REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL evaluating the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance for meat of swine, poultry, sheep and goat
Date: 2021-08-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: consumer information, fresh meat, frozen product, goatmeat, labelling, originating product, pigmeat, poultrymeat, refrigerated product, sheepmeat

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.8.2021  COM(2021) 462 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL evaluating the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance for meat of swine, poultry, sheep and goat        
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  1337/20131  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the 
Regulation),  following  Article  26(2)(b)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1169/20112,  introduced 
the  compulsory  indication  of  the  country  of  origin  or  place  of  provenance  for  swine, 

poultry, sheep and goat meat from 1 April 2015. 

Pursuant to Article 26(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, within 5 years from the date 

of application of the new rules, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament 

and the Council a report evaluating the mandatory indication of the country of origin or 

place of provenance for those meat products. 

The  present  report  focuses  on  the  implementation  and  impact  of  the  Regulation  in 

relation to its effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value. 

Other considerations on the general issue of origin labelling and the possible extension to 

other  product  categories  (not-prepacked  meat  or  meat  used  as  an  ingredient  in 

preparations and processed products) are not addressed, since they will be the objective 

of  specific  impact  assessments  the  Commission  will  carry  out  in  the  framework  of  the 
Farm to Fork Strategy3.  

2.  BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK 

Regulation  (EU)  No  1169/2011  provides  the  basis  for  the  assurance  of  a  high  level  of 

consumer protection in relation to food information, taking into account the differences in 

the  perception  of  consumers  and  their  information  needs  whilst  ensuring  the  smooth 

functioning  of  the  internal  market.  In  case  of  fresh,  chilled  and  frozen  meat  of  swine, 

sheep, goats and poultry, it provides that the indication of the country of origin or place 

of  provenance  shall  be  mandatory  and  empowers  the  Commission  to  adopt  an 

implementing act to lay down specific rules. 

1 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1337/2013 of 13 December 2013 laying down rules for 
the  application  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1169/2011  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as 
regards the indication of the country of origin or place of provenance for fresh, chilled and frozen meat 
of swine, sheep, goats and poultry (OJ L 335, 14.12.2013, p. 19). 

2 Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the 
provision of  food information to consumers, amending  Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 
1925/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  and  repealing  Commission  Directive 
87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC 
of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18). 

3 Farm to Fork  Strategy  –  for  a fair,  healthy and environmentally  friendly  food system.  COM(2020) 381 

final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0381  

1 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The  obligation  concerns  unprocessed  pre-packed  fresh,  chilled  and  frozen  meat  in  any 

form of cut and includes minced meat. 

In  the  impact  assessment  carried  out  in  preparation  of  the  legislation4,  the  Commission 
considered  three  policy  options:  the  simple  model,  with  EU/non  EU  indication,  the 

intermediate model, with mandatory labelling of country of rearing and of slaughter and 

the  beef  model,  that  includes  also  the  mandatory  indication  of  the  country  of  birth. 

Starting  from  a  situation  where  no  information  on  origin  or  place  of  provenance  was 

provided  to  consumers,  the  intermediate  model  was  chosen,  since  it  was  considered  as 

optimal  in  providing  accurate,  clear  and  useful  information  on  the  origin  of  meat  to 

consumers,  while  avoiding  excessive  administrative  burden  to  operators  and  competent 

authorities. 

The main blocks of the regulatory framework as designed by the Regulation are: 

1)  the traceability system (article 3), to ensure that reliable information is transmitted 

alongside the chain until the final consumers; 

2)  the  rules  for  batches  formation  (article  4),  since  they  can  impact  heavily  on  the 

normal workflow and on the sourcing practices; 

3)  the criteria to link the production phases with the information on labels (article 5), 

since animals are often reared in more than one country; 

4)  the  need  to  provide  flexibility  in  case  of  minced  meat  or  trimmings  (article  7): 
specific  simplified  rules  apply  for  those  categories  of  products,  since  the 

production  volumes  and  the  processing  chain  make  it  difficult  to  easily  ensure 

physical separation of the different batches. 

The Regulation was directly applicable in all Member States since 1 April 2015.  

3. 

EVALUATION 

The  present  report  is  largely  based  on  the  Commission  Staff  Working  Document 

“Evaluation of the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance 

4 Impact assessment: “Mandatory Origin Indication for Unprocessed Pig, Poultry, Sheep and Goat Meat”: ; 
External  study:  "Study  on  mandatory  origin  labelling  for  pig,  poultry  and  sheep  and  goat  meat": 
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external-studies/origin-labelling-2013_en 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
for fresh,  chilled and frozen meat  of swine,  sheep, goats  and poultry”5  in  which all the 
details  on  the  methodology  used  to  gather  evidences  as  well  as  the  details  of  the 

evaluation exercise can be found. 

Furthermore,  an  external  study  commissioned  by  DG  AGRI  to  support  the  internal 
evaluation was carried out by an external contractor6 and a public consultation was held 
from 9 December 2019 to 2 March 20207. 

The evidence gathered was used to evaluate the Regulation in relation to its effectiveness, 

efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value. 

3.1 

Effectiveness and efficiency of the Regulation 

The following aspects were considered: 

1.  the  extent  to  which  the  operators  had  to  change  the  existing  traceability  system 
and sourcing strategies, the effects of batch requirements and whether those three 

aspects had an impact on costs;  

2.  the  impact  of  the  Regulation  on  the  different  actors  of  the  food  chain,  on  the 
administrative burden and extra-cost incurred and if costs were transferred to the 

final consumers; 

3.  the extent to which the information is verifiable by competent authorities; 
4.  the extent to which consumers were provided with clear and accurate information; 
5.  the  positive/negative  effects  on  the  EU  single  market  and  on  possible 

renationalisation of the meat market; 

6.  identification of tangible and intangible benefits. 

1.  Changes needed to existing systems and strategies and impact on operators 

The existing traceability systems  set  up in  compliance with  Regulation (EU) 178/20028 

5  SWD(2021)218  –  Staff  Working  Document:  Evaluation  of  mandatory  indication  of  country  of  origin 

labelling for certain meats. 

6 (Agra Ceas Consulting SA/ IHS Market and Areté Srl:  “Evaluation study of mandatory country of origin 
labelling  for  certain  meats”,  https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-
agricultural-policy/cmef/products-and-markets/mandatory-indication-country-origin-labelling-certain-
meats_en 

7  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1892-Evaluation-of-mandatory-

country-of-origin-labelling-for-certain-meats/public-consultation 

8 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
and  in  conjunction  with  legislation  on  identification  and  registration  of  livestock9,  are 
generally  able  to  provide  all  the  information  needed  to  operators  to  correctly  label  the 

meat  for  the  country  of  origin  or  place  of  provenance.  The  information  provided  is 

considered reliable by both the competent authorities and the supply chain operators.  

The  main  difference  between  traceability  and  origin  labelling  information  requirements 

concerns  the  accessibility  of  the  information:  traceability  information  is  not  usually 

required instantly and therefore more sophisticated information systems may be required 

to  access  origin  information  for  labelling  purposes.  No  evidence  emerged  from  the 

evaluation  that  the  information  provided  by  the  traceability  rules  was  insufficient  to 

comply  with  the  labelling  requirements  of  the  Regulation.  There  is  high  expressed 

confidence in the effectiveness of the traceability system.  

Operators needed only minimal changes to traceability systems already in use to comply 

with the new rules. The changes mainly aimed at ensuring the proper transmission of the 

information  that  is  collected  along  the  food  chain  and  to  adapt  the  internal  system  in 

order  to  ensure  proper  segregation  of  live  animals  and  meat  products.  Those  changes 

were  mainly  required  by  operators  dealing  with  both  domestic  and  imported  animals 

and/or meat. 
Among  operators  sourcing  from  multiple  countries,  the  majority  did  not  change  their 
sourcing practices, but rather they improved the segregation system of live animals and 
meat  to  ensure  proper  labelling.  Similarly,  the  batch  requirements10  did  not  result  in 
changes to sourcing practices since the standard procedures applied in most of the cases 
already included clear rules for batch formation for traceability purposes. 

Some  negative  effects  (perceived  by  operators)  were  reported  in  a  sporadic  way  in  the 

different surveys: 

- the Regulation could favour consumers’ perception that imported products are of lower 

9  

down  the  general  principles  and  requirements  of  food  law,  establishing  the  European  Food  Safety 
Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 031 1.2.2002, p. 1). 
-  Regulation  (EC)  No  1760/2000  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  July  2000 
establishing  a  system  for  the  identification  and  registration  of  bovine  animals  and  regarding  the 
labelling  of  beef  and  beef  products  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  820/97  (OJ  L  204, 
11.8.2000, p.1).  

      - Council Directive 2008/71/EC of 15 July 2008 on the identification and registration of pigs (OJ L 213, 

8.8.2008, p.31). 
-  Regulation  (EC)  No  21/2004  of  17  December  2003  establishing  a  system  for  the  identification  and 
registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 
92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC (OJ L 005, 9.1.2004, p.8). 

10  ‘Batch’,  as  defined  in  Article  2(2)(b)  of  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  1337/2013,  means  meat 
obtained from a single species (swine, sheep, goat or poultry) with or without bone, whether or not cut or 
minced, that has been cut, minced or packed under practically identical conditions. 

4 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                             
quality  and  therefore  is  increasingly  used  by  operators  in  the  meat  processing  industry 

rather than for fresh consumption; 

-  a  possible  loss  of  flexibility  in  supply  since  it  is  not  possible  to  easily  switch  to 

suppliers from other Member States in times of shortage. 

However, no evidence of those negative effects reported by few operators in the supply 

chain survey was found in a systematic and quantifiable way in the evaluation exercise. 

2.  Impact on costs and new administrative burden 

The supply chain survey and the case studies showed that the changes made had only a 

small  cost  implication  since  the  costs  already  supported  for  general  traceability  rules 

absorbed the costs arising from the implementation of new rules. The estimates provided 

indicate that the cost increase varied from negligible values up to a maximum of 2% in 

the  pig  meat  and  poultry  supply  chain  while  no  estimates  could  be  provided  in  the 

sheep/goat meat sector. 

Those minimal cost increases were not transmitted along the chain, and no evidence that 

consumer prices changed as a result of the implementation of the Regulation were found 

by the study. 

The  new  administrative  burden  raised  by  the  Regulation  was  considered  very  low: 

traceability  systems  were  already  in  place  before  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Regulation 

and  operators  with  complex  sourcing  strategies  could  opt  for  using  simplified  labelling 

indications that allowed minimising the changes needed to be compliant. The derogations 

provided for minced meat and trimmings allowed operators with complex sourcing to opt 

for simplified labelling strategies. 

3.  Extent to which the information is verifiable by competent authorities 

The competent  authorities and operators reported no systematic difficulties or problems 

in  implementing  the  Regulation.  Furthermore,  the  competent  authorities  did  not 

encounter  any  specific  problems  in  verifying  the  requirements  of  the  Regulation,  in 

particular with respect to the requirement on the rearing period. 

4.  Quality of information provided to consumers 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  consumer  survey  showed  that  the  country  of  origin  is  an  important  consideration 

when purchasing swine, poultry or sheep and goat meat. Most consumers tend to prefer 

meat of national origin, considering the meat produced in their own country being safer 

or of better quality and the level of satisfaction with the information found on the label 

was generally high. 

However, a low understanding of the terms “reared in” and “origin” was reported by the 

survey. Majority of consumers tend to interpret the terms “reared in” as the country were 

the animal spent its whole life or as the country of birth of the animal. Some consumers 

are  therefore  likely  to  consider  themselves  (inadvertently)  misled  by  the  labelling  with 

respect to rearing period. That can be mainly attributed to a lack of clear communication 

and specific knowledge rather than to the Regulation itself. 

5.  Effects on internal trade 

To 

investigate  potential  effects  on 

the 

intra-EU 

trade  and  possible  market 

renationalisation, trade flows before and after the entry into force of the Regulation were 

analysed.  Existing  Intra-EU  trade  flows  of  live  animals  or  meat  did  not  significantly 

changed after the entry  into  force of the Regulation  and that  could be due to  two main 

reasons: 
- 

in the sectors involved, live animals are imported at an age that do not affect the 

final indication on the labelling concerning the place of rearing; 

- 

the market share of national meat sold at retail stage was already high before the 

entry into force of the Regulation. 

6.  Tangible and intangible benefits 

In relation to benefits originating from the entry into force of the Regulation, more than 

half  of  the  consulted  operators  did  not  report  any  specific  tangible  benefits  from  the 

implementation  of  the  Regulation;  a  slight  increase  in  domestic  market  access  was 

reported by some operators in the pig meat sector only in a few Member States (IE, EL, 

DE, DK) but this did not lead to achievement of higher producer prices. Operators from 

other  Member  States  did  not  report  any  change  in  domestic  market  dynamics.  Among 

intangible  benefits,  the  increase  in  transparency  and  consequently  in  consumers’ 

confidence and trust was the most reported.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2  Coherence of the Regulation with other rules and regulations 

The key objective of the Regulation is that consumers are provided with clear, accurate 

and  meaningful  information  on  the  origin  of  fresh,  chilled  and  frozen  meat  of  swine, 

sheep, goats and poultry and is related to the objectives pursued by Regulation (EU) No 

1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.  

The  same  objective  is  pursued  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1760/2000  of  the  European 

Parliament and of the Council establishing a system for the identification and registration 

of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products; in that respect, 

the two Regulations are fully coherent despite Regulation (EC) 1760/2000 having a wider 

scope, as explained below.  

The  majority  of  respondents  to  the  supply  chain  survey  did  not  identify  any 

inconsistencies or conflicts between the objectives of Regulation (EU) No 1337/2013 and 

the objectives of any other EU legislation. 

A  minority  of  respondents  reported  potential  inconsistencies  or  conflicts  between  the 

mandatory  country  of  origin  labelling  and  the  objective  of  ensuring  the  smooth 

functioning  of  the  Single  Market,  since  origin  labelling  could  lead  to  markets 

renationalisation. However, no tangible change in the EU market dynamics was detected 

and the analysis showed that there was no evidence that the Regulation had stimulated or 

hindered the smooth functioning of the Single Market. 

Rules on origin  labelling  for beef  are different  and stricter than for other types of meat 

and  this  has  been  reported  as  a  possible  inconsistency  by  some  operators.  In  fact, 

labelling for beef always includes the indication of the country of birth, which is missing 

from  the  Regulation  except  where  the  “Origin”  designation  is  used  and  therefore 
information on the country of birth is provided. 

However,  it  should  be  considered  that  rules  on  beef  origin  labelling  laid  down  in 

Regulation (EU) No 1760/2000 were adopted in  the immediate aftermath of the Bovine 

Spongiform  Encephalopathy  crisis  for  public  health  and  food  safety  reasons  and  to 

restore  consumers’  confidence  after  the  severe  market  disruption.  Therefore,  their 
objectives were wider than those of the Regulation and required a stricter approach11. 

11  For 

a  detailed 

analysis 

see 

the  Report 

“Evaluation  of  EU  beef 

labelling 

rules. 

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/bda60704-8451-11e5-b8b7-01aa75ed71a1 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Similarly,  no  inconsistencies  in  the  definitions,  traceability  and  labelling  requirements 

were identified in relation to other EU legislation during the evaluation study. 

Concerning the derogations allowed for imported meat and minced meat and trimmings, 

the derogations provided by Regulation (EU) 1760/2000 in case of beef are different to 

those provided under Regulation (EU) No 1337/2013 and are not based on systematic use 

of the “EU/non-EU” simplified origin indication. 

However,  those  differences  were  not  considered  significant  by  surveys  and  the  high 

prevalence  of  positive  views  among  both  supply  chain  stakeholders  and  Competent 

Authorities  allows  the  conclusion  that  the  derogations  provided  by  the  Regulation  are 

more fitted to the real production situation of minced meat for those types of meat. 

In fact, the supply chain survey did not identify any inconsistency in comparison to the 

derogations on labelling provided in other relevant EU legislation. 

In particular, the use of the “EU/non-EU” simplified origin indication allowed for minced 

meat and trimmings in the Regulation is similarly allowed for specific product typologies 
(honey,  fresh  fruit  and  vegetables,  olive  oils)12  that  often  derive  from  more  or  less 
complex  combinations  of  primary  ingredients  from  multiple  EU  and  non-EU  origins, 

which  may  also  change  rather  frequently,  making  thus  burdensome  or  meaningless  the 

segregation of the products for different origins. 

Finally,  the  “EU/non-EU”  simplified  origin  indication  is  also  one  of  the  options  for 

indicating  the  country  of  origin  or  place  of  provenance  of  the  primary  ingredient  of  a 
food pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2018/77513 when the origin of the primary 
ingredient is not the same as origin of the final product. Since minced meat and trimming 

are  used  as  primary  ingredients  in  many  preparations,  the  requirements  of  Regulation 
(EU) 1337/2013 and of Regulation (EU) 2018/775 appear to be fully coherent. 

12 Directive 2001/110/EC for honey (OJ L 147, 31.5.2001, p. 41), Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 for fresh 
fruit and vegetables (OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1) and Regulation (EU) No 29/2012 for olive oil (OJ L 12, 
14.1.2012, p. 14). 

13  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2018/775  laying  down  rules  for  the  application  of  Article 
26(3)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1169/2011  concerning  the  provision  of  information  on  the  country  of 
origin or place of provenance of the primary ingredient of a food where different to that given for the 
food (OJ L 131, 29.5.2018, p.8). 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
3.3  Relevance of the Regulation 

Supply chain  and consumers’ surveys clearly showed that providing clear, accurate and 

meaningful  information  to  consumers  remains  highly  relevant.  This  is  in  line  with  the 

current  political  discussion  on  possible  extension  of  origin-labelling  obligations  to  a 

wider set of product categories. Similarly, but with less emphasis, the objective to avoid 

unnecessary  burden  on  operators,  trade,  administration  and  the  environment  is  still 

considered relevant. 

Almost three-quarters of respondents to the supply chain survey did not identify any new 

needs  emerged  since  the  drafting  of  the  Regulation.  The  new  needs  identified  by  the 

minority of respondents can be summarized as: 

- 

extension  of  mandatory  origin  labelling  to  food  service  and  catering  sectors,  to 

preparations and to meat used as an ingredient in processed food; 

- 

inclusion of non pre-packed meat  in  the categories  for which origin  information 

should be mandatory; 

- 

inclusion of rabbit meat. 

The  perceptions  on  those  new  needs  are  not  broadly  shared  and  some  of  them  (i.e. 

inclusion of rabbit meat) are not foreseen under the current legal basis (Regulation (EU) 

No 1169/2011). 

The analysis of the context evolution showed the increasing use of the internet for food 

shopping  (on-line  buying).  Consequently,  the  need  for  reliable  information  to  be 

available  online  is  also  perceived  as  an  important  factor  to  be  addressed  in  the  coming 

years. 

To conclude, the majority of respondents to the supply chain stakeholder survey and the 
survey  of  national  Competent  Authorities  felt  that  the  Regulation  remain  either  “fully” 

relevant or relevant to a “great extent”. 

3.4 

EU added value of the Regulation 

To  assess  the  added  value  of  having  an  EU  Regulation  on  the  mandatory  indication  of 

origin or place of provenance for the types of meat concerned, the following aspects were 

investigated: 

-  whether  Member  States  would  act  to  introduce  similar  rules  in  absence  of  the 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regulation and the potential impacts of having a non-harmonised system; 

- 

the  benefits  on  the  internal  market  of  having  harmonised  rules  provided  in  the 

Regulation; 

- 

an evaluation of the existing national rules issued by Member States in addition to 

those  provided  in  the  Food  Information  to  Consumers  Regulation  (EU)  No 

1169/2011 and in the Regulation, and the reasons behind such rules. 

Competent  authorities’  opinions  were  balanced  between  those  who  would  probably 

introduce national rules and those who would not in absence of the Regulation.  

Among the Member States who would have introduced rules, the main reason to  do so 

would have been the consumers’ demand for such information. However, only one third 

of  the  respondents  believed  it  would  be  “quite  feasible”  to  introduce  national  rules  and 

none  considered  it  “entirely  feasible”.  In  that  sense,  the  Regulation  facilitated  the 

introduction of such rules in Member States more inclined to regulate origin labelling. 

A large majority of Competent Authorities, EU level organisations and national industry 

organisations considered that national rules would not fulfil completely the EU objectives 

pursued  by  the  Regulation.  Only  one  fifth  of  the  competent  authorities  considered  that 

national  rules  would  have  met  the  same  objectives  of  the  Regulation.  The  majority 

considered  that  national  rules  would  have  led  to  a  lack  of  harmonisation  with  possible 

consequences  on  trade  within  the  single  market  or  to  possibly  misleading  consumers, 

since  national  rules  only  apply  to  domestic  products.  Stakeholder  positions  diverged  in 

function  of  the  degree  to  which  the  domestic  supply  chain  depends  on  intra-EU  trade. 

Where  that  dependency  is  higher  (in  example,  pig  and  poultry  in  Germany;  poultry  in 

Netherlands and pig in Spain) the opinion was that national rules would not fulfil the EU 

objectives or would do it only on a limited extent, in the absence of the Regulation. 

While, as seen before, the entry into force of the Regulation did not hamper the evolution 

of intra-EU trade in live animals or fresh meat and did not disrupt the operation of the EU 

Single Market, the main risks identified in having a non-harmonised system were:  

- 
- 
- 

the different degrees of information provided to consumers. 

the potential issue of barriers to trade within the Single Market; 

the different level playing field for operators. 

All those potential negative effects were effectively prevented by the entry into force of 
the Regulation. EU consumers are now provided with the same information as regards the 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
products within the scope of the Regulation and all the EU operators have to comply with 

the same rules without differences among Member States. 

Some  Member  States  enacted  national  laws  establishing  a  control  regime  (DK,  IE,  IT) 

and others amended existing national laws to ensure compliance with the Regulation (EL, 

PL, RO). 

In  two  Member  States  (EL,  PL),  national  legislation  also  specifies  the  additional 

requirement to provide country of origin information for fresh, chilled and frozen meat of 

pigs, sheep, goats and poultry sold loose (i.e. not pre-packed). 

Two Member States (FI and FR) have issued additional national rules to extend the scope 

of the Regulation to meat used as ingredient or meat sold in restaurant and catering.  

The study showed that those national rules had no direct effects on the implementation of 

the Regulation. 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The traceability systems developed under the General Food Law framework showed their 

effectiveness  in  ensuring  compliance  with  the  Regulation  and  only  minimal  changes 

(mainly  at  processing  stage)  were  required  to  ensure  the  proper  transmission  of  the 

information. There was no evidence that specific information for a proper origin labelling 

is systematically insufficient. 

The sectors could therefore cope with the requirements without excessive administrative 

burden and costs, thanks in particular to derogations for minced meat and trimmings. 

The  minimal  costs  borne  by  operators  were  not  transferred  along  the  chain  and  had  no 

impact on final consumer prices. 
The Regulation had minimal impact on trade within the EU’s Single Market; by setting 

harmonised rules the Regulation helped the functioning of the Single market by providing 

a common playing-field for EU operators. 

In  that  sense,  and  considering  that  the  objectives  of  the  Regulation  are  still  considered 

relevant,  the  EU  added  value  was  to  provide  EU  consumers  with  the  same  level  of 

information, without jeopardising the EU single market and intra-EU trade. 

The information provided proved to be reliable and in line with the labelling definitions 
and fully verifiable by Competent Authorities without much effort or burden. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
However, consumer understanding of those definitions is low. In particular, there is low 

consumer  understanding  of  the  term  “Reared  in”  as  defined  under  Article  5  of  the 

Regulation, that is often understood as the place where the animal was born and spent its 

entire life. As a result, it cannot be concluded that the information is fully clear and useful 

to consumers. That issue is however not related to the Regulation’s implementation, but it 

could be addressed through better communication, in particular at retail level. 

The analysis showed that the Regulation is coherent with other EU legislation on origin 

indication,  despite  differences  with  beef  labelling  legislation  which  are  justified  by  the 

different contexts and periods in which the two pieces of legislation were designed. 

To conclude, the Regulation was designed to have a minimal impact on the sector while 

also providing consumers with appropriate information for their purchasing decision. The 

evidence  suggest  that  those  objectives  have  been  met.  There  is  therefore  no  need  to 

review current provisions at this stage. This conclusion is without prejudice to the general 

review of consumer information referred to under the Farm to Fork Strategy. 

12