REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL in accordance with Article 75(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 on new marketing standards for cider and perry and for dried leguminous vegetables and soya bean
Date: 2023-04-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: cider, common organisation of markets, consumer information, dried product, leguminous vegetable, marketing standard, soya bean

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 21.4.2023  COM(2023) 200 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL in accordance with Article 75(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 on new marketing standards for cider and perry and for dried leguminous vegetables and soya bean       
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

in accordance with Article 75(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 on new marketing 
standards for cider and perry and for dried leguminous vegetables and soya bean 

1.  INTRODUCTION 
The  regulation  establishing  a  common  organisation  of  the  markets  in  agricultural  products 
(‘hereinafter CMO Regulation’) lists the sectors and products for which marketing standards 
may  apply1.  That  list  does  not  include  cider  and  perry  nor  the  dried  leguminous  vegetables 
and  soya  bean.  The  Commission  is  empowered  to  issue  a  Delegated  Regulation  to  modify 
such  a  list,  in  case  of  demonstrated  consumer  needs  resulting  from  evolving  consumer 
demand, technical progress or the need for product innovation and subject to a report to the 
European Parliament and Council. In the light of that, this report evaluates whether new EU 
marketing standards for cider and perry, and for dried leguminous vegetables and soya bean, 
would bring added-value, in particular, in relation to the needs of the consumer, the cost and 
administrative  burdens  for  operators,  and  the  benefits  offered  to  producers  and  to  the  end 
consumer. It is supported by an impact assessment which provides more detailed information 
in particular on expected economic, social and environmental impacts2. 

2.  CIDER AND PERRY 

2.1. A market looking for more value? 

Currently  on  the  EU  market,  the  terms  ‘cider’  and  ‘perry’  are  used  for  a  multitude  of  very 
diverse  beverages  based  on  apples  and  pears.  According  to  a  2019  Euromonitor  briefing3, 
Western Europe is the world’s largest cider market, with a consumption of about 1.2 billion 
litres in 2017 (52% of the global volume), of which 848 million litres in the UK alone. Within 
the  EU,  cider  (including  perry4)  is  traditionally  produced  in  France,  Germany,  Austria, 
Belgium,  Denmark,  Spain,  Finland,  Ireland,  Italy,  Poland  and  Sweden.  In  the  last  decade, 
cider consumption experienced the relatively fastest growth in Portugal, Greece and Germany 
(respectively 56%, 35% and 21% between 2012 and 2017).   

In terms of market size, Euromonitor data indicates that the market value for cider and perry 
in the EU28 in 2019 was estimated at about EUR 6.2 billion5 (EUR 2.3 billion across EU27).  

Experts foresee growth perspectives for these two products in the coming years, driven by the 
consumers’  tendency  to  favour  premium  quality,  health  and  wellness  and  desire  to  explore 
new flavours6. While the UK market is expected to grow modestly due to its maturity, cider 
markets  such  as  in  Greece,  Germany,  Türkiye  and  Italy  are  expected  to  enjoy  double-digit 
growth, albeit growing from a small base.  

Overall,  the  importance  of  the  sector  and  industry  is  significant.  For  instance,  the  direct 
members  of  the  European  cider  and  fruit  wine  association  (AICV)  represent  over  180  cider 
and  fruit  wine  manufacturing  companies  in  Europe.  Most  of  them  are  relatively  modest  in 

1  Article  75(1)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1308/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  (OJ  L  347, 
20.12.2013, p. 671). 
2 SWD(2023) 97 final. 
3 Euromonitor, Passport – Cider in Western Europe- June 2019. 
4 Perry is made from pears. 
5 Extracted from Euromonitor Passport data for alcoholic drinks, category ‘Cider/Perry’, total value retail selling 
price in current prices, aggregated over all MSs.  
6 Euromonitor, Passport – Cider in Western Europe- June 2019. 

1 

 
 
                                                           
size,  although  there  are  some  large  producers,  mainly  in  the  UK,  France,  the  Netherlands, 
Denmark, Ireland, Spain and Germany7. Over 5000 people are directly employed in the cider 
and  fruit  wine  industries  and  the  sector  generates  many  indirect  jobs,  mainly  in  the 
agricultural sector through the production of apples and other fruits8.  

COMEXT data show that imports from outside the EU27 increased between 2012 and 2019 
from 8 to 23 million litres (decreased to 15 million litres in 2021 due to the effects of Covid). 
The imports in value followed a similar trend, from EUR 14 million in 2012 to 19 million in 
2019  (and  dropped  to  13  million  in  2021).  Exports  outside  the  EU27  have  been  increasing 
from about 54 million litres in 2012 to 250 million litres (with a drop to 163 million litres in 
2021). The exports value increased as well, although slightly more slowly due to decreasing 
prices (EUR  112 million  in  2012, 158 million  in  2021). Trade within the EU27 has instead 
remained  rather  stable  around  120-130  million  litres,  with  some  substitution  between 
categories (decrease of the sparkling cider and perry and increase in the still products whether 
in bottles or larger containers). Value, however, has been decreasing, due to a constant price 
decline all along the period, affecting all the categories.  

2.2. A need for more clarity in the market and for consumers? 

The terms ‘cider’ and ‘perry’ are currently used in the EU for a multitude of beverages based 
on apples and pears, respectively,  with  different  key  characteristics910. For instance,  various 
types  of  products,  ranging  from  products  made  from  100%  apple  juice  to  pre-mix  products 
with  added sugars, are  currently  labelled as  ‘cider’. This  leads  to  unfair competition  among 
producers  as  not  all  consumers  readily  discern  the  differences  between  products  that  are 
labelled  ‘cider’  or  ‘perry’.  In  this  respect,  the  information  available  to  consumers  is 
inadequate for a proper purchasing choice. 

The  issue  was  also  identified  in  a  2020  study  on  the  ‘Evaluation  of  marketing  standards 
contained  in  the  CMO  Regulation,  the  ‘Breakfast  Directives’  and  CMO  secondary 
legislation’11 as well as in the replies and contributions received during the public consultation 
on the revision of the EU agricultural marketing standards12.  

While  there  is  no  international  definition  for  cider  and  perry,  standards  for  these  products 
exist in some MSs. These mainly differ according to the following key criteria, which have a 
strong impact on the production costs and the quality of the product13: 

7 https://aicv.org/en/members.  
8 https://aicv.org/en/industry-data.  
9 “Evaluation of Marketing Standards contained in the CMO Regulation, the “Breakfast Directives” and CMO 
secondary legislation”, Final report, November 2019, Areté, Agra CEAS https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/309c4642-7ec0-11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1.  
10 The only regulated elements at international level are food additives permitted in the production of cider 
through Codex Alimentarius and EU legislation. 
11 https://doi.org/10.2762/475831.  
12 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12772-Agricultural-products-revision-
of-EU-marketing-standards/public-consultation_en.  
13 Ricome, Solano-Hermosilla & Ciaian (2022). Benefits and costs of EU marketing standards in the cider sector. 
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC127345. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
 
  The  minimum  content  of  apple/pear  juice  (including  juice  and/or  concentrate)  in  the 
cider/perry (varying from no specifications of minimum juice content to 100% depending 
on the MS) (e.g. 100% in France); 

  The  minimum  content  of  ‘fresh’  apple/pear  juice  (i.e.  excluding  concentrate)  in  the 

cider/perry (e.g. minimum 50% in France); 

  The addition of water or not; 
  The addition of sugar to the apple/pear juice before fermentation (i.e. ‘chaptalisation’) or 

not; 

  The addition of alcohol (i.e. ‘fortification’) or not. 

Moreover,  some  MSs  have  cider-specific  detailed  mandatory  standards  in  place  and  also 
labelling  rules  which  describe  the  product  quality  and  allow  identifying  origin,  such  as 
Protected Designation of Origin and Protected Geographical Indication (e.g. France, Spain). 

Some  other  MSs  have  cider-specific,  ‘base-level’  marketing  standards  (e.g.  Denmark, 
Finland, Slovakia, Sweden). In Sweden, for example, cider should be made from at least 15% 
apple juice. 

In  Germany,  production  guidelines  have  been  developed  by  the  cider  sector,  which  are 
complemented by labelling rules under the national legislation.  

Finally, in a number of MSs, e.g. Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands, 
no cider marketing standards exist.  

In the absence of any EU specification for ‘cider’ and ‘perry’, the issue of fair competition for 
producers  would  remain  and  the  asymmetry  of  information  for  consumers  would  not  be 
addressed.  

2.3. An EU marketing standard for cider and perry: more market value and better 

information to consumer  

An  EU  marketing  standard  for  cider  and  perry  would  define  the  essential  (minimum) 
requirements  to  be  met  by  the  products  concerned.  This  would  contribute  to  setting  a  level 
playing  field  among producers  and  create  a clear segmentation of the market.  It would also 
improve  information  for  consumers,  increase  trust  in  beverages  bearing  the  denominations 
‘cider’  and  ‘perry’,  and  enhance  the  products’  value.  The  marketing  standard  would  also 
define  a  range  of  parameters  (e.g.  optional  reserved  terms  (ORTs)),  their  corresponding 
technical  characteristics  (e.g.  authorised  treatments  and  substances),  and  the  raw  materials 
authorised  for  their  production  on  the  model  of  the  legislation  concerning  oenological 
practices or fruit juices. 

Several options for such a standard could be envisaged: 

Option I: a mere definition of some ORTs at the EU level. Those terms could be used only if 
the conditions set in the legislation are met. Some suggested ORTs are indicated below. Such 
ORTs  can  direct  consumers  towards  higher  quality  products  or  help  them  make  purchasing 
decisions  based  on  desired  product’s  characteristics,  such  as  sugar  content  (similarly  to 
wines). National rules, insofar as they exist, as well as the use of the generic terms ‘cider’ and 
‘perry’ would remain largely unchanged, allowing them to coexist with the ORTs. 

3 

 
 
 
ORTs related to higher quality: 

  ‘Made from pure fresh juice’ (100% fresh apple or pear juice, or a mixture of both); 
  ‘Farmhouse’ (made from pure fresh juice + fruits processed on farm); 
  ‘Craft’ (made from pure fresh juice, no use of industrial processes, no overpressing); 
 
‘Natural effervescence’ (originating exclusively from the alcoholic fermentation). 

ORTs related to sugar content: 

  ‘Dry’ (maximum [X] g/l residual sugars); 
  ‘Semi-dry’ (above [X] g/l and maximum [Y] g/l residual sugars); 
 

‘Sweet’ (above [Y] g/l residual sugars)14. 

Option II: a basic marketing standard at the EU level complemented by the ORTs mentioned 
in Option I. The basic standard would require that the alcohol in cider and perry might only 
come  from  the  fermentation  of  fruits  and  sugars,  thus  prohibiting  the  addition  of  external 
alcohol to the product. It leaves the definition of more demanding requirements to MSs. This 
would  ensure  a  baseline  harmonisation  at  EU  level  while  remaining  complementary  to 
existing national rules. 

Option  III:  a  more  ambitious  standard  complemented  by  ORTs  referred  to  under  Option  I. 
This standard would prohibit the addition of external alcohol to the product, as in Option II, 
but  would  require,  in  addition,  that  the  cider  and  perry  are  made  from  at  least  50%  of  fruit 
juice (fresh and/or reconstituted). This standard would lead to a higher level of harmonisation 
within the EU.  

2.4. What are the expected impacts of an EU marketing standard? 

2.4.1.  Costs and administrative burdens for operators and MSs, a mixed picture 

depending on the marketing strategy 

The improvement of the overall coherence of the regulatory framework applying to cider and 
perry  production  and  marketing  across  the  EU  would  facilitate  intra-EU  trade  and  ensure  a 
level  playing  field  for  producers.  Clear  rules  about  the  products  and  labelling  reduce  trade 
uncertainties and also transactional costs for economic operators.  

In  relation  to  the  industrial  processing,  higher  costs  may  occur  for  producers  (within  and 
outside the EU) currently producing low quality products if they would decide to continue to 
sell  their  product  with  the  name  “cider”  under  the  new  EU  standard.  These  producers  have 
anyway always the choice to remain in their lower market segment and sell their product under 
a  name  different  from  cider/perry;  depending  on  their  market  position,  this  may  mean  a 
deterioration  of  the  commercial  value  of  their  product  or  at  least  additional  initial  costs  in 
terms  of  marketing.  Therefore,  the  segment  of  lower  quality  products  which  would  lose  the 
name “cider/perry” - often produced by larger industrial facilities - may initially incur losses in 
market  shares,  should  stricter  standards  be  implemented  (especially  Option  III,  to  a  lower 
extent Options I and II). Having said that, the industrial manufacturers producing these kinds 
of beverages are often active in multiple beverage markets and products and could adapt their 
marketing strategy and so avoid losses.  

14 X and Y to be determined during discussions on legal proposals, if any. 

4 

 
 
                                                           
As  regards  national  public  authorities,  a  new  EU  marketing  standard  for  cider  and  perry  is 
expected  to  lead  to  some  regulatory  costs,  resulting  from  the  necessity  to  modify  existing 
national rules or to introduce new national rules in line with the EU rules, and to implement 
and control them. MSs that have national production and control rules already in place would 
need to adapt to the new EU rules. The costs they would incur would be less than for those 
MSs which would have to introduce rules and control them from scratch. In that sense, Option 
I  would  be  the  Option  that  is  most  compatible  with  the  existence  of  national  rules,  while 
Option III could result in a higher burden (legislation, control) at the national level. 

On the other hand, a marketing standard at EU level would reduce the administrative work for 
national  administration,  which  would  have  to  check  the  compliance  of  cider  and  perry 
marketed on their territory with only one set of EU rules.  

the  above-mentioned  elements, 

The  combination  of 
impacts  on 
simplification,  and  administrative  burden  could  give  either  a  negative  or  a  positive  picture 
depending on the position of the individual MS and industry  and the market  strategy of the 
latter. These effects should be compared with the potential generation of value and benefits.  

transaction  costs, 

2.4.2.  Benefits for producers and consumers, and the EU internal market: a very 

positive perspective 

The expected general benefits of the introduction of an EU marketing standard for cider and 
perry, as compared to the status quo, seem substantial and in different areas. They include the 
following:  

  A standard would create better product identification and building of reputation and trust 
in  the  sales  designation  and  segmentation  into  categories  differentiating  relatively 
inexpensive  mass  consumption  cider/perry  (industrial  mix  of  apple/pear  juice,  alcohol, 
water,  flavourings,  sugar)  from  quality  or  traditional  cider/perry  (fermented  pure 
apple/pear juice).  

  Market  segmentation  can  lead  to  improved  satisfaction  of  consumer  and  added  value 
accruing in the sector.  If sufficiently ambitious, such a standard can be expected to add 
value  to  the  market  and  strengthen  the  authentic  character  of  certain  cider  and  perry  as 
craft products.  

  The standard would set the right pre-conditions for companies in the sector to invest more 

in differentiated products, aiming to create additional value. 

  A  standard  would  contribute  to  the  objective  of  the  Farm  to  Fork  strategy  to  empower 
consumers to make informed food choices. This is important, considering that cider and 
perry contain alcohol, even if to a lower extent than other alcoholic beverages. 

  Local  and  EU  apple  and  pear  production  would  be  better  valorised,  particularly  if  a 
minimum  content of fresh apple or pear juice is  fixed in  the standard or  specific ORTs 
related  to  the  fruit  or  juice  contents  are  introduced.  The  use  of  more  local  apples  and 
pears  to  produce  cider  and  perry  would  benefit  local  producers.  Furthermore,  more 
traditional cider/perry production may contribute to improved employment, as it is more 
labour intensive than large-scale industrial production.  

  Resource use would be improved. Because they are processed, apples and pears used for 
the  production  of  cider  and  perry  do  not  need  to  be  blemish-free.  Their  sorting  is  not 

5 

 
 
needed, which can help reduce production losses as can the possibility to utilise fruits not 
suitable for the ‘fresh market’ (e.g. because of visual defects)15. 

Such  general  benefits  would  apply  to  all  three  Options,  however  increasingly  as  the 
requirements are strengthened from Option I to Option III.  

The experience of Quebec, as reported in a written contribution of the Syndicat des Cidriers 
Indépendants  de  France,  provide  a  real  example  of  the  benefits  that  the  introduction  of 
marketing standards in the sector can bring about. In Quebec, from the 1970s when cider was 
officially  re-introduced  after  several  years  of  prohibition,  the  supply  of  cider,  in  particular 
from  industrial  production,  grew  very  rapidly  and  created  serious  difficulties  for  traditional 
producers. Cider was mass-produced, at low cost, and at a mediocre quality and health issues 
were reported due to industrial production methods. The introduction of strict standards (i.e. 
at least 80% of juice extracted from apples harvested in Quebec, in addition to various other 
criteria) changed the situation dramatically. Total sales of cider have steadily increased over 
the years and today Quebec is a region well-known for the quality of its cider.  

3.  DRIED LEGUMINOUS VEGETABLES AND SOYA BEAN 

3.1. Healthy and sustainable products largely imported 

Dried  leguminous  vegetables  and  soya  bean,  hereafter  referred  as  'dried  pulses',  can 
contribute  significantly  to  healthy  and  sustainable  diets.  On  the  one  hand,  their  nutritional 
profile is rich in proteins which give them an essential role to play in the shift to a more plant-
based  diet.  On  the  other  hand,  the  cultivation  of  pulses  can  also  bring  climate  and 
environmental benefits through their nitrogen fixing properties. A 2018 Commission report16 
encourages the consumption of dried pulses and other protein crops. More recently, the Farm-
to-Fork  strategy17  encouraged  actions  to  promote  sustainable  food  consumption  and 
facilitating  the  shift  to  healthy,  sustainable  diets.  It  acknowledged  in  particular  that  the 
consumption  of  legumes  in  the  EU  was  insufficient,  even  though  the  pulse  market  for  food 
slightly increased over the last decade in the EU (+5% in volume for the last five year average 
compared to the previous last five year average)18.  

A substantial part of dried pulses consumed as food in the EU is imported, especially lentils 
and chickpeas, which are used exclusively for food and represent 28% of pulses consumed as 
food. Imports of other pulses, like peas and broad beans, are more used for feed purposes19. 
63%  of  the  lentils  consumed  in  the  EU  are  imported,  41%  for  chickpeas.  In  2021,  three 
countries account for more than 90% of all imports of lentils (Canada for 50%,  Türkiye for 
20%  and  USA  for  20%)  and  four  countries  account  for  more  than  80%  of  all  imports  of 
chickpeas (Mexico for 27%, Türkiye for 23%, USA for 21% and Canada for 11%)20. Italy and 
Spain are the main importing Member States of lentils and chickpeas. 

15 JRC technical report “Benefits and costs of EU marketing standards in the cider sector – Results from 
interviews with stakeholders” (2022). 
16 https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/plants-and-plant-products/plant-
products/cereals/development-plant-proteins_en.  
17 COM(2020) 381 final. 
18 Euromonitor - Pulses market size data for 2013-2022. 
19 DG AGRI source – Protein crops balance sheet. 
20 COMEXT data 2021. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
For convenience reasons (the cooking of dried pulses takes a long time), significant volumes 
of pulses are commercialised as cooked products e.g. in cans or in glass jars. Those cooked 
pulses are already covered by an empowerment to adopt marketing standards in the processed 
fruit and vegetable products sector (Article 75(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013). For 
the  time  being,  no  specific  marketing  standard  has  been  adopted  t  for  cooked  pulses  or  to 
indicate their origin. 

While pulses harvested green for food purpose may only be marketed if the country of origin 
is indicated (such as green beans and peas, because they are classified as fruit and vegetables), 
the  labelling  of  the  origin  of  dried  pulses  is  voluntary  and  at  the  initiative  of  food  business 
operators, provided they fulfil the applicable provisions of FIC21.  

As  a  key  product  for  the  transition  towards  a  more  sustainable  agricultural  sector  and  more 
healthy,  sustainable  diets,  dried  pulses  should  be  promoted  to  consumers  and  a  better 
information on the origin would contribute to this transition.   

3.2. An EU marketing standard on the labelling of the origin  

An  EU  marketing  standard  for  dried  pulses  that  only  concerns  the  labelling  of  the  origin, 
would  improve  consumer  information  and  make  applicable  rules  more  coherent  with  the 
compulsory labelling of the origin for pulses harvested green for food.  

Many consumers do not receive information on the origin of certain products, although they 
express a strong interest to know where they come from.22 

The objective of the labelling of the origin is to allow consumers to better identify the origin 
of  the  food  and  to  facilitate  consumers’  informed  and  sustainable  food  choices.  Consumers 
are increasingly affected by a range of considerations when making food decisions, including 
the origin of the food and the length of the food supply chain. 

Voluntary origin labelling for dried pulses is already available. Nevertheless, it appears that is 
very rarely used and, where it occurs, tends to be in the high value segment of the market. For 
that  reason,  a  voluntary  labelling  does  not  appear  sufficient  to  fulfil  the  objective  of  better 
consumer  information.  Therefore,  the  mandatory  labelling  of  origin  is  expected  to  lead  to  a 
higher consumer satisfaction on this key sustainable and healthy product. 

The  labelling  could  be  global  (‘EU/non-EU’),  or  more  specific  (at  country  of  origin  level). 
The  level  of  information  of  a  label  EU/non-EU  is  often  considered  as  too  generic  by  final 
consumers who are interested to know about the origin of the products they buy, in particular 
the  place  of  production23.  Therefore,  the  mandatory  labelling  of  the  country  of  origin  is 
expected to lead to a higher consumer satisfaction. 

An  extension  of  origin  labelling  obligation  to  cooked  pulses  (already  covered  by  an 
empowerment  to  adopt  marketing  standards  in  the  processed  fruit  and  vegetable  products 
sector) would  increase the scope of a new marketing standard on the labelling of the  origin 
and reinforce the impacts of the proposed modification of the marketing standards.  

21 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 (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, pp. 18–63). 
22 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/Eurobarometer2019_Food-safety-
in-the-EU_Full-report.pdf. 
23 Study on the mandatory indication of country of origin or place of provenance of unprocessed foods, single 
ingredient products and ingredients that represent more than 50% of a food - Final report – September 2014 – 
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC), page 64. 

7 

 
 
                                                           
3.3. What are the expected impacts of an EU marketing standard for dried pulses 

and cooked pulses? 

3.3.1.  Costs and administrative burden for EU and non EU operators and Member 

States 

Since  Member  States  are  responsible  to  ensure  that  marketing  standards  are  correctly 
implemented, the compulsory labelling of the origin would imply new controls requirements 
for  public  authorities  that  would  generate  additional  costs.  Taking  into  account  that  dried 
pulses  are  not  high  value  products  and  that  the  risk  of  fraud  on  the  origin  is  low  and  is 
expected to  remain as  such, it is  not  intended to require additional traceability requirements 
than those already existing (i.e. one step forward one step back traceability24).  

Compulsory  origin  labelling  may  imply  limited  additional  costs  for  EU  and  non  EU 
operators due to the necessary adaptations of sourcing, packaging and marketing practices, in 
particular  when  operators  handle  dried  pulses  from  several  origins.  Those  costs  would  be 
mitigated by the fact that mixes of pulses from different origins will remain allowed with an 
appropriate labelling of origin.  

Since the compulsory labelling of the country of origin would apply to non-processed food or 
to  processed  food  without  any  additional  ingredients  (cooked  products),  the  labelling  is 
expected  to  be  less  costly  than  for  products  that  go  through  a  high  number  of  production 
stages and places25. 

3.3.2.  Benefits for producers and consumers 

The  labelling  of  origin  is  likely  to  contribute  to  the  consumption  of  more  plant-based 
products, which will benefit EU and non EU producers and importers. Such an increase of the 
demand is not expected to have a significant impact on consumer prices, since the additional 
demand  will  most  probably  be  compensated  by  an  increase  of  the  EU  production  of  pulses 
thanks,  among  others,  to  national  protein  strategies  that  favour  the  development  of  protein 
crops cultivation in the EU. 

Mandatory  origin  labelling  of  dried  pulses  will  facilitate  promotion  actions  in  the  EU 
focussing  on  the  qualities  of  pulses.  Those  actions  will  support  the  shift  of  consumption 
patterns from animal products to more plant-based diets and will provide information to the 
consumer that the production of pulses creates environmental benefits. The implementation of 
EU  promotion  programmes  on  pulses  would  also  make  stronger  the  pulses  value  chain  by 
bringing together the actors of this sector. 

4.  CONCLUSIONS 

4.1. For cider and perry 

A  new  EU  marketing  standard  for  cider  and  perry  would  contribute  to  the  Farm  to  Fork 
objective  of  better  informing  consumers  about  the  characteristics  of  the  food  they  purchase 
(social  sustainability).  This  would  be  achieved  by  way  of  reserving  the  use  of  the  sales 

24 Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 
laying 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 31, 1.2.2002, pp. 1–24). 
25 Page 8 of the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council regarding the 
mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance for unprocessed foods, single ingredient 
products and ingredients that represent more than 50% of a food (COM(2015) 204 final).   

8 

 
 
                                                           
designation  to  compliant  products  and  creating  transparency  about  their  characteristics.  The 
three  suggested  options  have  the  potential  to  improve  the  quality  of  cider  and  perry  sold  to 
consumers  and  to  let  consumers  discern  quality  differences  of  the  said  products  in  a 
convenient  way.  It  is  expected  that  producers  would  thus  be  able  to  derive  a  better  income 
from  their  cider  and  perry  products,  as  can  be  seen  for  instance  in  the  case  of  products 
benefiting  from  quality 
indications  (economic 
sustainability). A higher quality for cider and perry is to a certain extent linked to the use of 
more  traditional  production  methods  for  apples/pears26  and  cider/perry  which  co-generate 
environmental  advantages  compared  with  that  of  more  industrial  methods  (environmental 
sustainability). 

labels  –  organic  and  geographical 

Most  contributions  to  the  stakeholder  consultation  which  took  place  over  the  past  months 
(inception  report,  public  consultation,  independent  contributions)  have  pointed  in  the  same 
direction,  i.e.  they  supported  the  establishment  of  an  EU  marketing  standard  for  cider  and 
perry. However, they differed on the level of ambition of that standard, one such contribution 
favouring a minimal standard while the others requesting more ambitious rules27. 

Given these opinions and the assessment of the economic, social and environmental impacts 
as mentioned above, the Commission is in favour of establishing an EU marketing standard 
for cider and perry with a preference for detailed rules complemented by ORTs (Option III). 
The two other options would not sufficiently achieve the objectives as stated in Section 2.3.. 

4.2. For dried leguminous vegetables and soya bean 

A  new  EU  marketing  standard  for  dried  leguminous  vegetables  and  soya  bean  that  only 
concerns the labelling of the origin, would contribute to the Farm to Fork objectives of better 
informing consumers about the characteristics of the food they purchase and encouraging the 
consumption of plant-based products, in line with different Commission initiatives such as the 
Farm-to-Fork strategy. The compulsory labelling of the origin of dried pulses is coherent with 
the  CMO  Regulation  in  the  sense  that  such  requirement  already  exists  for  similar  products 
like  green  pulses  in  particular.  Finally,  the  mandatory  origin  labelling  of  dried  pulses  will 
facilitate promotion actions in the EU focussing on the qualities of pulses. 

26 Traditional production of cider occurs primarily among small producers who use their own apples which they 
tend to produce extensively. A more industrial production of cider would rely more on intensively produced 
apples in order to feed the industrial process. 
27 FNPFC asked for 70% apple juice, CIF and Maison cidricole de Normandie for 100%. 

9