming  has  been 
addressed by adapting the relevant provisions.  

20   The consumer associations consulted at EU and Member State level did not provide inputs on specific 

products for which the introduction of mandatory origin labelling would be needed. 

21   In the case of honey, for instance, the obligation is about EU/non-EU origin labelling only; however, 
EU  legislation  allows  Member  States  to  introduce  in  their  national  legislation  the  requirement  for  all 
domestically  packed  blends  of  honey  originating  in  two  or  more  countries  to  be  labelled  with  the 
specific countries of origin. Another example provided by the consulted national consumer association 
for  Italy  concerns  olive  oils  made  from  olives  cultivated  in  multiple  Member  States  and/or  third 
countries. 

17 

 
 
                                                            
found  that  they  had  a  negative  contribution,  8%  claimed  no  effect  and  1%  had  no 
opinion. 

Promoting standardised and satisfactory quality products 

As for whether marketing standards helped  the market to be easily supplied with 
standardised  products  of  a  satisfactory  quality,  most  of  the  business  associations 
interviewed  considered  EU  marketing  standards  to  have  been  an  enabling  factor.  The 
EU-level  consumer  association  consulted  was  of  the  opinion  that  consumers  would  be 
negatively affected by the removal of standards, because they would have to compare the 
characteristics  and/or  composition  of  several  different  products,  which  are  currently 
harmonised in terms of quality. 

Most  respondents  in  the  survey  targeting  at  business  associations  (82%  of  the  123 
respondents)  were  not  aware  of  temporary  or  structural  supply  shortages  of  specific 
product  typologies  that  could  be  related  to  the  setting  up  of  EU  marketing  standards. 
Most  of  the  22  respondents  who  identified  such  shortages  mentioned  the  poultry  meat 
and eggs sectors as affected sectors, although they did not provide further details22. 

According  to  88%  of  the  82  respondents  to  the  public  consultation,  EU  marketing 
standards made a positive contribution in supplying the market with standardised 
products of satisfactory quality, while 3% found that they had a negative contribution, 
4% claimed no effect and 5% had no opinion. 

The results of the public consultation were also positive concerning the extent to which 
marketing  standards  provide  the  purchaser  with  value  for  money,  with  21%  of  81 
respondents indicating very good value for money, 47% good value for money, against 
12% replying limited value for money, 9% no value for money and 11% did not have an 
opinion. 

Improving the economic conditions for production and marketing 

The  assessment  of  marketing  standards  in  helping  to  improve  the  economic  conditions 
for production and marketing (and in particular in helping to create a level playing field 
for producers, traders and retailers), is based on a qualitative analysis of the perceptions 
of  the  consulted  stakeholders  and  on  quantitative  analyses  mainly  focusing  on  the 
evolution of intra-EU trade in a number of sectors (fruit juices, fresh fruit and vegetables, 
hops). The assessment points to generally high levels of satisfaction by stakeholders.  

In surveys, both business associations and individual companies were clearly positive in 
their judgement about the effectiveness of EU marketing standards in reducing quality-
related  issues  in  the  production  stage  of  the  concerned  supply  chains  (see  Figure  3). 
They were slightly less positive in their judgement on the effectiveness of EU marketing 
standards  in  increasing  the  scope  for  differentiated  product  valorisation  and  in 
accessing  new  and/or  more  remunerative  marketing  channels.  The  main  limitation 
highlighted is related to the issue of the ‘standard inflation’, clearly illustrated in the eggs 
sector. In several parts of the EU, barn eggs have become the market standard in retail 

22   Even fewer cases were identified by individual companies that replied to the survey: only 3 out of 54 
companies  highlighted  cases  of  temporary  or  structural  shortages  of  specific  product  typologies  that 
could  be  related  to  the  setting  up  of  EU  marketing  standards.  It  should  be  noted  that  most  of  the 
companies that participated in the survey (45 out of a total of 67) operate in the poultry meat and eggs 
supply chains. 

18 

 
 
                                                            
sales for direct consumption, as caged eggs are no longer produced for that market. This 
implies that there is no longer a market advantage for barn eggs, as they have become the 
market  standard,  at  least  for  what  concerns  the  retail  market.  This  translates  into  a 
reduced  remuneration  of  a  higher  standard,  produced  in  more  costly  animal  welfare-
friendly rearing systems.  

Figure 3 – Practical  role of EU marketing standards in promoting the improvement 
of economic conditions (in the views of producers)  

Note: total of 122 respondents among business associations 

A  generally  positive  judgement  by  business  stakeholders  also  emerged  about  the 
effectiveness  of  EU  marketing standards in improving the  economic conditions for 
marketing, particularly with respect to business-to-business relationships. 

Overall,  the  business  associations  surveyed  considered  that  EU  marketing  standards 
effectively reduced quality-related issues in the intermediate distribution stages and 
helped to remove barriers to intra-EU trade. As to whether they reduced transaction 
costs  in  business-to-business  relationships,  the  judgement  is  again  mostly  positive, 
even though a slightly higher share of respondents identified serious limitations, without 
fully  detailing  their  reasons.  The  lowest  share  of  fully  positive  judgements  emerged 
regarding  whether  marketing  standards  provide  the  scope  for  developing  innovative 
business-to-business practices. The olive oil sector was indeed found to be affected by 
relatively  minor  shortcomings  in  EU  marketing  standards,  which,  in  the  eyes  of  the 
business associations, failed t to provide the scope for developing innovative business-to-
business practices, and removing barriers to intra-EU trade. 

The  assessment  of  how  effective  EU  marketing  standards  were  in  improving  the 
economic  conditions  for  marketing  in  a  business-to-consumer  perspective  revealed 
that business stakeholders had comparable levels of satisfaction. They had a favourable 
judgement  of  the  effectiveness  of  EU  marketing  standards in  reducing  quality-related 
issues  in  the  final  distribution  stage.  Even  with  a  lower  share  of  fully  positive 
judgements,  they  were  also  basically  positive  about  the  contribution  of  EU  marketing 
standards  to  more  balanced  quality/price  ratios.  The  lower  share  of  positive 
judgements  (‘fully  successful’  and  ‘mostly  successful  with  minor  shortcomings’)  was 
recorded  with  respect  to  expanding  the  scope  for  developing  innovative  business  to 
consumer marketing practices. 

19 

 
 
The data collection has confirmed that it is not possible to attempt any quantification of 
the  benefits  for  food  business  operators  of  complying  with  marketing  standards. 
Nonetheless,  in  terms  of  improving  the  economic  conditions,  the  business  associations 
surveyed identified the following qualitative benefits: 

  The  marketing  standards  fully  contribute  to  an  improvement  in  product 
quality  (76%  of  the  associations),  in  market  access  (64%)  and  in  controls  by 
enforcement  authorities  (52%);  for  most  of  the  remaining  respondents  the 
marketing standards at least partly contribute to these benefits (for less than 3% to 
8%  of  the  associations  the  marketing  standards  do  not  at  all  contribute  to  these 
objectives).  

  On  the  other  hand,  the  benefit  least  considered  to  be  fully  conferred  by 
marketing  standards  is  a  positive  impact  on  prices:  for  41%  of  business 
associations marketing standards fully contribute to higher prices, but for another 
38% the beneficial impact is only partial and for 21% there is no impact.  

  For  the  majority  (78%)  of  business  associations,  marketing  standards  do  not 
have a notable impact on price volatility; only 18% of the business associations 
consider  them  to  have  a  positive  impact  in  reducing  price  volatility  i.e. 
contributing to more stable prices. 

A similar assessment emerges from the feedback received from 54 individual companies 
(of which 30 and 15 from the poultry and eggs sectors, respectively). For only 31% of 
respondents  marketing  standards  contribute  partially  to  improved  prices.  Higher 
prices  is  the  benefit  considered  to  be  the  least  conferred  fully  by  marketing  standards 
(52% of company respondents), although for another 31% there is a partially beneficial 
impact; nonetheless, according to 17% of respondents (9 companies) marketing standards 
do not help to improve prices. Similarly, three quarters of respondents (41 companies) do 
not  consider  marketing  standards  to  have  an  impact  on  price  volatility;  the  remaining 
respondents are rather divided, with 6 companies considering them to contribute to more 
stable prices and 7 companies seeing them as increasing price volatility. 

Interviews  with  sector  associations  confirmed  that  EU  marketing  standards  do  not 
influence  price  volatility  in  the  following  sectors:  fresh  fruit  and  vegetables;  dairy 
products; olive oils; hops.  

It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  results  of  a  comparative  analysis  of  price  volatility  for 
selected  fruit  and  vegetable  products  still  covered  by  product-specific  standards  and 
selected fruit and vegetable products concerned by the transition from product-specific 
standards to the general marketing standard suggest that the replacement of specific 
standards  had  no  influence  on  the  evolution  of  price  volatility  for  the  products 
affected by the shift. 

Creating a level playing field 

The  assessment  of  the  effectiveness  of  EU  marketing  standards  in  creating  a  level 
playing field for operators referred to two different concepts of ‘level playing field’: a 
‘horizontal’  field  (of  operators  of  different  Member  States)  and  a  ‘vertical’  field  (of 
different typologies of operators within the concerned supply chains).  

20 

 
 
The assessment further distinguished between operators, i.e. between producers (farmers 
and  processors),  and  traders  and  retailers.  The  assessment  was  mainly  based  on  the 
perceptions of both business stakeholders and national competent authorities, and on the 
any specific sectoral issues identified in terms of situations of unfair competition / non-
level playing field among operators.  

resulting 

For the business associations surveyed who represent farmers and processors, a much 
larger percentage of the business associations representing processors (88%)  highlighted 
situations of unfair competition / a non-level playing field among operators of different 
Member  States 
the  definition  and/or 
from  national  differences 
implementation  of  EU  marketing  standards;  the  percentage  of  business  associations 
representing the interests of farmers who highlighted these situations was lower (54%)23. 
It is worth noting that processors often export their products to multiple Member States, 
and deal also with the products covered by the ‘Breakfast Directives’, for which national 
differences in the definition and/or implementation of EU marketing standards are more 
frequent.  Even  if  the  appraisal  by  processors’  associations  is  less  positive,  only  a 
minority  of  the  associations  surveyed  in  both  groups  considered  that  the  related  cases 
were numerous. 

in 

Figure 4  – Survey results: situations of unfair competition / a non-level playing field 
among operators of different Member States resulting from national differences in 
the  definition  and/or  implementation  of  EU  marketing  standards  –  farmers  vs. 
processors 
Associations representing farmers (total = 39)         Associations representing processors (total = 34) 

Regarding  retailers  and  processors,  the  usefulness  of  the  survey  results  is  seriously 
limited by the very low number of associations surveyed who  represent exclusively the 
interests  of  traders/wholesalers  (3  associations)  and  retailers  (1  association).  That  said, 
those four associations made a rather negative overall appraisal of the situations of unfair 
competition / a non-level playing field; however, the available evidence did not identify 
any  products  to  back  that  up.  Therefore,  the  fairly  negative  overall  judgement  remains 
unsubstantiated. 

The majority of the competent authorities surveyed (11 out of 19, i.e. 59%) reported no 
situations of unfair competition / a non-level playing field among operators of different 
Member  States 
the  definition  and/or 
from  national  differences 
implementation of EU marketing standards.  

resulting 

in 

23   Survey results: situations of unfair competition / a non-level playing field among operators of different 
Member  States  resulting  from  national  differences  in  the  definition  and/or  implementation  of  EU 
marketing standards – farmers vs. processors. 

21 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Regarding the ‘vertical’ level playing field, the share of surveyed business associations, 
representing farmers and processors, who highlighted situations of unfair competition / 
a non-level playing field among operators as a result of differential requirements imposed 
by  EU  marketing  standards  on  specific  typologies  of  operators  is  lower  than  for  the 
‘horizontal’ level playing field. Similarly, the share is much larger (62%) for associations 
representing  the  interests  of  processors  than  for  those  representing  the  interests  of 
farmers  (31%).  However,  very  few  of  the  associations  surveyed  highlighted  numerous 
cases of unfair competition for both groups (see Figure 5).  

Figure 5  – Survey results: situations of unfair competition / a non-level playing field 
among  operators  resulting  from  differential  requirements 
imposed  by  EU 
marketing standards on specific typologies of operators – farmers vs. processors 
Associations representing farmers (total = 39)         Associations representing processors (total = 34) 

For traders and retailers, similarly to the overall appraisal of unfair competition / a non-
level playing field among operators of different Member States, the overall appraisal by 
the  four  associations  surveyed  highlighted  a  rather  negative  situation.  However,  the 
business  associations  surveyed  did  not  provide  any  concrete  evidence  about  specific 
cases, thus this judgement remains unsubstantiated. 

Interviews  with  EU-level  sectoral  associations  confirmed  the  absence  of  significant 
situations  of  unfair  competition  /  a  non-level  playing  field  among  operators  resulting 
from  differential  requirements  imposed  by  EU  marketing  standards  on  specific 
typologies of operators. 

The majority of the competent authorities surveyed (12 out of 19, i.e. 63%) reported no 
situations  of  unfair  competition  /  a  non-level  playing  field  among  operators  resulting 
from  differential  requirements  imposed  by  EU  marketing  standards  on  specific 
typologies of operators. 

When  asked  the  question  differently,  i.e.  on  the benefits  for food  business  operators  of 
complying  with  marketing  standards,  65%  of  the  123  business  associations  said  that 
compliance created a level playing field between operators, mitigating the rather negative 
judgement by processors. 

The outcome of the public consultation points towards a positive judgement; 82% of the 
82  respondents  found  that  EU  marketing  standards  had  helped  to  improve  the 
conditions for production and marketing and helped to create a level playing field 
in these sectors, while 12% found that the standards made a negative contribution, 4% 
claimed no effect and 5% had no opinion. 

22 

 
 
 
 
Overall, the assessment focusing on producers revealed: 

  a fairly positive overall judgement by farmers, and by competent authorities and, 
to a lesser extent, by processors on the effectiveness of EU marketing standards in 
ensuring  a  level  playing  field  among  operators  of  different  Member  States, 
with some sector-specific issues emerging for the eggs, dairy products and olive 
oil sectors24. 

  a positive overall judgement by farmers, by competent authorities and, to a lesser 
extent, by processors on the effectiveness of EU marketing standards in ensuring 
a level playing field among different typologies of operators. 

The assessment focusing on traders and retailers revealed that the main shortcomings 
of EU marketing standards in helping to improve the economic conditions for marketing 
are related to some constraints that they would pose to the development of innovative 
business-to-consumer marketing practices. In particular, these constraints concern the 
impossibility to combine the terms ‘free range’ and ‘organic’ in the marketing of eggs, 
which would prevent effective communication on the differential characteristics of eggs 
produced in farming systems that meet both sets of requirements. 

The assessment also revealed that limitations posed by EU legislation to the marketing of 
thawed  frozen  poultry  meat  may  have  costly  implications  for  the  related  logistics  by 
limiting  carcass  balancing  over  time25,  or  the  ability  to  effectively  match  supply  to 
demand. 

The assessment was completed by two sector-specific assessments focusing on: 

 

 

the  effectiveness  of  the  provisions  on  the  minimum  Brix  level  for  reconstituted 
juices in creating a level playing field for producers; and 
the effectiveness of the provisions on the certification of hops in creating a level 
playing field for producer organisations/producer groups, traders, retailers. 

From this it was concluded that: 

24   These are related to the: 

 eggs  sector:  a  non-homogeneous  approach  by  the  competent  authorities  across  the  EU  to  enforcing 

the ban on non-enriched cages in 2012. 

 dairy sector: a non-homogenous enforcement at Member State level of the list of national exemptions 
(EU  Commission  Decision  2010/791/EU  of  20  December  2010),  which  results  in  cases  of 
improper/illegal use of protected dairy terms in the marketing of plant-based products competing with 
dairy products in a number of Member States not covered by the specified exemptions. 

 olive oil sector: depending on the Member State, domestic operators may or may not be allowed to 
blend olive oils with other vegetable oils for sale in their national market, but they can always do that 
for  export  to  other  Member  States.  Article  6(1),  third  paragraph  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  29/2012 
establishes  that  ‘Member  States  may  prohibit  the  production  in  their  territory  of  blends  of  olive  oil 
and other vegetable oils referred to in the first subparagraph for internal consumption. However, they 
may not prohibit the marketing in their territory of such blends coming from other countries and they 
may  not  prohibit  the  production  in  their  territory  of  such  blends  for  marketing  in  another  Member 
State or for exportation’. 

25   Achieving carcass balance means making the best possible use of all edible and inedible by-products 

from both primary and secondary processes. 

23 

 
 
                                                            
  There were no significant issues with specific respect to the effectiveness of the 
provisions  on  the  minimum  Brix  level  for  reconstituted  juices  in  creating  a 
level playing field for producers26. 

  Both  business  stakeholders  and  competent  authorities  had  positive 
judgements on the effectiveness of the provisions on the certification of hops 
in  creating a  level  playing  field for producer organisations/producer  groups, 
traders, retailers (also supported by the observed improvement in intra-EU trade 
performance for hops). 

From  the  findings  of  the  evidence  based  assessment  of  different  aspects  of  the 
effectiveness  of  EU  marketing  standards  presented  above,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the 
current framework of EU marketing standards has in general been fairly successful in 
helping to improve the economic conditions for production and marketing, and to a 
lesser extent, in creating a level playing field for producers. 

The simplification of marketing standards for fruit and vegetables  

The sector-specific assessment focusing on how effective the provisions on classifying 
of  fresh  fruit  and  vegetables  were  in  supporting  the  interests  of  producers  and 
traders  and  in  facilitating  trade  revealed  generally  positive  overall  judgements  by 
business  stakeholders  -  and  by  farmers  in  particular.  They  saw  those  provisions  as 
being effective in: 

 

 
 
 
 

removing barriers to intra-EU trade; the actual effectiveness of the provisions in 
that respect was confirmed by a comparative analysis in aggregated terms of the 
evolution of intra-EU trade in fruit and vegetables; 
reducing quality-related issues; 
reducing transaction costs; 
increasing the scope for differential product valorisation; and 
increasing the scope for developing innovative marketing practices. 

The assessment revealed that stakeholders27 - business operators and national competent 
authorities – had mixed views on the replacement of specific standards for 26 types of 
fresh fruit and vegetables by a general marketing standard, in particular to:  

facilitating the trading of the concerned products; 

 
  ensuring a level playing field for EU producers of the concerned products. 

26   Besides generally positive judgments expressed by business stakeholders and the competent authorities 
on  the  effectiveness  of  the  provisions  in  that  respect,  the  analysis  of  the  evolution  of  intra-EU  trade 
revealed  that  the  trade  performance  of  typologies  of  fruit  juices  with  the  lowest  Brix  value  (which 
should be in theory the ones most affected by the introduction of provisions on minimum Brix level for 
reconstituted juices) has not worsened systematically, and has not been systematically worse than the 
performance of other typologies of fruit juices. It is also important to note that all 28 Member States 
have reproduced in their implementing national legislation the table reporting the minimum Brix levels 
for reconstituted fruit juice and reconstituted fruit purée in Annex V of Directive 2001/112/EC, as last 
amended by Directive 2012/12/EU, without any modification. 

27   Regarding  the  objective  of  facilitating  the  trading  of  the  concerned  products,  9  respondents  (35%) 
considered that the replacement mainly increased the policy´s effectiveness, 9 other respondents (35%) 
expressed the opposite view (mainly decreased effectiveness) and 8 respondents (31%) deemed that the 
replacement has not affected the effectiveness of the policy. 

24 

 
 
                                                            
The associations representing the interests of farmers in particular considered that the 
simplification had mostly negative implications. 

Among  the  specific  negative  effects  resulting  from  the  transition,  the  following  were 
highlighted: 

  Increased  transaction  costs  and  reduced  transparency  of  business-to-
business  transactions  due  to  the  loss  of  quality  specifications  (concerning  e.g. 
size  or  grades)  included  in  the  previous  product-specific  standards  (whenever 
those specifications are not present in either the general marketing standard or the 
relevant UNECE standards). 

  Proliferation of private standards in the ‘empty spaces’ left by the replacement 
of  product-specific  standards  with  the  general  marketing  standard,  with 
significant cost implications for farmers (they often have to comply with multiple 
standards imposed by large-scale retailers). 

  For  some  products  affected  by  the  transition,  innovation  or  value-adding  efforts 
have  mainly  focused  on  packaging/presentation.  The  resulting  additional  value 
mostly goes to packers and retailers, not to producers. 

  Negative implications for operators that have made costly efforts to achieve high-
level  features  or  anyway  distinctive  quality  features  according  to  the  previous 
product-specific standards: with the transition to the general marketing standard, 
some  of  those  quality  features  may  no  longer  be  recognisable,  with  negative 
implications for the valorisation of products. 

However, it should be noted that a comparative analysis of intra-EU trade performance 
for selected products still covered by product-specific standards and for selected products 
concerned  by  the  transition  to  the  general  marketing  standard  revealed  that  the 
performance of intra-EU trade for the products concerned by the transition to the 
general  marketing  standard  has  not  been  systematically  worse  than  the 
performance  of  the  products  still  covered  by  specific  standards.  On  the  contrary, 
some of the products now covered by the general marketing standard have even recorded 
better performances than most of the products still covered by specific standards. 

From  the  findings  of  the  assessment  of  the  different  aspects  presented  above,  a 
conclusive  judgement  cannot  be  made  on  the  implications  of  the  transition  from 
product-specific  standards  to  the  general  marketing  standard 
terms  of 
effectiveness in meeting business-related or consumer-related objectives: this especially 
applies  for  the  positive  or  negative  impacts  on  individual  groups  of  stakeholders 
(producers, traders/retailers, competent authorities). 

in 

Similarly to what was observed for the business associations surveyed, the 14 competent 
authorities  surveyed  had  divided  views  about  the  implications  of  the  simplification  of 
marketing  standards  for  fresh  fruit  and  vegetables28.  The  most  significant  negative 
implications  are  related  to  the  non-homogeneous  enforcement  of  EU  marketing 

28   6  competent  authorities  considered  the  replacement  of  specific  marketing  standards  by  a  general 
marketing  standard  not  to  have  altered  the  policy´s  effectiveness  in  achieving  its  objective  of 
facilitating  the  trading  of  the  concerned  products.  However,  6  competent  authorities  considered  the 
transition  to  have  mainly  reduced  the  policy´s  effectiveness  in  that  respect;  by  contrast,  only  2 
competent  authorities  considered  it  to  be  the  opposite  (i.e.  the  transition  increased  the  policy´s 
effectiveness). 

25 

 
 
                                                            
standards and the uneven effectiveness of controls across EU Member States for the 
26  types  of  fruit  and  vegetables  affected  by  the  transition.  This  situation  is  due  to 
different national approaches being taken because of the absence of a single reference (as 
a  result  of  the  transition,  operators  and  competent  authorities  may  refer  either  to  the 
general  marketing  standard  or  to  UNECE  product-specific  standards)  and  the  loss  of 
quality specifications (concerning e.g. size or grades) that were included in the previous 
products-specific  standards  (whenever  those  specifications  are  not  present  in  either  the 
general marketing standard or the relevant UNECE standards). 

As  for  the  objective  of  ensuring  a  level  playing  field  for  EU  producers  of  the 
concerned  products,  the  business  associations29  and  competent  authorities30  surveyed 
again expressed mixed views.  

5.2.  Efficiency 

The  efficiency  of  marketing  standards  in  addressing  their  objectives  is  assessed  by 
analysing  the  extent  to  which  the  costs  incurred  for  the  marketing  standards  are 
justifiable and proportionate to the benefits achieved and whether there is a potential 
for simplifying marketing standards.  

Costs and benefits 

Although neither costs nor benefits can be fully quantifiable, the majority of the  business 
associations  and  operators  consulted  across  all  sectors  considered  that  the  costs  of  EU 
marketing standards to be justifiable and proportionate to the benefits achieved, in 
terms of the: 

  cost  and  benefits  for  food  business  operators  of  complying  with  marketing 

standards, 

  cost and benefits for Member States of controls, 
  cost and usefulness for consumers of marketing standards. 

The analysis finds that the costs of complying with the standards vary between sectors, 
depending on the level of specificity and complexity that is laid down in the rules. The 
relatively low/minor costs compared to the benefits were particularly highlighted in the 
case of hops, poultry meat, eggs, fresh fruit and vegetables, dairy, honey, and fruit jams. 
Only  respondents  from  the  olive  oil  sector  were  divided  over  whether  or  not  the  costs 
incurred  were  justifiable/proportionate;  in  this  sector,  the  control  costs  are  high  (for 
operators  and  for  authorities),  as  enforcement  involves  expensive  laboratory  tests  and 
specific control activities to verify analytical and organoleptic parameters. In most other 

29   8  respondents  (31%)  considered  the  transition  to  the  general  marketing  standard  to  have  mainly 
increased  the  policy´s  effectiveness,  6  respondents  (23%)  expressed  the  opposite  view  (mainly 
decreased  effectiveness)  and  12  respondents  (46%)  considered  the  replacement  to  have  had  no 
implications on the policy´s effectiveness. 

30   5  competent  authorities  considered  the  replacement  of  specific  marketing  standards  by  a  general 
marketing standard not to have altered the policy´s effectiveness in that respect. 5 competent authorities 
considered  the  transition  to  have  mainly  reduced  the  policy´s  effectiveness  in  meeting  that  objective, 
whereas  4  competent  authorities  considered  it  to  be  the  opposite  (i.e.  the  transition  increased  the 
policy´s effectiveness). 

26 

 
 
 
                                                            
sectors, the costs were  considered to be  minor/negligible, especially when compared to 
the benefits31. 

According  to  both  operators  and  competent  authorities,  EU  marketing  standards 
contributed  to  substantial  benefits  far  outweighing  the  costs  involved.  In  particular, 
the marketing standards are largely considered to have helped improve product quality, 
market  access,  and  the  implementation  of  controls  by  enforcement  authorities.  On  the 
other  hand,  they  are  not  considered  to  have  had  a  notable  impact  on  price  volatility, 
which is subject to other factors affecting supply and demand.  

Concerning the costs for Member States, the most substantial type of costs incurred by 
Member States’ competent authorities are the ongoing costs of performing verification 
checks  for  compliance  (ranked  as  the  most/second  most  burdensome  by  all  19 
competent authorities (of the 11 Member States that responded to the survey32), followed 
by  training  (9  competent  authorities),  and  changes/adaptations  required  to  process 
systems used for verifying compliance (7 competent authorities). Reporting requirements 
were generally considered less burdensome (2 competent authorities). 

There  is  little  evidence  from  consumer  organisations  on  the  cost  and  usefulness  of 
marketing  standards  for  consumers,  whether  at  EU  or  national  level.  In  principle, 
consumer  organisations  are  in  favour  of  regulatory  standards  ensuring  a  minimum 
quality  for  consumers,  and  ensuring  that  products  are  standardised  and  easier  for 
consumers  to  compare.  Member  States’  competent  authorities  and  food  business 
operators both agree that the most important benefit of marketing standards is improved 
quality, which is an important benefit for consumers. 

Additional  information  comes  from the public consultation: 13%  of the 82 respondents 
found  that  there  was  a  very  strong potential  for  greater  efficiency  by  harmonising  the 
control  and  reporting  requirements  of  the  different  marketing  standards33,  while 
30% declared a strong potential for greater efficiency, 20% saw a moderate potential for 
greater efficiency, 11% declared no potential for greater efficiency and 26% did not have 
an opinion. 

For the certification requirement in the hops sector, operators consider the additional 
costs  incurred  to  be  justifiable  and  proportionate  to  the  quality  benefits  achieved. 
German  operators  identified  the  costs  of  certification  to  be  minimal34.  Benefits  include 

31   It  should  be  noted  that  no  significant  limitations  in  terms  of  proportionality  were  identified  for  EU 
marketing  standards  for  the  following  products  covered  by  the  evaluation:  table  olives;  bananas;  live 
plants; spreadable fats intended for human consumption; hatching eggs and poultry chicks; coffee and 
chicory  extracts;  cocoa  and  chocolate  products;  sugars  intended  for  human  consumption;  dehydrated 
milk. 

32   In total, the evaluator received 19 responses to the survey from the competent authorities of 11 Member 
States. Not all of the 19 competent authorities surveyed responded to all the questions on efficiency (the 
number of competent authorities who responded is always indicated). 

33   The type of respondents indicating this potential varied and the kind of improvements reported were: 
simplification  of  identification  with  commercial  language  and  consumer;  specificity  of  limits, 
establishment of securities and removal of subjective and interpretable aspects; compulsory labelling on 
the  type  of  farming  and  origin;  harmonisation  of  the  marketing  rules  between  the  different  standards 
etc. 

34   Germany is by far the biggest producer of hops in the EU. The costs of certification   are estimated to 
range  between  EUR 0.03-EUR 0.04/kg,  of  which  EUR 0.01-EUR 0.015/kg  at  producer  level,  and 
EUR 0.015-EUR 0.025/kg  at  processing  level,  on  a  product  that  would  sell  for  approximately 
EUR 10.00/kg 

27 

 
 
                                                            
German hops having an established high reputation worldwide (with Czech and EU hops 
enjoying  this  reputation  as  well),  thus  supporting  the  market  position  of  both  the  EU 
primary  producers  of  hops  and  EU  brewers  of  speciality  beers  in  an  increasingly 
competitive market context. The available indicators (cultivated area; quantity produced; 
quality  parameters  including  moisture  content  and  share  of  leaves,  stem  and  waste  in 
hops;  establishment  of  protected  geographical  indications/protected  designations  of 
origin for hops-growing regions) have all improved thanks to the certification system in 
place. 

Potential for simplification 

The  analysis  identified  relatively  limited  potential  for  simplifying  marketing 
standards, except possibly in some specific sectors (e.g. poultry, eggs…). 

Across  all  sectors,  53  of  the  123  business  associations  surveyed  consider  that  there  is 
potential  for  harmonising  control  and  reporting  requirements  in  order  to  simplify  and 
ensure  more  efficient  enforcement,  without  jeopardising  effectiveness;  for  11  of  these, 
the potential scope for harmonisation is extensive. On the other hand, for 23 associations 
there is no potential, or the potential is limited. It should nonetheless, be noted that many 
associations (47) did not know whether there was any potential.  

A similar picture emerges from the individual companies that participated in the survey: 
a majority (29 out of 54 companies) considers that there is some potential (it is noted that 
45 companies are from the poultry and eggs sectors). Only 8 companies do not see any 
potential, while 17 companies did not know. 

Relatively  limited  potential  for  simplification  was  identified  among  the  19  competent 
authorities  surveyed  (from  11  Member  States):  only  5  competent  authorities  (in  4 
Member  States)  considered  that  there  was  some  potential,  while  for  6  competent 
authorities  there  was  no/limited  potential,  and  8  did  not  know.  It  should  be  noted  that 
competent authorities in some Member States did not fully align their views on this. 

In the poultry sector in particular, the implementation of Articles 16-18 and Article 20 
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 on water absorption in poultry meat is 
said  to  lead  to  unnecessary  delays  in  placing  poultry  meat  products  on  the  market35. 
However,  data  on  various  aspects  of  enforcement  are  not  always  collated  by  the 
authorities; and it was not possible for authorities or business stakeholders to identify the 
costs and losses associated with these delays. In terms of simplification, one competent 
authority  explained  that  the  frequency  of  water  content  controls  could  be  reduced; 
another suggested that an output-based system could be introduced, which would entail a 
single 5% legal limit for water content without being prescriptive in terms of the method 
used. Air chilled carcasses and cuts would not need to be checked because this chilling 
method (used without a moistening system) does not add water. 

35   The Commission has carried out two comprehensive studies on the processing technologies used and 
the absorption of water in poultry meat: 1) The Study of physiological water content of poultry reared 
in the EU (LGC, 2012), 2) The Study on state of play of processing technologies and the absorption of 
water in poultry meat (LGC, 2016). However, these studies were not concerned with simplification per 
se. 

28 

 
 
                                                            
In all other sectors36, the potential for simplification was found to be limited, given 
the relatively low costs of complying with EU marketing standards and the fact that the 
stakeholders  consulted  (business  operators  and  competent  authorities)  did  not  identify 
any overlaps/redundancies in the provisions that might lead to unnecessary costs.  

5.3.  Coherence 

The analysis addresses the coherence  of  marketing  standards by assessing the extent to 
which  the  implementation  of  marketing  standards  caused  unexpected  or  unintended 
effects, the extent to which  the various instruments of EU marketing standards are 
coherent with one another, and the extent to which they are coherent with other EU 
rules and with international marketing standards.  

Unexpected or unintended effects 

The assessment of unexpected or unintended effects of marketing standards focuses 
on (i) increased/reduced food waste, (ii) the effects on the welfare of farmed animals, and 
(iii) abuse by market actors. 

Overall,  the  assessment  revealed  that  there  are  very  few  sector  specific  and 
otherwise  inconclusive,  practical  cases  of  unintended/unexpected  effects  of  EU 
marketing standards. No cross-sectoral unintended/unexpected effects of EU marketing 
standards were identified. Furthermore, the cases identified were rather controversial, and 
there was no agreement among the stakeholders consulted of a clear linkage between the 
effects observed and EU marketing standards:  

  Increased food waste volumes for eggs at packing centres, retail outlets and at 
home  were,  according  to  some  of  the  national  competent  authorities  consulted, 
related to provisions on the sell-by date (Regulation (EC) No 853/2004) and the 
minimum  durability  of  eggs  (Article  13  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  589/2008). 
However,  none  of  the  competent  authority  consulted  provided  any  quantitative 
evidence  on  the  volumes  of  food  waste  that  can  be  related  to  EU  marketing 
standards for eggs. By contrast, business stakeholders did not see clear linkages 
between  this  effect  and  EU  marketing  standards  for  eggs.  The  reviewed 
literature37,38,39 suggests that there is a linkage between increased waste and date 

36   It  should  be  noted  that  no  significant  potential  for  simplification  was  identified  for  EU  marketing 
standards  for  the  following  products  covered  by  the  evaluation:  table  olives;  bananas;  live  plants; 
spreadable fats intended for human consumption; hatching eggs and poultry chicks; coffee and chicory 
extracts;  cocoa  and  chocolate  products;  sugars  intended  for  human  consumption;  dehydrated  milk; 
honey. 

37    WRAP 2015. ‘Reducing Food Waste by Extending Product Life’. 
38   Møller, Hanne, Therese Hagtvedt, Nina Lødrup, Jens Kirk Andersen, Pernille Lundquist Madsen, Mads 
Werge,  Ane  Kirstine  Aare,  et  al.  2016.  Food  Waste  and  Date  Labelling :  Issues  Affecting  the 
Durability. Nordisk Ministerråd, http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:950731. 
39   See  for  instance:  Vittuari  et  al.  (2015),  Review  of  EU  Member  States  legislation  and  policies  with 
implications on food waste, FUSIONS project report, Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, 
University of Bologna; ICF (2018), Market study on date marking and other information provided on 
food  labels  and  food  waste  prevention  –  Final  Report,  funded  by  the  European  Commission, 
Directorate-General  for  Health  and  Food  Safety.  WRAP  2015.  ‘Reducing  Food  Waste  by  Extending 
Product Life’. 

29 

 
 
 
                                                            
 

marking  in  the  case  of  eggs,  even  if  the  underlying  reasoning  is  not  backed  by 
specific concrete evidence in this specific evaluation. 
Increased  waste  was  potentially  stemming  from  the  ‘aesthetic  requirements’40 
(colour,  shape,  size,  grading)  set  out  in  the  remaining  10  product-specific  EU 
marketing  standards  for  fresh  fruit  and  vegetables:  whereas  the  business 
stakeholders  consulted  did  not  identify  any  negative  implications,  the  reviewed 
literature  suggests  a 
‘aesthetic 
requirements’, even if very limited concrete evidence is available to substantiate 
the  underlying  reasoning41,42.  By  contrast,  some  of  the  competent  authorities 
consulted  and  some  studies43  suggest  that  EU  marketing  standards  for  fresh 
fruit  and  vegetables  instead  help  to  reduce  food  waste  and  losses,  and  that 
most  of  the  grading  losses44  for  fresh  fruit  and  vegetables  have  been  the 
result of particularly demanding private standards, rather than EU marketing 
standards. 

increased  waste  and 

linkage  between 

  On the potential implications for animal welfare of force-feeding ducks or geese 
to  produce  foie  gras  (according  to  the  definition  provided  in  Article  1(3)  of 
Regulation  (EC)  No  543/2008),  a  business  association  consulted  referred  to 
scientific studies showing that the practice of gavage is not detrimental to animal 
welfare45.  However,  this  contradicts  other  scientific  literature46.  The  marketing 
standards  set  out  a  minimum  liver  weight  that  can  only  be  effectively  achieved 
using force-feeding (gavage). This perceived negative outcome could be avoided 
if  the  reference  to  a  minimum  liver  weight  was  removed  from  the  marketing 
standards.  However,  this  would  not  guarantee  the  presence  of  hepatic  fatty 
cellular hypertrophy, which is considered to be essential to the taste and quality of 
the product.  

No  significant  practical  cases  of  ‘deadweight’  were  identified:  EU  marketing 
standards  were  found  to  have  significantly  helped  to  improve  product  quality  in  the 
interest  of  producers,  traders  and  consumers.  However,  some  of  the  stakeholders 
consulted suggested that the need to comply with extremely demanding requirements set 
by private standards (often imposed by large-scale retail chains), rather than complying 
with  EU  marketing  standards,  may  have  become  the  main  driving  force  behind  the 
improvement in the average quality levels of agricultural and food products marketed in 
the EU. 

40   Article 

F&V 
https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/503631 

aspects 

‘cosmetic 

on 

in 

– 

market 

and 

food 

waste’: 

41   Roels, K. & Van Gijseghem D. (2017) The impact of cosmetic quality standards on food losses in the 
Flemish fruit and vegetable sector, summary report, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Brussels. 
42   Wunder, S., McFarland, K., Hirschnitz-Garbers, M., Parfitt, J., Luyckx, K., Jarosz, D., Youhanan, L., 
Stenmarck, A., Colin, F., Burgos, S., Gheoldus, M., Cummins, A.C., Mahon, P., van Herpen, E., 2018: 
Food waste prevention and valorisation: relevant EU policy areas. REFRESH. 

43   See  for  instance:  WRAP  (2011),  Fruit  and  vegetable  resource  maps  -  Mapping  fruit  and  vegetable 
waste  through  the  retail  and  wholesale  supply  chain,  Final  Report,  Waste  &  Resources  Action 
Programme;  Jordbruksverket  (2014),  Why  do  we  throw  away  edible  fruit  and  vegetables?,  Rapport 
2014:5  EN;  AND  International  (2010),  Normes  de  commercialisation  dans  le  secteur  des  fruits  et 
legumes, study carried out for the EU Commission. DG Agriculture, September 2010. 

44   Fruit and vegetables diverted to alternative outlets (e.g. processing) or disposed of in the grading phase 

because they do not meet quality requirements. 

45   For instance, Guémené, et al. (2001). 
46   Broom and Rochlitz (2015). 

30 

 
 
                                                            
Details on Food waste 

Concerning  increased/reduced  food  waste,  a  significant  number  of  the  competent 
authorities  surveyed/interviewed  did  not  comment  on  the  matter.  Those  that  did  were 
divided:  half  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  implementation  of  EU  marketing  standards 
generated food waste, whereas the other half thought the contrary. 

A large share of the 123 business associations surveyed (38%) was unable to comment 
due to a lack of specific knowledge on the topic. The majority of respondents (56%) did 
not  identify  any  practical  case  of  unexpected  or  unintended  effects  of  EU  marketing 
standards  in  terms  of  food  waste.  Interviews  with  EU-level  business  associations 
revealed some sectoral specificities identified above. 

The  public  consultation  provided  additional  information,  13%  of  the  81  respondents 
found  that  the  implementation  of  the  EU  marketing  standards  had  some  unexpected  or 
unintended effects on food waste, while 41% found that it did not have any and 26% did 
not have an opinion. 

Details on animal welfare 

Concerning the effects on the welfare of farmed animals, the 123 business associations 
surveyed  had  better  knowledge  on  the  matter:  the  share  of  those  that  did  not  comment 
was lower (24%) than for food waste. A clear majority of the respondents (65%) did not 
identify any practical case of unexpected/unintended effects in terms of animal welfare. 
Some  sector-specific  elements  emerged  from  interviews  with  EU-level  business 
associations. 

None of the competent authorities consulted identified practical cases of unexpected or 
unintended effects of EU marketing standards in terms of animal welfare47. 

The  public  consultation  provided  additional  information:  31%  of  the  81  respondents 
found  that  the  implementation  of  the  EU  marketing  standards  had  some  unexpected  or 
unintended  effects  on  animal  welfare,  while  43%  found  that  it  did  not  have  any 
unexpected or unintended effects on animal welfare and 26% did not have an opinion. 

Potential abuse by market players 

Concerning  a  potential  abuse  by  market  players,  knowledge  on  the  matter  among  the 
business associations surveyed was similar to their knowledge on animal welfare: 23% of 
the  123  associations  surveyed  did  not  comment  for  lack  of  specific  knowledge  on  the 
matter. Even if the majority of respondents (60%) did not identify any practical cases, the 
share  of  the  respondents  that  identified  those  cases  was  higher  (17%).  However, 
interviews  with  EU-level  business  associations  did  not  reveal  any  significant  practical 
cases  of  abuse  by  market  players  (e.g.  adoption  of  discriminatory  practices  towards 
suppliers  and/or  customers)  that  can  be  clearly  identified  as  unexpected  or  unintended 
effects  of  EU  marketing  standards.  On  the  contrary,  EU  marketing  standards  have 
effectively helped to prevent those practices. 

47   One of the competent authorities surveyed who identified such effects actually referred to a decrease in 
the number of caged hens due to the introduction of stricter animal welfare requirements in the EU: this 
is clearly not an unintended/unexpected effect of EU marketing standards on animal welfare. 

31 

 
 
                                                            
Very few of the Member States’ competent authorities consulted on the matter and none 
of  them  identified  any  practical  cases  of  unexpected  or  unintended  effects  of  EU 
marketing standards in terms of potential abuse by market players. One of the competent 
authorities  consulted  observed  that  the  greatest  pressure  by  large-scale  retailers  on 
suppliers  to  comply  with  very  demanding  private  standards  is  often  targeted  at  quality 
requirements / products not covered by EU marketing standards. 

The public consultation provided additional information on this: 36% of 79 respondents 
found  that  the  implementation  of  the  EU  marketing  standards  had  some  unexpected  or 
unintended effects on the sustainability of the food chain, while 35% found that it did not 
and 35% did not have an opinion. 

Coherence between the various instruments of EU marketing standards 

The  assessment  found  that  both  business  stakeholders  and  national  competent 
authorities  perceived  a  high  degree  of  internal  coherence  of  EU  marketing 
standards. 

Overall,  stakeholders  perceived  the  general  objectives  of  EU  marketing  standards  as 
being consistent, and there is also a similar widespread perception that  the operational 
objectives  of  EU  marketing  standards  are  consistent  within  each  covered  sector.  Very 
few of the stakeholders consulted identified specific issues48 with internal coherence49.  

An ample majority (70%) of the 123 business associations surveyed did not identify any 
potential  conflict  with  the  general  objectives  pursued  through  EU  marketing  standards; 
nevertheless, the share of respondents that identified potentially conflicting objectives is 
significant  (30%).  None  of  the  EU-level  business  associations  interviewed  highlighted 
any  potential  conflict  with  the  general  objectives  pursued  through  EU  marketing 
standards.  One  of  the  competent  authorities  consulted  observed  that  EU  marketing 
standards  can  sometimes  limit  the  introduction  of  innovative  production  and/or 
marketing practices, or new product typologies. 

A  wide  majority  (77%)  of  the  123  business  associations  surveyed  considered  the 
operational objectives of EU marketing standards within each covered sector to be fully 
consistent with one another.  

Coherence with other EU rules 

Over  one  third  (35%)  of  the  123  business  associations  surveyed  did  not  express  a 
judgement  due  to  a  lack  of  specific  knowledge  on  the  issue.  Even  with  that  limitation, 
over  half  of  the  surveyed  business  associations  (56%)  did  not  identify  any  significant 
conflict between i) the general and operational objectives of EU marketing standards and 

48  Two  of  the  competent  authorities  consulted  hinted  at  the  following  potential  issues,  without  however 
providing  concrete  evidence:  i)  possible  limitations  to  innovative  production  and/or  marketing 
practices,  or  to  new  product  typologies  deriving  from  EU  marketing  standards,  which  would  conflict 
with  the  objective  of  helping  to  improve  the  economic  conditions  for  producing  and  marketing 
agricultural  products,  as  well  as  improve  their  quality;  ii)  the  challenge  of  meeting  consumers’ 
expectations  while  also  facilitating  trading,  since  consumers  and  business  operators  can  have 
conflicting preferences in terms of, for instance, information on the origin of products/ingredients. 
49   It should be noted that no significant issues with coherence were identified for EU marketing standards 
for the following products covered by the evaluation: table olives; bananas; live plants; spreadable fats 
intended for human consumption; hatching eggs and poultry chicks; coffee and chicory extracts; cocoa 
and chocolate products; sugars intended for human consumption; dehydrated milk; honey. 

32 

 
 
                                                            
ii)  the  business  and  consumer-related  objectives  of  relevant  EU  rules  other  than  those 
concerning food safety50, the provision of food information to consumers51, geographical 
indications52  and  organic  products53.  Only  9%  of  the  business  associations  surveyed 
identified  potential  conflicts.  Interviews  with  EU-level  business  associations  did  not 
reveal any significant horizontal or sector-specific issues. 

The  Commission  departments  consulted  did  not  identify  any  significant  issues,  and 
considered  EU  marketing  standards  to  be  fully  complementary  to  legislation  on  food 
safety. 

Only  a  minority  of  the  competent  authorities  consulted  provided  inputs  on  the  matter: 
they  identified  very  few  potential  conflicts  between  EU  marketing  standards  and  the 
relevant EU rules on food safety, on the provision of food information to consumers and 
on organic products.  

A  potential  ‘cross-sectoral’  issue  highlighted  by  some  national  competent  authorities 
and  by  an  EU-level  association  representing  the  interests  of  retailers  arises  from  EU 
marketing standards  combining requirements on product quality, food safety (e.g. 
requirements on storage temperatures, or minimum durability (best before) date for eggs) 
and the provision of food information to consumers (product labelling requirements). 
Those stakeholders considered that such a combination could result in some overlaps and 
inconsistencies,  and  could  pose  challenges  for  enforcement  and  controlling  activities. 
Those  stakeholders  would  therefore  welcome  EU  marketing  standards  exclusively 
focused  on  quality  requirements,  whereas  safety-related  and  information-related 
provisions should be included in the relevant EU legislation. 

Some (relatively minor) sector-specific issues were also identified: 

 

 

the requirements for marketing poultry and eggs as ‘free range’ or ‘organic’ had 
an  inconsistency  following  compliance  with  EU  legislation  aimed  at  addressing 
outbreaks  of  avian  influenza;  eggs  cannot  be  marketed  as  ‘free-range’  if  laying 
hens have to be confined indoors for more than 16 weeks (as prescribed following 
the avian influenza outbreaks in 2017); 
the  promotion  of  free  range  farming  systems  through  EU  marketing  standards 
might be  in  conflict  with the objective of ensuring food safety, since free range 

50   82% of the 123 business associations surveyed acknowledged the coherence with the objectives of EU 
rules on food  safety.  In  the public consultation, 34% of 67 respondents  found  that the  EU  marketing 
standards  were  strongly  consistent  with  EU  rules  on  food  safety,  while  21%  found  them  consistent, 
14% moderately consistent, 6% not consistent and 25% did not have an opinion. 

51   78% of the 123 business associations surveyed acknowledged the coherence with the objectives of EU 
rules on food information to consumers. In the public consultation, 31% of 68 respondents agreed that 
the EU marketing standards were strongly consistent with food information to consumers, while 40% 
found them consistent, 18% moderately consistent, 10% not consistent and 1% did not have an opinion. 
52   85% of the 123 business associations surveyed expressed a positive opinion on the coherence with EU 
rules on geographical indications. In the public consultation, 55% of 64 respondents found that the EU 
marketing  standards  were  strongly  consistent  with  geographical  indications,  while  14%  found  them 
consistent, 20% moderately consistent, 5% not consistent and 6% did not have an opinion.  

53   78% of the 123 business associations surveyed acknowledged the coherence with the objectives of EU 
rules  on  organic  products.  In  the  public  consultation,  34%  of  68  respondents  found  that  the  EU 
marketing standards were strongly consistent with organic products, while 12% found them consistent, 
17% moderately consistent, 6% not consistent and 31% did not have an opinion. 

33 

 
 
                                                            
 

 

poultry for meat production and free range laying hens are subject to more serious 
risks in terms of both animal health and food safety; 
there could be a potential conflict between requirements on minimum sugar or fat 
content for using reserved product names laid down in EU marketing standards, 
and the objective of promoting healthier diets; however, the assessment revealed 
that several Member States took advantage of the possibility offered by Directive 
2001/113/EC  to  derogate  from  the  minimum  sugar  content  established  for  jams 
by the same Directive; 
it  may  sometimes  be  difficult  for  certain  types  of  geographical  indications  and 
organic  fresh  fruit  and  vegetables  to  comply  with  the  minimum  quality  and/or 
size requirements set out by the relevant EU marketing standards. 

Despite of these issues, most of the stakeholders consulted were of the opinion that  the 
regulatory  framework  establishing  EU  marketing  standards  was  generally 
consistent with EU legislation on food safety, on the provision of food information to 
consumers, on geographical indications and on organic products. 

Coherence with international marketing standards 

According to the analysis most of the stakeholders consulted considered EU marketing 
standards to be fully consistent with international marketing standards. 

International marketing standards developed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, 
by  the  United  Nations  Economic  Commission  for  Europe  (UNECE)  and  by  the 
International  Olive  Council  (IOC)  pursue  general  objectives  that  are  similar  to  the 
general  objectives  pursued  by  EU  marketing  standards.  The  EU  and  its  Member 
States have actively contributed to the development of these international standards, and 
this has helped to ensure consistency between EU and international marketing standards. 
However, some of the general and operational objectives of EU marketing standards 
may  be more  ambitious  than  those  of  international marketing  standards,  since  the 
former aim at addressing needs specific to the EU, or in any case specific to an advanced 
food  production,  distribution  and  consumption  model,  such  as  ensuring  a  high  level  of 
consumer protection, or a level playing field for operators within the EU market. 

A significant number of competent authorities consulted did not comment on the matter. 
Most of the other competent authorities pointed to full consistency. One of the competent 
authorities  consulted  underlined  the  importance  of  frequently  updating  EU  marketing 
standards  to  follow  the  changes  in  the  relevant  international  standards,  with  a  view  to 
further  improving  the  consistency  between  the  two  frameworks.  A  significant  share 
(28%)  of  the  123  business  associations  surveyed  did  not  express  a  judgement  due  to  a 
lack  of  specific  knowledge  on  the  issue.  The  majority  of  the  business  associations 
surveyed (54%) expressed a positive judgement on the coherence between i) the general 
and  operational  objectives  of  EU  marketing  standards  and  ii)  the  objectives  of 
international  marketing  standards.  A  17%  share  of  the  business  associations  surveyed, 
however, identified potential conflicts54. 

54   The objectives of international marketing standards are mainly aimed at addressing more basic needs, 
which are especially relevant for less advanced food production, distribution and consumption systems, 
such  as  ensuring  minimum  safety  and  quality  levels  for  food,  preventing  fraud  and  facilitating 
international trade in agricultural and food products. 
34 

 
 
                                                            
The  public  consultation  provided  additional  information:  16%  of  68  respondents  found 
that  the  EU  marketing  standards  were  strongly  consistent  with  the  Codex 
Alimentarius (CODEX), while 19% found them consistent, 18% moderately consistent, 
4% not consistent and 43% did not have an opinion. 

Also,  21%  of  66  respondents  found  that  the  EU  marketing  standards  were  strongly 
consistent  with  the  United  Nations  Economic  Commission  for  Europe  (UNECE) 
while  17%  found  them  consistent,  14%  moderately  consistent,  4%  not  consistent  and 
44% did not have an opinion. 

Coherence with private marketing standards 

According to the analysis most of the stakeholders consulted considered EU marketing 
standards to be fully consistent with private marketing standards. 

Private marketing standards mainly pursue different objectives than those pursued 
by EU marketing standards, even if they also have implications also for the marketing 
of  agricultural  and  food  products.  In  principle,  a  private  standard  cannot  derogate 
from  compliance  with  the  applicable  EU  and  national  legislation:  this  should 
automatically ensure consistency between EU marketing standards and private marketing 
standards.  However,  the  uptake  of  private  standards  is  always  voluntary,  and  private 
standards can set more demanding requirements than EU marketing standards. 

The  public  consultation  provides  additional  information:  16%  of  67  respondents  found 
that  the  EU  marketing  standards  were  strongly  consistent  with  private  marketing 
standards,  while  15%  found  them  consistent,  21%  moderately  consistent,  8%  not 
consistent and 40% did not have an opinion.  

5.4.  Relevance 

The relevance of marketing standards was addressed by assessing the extent to which the 
current  framework  for  marketing  standards  corresponds  to  the  actual  needs  of 
stakeholders:  producers,  processors,  traders,  retailers,  consumers,  Member  State 
administrations.  

The  assessment  revealed  that  stakeholders  (operators,  consumers  and  competent 
authorities) generally considered the objectives of EU marketing standards to respond 
to  the  originally  identified  needs,  problems  and  issues.  By  contrast,  their  judgement 
was less positive for the new needs, problems and issues that have emerged since the 
adoption of the EU marketing standards, as discussed in detail below. 

Nevertheless,  a  significant  minority  of  the  stakeholders  consulted  identified  the 
limitations of EU marketing standards in addressing the originally identified needs, 
problems  and  issues  of  stakeholders  that  were  originally  identified.  The  most 
significant limitations the competent authorities highlighted concern in particular: 

 

Issues arising from non-homogeneous and sometimes inconsistent approaches to 
the implementation/enforcement of EU marketing standards at national level. The 
concrete example most frequently quoted is the issue already mentioned of non-
homogeneous enforcement at Member State level of the national list of products 
exempted from the prohibition of using protected dairy terms for the marketing of 

35 

 
 
 
non-dairy  products  (EU  Commission  Decision  2010/791/EU  of  20  December 
2010). The issue is discussed in more detail below. 

  The need for a simplified and modernised system of controls for compliance with 
EU  marketing  standards.  However,  few  of  the  competent  authorities  consulted 
provided product-specific indications in that respect. 

  The  capacity  to  address  the  challenges  arising  from  the  ever-increasing 
importance  and  the  proliferation  of  private  marketing  standards.  However,  none 
of the competent authorities consulted provided concrete examples. 

  The  absence  of  a  harmonised  EU  definition  for  cheese,  which  is  discussed  in 

more detail below. 

A  limitation  highlighted  by  stakeholders  representing  the  interests  of  consumers  is  the 
absence of mandatory origin labelling in EU marketing standards (see Chapter 5.1). 
As for the new55 needs, problems and issues that have emerged since the adoption of 
EU  marketing  standards,  the  most  significant  limitations  highlighted  by  competent 
authorities concern the capacity to follow the changes in technology, marketing strategies 
and consumer preferences, without impeding innovation. The most significant examples 
relate to poultry meat and olive oils, and are discussed in more detail below. 

A specific assessment found that thanks to provisions on minimal sugar content in jams 
and  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to  make  derogations  in  that  respect  (Directive 
2001/113/EC), a satisfactory balance has been achieved between the consumer’s interest 
to  consider  specific  national 
in  ensuring  product  preservation  and 
characteristics, as well as policy priorities of promoting healthier diets (low-sugar jams). 
A number of sector-specific56 limitations of the relevance of EU marketing standards 
emerged from the assessment: 

the  need 

  Fruit  juices  sector:  the  assessment  identified  an  issue  related  to  labelling 
provisions for fruit juices under Directive 2001/112/EC, as amended by Directive 
2012/12/EU. The 2012 amendment established – among –other things – that the 
addition  of  sugars  to  fruit  juices  was  not  (no  longer)  allowed;  this  was  done, 
mainly to follow the changes in consumer preferences and to respond to emerging 
trends towards a healthier diet. Since 28 October 201657 , producers are no longer 
allowed to include on a fruit juice pack the statement ‘no added sugar, in line with 
the legislation’,  or  similar  statements referring  to the fact  that all fruit juices  do 
not  contain  added  sugar.  However,  the  fact  that  competing  beverages,  such  as 
juice  containing  drinks, are still  allowed to  use  the claim ‘with no added sugar’ 
may create confusion among consumers, and may result in unfair competition. 

55   This section concerns the new needs as opposed to the current needs stated before. 
56   It should be noted that no significant issues of relevance were identified for EU marketing standards for 
the  following  products  covered  by  the  evaluation:  table  olives;  bananas;  live  plants;  spreadable  fats 
intended for human consumption; hatching eggs and poultry chicks; coffee and chicory extracts; cocoa 
and chocolate products; sugars intended for human consumption; dehydrated milk; honey. 

57   The transitional measures under Article 3 of Directive 2012/12/EU established that the statement ‘from 
28 October 2015 no fruit juices contain added sugars’ could appear on the label until 28 October 2016, 
to inform consumers about the exclusion of added sugars from the list of authorised ingredients. 

36 

 
 
                                                            
  Poultry  meat  sector:  it  emerged  from  a  specific  assessment  that  provisions  on 
water content58  and  alternative  production  systems59  could  be  updated  to follow 
the  changes  in  technology,  marketing  strategies  and  consumer  preferences, 
without  impeding  innovation.  A  specific  assessment  revealed  that  the  definition 
of ‘foie gras’ was perceived as having some limitations in preventing fraudulent 
practices,  because there was no EU definition for processed foie gras (France is 
alone  in  having  a  national  definition).  However,  introducing  such  a  definition 
would be contentious given the opposition from some NGOs to the production of 
foie  gras  using  gavage  (force-feeding).  The  proportionality  of  introducing  a 
definition  for  processed  foie  gras  could  also  be  questioned  when  only  five 
Member States produce the foie gras, although it is consumed more widely. 

  Dairy sector: Two main issues emerged from a specific assessment: the improper 
use  of  protected  dairy  terms  such  as  ‘milk’,  ‘butter’  and  ‘cheese’  in  marketing 
plant-based  competing  products  was  found  to  cause  issues  in  terms  of  unfair 
trading practices and of providing misleading information to consumers. Even if 
no evidence is available to quantify the extent of those implications, the views of 
the  stakeholders  consulted  on  the  issue  are  generally  aligned.  The  potential 
implications  for  stakeholders  of  there  being  no  EU  definition  of  cheese  were 
found to be more disputed: unlike with the previous issue, the stakeholders’ views 
are not aligned on the matter (the views of the competent authorities consulted are 
especially divided). The analysis of the state of play of national legislation-based 
definitions of cheese in the EU revealed significant differences especially in the 
definition  of  the  raw  materials  from  which  cheese  can  be  made,  and  in  the 
definition  of  the  ingredients  that  can  be  used  in  its  production.  The  assessment 
identified  a  potentially  substantial  aspect  in  the  use  of  reconstituted  dried  milk 
and  of  concentrated  milk  as  a  raw material  for  producing cheese:  this  is  neither 
explicitly  prohibited  nor  explicitly  allowed  in  most  cheese-producing  Member 
States  that  have  a  national  definition  of  cheese  in  place  (and  also  in  the  Codex 
General  Standard  for  cheese),  whereas  the  use  of  reconstituted  dried  milk  to 
produce cheese is explicitly prohibited in Italy (the use of reconstituted dried milk 
and  concentrated  milk  to  produce  cheese  is  explicitly  allowed  in  the  United 
Kingdom). According to an Italian sectoral association consulted, the prohibition 
creates  a  competitive  disadvantage  for  Italian  cheese  producers  on  the  domestic 
market, and has negative implications for a level playing field60. 

58   According to one EU-level sectoral association that was consulted, the scope and requirements of EU 
marketing standards for poultry meat would need to adapt further to the evolution of genetics, as well as 
to that of animal feeding solutions. Poultry genetics have evolved since EU marketing standards were 
established:  this  translates  into  problems  for  the  water  content  control  of  poultry  meat.  Animals  of 
recent poultry strains hold more water than 15 or 20 years ago. 

59   An EU-level sectoral association that was consulted suggested that the age of chickens at slaughter in 
the different farming systems could be lowered; for instance, the age of slaughter of free range chickens 
could be lowered from the current 56 days to 50 days, to follow the evolution of genetics and rearing 
techniques.  It  also  observed  that  more  flexibility  would  be  needed  on  the  aspects  being  labelled,  to 
follow technological innovation in the sector and the changes in consumer preferences: for instance, the 
possibility  of  labelling  chickens  produced  using  electricity  from  solar  panels  as  ‘environmentally 
friendly poultry production’ should be considered. 

60   Whereas  Italian  operators  cannot  produce  cheese  from  reconstituted  milk  powder,  operators  in  other 
Member States are allowed to do so, and can lawfully market their products on the Italian market. 

37 

 
 
                                                            
  Olive  oil  sector:  the  most  significant  limitations  emerging  from  the  assessment 
are related to: the organoleptic assessment61 and the lack of uniformity of results 
deriving from tasting panels; an excessive number of quality parameters that must 
be  determined;  redundant  information  on  labels;  a  relatively  limited  set  of 
positive attributes that can be optionally reported on labels for virgin olive oils62. 
An assessment also revealed that the different categories of olive oils defined by 
Member  States  showed  significant  limitations  in  reflecting  the  needs  of  the 
market63. 

From  the  findings  of  the  assessment  of  the  different  aspects  presented above,  it  can  be 
concluded  that  the  current  framework  setting  EU  marketing  standards  generally 
corresponds  to  the  actual  needs  of  stakeholders,  with  some  limitations  mainly 
deriving  from  a  non-homogeneous  enforcement/implementation  of  marketing  standards 
at national level. 

By contrast, the current framework is affected by: 

  more significant limitations in addressing the new needs, problems and issues of 
stakeholders  that  have  emerged  since  the  setting  of  marketing  standards;  the 
framework is especially limited in its capacity to follow the changes in technology, 
marketing strategies and consumer preferences without impeding innovation; 

  a  number  of  sector-specific  limitations  especially  affecting  the  fruit  juices,  poultry 

meat, dairy and olive oil sectors. 

Details on assessment of business operators 

The majority (76%) of the 123 business associations surveyed considered that the current 
legislative framework setting EU marketing standards still responds to the actual needs, 
problems  and  issues  of  business  operators.  A  minority  –  although  significant 
nonetheless  (24%)  -  considered  that  the  current  legislative  framework  was  affected  by 
serious limitations6465 in practice.  

However,  a  majority  of  respondents  (76%)  considered  that  such  a  framework  had 
addressed those needs, problems and issues. In addition, 30% of the business associations 

61   Besides  the  alleged  subjectivity  of  the  method  which  some  of  the  sectoral  associations  consulted 
perceived,  one  of  the  sectoral  associations  consulted  believed  that  tasting  panels  had  shown  clear 
limitations in addressing technological changes in fraudulent practices. For instance, tasting panels are 
usually  unable  to  detect  deodorised  oils  marketed  as  extra  virgin  olive  oils.  According  to  that 
association, the organoleptic assessment should be combined with traceability systems and with other 
analytical methods that technological innovation may offer in the future to effectively address more and 
more sophisticated fraudulent practices in the marketing of olive oils. 

62   According to one of the sectoral associations consulted, the set does not fully cover the extremely rich 
variety of scents and flavours of virgin olive oils, and also includes attributes (‘bitter’ and ‘pungent’) 
that are often not appreciated by consumers. 

63   One of the business associations consulted observed that it was of paramount importance to adapt the 
categories of olive oil to follow evolving market needs, also considering that large volumes of marketed 
extra virgin olive oils in certain Member States (and especially in Italy) meet  much  more demanding 
quality requirements than the minimum ones. 

64   Some limitations were mentioned in the relevance criterion. Additional limitations affecting the olive 
oil sector were found to be related to the tasting methods and the lack of uniformity of results deriving 
from tasting panels.... 

65   It should be noted that 19 of the 25 associations highlighting those serious limitation cover the farming 

stage of the supply chain (exclusively or in combination with other stages). 

38 

 
 
                                                            
surveyed were of the opinion that the current legislative framework had failed to address 
new needs, problems and issues. 

The  overall  positive  outcome  of  the  business  survey  is  consistent  with  the  additional 
information  obtained  from  the  public  consultation,  according  to  which  21%  of  81 
respondents  found  that  the  EU  marketing  standards  fit  very  well  with  the  needs  of  the 
supply  chain  in  these  sectors  (i.e.  producers,  processors,  traders,  retailers),  while  46% 
found that they fit well, 26% moderately well, 5% found they did not fit and 2% did not 
have an opinion.  

Details on assessment of competent authorities 

The  majority  (79%)  of  the  19  competent  authorities  surveyed  considered  that  the 
current legislative framework setting marketing standards still responded to the actual 
needs,  problems  and  issues  of  stakeholders  (producers,  processors,  traders,  retailers, 
consumers, and Member State’ administrations). A significant minority (21%) pointed to 
serious  limitations,  highlighted  above.  In  addition,  32%  considered  that  the  legislative 
framework had failed to address new needs. 

This  overall  positive  assessment  is  consistent  with  the  outcome  of  the  public 
consultation,  according  to  which  24%  of  82  respondents  found  that  the  EU  marketing 
standards fit the needs of Member State administrations very well, while 41% found that 
they fit well, 20% moderately well, 1% found they did not fit and 13% did not have an 
opinion. 

Consumers 

An  EU-level  consumer  association  that  was  interviewed  expressed  a  generally  positive 
judgement  on  the  relevance  of  EU  marketing  standards  for  consumers,  with  the  sole 
significant  exception  of  the  absence  of  mandatory  origin  labelling  in  EU  marketing 
standards  for  a  number  of  products.  The  association  underlined  the  importance  for 
consumers of knowing the place where agricultural products are farmed, rather than – for 
instance - the place of where they are packaged. 

This is in line with the outcome of the public consultation, according to which 28% of 81 
respondents found that the EU marketing standards fit with the needs of consumers 
very well, while 33% found that they fit well, 25% moderately well, 11% found they did 
not fit and 2% did not have an opinion. 

5.5.  EU added value 

The  EU  added  value  of  marketing  standards  was  addressed  by  assessing  the  extent  to 
which separate EU marketing standards are justifiable and provide added value in 
addition to international and private standards. 

Added value in addition to international marketing standards 
The majority of the business stakeholders (83%), the 123 business associations66 and the 
national  competent  authorities  consulted  considered  that  separate  EU  marketing 

66   Only 8% of the business associations surveyed expressed a negative judgment in that respect (9% of 

respondents did not express a judgment). 

39 

 
 
 
                                                            
standards  were  justifiable  and  provided  added  value  to  international  marketing 
standards. The main strengths of EU marketing standards in relation to international 
marketing standards were identified in: 

1.  The  mandatory  nature  of  EU  marketing  standards,  which  is  especially 
important  in  ensuring  a  homogeneous  level  of  consumer  protection,  fair  trading 
practices and a level playing field for operators within the EU market. 

2.  The  fact  that  the  objectives  and  requirements  of  EU  marketing  standards 
have been tailored to the specific needs of the EU market, and have often been 
adapted to changes in those needs. 

However,  a  minority  of  the  stakeholders  consulted  (especially  national  competent 
authorities) considered EU marketing standards (and especially those for fresh fruit and 
vegetables) to generally not be justifiable given the existence of analogous international 
marketing standards that are recognised on a global scale, and to provide little/no added 
value to them. 

The  competent  authorities  consulted  that  are  in  favour  of  separate  EU  marketing 
standards  underlined  that  mandatory  legislation-based  marketing  standards,  tailored  to 
the conditions applying on the EU market, are an essential condition to ensure adequate 
levels  of  consumer  protection,  and  can  help  to  improve  the  average  quality  levels  of 
agricultural and food products marketed in the EU. These results would not be achieved 
by  solely  relying  on  international  marketing  standards,  mainly  because  their  uptake  is 
voluntary.  

Added value in addition to the applicable private standards 
Most of the business stakeholders (80% of the 123 business associations surveyed67) and 
national  competent  authorities  consulted  also  considered  separate  EU  marketing 
standards  to  be  justifiable  and  to  provide  added  value  to  the  applicable  private 
marketing standards68. 

The  competent  authorities  consulted  who  are  in  favour  of  separate  EU  marketing 
standards had the same for international standards. 

The  main  strengths  of  EU  marketing  standards  in  relation  to  private  standards  that 
were identified were: 

1.  The mandatory nature of EU marketing standards versus the voluntary nature 
of private ones. This ensures the achievement of objectives - a homogeneous level 
of  consumer  protection,  fair  trading  practices  and  a  level  playing  field  for 
operators within the EU market – that could not be ensured through sole reliance 
on voluntary private standards. 

2.  The fact that EU marketing standards establish minimum quality requirements, as 
well  as  requirements  for  providing  information  about  the  products  to  business 

67   Only 6% of the business associations surveyed expressed a negative judgment in that respect (14% of 

respondents did not express a judgment). 

68   It should be noted that the private standards most widespread in the EU are often based on requirements 
concerning  the  means  (practices,  procedures,  organisational  solutions,  resources,  etc.)  to  be  used  by 
operators  in  their  production,  storage  and  marketing  activities.  By  contrast,  EU  marketing  standards 
mainly set requirements concerning results, i.e. quality parameters to be  met in products and specific 
information items to be provided about the products. 
40 

 
 
                                                            
partners and/or final consumers, which must be complied with across the EU. For 
many products, those minimum requirements are already based on relatively 
high standards. From a farmer’s or processor’s perspective, this leaves less room 
for the ‘quality gold plating’ strategies pursued by large-scale retailers whose own 
private  standards  have  particularly  demanding  quality  requirements.  Since  most 
of the added value generated by ‘quality gold plating’ strategies goes to retailers, 
with  farmers  and  processors  bearing  the  often  high  costs  of  complying  with 
private standards, EU marketing standards contribute to a fairer allocation of 
added value among the different stages of the supply chain. 

By  contrast,  no  significant  weaknesses  of  EU  marketing standards  in  relation  to  the 
applicable private marketing standards emerged from the assessment.  

41 

 
 
 
 
6.  CONCLUSIONS 

Scope and limitations of the evaluation 

Since the early days of the common agricultural policy (CAP), marketing standards have 
been  a  feature  of  the  policy  on  agricultural  and  food  product  quality.  EU  marketing 
standards  have  usually  been  defined  by  sectors  or  products;  they  serve  the  purpose  of 
taking  into  account  consumer  expectations  and  helping  to  improve  the  quality  and 
economic  conditions  for  producing  and  marketing  agricultural  products.  In  the  current 
framework, EU marketing standards are aimed at ensuring that the market can be easily 
supplied with products of a standardised and satisfactory quality; these standards concern 
technical  definitions,  classification,  presentation,  marking  and  labelling,  packaging, 
production  method,  conservation,  storage,  transport,  related  administrative  documents, 
certification and time limits, restrictions of use and disposal. 
In  force  since  201469,  the  reform  of  the  common  market  organisation  included  the 
adoption  of  marketing  standards  by  sectors  and  products.  These  standards  were  further 
developed  in  secondary  legislation  governing  the  common  market  organisation70.  The 
marketing  standards  of  the  ‘Breakfast  Directives’71  had  been  drafted  under  different 
conditions and times for several products or sectors. They predated the current Common 
Market Organisation Regulation. 

The evaluation analysed to what extent EU marketing standards for food products were 
enabling the EU to achieve the objectives set and if they were useful and sufficient in this 
sense for the stakeholders (producers, processors, traders, retailers, consumers, Member 
State administrations).  

The  evaluation  is  limited  in  that  it only  covered  marketing  standards  adopted  since  the 
entry  into  force  of  the  current  common  market  organisation  (2014),  unless  otherwise 
specified.  Also,  the  level  of  detail  of  the  analysis  is  uneven  across  sectors,  making  it 
difficult to establish general conclusions on marketing standards. This is due to the wide 
range  of  sectors  analysed,  the  greater  reliance  on  qualitative,  rather  than  quantitative, 
sources and the lack of reliable data. 

Conclusions for the five evaluation themes 

The evaluation concluded that EU marketing standards have generally been effective in 
achieving  their  intended  objectives,  without  causing  significant  unintended/unexpected 
effects  (including  ‘deadweight’72).  EU  marketing  standards  appeared  to  have  limited 
effectiveness  in  only  a  few  cases  in  certain  specific  sectors  and  for  specific  aspects, 
mainly due to the lack of robust quantitative data. The assessment identified a number of 

69   Regulation  1308/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  December  2013 

establishing a common organization of the markets in agricultural products 

70   On  olive  oil,  fruits  and  vegetables  and  processed  fruits  and  vegetables,  bananas,  eggs,  hatching  eggs 

poultry chicks, poultry meat, bovine meat, hops and spreadable fats, milk products 

71   They  concern:  coffee  and  chicory  extracts,  cocoa  and  chocolate  products,  sugars  intended  for  human 
consumption,  fruit  jams,  jellies  and  marmalades  and  sweetened  chestnut  purée  intended  for  human 
consumption, dehydrated milk, fruit juices and honey. 

72  ‘Deadweight’: effects that would have arisen even if the intervention – i.e. the establishment EU 

marketing standards - had not taken place. 

42 

 
 
 
                                                            
success stories illustrating the effectiveness of EU marketing standards, such as rules 
on  the  optional  reserved  terms  (types  of  farming)  for  poultry  meat  and  the  rules  for 
indicating the farming methods applied for laying hens.  

Although  neither  costs  nor  benefits  are  fully  quantifiable,  the  majority  of  the  business 
associations  and  operators  consulted  across  all  sectors,  as  well  as  Member  States, 
considered the costs of EU marketing standards to be justifiable and proportionate to the 
benefits  achieved.  Overall,  limited  potential  was  found  for  simplifying  EU  marketing 
standards, including the certification procedure for hops and the marketing standards for 
fresh  fruit  and  vegetables  and  olive  oil.  Consumers  seemed  insufficiently  aware  of 
marketing standards and their benefits, to make a robust assessment from their point of 
view of the proportionality of costs versus benefits of EU marketing standards.  

There is some room for improving the relevance of EU marketing standards. Even if EU 
marketing standards were found to be generally pertinent to the original needs identified 
by stakeholders, the assessment revealed that the standards could be improved in order to 
better address the new needs, problems and issues of stakeholders which emerged after 
the  standards  were  set.  In  particular,  the  assessment  identified  some  limitations  of  EU 
marketing standards in keeping up with changes in technology, marketing strategies and 
consumer  preferences  without  impeding  innovation,  and  in  addressing  potential  side 
effects in terms of food waste in certain sectors. 

The  evaluation  concludes  positively  that  EU  marketing  standards  show  coherence, 
within  the  related  regulatory  framework  (internal  coherence)  and  are  consistent  with 
other EU rules that are relevant for the production and marketing of agricultural and food 
products, and are consistent with international and private marketing standards (external 
coherence).  There  is  however  a  significant  cross-sectoral  issue  of  coherence  due  to  the 
combination  of  various  requirements  under  EU  marketing  standards  that  are  related  to 
product  quality,  food  safety  (e.g.  storage  temperature  requirements,  or  minimum 
durability (‘best before’) date required for eggs) and the provision of food information to 
consumers  (product  labelling  requirements).  According  to  some  of  the  national 
competent  authorities  consulted,  such  a  combination  may  result  in  overlaps  and 
inconsistencies,  and  may  pose  challenges  for  enforcement  and  verification  and 
inspection. 

EU marketing standards also provide significant added value to international and private 
marketing  standards.  This  mainly  stems  from  their  mandatory  nature  (i.e.  the  related 
requirements must be complied with across the EU), from the fact that requirements are 
tailored to the specific operational and market situation of the EU, and is due to the rather 
demanding quality requirements set by EU marketing standards for many products.  

43 

 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 

Lead DG: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI). 

Decide planning: PLAN/2017/925 

2.  Organisation and timing 

This  evaluation  was  included  in  the  DG  AGRI  evaluation  plan.  It  followed  the  Better 
regulation  guidelines  for  evaluations.  The  evaluation  work  was  carried  out  through  an 
external  evaluation  study,  conducted  in  conformity  with  the  DG  AGRI  procedure  for 
organising  and  managing  policy  evaluations  by  external  contractors.  The  work  was 
supervised under the technical and the contractual management of DG AGRI’s unit C.4 
in charge of monitoring and evaluation. 

The  Commission  set  up  an  inter-service  steering  group  on  05  July  2017,  with  the 
mandate of providing information, preparing the terms of reference, monitoring the work 
of  the  external  study  team,  discussing  and  giving  advice  on  the  approval  of  the  final 
report, commenting on the draft evaluation staff working document. 

The  ISG  was  composed  of  the  Secretariat-General  of  the  Commission  and  Directorate-
General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  (DG  AGRI),  Directorate-General  for 
Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  (DG  GROW),  Directorate-
General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE) and the Secretariat-General (SG). The 
ISG  started  its  meetings  on  05  July  2017,  and  held  several  meetings  throughout  the 
evaluation process.  

The evaluation roadmap was published on 29 June 2017. It set out the context, scope and 
aim of the exercise. The roadmap presented the questions to be addressed under the five 
criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. During the 
period  in  which  feedback  could  be  provided  on  the  roadmap  (29  June  2017  –  27  July 
2017),  18  contributions  were  received73.    These  did  not  require  any  change  to  the 
approach towards the evaluation. 
The  evaluation  support  study74  carried  out  by  the  external  contractor  started  on 
3 December 2018 and  finalised on 2 November 2019. An open public consultation was 
launched on 22 July and closed on 14 October 201975. Its aim was to gather the views of 
public authorities, stakeholders and members of the public. The external support study, 

73   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1457-Evaluation-of-marketing-

standards-Regulation-EU-No-1308-2013- 

74   Evaluation  support  study  of  the  marketing  standards  contained  in  the  common  market  organisation 

(CMO) regulation, the ‘Breakfast directives’ and CMO secondary legislation: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-
policy/cmef/products-and-markets/cmo-regulation-breakfast-directives_en  

75   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1457-Evaluation-of-marketing-

standards-Regulation-EU-No-1308-2013-/public-consultation 

44 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
together  with  the  outcome  of  the  public  consultation  provided  the  basis  for  this  staff 
working document. 

3.  Exceptions to the better regulation guidelines 

There  were  no  exceptions  to  the  better  regulation  guidelines.  This  evaluation  was  not 
selected for scrutiny by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. 

4.  Evidence, sources and quality 

Relevant data and information from the European Union, national and local levels had to 
be gathered for the evaluation. The overall approach therefore combined these three main 
sources with three types of evidence: (i.) EU level data and information gathering, review 
and  analysis;  (ii.)  case  studies  in  selected  Member  States;  (iii.)  quantitative  and 
qualitative analysis, with focus on the qualitative dimension. 

45 

 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

A wide range of consultation methods and activities were planned. They can be grouped 
as follows:  

1) consultation activities carried out by the external evaluator (e.g.: surveys, stakeholder 
interviews or workshops),  

2)  consultation  activities  carried  out  by  the  Commission  (e.g.  contacts  with  member  of 
relevant civil dialogue groups).  

Consultation activities carried out by the external evaluator 

The following targeted consultation activities were carried out by the external evaluator:  

- case studies/workshops 

- surveys   

- focus groups   

- interviews.   

Consultation activities carried out by the Commission   

Roadmap feedback 

The Commission services organised a four-week consultation to obtain feedback for the 
roadmap  of  this  evaluation76.  There  were  18  contributions,  mainly  from  different 
organisations linked to various sectors (e.g. fruits and vegetables, hops, cider, fruit juices, 
poultry meat, and eggs, dairy…). These contributions were taken into account in design 
the evaluation questions. 

Public consultation 

The Commission services asked civil dialogue groups to provide information on possible 
relevant  activities  at  Member  State  level  and  in  particular  to  participate  in  the  public 
consultation  for  this  evaluation.  A  specific  public  consultation  for  this  evaluation  was 
conducted.  It  was  launched  on  22  July  and  closed  on  14  October  2019.  Its  aim  was  to 
gather  the  views  of  public  authorities,  stakeholders  and  members  of  the  public.  The 
Commission  drafted  a  specific  summary  report  with  the  analysis  of  the  open  public 
consultation77. The outcome of the different questions has been provided in Chapter 5, in 
the analysis and answers to the evaluation questions.  

76 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1457-Evaluation-of-marketing-
standards-Regulation-EU-No-1308-2013-/feedback?p_id=32647 
77 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1457-Evaluation-of-marketing-
standards-Regulation-EU-No-1308-2013-/public-consultation 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The  open  public  consultation  provided  a  significant  amount  of  input  on  the  different 
sectors especially in the position papers uploaded.  

Open questions 

In the open question on what could be simplified, and how, in order to improve the 
management  and  implementation  of  the  EU  marketing  standards,  the  following 
suggestions for simplification or improvement were made:  

Fruits and vegetables: the main qualitative contributions related to: 

Digitalisation 

Digitalisation  and  new  techniques  for  labelling;  ‘use  of  QR-Code’  for  tracking 
information  

and achieving the maximum traceability of the product. 

Harmonisation 

Harmonisation of marketing standards for different sectors to reduce the administrative 
burden; alignment of the specific marketing standards for fresh fruit and vegetables with 
UNECE  standards;  harmonisation  among  authorised  packagers;  continued  European 
harmonisation of the rules.  

Recognition 

The  need  to  facilitate  recognition  as  authorised  economic  operators  in  order  to  ensure 
better management and enforcement of the rules. 

Quality 

The need to ensure that EU marketing standards continue to focus on the quality aspects 
of the products. 

Administrative 
requirements 

Simplification of administrative requirements, currently included in the standards. 

Compliance 

The  performance  of  regular  public  reporting  on  inspections  carried  out  to  check 
compliance with EU marketing standards by the various competent authorities.  

Simplification 

Simplification  of  texts;  identification  with  commercial  language  and  consumer; 
However,  simplifying  should  not  be  synonymous  with  eliminating  existing  marketing 
standards  for  different  fruit  and  vegetable  products.  The  removal  of  common  EU 
standards would lead to the proliferation of different private standards: different for each 
Member State, and for commercial operators. 

Sector 
specificities 

The  obligation  in  the  EU  for  citrus  to  mention  the  preserving  agent  or  other  chemical 
substances  used  at  the  post-maturity  stage  is  discriminatory  as  this  requirement  is  not 
obligatory for any other fruit.  

Eggs: For the eggs sector, the main qualitative contributions related to: 

Simplification 

Simpler rules, clear wording, consistency, tighter control.  

However, other stakeholders claim: 

Compliance 

The lack of any need for simplification. Controls in firm. 

Safety, 
monitoring 

The  monitoring  of  products  on  the  food  safety  website,  the  raw  material  being 
incorporated into a product that has been used, so that the consumer is provided with a 
clear indication of the source of origin of the product and the quality of the raw material; 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Effective, frequent monitoring. 

Sector 
specificities 

The  lack  of  any  need  for  simplification,  keeping  the  standards  unchanged,  with  a  few 
points, in particular concerning the controls on the methods of rearing laying hens.  

Poultry meat: For the poultry meat sector, the main qualitative contributions related to: 

Status quo 

The  claim  by  many  respondents  that  there  is  no  need  for  simplification  -  ‘keep  the 
standards unchanged’- 

and  that  the  management  and  implementation  of  the  current  marketing  standards  is 
adequate. 

Awareness 

The need to maintain current standards without simplification and make them known. 

Sector 
specificities 

The idea that laboratory analysis procedures could in some cases be simpler and more 
harmonised.  For  example,  the  procedure  for  checking  the  water  content  of  poultry  is 
complex and unnecessarily costly for producers. 

Olive oil and table olives: the main qualitative contributions related to: 

Sector 
specificities 

The  need  to  simplify  official  organoleptic  testing  for  virgin  olive  oils.  Without 
harmonisation between official  control  tasting  panels,  operators  marketing virgin olive 
oils are subject to serious legal uncertainty.  

Uploaded position papers by sectors 

Below is a summary of the main points expressed in the position papers by sectors. The 
type of stakeholder appears (e.g. consumer organisation, producer organisation, national 
or regional authority, etc.) but the names have been anonymised. If there is a campaign, 
the number of documents appear as well. 

Fruit juice 

One  association  of  producers  sent  a  position  paper  to  comment  on  Council  Directive 
2001/112/EC to state that EU producers of fruit juices and nectars are strongly in favour 
of  maintaining  the  Directive.  Based  on  surveys  in  several  EU  Member  States,  the 
producers observe a lack of public awareness on the fact that, except for nectars, sugar 
cannot be added to the products covered by the Directive. Consequently, those products 
suffer from unfair competition compared to other drinks that are allowed to use the claim 
‘with no added sugar’. 

Fruits and vegetables 

In total, 6 position papers on the fruit and vegetables sector have been received. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The cooperatives of a Member State jointly expressed concerns that specific standards 
could be, as it was the case in 2008, reduced and replaced by general standards.  They are 
of  the  view  that  instead  of  simplifying  the  situation,  general  standards  would  actually 
imbalance the market for producers and result in  more bureaucracy, higher costs, more 
restrictions,  greater  complications  in  the  manufacturing,  classification  and  labelling 
process.  The  management  of  goods  would  be  complicated  by  the  clients  deciding 
arbitrary and unilateral changes in conditions. 

An  organisation  representative  of  farmers  and  cooperative  similarly  recalls  that 
specific standards provide a common language between operators and therefore help the 
single  market  run  smoothly.  Specific  standards  guarantee  the  market  transparency  by 
allowing each link in the food chain, from producers to consumers, to ensure the security 
of transactions; this is done by providing uniform parameters and objectives which make 
it possible  to attribute characteristics to the marketed products. The organisation would 
like the Commission to do an impact assessment on the 26 marketing standards abolished 
in 2008 and would like the EU to maintain the current specific marketing standards. 

A national organisation representing the citrus sector would like the EU to revision 
of the marketing standards for citrus so that it is no longer mandatory to the preservatives 
or chemical substances used for post-harvest treatments. 

An  international  association  of  producers  is  globally  in  favour  of  maintaining  the 
current  specific  marketing  standards  and  complaining  about  the  abolishment  of  2008, 
asking the Commission to reinstate them and even to consider new ones for new products 
that  have  appeared  or  are  growing  in  importance.  This  association  also  proposes  to 
improve  labelling  for  greater  consumer  awareness  (e.g.  for  the  origin  of  fruits  and 
vegetables). 

A national inter-professional association also in favour of marketing standards for fruit 
and  vegetables,  similarly  to  other  stakeholders  intervening  in  the  survey  reminded  The 
Commission that contrary to the preconceived idea,  marketing standards help to reduce 
food loss and waste.  

An  international  (EU  &  non-EU)  consumer  association  pleads  for  harmonized  and 
permissive  legislation  that  is  adapted  to  local  needs  and  left  to  the  appreciation  of 
national authorities. 

Dairy 

In total, 5 position papers concerning the dairy sector were received. 

The  three  main  stakeholders  in  the  dairy  supply  chain  (the  representatives  of 
producers  and  cooperatives;  the  representative  of  the  processing  industry;  the 
representative  of  traders  and  wholesalers)  are  broadly  in  favour  of  a  status  quo  for 
dairy  products:  that  means  maintaining  the  protection  of  dairy  terms  and  marketing 
standards for spreadable fats, drinking milk and dehydrated milk; not modifying the list 
of linguistic exceptions in Commission Decision 2010/791/EU. It is worth noting that the 
representatives  of  producers  and  cooperatives  not  only  represent  the  interests  of  milk 
producers  but  also  the  agricultural  sector  as  a  whole  (several  dairy  companies  also 
produce plant-based drinks). 

49 

 
 
The  EU-level  organisation  of  traders  and  wholesalers  makes  a  clear  distinction 
between protected terms and marketing standards. They state that if additional standards 
were  developed  for  products  traded  in  large  volumes  such  as  whey  powder  or  certain 
cheese  categories  such  as  Edam,  Gouda,  Cheddar,  Emmental  and  Mozzarella,  they 
should be fully in line with the existing Codex Alimentarius standards for these products. 

For products where there is no Codex standard, the priority should always be to develop 
any additional standards via the Codex route (e.g. for whey protein concentrates). They 
write that some additional guidance to Member States on applying marketing standards 
would be welcome in order to ensure a uniform implementation of standards across the 
EU.  

According to the EU-level organisation of producers and cooperatives, terms related 
to dairy should remain protected in EU legislation and be respected by all supply chain 
partners and fully enforced by all competent authorities of the EU Member States at all 
times. In the case of other terms linked to products of animal origin (e.g. meat or eggs) 
this  protection  should  be  granted  by  EU  legislation.  Products  that  do  not  contain  meat 
should not refer to meat in the name of the product. For the sake of protecting genuine 
meat  products  from  imitations,  it  is  therefore  necessary  to  better  enforce  the  existing 
legislation and provide clearer labelling rules in this respect.  

The  EU-level  organisation  representing  vegetarians  questions  the  rules  on  the 
protection of dairy terms in particular with regard to ‘growing food sectors which deserve 
similar  consideration  as  the  dairy  industry’  and  adding  to  the  list  of  exceptions  in 
Commission  Decision  2010/791/EU  to  include  new  traditions  that  have  emerged  since 
the protection of dairy terms was introduced. 

A national federation of food producers would like certain exceptions already listed in 
Commission  Decision  2010/791/EU  to  be  harmonised  in  order  to  avoid  different 
linguistic  rules  (at  least  for  four  specific  products:  cocoa  butter,  peanut  butter,  coconut 
milk, almond milk). 

Honey 

In total, 2 position papers concerning the honey sector were submitted.  

An EU-level  organisation of  farmers and cooperatives  submitted a position paper in 
reaction to the results of the Commission’s coordinated control plan for the honey sector. 
The paper proposes a multi-level action plan, with a number of measures to be taken on 
the farm, at packing stations as well as at borders but also in supermarkets, focusing on 
measures  to  increase  the  traceability  of  the  honey’s  origin.  The  paper  considers  this 
important  in  ensuring  the  sector’s  profitability  and  restoring  trust  in  the  products.  The 
paper also calls for the development of reliable and harmonised analytical methods at EU 
level that can be applied by a larger number of laboratories and would like a European 
authentication  centre  for  honey  to  be  set  up.  At  international  level,  the  paper  suggests 
increased  cooperation  with  China  (the  main  supplier  of  imported  honey  to  the  EU)  on 
scientific projects to prevent fraud and would also like to see EU visits to China to check 
veterinary residues and analyse honey production methods.  

50 

 
 
Current EU legislation contains a precise definition of honey. The second position paper 
by  an  EU-level  organisation  of  farmers  and  cooperatives  suggests  also  providing 
definitions for other bee products, such as royal jelly and bee venom.  

Poultry 

In total, 4 position papers concerning the poultry sector in general were submitted. The 
practically identical wording of the papers suggests that the positions were coordinated to 
form one campaign.          

An EU-level association of alternative poultry producers  considered that the current 
provisions  of  the  marketing  standards  for  poultry  meat  (Regulation  543/2008)  has 
encouraged the development of differentiated poultry production in the EU over the last 
25 years, resulting in a clear segmentation of the poultry market. It therefore argues  for 
maintaining  the  current  rules  on  the  types  of  farming  for  poultry.  In  particular,  it  is  in 
favour  of  maintaining  the  rules  and  definitions  on  the  indication  of  different  farming 
methods,  maintaining  the  obligation  of  controls  of  farming  methods  with  defined 
frequencies, and maintaining the possibility of additional national rules to indicate types 
of  farming  that  allow  a  certain  flexibility  in  tailoring  EU  rules  to  country-specific 
conditions. One national producer organisation  submitted a position with exactly the 
same wording. 

Similar positions were submitted by  1 national producer organisation and 1 regional 
producer organisation. They both argue for maintaining the current rules on the type of 
farming for poultry as laid down by Regulation 543/2008.  

Foie gras 

In  total,  submissions  were  received  from  21  stakeholders  concerning  the  foie  gras 
marketing standard under Regulation 543/2008.    

A position paper with the same wording was submitted by 16 individual stakeholder 
groups,  comprising one EU-level association of  foie gras producers  and 15 national  or 
regional producer organisations or companies involved in the production, processing or 
trade of foie gras from the Member States producing foie gras.    

Firstly,  the  position  paper  calls  for  maintaining  the  definition  of  raw  foie  gras  in  the 
current  marketing  standards  for  poultry  meat  (as  laid  down  in  Article  1  of  Regulation 
543/2008), a definition that is based on the legal requirement for minimum liver weights 
of  duck  and  geese,  respectively.  It  argues  that  due  to  the  high  value  of  foie  gras  as  a 
product 
and  
the consequent risk of fraudulent practices fixing minimum liver weight is an appropriate 
criterion to ensure product quality. It recalls that foie gras remains a prestigious and high 
value product recognised in France as ‘protected gastronomic and cultural heritage’ and 
in Hungary, as ‘hungaricum’.  

It explains that the scientific studies confirmed a direct relationship between the weight 
of a duck/goose liver and its fat content; thus without reaching the minimum weight set 
in  the  poultry  meat  marketing  standards,  the  fatty  livers  would  not  be  sufficiently 
fattened and final product would not have the desired organoleptic qualities. It adds that 
these  minimum  weights  are  the  only  available  means  for  the  national  competent 
authorities to control the product in a simple way.       

51 

 
 
In  relation to the presence  on the market of other similar products, such as ‘mousse de 
foie’  or  ‘foie  fin’  (lean  liver),  the  position  paper  argues  that  it  would  be  misleading  to 
make consumers believe that a product other than foie gras could have the same intrinsic 
characteristics.  

Secondly,  the  paper  calls  for  introducing  a  definition  for  processed  foie  gras,  which  is 
claimed to account for 80% of the foie gras market in EU legislation. The paper argues 
that the EU market is the largest world market for foie gras (75% of all foie gras is said to 
be consumed in the EU) with ample room for fraudulent practices in this market segment. 
Moreover, the paper also sees the introduction of an EU definition of processed foie gras 
as  a  protection  against  unfair  competition  from  imports  of  foie  gras  produced  by  new 
non-EU foie gras producers.  

Another  position  paper  with  identical  wording  was  submitted  by  4  stakeholder 
organisations, including a regional administration, a regional chamber of agriculture and 
two regional producer organisations.   

This position paper calls for maintaining the current definition of raw foie gras based on 
the  minimum  liver  weights  of  duck/geese  livers  (as  provided  for  in  Article  1  of 
Regulation  543/2008).  It  argues  that  minimum  weights  lower  than  those  fixed  in 
Regulation  543/2008  would  lead  to  insufficiently  fattened  livers  and  would  ultimately 
mislead  consumers.  The  paper  stresses  that  the  definition  of  minimum  liver  weights 
ensures fair competition within the EU and helps to fight potential fraudulent practices. It 
further adds that the foie gras sector creates a significant number of jobs and generates an 
important source of income in agriculture and related agro-tourism in the region.   

A  position  paper  on  animal  welfare  submitted  by  a  national  non-governmental 
organization  calls  on  the  EU  to  delete  the  reference  to  minimum  liver  weights  in  the 
definition  of  foie  gras  in  Regulation  543/2008.  The  paper  refers  to  the  use  of  force-
feeding to produce foie gras, claiming this practice leads to liver weights well above their 
normal natural size and causes severe health problems and a higher mortality rate for the 
birds during the force-feeding period. It notes that not all foie gras producers force-feed 
their animals, relying on the natural feeding behaviour of the birds before the migratory 
season to  produce  larger livers. It argues, however,  that the minimum liver weights for 
ducks and geese currently set in EU legislation cannot be reached without force-feeding 
the animals and therefore the EU rules would de facto encourage producers to force-feed 
their animals in  order  to  market their products  under the term ‘foie  gras’. On the other 
hand, the alternative producers of foie gras, that do not use force-feeding, are allegedly 
forced to use other denominations for their products, such as ‘foie fin’ or ‘faux gras’ and 
therefore are losing their market share to the foie gras producers using force-feeding.  

Eggs 

Altogether 6 position papers concerning the egg sector were received. 

A national egg trade association highlighted several issues. Firstly, it is concerned that 
the imported eggs and egg products do not comply with the same rules as those in the EU 
(while the paper is not specific, this may concern mainly the rules on how the animals are 
kept,  but  could  also  relate  to  certain  environmental  rules  or  controls).  Secondly,  it 
considers that the eggs and egg products of EU and non-EU origin are not distinguishable 
according to the applicable rules. Thirdly, it argues in favour of introducing labelling for 
52 

 
 
different egg-housing systems, including for processed egg products. Fourthly, it points 
to  inconsistency  in  the  requirements  for  marketing  eggs  as  ‘free  range’  or  ‘organic’ 
following  compliance  with  EU  legislation  aimed  at  addressing  outbreaks  of  avian 
influenza.  Egg  marketing  standards  (Regulation  (EC)  No  589/2008)  provide  for  a 
derogation period to market eggs as ‘free range’ in cases of restricted access to open air 
due  to  housing  restrictions  to  protect  animal  health  for  a  period  of  no  more  than  16 
weeks. The situation in the organic egg sectors is different, since eggs being marketed as 
‘organic’ can continue to be marketed as such irrespective of how long birds may have to 
be kept indoors to protect public and animal health. Lastly, it argues for the marking of 
eggs directly on the farm to avoid potential fraud.  

In  its  contribution,  an  EU-level  association  of  alternative  poultry  producers 
acknowledged that the increasing trend of keeping hens in alternative systems was made 
possible thanks to the current EU marketing standards for eggs (Regulation 589/2008). It 
therefore  supports  maintaining  the  rules  on  the  different  types  of  farming.  However,  it 
proposes more stringent controls of farming methods for eggs by introducing an annual 
inspection of all alternative farming methods (an annual control frequency is applied for 
organic eggs as well as for alternative poultry meat under Regulation 543/2008). Finally, 
it  proposes  adding  an  obligation to  mark  eggs  on  the  farm  (unless a  Member  State has 
defined  and  authorised  exceptions)  to  avoid  potential  fraud  in  indicating  the  respective 
code of the farming method on the egg shell.  

The  exact  same  position  (using  identical  wording)  was  also  expressed  in  the  3  other 
position  papers  received:  two  from  national  producer  organisations  and  one  from  a 
regional producer organisation (thus, forming a campaign with the EU-level producer 
association mentioned above).  

A  national  poultry  producer  organisation  provided  a  long  list  of  changes  that  it 
proposes should be made to the egg marketing standards. These include changes in the 
marking  of  egg  boxes  and  labelling  of  eggs  from  non-EU  countries;  changes  in  the 
grading for size categories and for the classification of eggs (a third class C is proposed 
in  addition  to  the  current  classes  A  and  B);  and  no  longer  allowing  exemptions  from 
washing and marking eggs in certain cases of intra-EU trade.   

Meat 

An EU-level non-governmental organisation that is focused on animal welfare called 
for mandatory labelling of the method of production informing consumers of the farming 
method used to raise the animal whose meat or products are being marketed. It considers 
that the absence of this mandatory labelling poses two risks: the risk of private operators 
providing  consumers  irrelevant,  misleading  or  false  information  or  the  risk  of  a 
proliferation  of  voluntary  labelling  initiatives,  each  with  differing  standards  based  on 
national conditions, which it argues ultimately prevents the EU market from functioning 
properly  and  creates  consumer  confusion  because  of  multiple  labels  on  the  market.  A 
good model for such a mandatory labelling system would be the existing EU mandatory 
farming method labelling applied for eggs.   

A  group  of  6  EU-level  organisations  –  comprising  organisations  representing  poultry 
processors  and  traders,  meat  processors,  farmers  and  cooperatives,  animal  breeders, 
butchers, and livestock and meat traders – would like EU legal protection to be granted to 

53 

 
 
meat-related  terms.  They  claim  that  in  recent  years,  many  plant-based  products  on  the 
market have been found using the names of products of animal origin while some food 
business operators devised strong marketing strategies, which they say can be misleading 
for  consumers  because  they  seek  to  market  plant-based  products  as  substitutes  for 
products of animal origin. The paper argues that dairy terms are already protected in EU 
legislation  and  similar  legal  protection  should  also  be  granted  for  other  products  of 
animal origin. The paper includes a non-exhaustive list of meat-related terms, which the 
organisations proposed should be protected.    

A  national  organisation  of  the  meat  and  poultry  industry  suggests  a  review  of 
maximum limits of water content in poultry meat as laid down in Regulation 543/2008. 
Further,  it  would  be  in  favour  of  the  legal  protection  of  denominations  for  poultry 
carcasses and cuts to be used only for the products of animal origin. It is also calling for a 
review  of  the  definition  of  mechanically  separated  meat,  as  laid  down  in  Hygiene 
Regulation  852/2008,  arguing  that  the  techniques  for  separating  meats  from  bones  has 
evolved and the quality of mechanically separated meat has improved. Finally, in a more 
general  way,  they  would  welcome  consolidation  of  the  sector-specific  legal  provisions 
for marketing standards; these provisions are currently spread across several regulations 
and  they  would  like  them  to  be  consolidated  into  fewer  legal  texts  so  that  the  legal 
requirements are easier to understand.    

Olive oil 

One  position  paper  was  submitted  for  the  olive  oil  sector  by  a  business  association 
representing farmers and agro-cooperatives in the EU.  

In  its  opinion,  EU  marketing  standards  for  olive  oil  play  a  major  role  in  supplying  the 
market  with  products  of  standardised  and  satisfactory  quality  and  thus  in  providing 
adequate  and  transparent  information  to  consumers  and  creating  a  climate  of  trust  of 
producers. 

The association expresses the view that there is a potential for improving the control and 
reporting requirements. 

It  suggests  that  the  obligation  for  the  HORECA  sector  of  having  sealed  caps  for  extra 
virgin olive oil should be extended to the whole EU in order to ensure that quality as well 
as the nutritional characteristics of olive oil are preserved. In addition, they support the 
adoption  of  specific  marketing  standards  for  table  olives  to  avoid  fraud  and  boost  the 
quality and knowledge of the product. It also suggests a review of the existing provisions 
on health claims, particularly as regards polyphenols, in order to ensure that consumers 
are correctly informed about the benefits of olive oil consumption. 

Other consultations on a product outside the scope of this evaluation 

In  addition  to  the  information  above,  there  have  been  other  consultations  on  marketing 
standards  for  a  product  falling  outside  the  scope  of  this  evaluation  (wine).  They  are 
provided as an illustration78. 

78   Source : Agrosynergie, Evaluation of the CAP measures applicable to the wine sector, OP, Brussels, 

2019. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/21c4fc5f-5064-11e9-a8ed-01aa75ed71a1 
54 

 
 
 
                                                            
Wine 

In  addition  to  the  open  public  consultation  on  marketing  standards  for  the  CMO 
Regulation,  the  ‘Breakfast  Directives’  and  the  CMO  secondary  legislation,  marketing 
standards for wine were addressed in a specific open public consultation organised from 
7 March  to  7 June 2019  on  the  CAP  measures  applied  to  the  wine  sector79.  This 
consultation, together with the evaluation support study on the CAP measures applied to 
the wine sector80 that also includes a dedicated consumer survey, will serve as input to 
the staff working document on CAP measures applied to wine. 

Producers and traders gave the following opinions on the speed adapting to EU rules: 

Since  2009,  when  a  new  resolution  on  oenological  practices  was  adopted  by  the 
International  Organisation  of  Vine  and  Wine  (OIV),  the  European  Commission  has 
consulted  Member  States  on  revisions  of  enactments  and  ensure  that  new  oenological 
practices  comply  with  EU  criteria.  It  usually  takes  6  to  12  months  to  amend  European 
regulations for processing aids. But the procedure is longer for food additives, because it 
includes assessment by the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety81.  

According  to  traders  and  producers,  the  changes  in  marketing  standards  to  adapt  EU 
production  to  the  market  are  made  in  a  timely  manner,  especially  in  Spain  and  Sicily 
(IT); according to certain producers of La Rioja (ES), this remains true even if a certain 
slowness  remains,  due  to  the  International  Organisation  of  Vine  and  Wine  (OIV) 
processes. In the other case-study Members States, producers and traders do not see any 
particular problem with the amendments of oenological practices or with the time it takes 
to  implement  them  in  the  European  regulations.  The  process  has  been  streamlined  and 
the  response  is  now  faster  thanks  to  the  dialogue  between  the  Commission  and  the 
International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV). 

79   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1182-Evaluation-of-the-CAP-

measures-applicable-to-the-wine-sector/public-consultation 

80   https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/21c4fc5f-5064-11e9-a8ed-01aa75ed71a1 
81   For  instance,  the  use  of  glutathione  -  an  additive  -    adopted  at  the  OIV’s  General  Assembly  on  July 
2015 is presently being assessed by the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, whereas the 
clarification of enzymatic preparations of beta-glucanase - a processing aid- was adopted by the OIV in 
June 2010 and integrated in  in EU Regulation 53/2011 six months later. 

55 

 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                            
ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS 

The evaluation methods and analytical models used are described below. The evaluation 
used  quantitative  and  qualitative  analyses,  which  fed  into  the  evaluation.  Also, 
information  from  different  sources  was  triangulated,  ensuring  that  the  answers  to  the 
evaluation questions were based on solid, cross-checked evidence. 

Evaluation criteria and analysis of questions 

The overall approach to answering evaluation questions is based on the following 
elements: 

 

 

Interpretation and comprehension of the key terms of the evaluation questions and 
provision of appropriate definitions of these terms. 
Indication of the judgement criteria for answering each question, and of the related 
set  of  indicators  (as  well  as,  wherever  opportune,  the  quantitative  level  to  be 
reached by such indicators). 

  Explanation of the validity of the quantitative and qualitative information used, and 

indication of the related limitations. 

  Description  of  the  methods  used  for  answering  each  question  and  indication  of 

their limitations. 

  Detailed  description  of  the  reasoning  followed  in  the  analysis,  indicating  in 

particular the underlying hypotheses and validity limits. 

  Conclusions for each question, to be drawn directly from the analysis. 

The above approach is applied for answering each of the 12 evaluations questions, 
including the related sub-questions. 

Data collection strategy and methodology 

The  data  collection  strategy  made  use  of  a  combination  of  multiple  data  collection 
methods and tools to gather the vast and varied evidence base needed for the evaluation. 
In particular, the use of multiple data collection methods and tools for collecting the same 
information  items  was  aimed  at  improving  the  robustness  of  the  overall data  collection 
system,  at  addressing  potential  failure  of  specific  methods/tools,  and  at  managing  the 
related risks for a successful completion of the assignment. The combination includes: 

Desk 
research 

It covered: 

a.  collection of the relevant legislative texts; 
b.  collection of the relevant documentation; 
c.  collection of the relevant background information; 
d.  review  of  the  available  scientific  and  technical  literature  (of 

both a general and specialist nature); 

e.  collection of the relevant datasets and mining of the available 

databases. 

In-depth 
structured 

With  competent  authorities,  stakeholders  and  independent  experts.  It 

56 

 
 
 
 
interviews  

aimed at collecting evidence to: 

a.  identify key sources of information; 
b.  complement 

the  quantitative  and  qualitative  evidence 

collected via desk research, surveys and focus groups; 

c.  cross-check  the  validity  and  reliability  of  the  evidence 

collected; 

d.  understand  the  observed  dynamics  and  phenomena,  and 
interpret  the  results  of  the  analysis  under  the  five  evaluation 
themes; 

e.  get  insights  for  the  judgements  to  be  elaborated  for  the  12 

evaluation questions. 

Stakeholders’ 
surveys 

Three different surveys were carried out, targeting different respondents 
and  collecting  from  primary  sources  an  important  part  of  the  evidence 
base needed for the evaluation: 

a.  Member States competent authorities. 
b.  Business associations both at EU and Member State level. 
c.  Consumer associations. 

Each survey was tailored to the specific category of recipients. 

Thematic 
case studies 

They focused on specific aspects/issues related to the implementation of 
marketing  standards  through  regulations  or  directives,  or  arising  from 
the lack of marketing standards: 

a.  The case study on Directive 2012/12/EU amending Directive 
2001/112/EC  relating  to  fruit  juices  and  certain  similar 
products 
to 
investigate  more  in  depth  the  effectiveness  of  the  provisions 
on the minimum Brix level for reconstituted juices in creating 
a level playing field for producers. 

intended  for  human  consumption,  aimed 

b.  The case study on Directive 2000/36/EC, aimed to investigate 
more  in  depth  the  effectiveness  of  marketing  standards 
covering  cocoa  and  chocolate  products  (marketed  for  both 
industrial and final consumer use) in creating a level playing 
field for producers. 

c.  The case study on Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 
(poultry  meat  sector)  with  a  focus  on  optional  reserved 
terms, aimed to explore the implications of these terms for a 
level  playing  field/coherence/EU  added  value  (also  because 
some  Member  States  have  put  in  place  national  schemes  to 
define alternative production systems in the sector). 

d.  Absence  of  an  EU  definition  for  cider.  This  case  study  on 
the different national requirements for cider (in particular the 
apple  juice  content  used  in  its  production)  aimed  to  explore 
the difficulties in and the possible added value of establishing 
an  EU  standard  for  cider  (cider  is  an  agricultural  product 
covered by Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013; it is not listed in 

57 

 
 
Article  75.1,  but  it  could  be  included  in  accordance  with 
Article 75.6). 

Thematic case studies were aimed at collecting additional evidence to 
assess: 

 

 

to  creating  a 

the  effectiveness  of  EU  marketing  standards,  and  in  particular 
their  contribution 
level  playing  field  for 
producers, traders and retailers; 
the strengths and weaknesses of regulations and directives as 
instruments 
the 
sectors/products currently not covered. 

to  establish  marketing  standards 

for 

Focus groups  Three configurations: 

relevant 

a.  Focus  groups  with  business  associations,  consumer 
associations and independent experts. These were used for 
collecting 
from  primary  sources 
(associations  of  business  operators  directly  impacted  by  the 
implementation 
consumer 
associations;  academics  and  consultants  boasting  high-
profile expertise on marketing standards). 

of  marketing 

information 

standards; 

b.  Focus 

with 

groups 

producers, 

processors, 
traders/retailers  and  consumer  associations  were  carried 
out in the form of a multi-stage consultation process, aimed 
at feeding qualitative and especially quantitative evidence for 
replying  to  evaluation  questions  on  the  efficiency  of  EU 
marketing standards. 

c.  A  focus  group  with  independent  experts  and  sectoral 
experts was aimed at exploring to what extent establishing 
EU  marketing  standards 
the  sectors/products 
currently not covered would create EU added value. It was 
carried  out  towards  the  end  of  the  data  collection  phase,  in 
order  to  benefit  from  the  findings  of  the  assessment  of  the 
other four study themes, and the findings of the four thematic 
case studies. 

for 

58 

 
 
 
ANNEX 4: CURRENT COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY LOGIC FOR 
INSTRUMENTS AND MEASURES – LEGISLATION OVERVIEW 

Legislation: 

•  Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation 

•  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 

•  Secondary CMO legislation  

•  Olive oil – Regulation (EU) No 29/2012 and Regulation (EEC) No 

2568/91 

•  Fruits & Vegs – Regulations (EC) No 543/2011 and (EC) No 

1666/1999 

•  Bananas - Regulation (EU) No 1333/2011 

•  Eggs - Regulation (EC) No 589/2008 

•  Hatching eggs and poultry chicks - Regulation (EC) No 617/2008 

•  Poultry meat - Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 

•  Bovine meat - Regulation (EC) No 566/2008 

•  Hops – Regulation (EC) No 1850/2006 

•  Spreadable fats, milk products – Regulation (EC) No 445/2007 
•  Protection of designations for milk – Regulation (EEC) No 1898/8782  

•  Commission Decision 2010/791/EU  

•  Breakfast Directives 

•  Coffee and chicory extracts – Directive 1999/4/EC 

•  Cocoa and chocolate products – Directive 2000/36/EC 

•  Sugars intended for human consumption – Directive 2001/111/EC 

•  Fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and sweetened chestnut purée 

intended for human consumption – Directive 2001/113/EC 

•  Dehydrated milk – Directive 2001/114/EC 

•  Fruit juices – Directive 2001/112/EC 

•  Honey – Directive 2001/110/EC 

82 Please note that this regulation is no longer in force 

59 

 
 
                                                            
ANNEX 5: OVERVIEW OF THE KEY FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION BY PRODUCT 

Overview of the key findings of the evaluation by product (source : evaluation support study) 

Product 

Relevant 
legislation* 

Part of the 
evaluation 
scope** 

Olive oil 

CMO Regulation 

 

Reg. (EU) No 
29/2012 

Reg. (EEC) No 
2568/91 

Theme 5 - EU added 
value 

EU marketing 
standards are 
justifiable and 
provide added value 
to the applicable 
international and 
private standards 

Theme 1 - 
Effectiveness 

Some limitations of 
EU marketing 
standards in 
addressing the issue 
of degradation of the 
quality of olive oils 
over time  the 
main issue is related 
to the degradation of 
the quality of olive oil 
over time when 
inadequate 
preservation 
techniques are 
applied during 
storage. 

Summary of sector-specific conclusions 

Theme 2 - Efficiency 

Theme 3 - Relevance 

Theme 4 - Coherence 

No significant issues 
identified 

The proportionality 
of costs to benefits 
was questioned by 
some operators, due 
to the high costs 
involved. 

Costs are higher in 
other sectors, as 
enforcement 
involves expensive 
laboratory tests and 
specific control 
activities for verifying 
analytical and 
organoleptic 
parameters. 

Limited potential for 
simplification was 
identified. 

The most significant 
limitations emerged 
are related to: 
organoleptic 
assessment and the 
lack of uniformity of 
results deriving from 
tasting panels; the 
excessive number of 
quality parameters 
that must be 
determined; 
redundant 
information on 
labels; the relatively 
limited set of positive 
attributes that can be 
optionally reported 
on labels for virgin 
olive oils. 

Table olives 

CMO Regulation 

= 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant 
elements to draw 
product-specific 
conclusions 

60 

 
 
Product 

Fruit & 
vegetables 

Processed fruit 
& vegetables 
products 

Relevant 
legislation* 

Part of the 
evaluation 
scope** 

CMO Regulation 

 

Reg. (EU) No 
543/2011 

Reg. (EC) No 
1666/1999 

Summary of sector-specific conclusions 

Theme 2 - Efficiency 

Theme 3 - Relevance 

Theme 4 - Coherence 

No significant issues 
identified 

Proportionality of 
costs to benefits 
particularly 
highlighted for the 
fresh fruit & 
vegetable sector. 

Limited potential for 
simplification was 
identified for the 
fresh fruit & 
vegetable standards. 

Unintended effect: 
potential 
implications in terms 
of increased food 
waste/loss volumes, 
even though some of 
the competent 
authorities consulted 
and some studies 
suggest that fruit & 
vegetable standards 
would help to reduce 
food waste/loss 
volumes. 

Theme 5 - EU added 
value 

EU marketing 
standards are 
justifiable and 
provide added value 
to the applicable 
international and 
private standards 

Theme 1 - 
Effectiveness 

The implications of 
replacing specific 
marketing standards 
for 26 types of fresh 
fruit and vegetables 
by a general 
marketing standard: 
views of farmers 
mostly unfavourable, 
those of distributors 
generally favourable. 
However the 
transition had 
neither significant 
negative impacts on 
the overall 
performance of intra-
EU trade, nor a 
significant influence 
on the evolution of 
price volatility. 

Bananas 

CMO Regulation 

Reg. (EU) No 
1333/2011 

= 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant 
elements to draw 
product-specific 
conclusions 

61 

 
 
Product 

Relevant 
legislation* 

Part of the 
evaluation 
scope** 

Theme 1 - 
Effectiveness 

Summary of sector-specific conclusions 

Theme 2 - Efficiency 

Theme 3 - Relevance 

Theme 4 - Coherence 

Live plants 

CMO Regulation 

Eggs 

CMO Regulation 

Reg. (EC) No 
589/2008 

= 

 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

Proportionality of 
costs to benefits 
particularly 
highlighted for the 
sector. 

No significant issues 
identified. 

Unintended effect: 
potential 
implications for 
increased food 
waste/loss volumes. 

Rules for indicating 
the farming methods 
applied for laying 
hens (Regulation (EC) 
No 589/2008) have 
been effective in 
promoting animal 
welfare friendly 
production methods 
for eggs, and 
alternative uses of 
egg production in the 
EU. 

Theme 5 - EU added 
value 

No significant 
elements to draw 
product-specific 
conclusions 

EU marketing 
standards are 
justifiable and 
provide added value 
to the applicable 
international and 
private standards 

62 

 
 
Product 

Relevant 
legislation* 

Part of the 
evaluation 
scope** 

Poultry meat 

CMO Regulation 

 

Reg. (EC) No 
543/2008 

Theme 5 - EU added 
value 

EU marketing 
standards are 
justifiable and 
provide added value 
to the applicable 
international and 
private standards. 

Theme 1 - 
Effectiveness 

Rules on the optional 
reserved terms for 
indicating on the 
label the types of 
poultry farming 
(Regulation (EC) No 
543/2008) perceived 
as an effective 
instrument for 
promoting 
alternative 
production systems 
for poultry meat 
production in the EU. 
Provisions on 
classification of 
poultry meat in 
terms of product 
definitions and of 
quality and weight 
grading (Regulation 
(EU) No 1308/2013 
and Regulation (EC) 
No 543/2008) have 
adequately reflected 
the current market 
reality. 

Summary of sector-specific conclusions 

Theme 2 - Efficiency 

Theme 3 - Relevance 

Theme 4 - Coherence 

Potential negative 
animal welfare 
implications of the 
need for force-
feeding (gavage) of 
ducks or geese 
destined for the 
production of foie 
gras, to effectively 
achieve the liver 
weights set out by 
the definition of foie 
gras (Article 1(3) of 
Regulation (EC) No 
543/2008). 

The scientific 
evidence regarding 
the effects of gavage 
on animal welfare is 
not conclusive. 

Proportionality of 
costs to benefits 
particularly 
highlighted for the 
sector. 

Some potential for 
simplification was 
identified mainly by 
business 
stakeholders  
implementation of 
standards for water 
absorption in 
Regulation (EC) No 
543/2008 is said to 
lead to unnecessary 
delays in placing 
poultry meat 
products on the 
market. However, it 
was not possible for 
competent 
authorities or 
business 
stakeholders to 
identify the costs and 
losses associated to 
these delays. 

63 

Provisions on water 
content and 
alternative 
production systems 
could be updated to 
follow the evolution 
of technology, 
marketing strategies 
and consumer 
preferences, without 
impeding innovation. 

Perceived limitations 
of the definition of 
foie gras in 
preventing 
fraudulent practices, 
related to lack of a 
harmonised 
definition for 
processed foie gras. 
However, introducing 
such a definition 
would be 
contentious given 
the opposition to 
gavage (force-
feeding) in foie gras 
production, and 
considering that only 
five Member States 
produce foie gras. 

 
 
Product 

Spreadable fats 
intended for 
human 
consumption 

Relevant 
legislation* 

Part of the 
evaluation 
scope** 

Theme 1 - 
Effectiveness 

Summary of sector-specific conclusions 

Theme 2 - Efficiency 

Theme 3 - Relevance 

Theme 4 - Coherence 

CMO Regulation 

 

Reg. (EC) No 
445/2007 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

Hops 

CMO Regulation 

 

Reg. (EC) No 
1850/2006 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

Effectiveness of the 
provisions on the 
certification of hops 
(Regulation (EC) No 
1952/2005 and 
Regulation (EC) No 
1850/2006) in 
creating a level 
playing field for 
producer 
organisations/produc
er groups, traders 
and retailers: overall 
positive judgement 
of the stakeholders 
concerned, and 
absence of significant 
issues. 

Proportionality of 
costs to benefits 
particularly 
highlighted for the 
related standard. 

In the case of hops 
certification, the 
additional costs 
incurred by 
operators were 
found to be fully 
justifiable and 
proportionate to the 
quality benefits 
achieved. 

Limited potential for 
simplifying the 
certification 
procedure was 
identified. 

64 

Theme 5 - EU added 
value 

EU marketing 
standards are 
justifiable and 
provide added value 
to the applicable 
international and 
private standards 

EU marketing 
standards are 
justifiable and 
provide added value 
to the applicable 
international and 
private standards 

 
 
Product 

Relevant 
legislation* 

Part of the 
evaluation 
scope** 

Theme 1 - 
Effectiveness 

Summary of sector-specific conclusions 

Theme 2 - Efficiency 

Theme 3 - Relevance 

Theme 4 - Coherence 

Theme 5 - EU added 
value 

Beef and veal 

CMO Regulation 

Reg. (EC) No 
566/2008 

Wine 

CMO Regulation 

 

 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Relevant 
legislation* 

Part of the 
evaluation 
scope** 

CMO Regulation 

 

Reg. (EC) No 
445/2007 

Product 

Milk and milk 
products 
intended for 
human 
consumption 

Theme 1 - 
Effectiveness 

Improper use of 
protected dairy 
terms (e.g. milk, 
butter, cheese, 
yogurt) for marketing 
plant-based 
substitutes for dairy 
products  deriving 
from a non-
homogeneous 
enforcement at 
Member State level 
of the list of national 
exemptions (EU 
Commission Decision 
2010/791/EU of 20 
December 2010) 
from the prohibition 
to use protected 
dairy terms for 
marketing non-dairy 
products. 

Summary of sector-specific conclusions 

Theme 2 - Efficiency 

Theme 3 - Relevance 

Theme 4 - Coherence 

No significant issues 
identified 

Proportionality of 
costs to benefits 
particularly 
highlighted for the 
sector. 

The improper use of 
protected dairy 
terms such as  ‘milk’, 
‘butter’ and ‘cheese’ 
in marketing plant-
based substitutes for 
dairy products was 
found to cause issues 
of unfair trading 
practices and the 
provision of 
misleading 
information to 
consumers. 

Potential 
implications of the 
absence of an EU 
definition of cheese 
for stakeholders 
were found to be 
disputed. 

66 

Theme 5 - EU added 
value 

EU marketing 
standards are 
justifiable and 
provide added value 
to the applicable 
international and 
private standards 

Possible 
development of an 
EU definition of 
cheese: views of 
stakeholders are 
divided over its need 
and the related 
benefits. 

Differences between 
national definitions 
are especially 
significant for the use 
of raw materials to 
produce cheese and 
for the ingredients 
allowed. 

 
 
 
 
Product 

Relevant 
legislation* 

Part of the 
evaluation 
scope** 

Theme 1 - 
Effectiveness 

Summary of sector-specific conclusions 

Theme 2 - Efficiency 

Theme 3 - Relevance 

Theme 4 - Coherence 

Hatching eggs 
and poultry 
chicks 

Reg. (EC) No 
617/2008 

Coffee and 
chicory extracts 

Directive 
1999/4/EC 

Cocoa and 
chocolate 
products 

Directive 
2000/36/EC 

Sugars intended 
for human 
consumption 

Council Directive 
2001/111/EC 

 

 

 

 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

Theme 5 - EU added 
value 

No significant 
elements to draw 
product-specific 
conclusions 

EU marketing 
standards are 
justifiable and 
provide added value 
to the applicable 
international and 
private standards 

No significant 
elements to draw 
product-specific 
conclusions 

EU marketing 
standards are 
justifiable and 
provide added value 
to the applicable 
international and 
private standards 

67 

 
 
Relevant 
legislation* 

Part of the 
evaluation 
scope** 

Theme 1 - 
Effectiveness 

Council Directive 
2001/113/EC 

 

No significant issues 
identified 

Product 

Fruit jams, 
jellies and 
marmalades 
and sweetened 
chestnut purée 
intended for 
human 
consumption 

Summary of sector-specific conclusions 

Theme 2 - Efficiency 

Theme 3 - Relevance 

Theme 4 - Coherence 

No significant issues 
identified 

Proportionality of 
costs to benefits 
particularly 
highlighted for the 
sector. 

With the provisions 
on minimum sugar 
content in jams and 
the possibility for 
Member States to 
make derogations in 
that respect,  a 
satisfactory balance 
can be balanced 
between consumer 
interest in assuring 
product preservation 
and the need to 
consider specific 
national 
characteristics, 
including policy 
priorities of 
promoting healthier 
diets (low-sugar 
jams) 

Dehydrated 
milk 

Council Directive 
2007/61/EC 

 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

Theme 5 - EU added 
value 

EU marketing 
standards are 
justifiable and 
provide added value 
to the applicable 
international and 
private standards 

EU marketing 
standards are 
justifiable and 
provide added value 
to the applicable 
international and 
private standards 

68 

 
 
Product 

Relevant 
legislation* 

Part of the 
evaluation 
scope** 

Fruit juices 

Council Directive 
2001/112/EC 

 

Theme 5 - EU added 
value 

EU marketing 
standards are 
justifiable and 
provide added value 
to the applicable 
international and 
private standards 

Theme 1 - 
Effectiveness 

Effectiveness of the 
provisions on a 
minimum Brix level 
for reconstituted 
fruit juices 
(Directives 
2001/112/EC, 
2009/106/EC and 
2012/12/EU) in 
creating a level 
playing field for 
producers: overall 
positive judgement 
and absence of 
significant issues. 

Summary of sector-specific conclusions 

Theme 2 - Efficiency 

Theme 3 - Relevance 

Theme 4 - Coherence 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified; no 
significant potential 
for simplification 
identified. 

Directive 2012/12/EU 
established that the 
addition of sugars to 
fruit juices was not 
(no longer) allowed; 
after 28 October 
2016 the use of the  
‘no added sugar, in 
line with the 
legislation’ 
statement (or similar 
ones) for fruit juices 
is no longer allowed, 
whereas it continues 
to be allowed for 
competing beverages 
 this may create 
confusion among 
consumers, and 
result in unfair 
competition 

69 

 
 
Product 

Honey 

Relevant 
legislation* 

Part of the 
evaluation 
scope** 

Theme 1 - 
Effectiveness 

Council Directive 
2001/110/EC 

 

No significant issues 
identified 

Summary of sector-specific conclusions 

Theme 2 - Efficiency 

Theme 3 - Relevance 

Theme 4 - Coherence 

No significant issues 
identified 

No significant issues 
identified 

Proportionality of 
costs to benefits 
particularly 
highlighted for the 
sector. 

Theme 5 - EU added 
value 

EU marketing 
standards are 
justifiable and 
provide added value 
to the applicable 
international and 
private standards 

* 

Secondary CMO legislation 

Breakfast Directives 

** 

: included in the scope of the evaluation; main focus; 

= : included in the scope of the evaluation; 

: not included in the scope of the evaluation. 

70