COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Revision of EU marketing standards for agricultural products to ensure the uptake and supply of sustainable products Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 2001/110/EC relating to honey, 2001/112/EC relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption, 2001/113/EC relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and sweetened chestnut purée intended for human consumption, and 2001/114/EC relating to certain partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human consumption
Date: 2023-04-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: consumer information, designation of origin, fruit juice, fruit product, honey, labelling, nut, powdered milk, preserved product, product designation, sugar

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 21.4.2023  SWD(2023) 97 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Revision of EU marketing standards for agricultural products to ensure the uptake and supply of sustainable products Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 2001/110/EC relating to honey, 2001/112/EC relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption, 2001/113/EC relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and sweetened chestnut purée intended for human consumption, and 2001/114/EC relating to certain partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human consumption {COM(2023) 201 final} - {SEC(2023) 162 final} - {SWD(2023) 98 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 7 

1.1.  Political context ................................................................................................. 7 
1.2.  Legal context ..................................................................................................... 8 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION .................................................................................................................... 9 

2.1.  What is/are the problems? ................................................................................. 9 
2.2.  What are the problem drivers? ........................................................................ 11 
2.3.  How likely is the problem to persist? .............................................................. 12 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? .........................................................................................................13 

3.1.  Legal basis ....................................................................................................... 13 
3.2.  Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action ............................................................... 14 
3.3.  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action .......................................................... 15 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ................................................................................16 

4.1.  General objectives ........................................................................................... 16 
4.2.  Specific objectives ........................................................................................... 17 
4.2.1.  Streamline and simplify EU marketing standards ...................................................... 19 
4.2.2.  Address new needs of stakeholders ........................................................................... 19 
4.2.3.  Add more sustainability criteria ................................................................................. 19 
4.2.4.  Why certain marketing standards are planned to be revised while others not ............ 20 
4.3.  Consistency with other EU policies ................................................................ 21 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .....................................................................21 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ............................................................22 

6.1.  Likely impact in terms of contributions to the SDGs ...................................... 22 
6.2.  Likely impacts on fundamental rights ............................................................. 23 
6.3.  Likely impacts on digitalisation ...................................................................... 23 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? .............................................................................................23 

8. 

PREFERRED OPTION .......................................................................................................................29 

9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?...................................29 

10.  ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL REVISIONS ................................................................................30 

10.1.  Marketing standards for cider and perry ......................................................... 30 
10.1.1. Problem definition ..................................................................................................... 32 
10.1.2. Options to achieve the objectives............................................................................... 34 
10.1.3. Impacts of the different policy options ...................................................................... 38 
10.1.4. Comparison of options ............................................................................................... 43 
10.1.5. Preferred option ......................................................................................................... 44 
10.1.6. Monitoring and evaluation of impacts ....................................................................... 44 
10.2.  Reduced-sugar fruit juices ............................................................................... 45 
10.2.1. Problem definition ..................................................................................................... 45 
10.2.2. Options to achieve the objectives............................................................................... 49 
10.2.3. Impacts of the different policy options ...................................................................... 51 
10.2.4. Comparison of options ............................................................................................... 55 
10.2.5. Preferred option ......................................................................................................... 56 
10.2.6. Monitoring and evaluation of impacts ....................................................................... 57 
10.3.  Sugar levels in jams ......................................................................................... 58 

1 

 
10.3.1. Problem definition ..................................................................................................... 58 
10.3.2. Options to achieve the objectives............................................................................... 62 
10.3.3. Impacts of the different policy options ...................................................................... 62 
10.3.4. Comparison of options ............................................................................................... 69 
10.3.5. Preferred option ......................................................................................................... 71 
10.3.6. Monitoring and evaluation of impacts ....................................................................... 71 
10.4.  Marketing standards for honey ........................................................................ 72 
10.4.1. Problem definition ..................................................................................................... 72 
10.4.2. Options to achieve the objectives............................................................................... 73 
10.4.3. Impacts of the different policy options ...................................................................... 74 
10.4.4. Comparison of options ............................................................................................... 76 
10.4.5. Preferred option ......................................................................................................... 78 
10.4.6. Monitoring and evaluation of impacts ....................................................................... 78 
10.5.  Marketing standards for foie gras .................................................................... 78 
10.5.1. Problem definition ..................................................................................................... 78 
10.5.2. Options to achieve the objectives............................................................................... 79 
10.5.3. Impacts of the different policy options ...................................................................... 81 
10.5.4. Comparison of options ............................................................................................... 83 
10.5.5. Preferred option ......................................................................................................... 84 
10.5.6. Monitoring and evaluation of impacts ....................................................................... 84 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION .............................................................................................85 

1. 

LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES ...................................................................85 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING.......................................................................................................85 

3. 

4. 

CONSULTATION OF THE RSB .......................................................................................................86 

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY..........................................................................................87 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION (SYNOPSIS REPORT) .................................................88 

1. 

2. 

3. 

CONSULTATION STRATEGY .........................................................................................................88 

ROADMAP ..........................................................................................................................................89 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION ................................................................................................................90 

4.  WRITTEN CONSULTATION OF MSS ...........................................................................................111 

5. 

TECHNICAL WORKSHOP ..............................................................................................................111 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .........................................................................................112 

1. 

2. 

3. 

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE ...................................................................112 

SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS ......................................................................................112 

RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS ..............................................................115 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ....................................................................................................115 

ANNEX 5: LEGAL BASES AND LEGISLATION FOR MARKETING STANDARDS .........................118 

ANNEX 6: MAPPING OF RELEVANT OTHER INITIATIVES ..............................................................121 

1. 

2. 

THE FARM TO FORK STRATEGY ................................................................................................122 

THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY ACTION PLAN ..............................................................................125 

ANNEX 7: ILLUSTRATION OF THE INTERVENTION LOGIC ...........................................................128 

ANNEX 8: STRATEGIC FORESIGHT FOR THE REVISION ................................................................129 

ANNEX 9: OTHER SECTORAL INITIATIVES .......................................................................................131 

A.  HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS ....................................................................................................131 

1. 

Grouping existing fruit & vegetables legislation ..................................................... 131 

2 

 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 

Extending origin labelling to some F&V products that are currently exempted ...... 132 
Trimmed and cut fruit and vegetables ...................................................................... 133 
‘Ugly’ fruit and vegetables ...................................................................................... 134 
‘Force majeure’ exemption ...................................................................................... 135 
Sugar content in fruit nectars ................................................................................... 135 
Use of the term ‘marmalade’ ................................................................................... 137 

B.  ANIMAL PRODUCTS ......................................................................................................................138 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 

Dual use of outdoor areas in free-range production systems for eggs ...................... 138 
Inconsistency between egg standards and organic rules .......................................... 139 
Durability of eggs .................................................................................................... 141 
Obligatory marking of eggs on the farm .................................................................. 141 
Optional reserved terms to label types of farming in poultrymeat production ......... 142 
Limits for water content in poultry .......................................................................... 143 
Downgrading of whole batches of poultrymeat during inspections ......................... 144 
Update definitions of poultry products .................................................................... 145 
ORTs for production systems other than poultry ..................................................... 146 

C.  ARABLE CROPS AND OLIVE OIL ................................................................................................149 

1. 
2. 
3. 

Allowing the sales of bulk olive oil ......................................................................... 149 
Sales descriptions of plant-based preparations ......................................................... 151 
Indication of the country of origin for pulses ........................................................... 151 

3 

 
 
 
List of tables 

Table 1 - Overview of problems and objectives ............................................................... 17 
Table 2 - Overview of specific objectives pursued by individual initiatives ................... 17 
Table 3 - Mapping of the achievement of the specific objectives .................................... 23 
Table 4 - The costs-benefit impacts of the specific objectives given the revisions ......... 25 
Table 5 - Coherence of the policy options with overarching objectives of EU policies .. 27 
Table 6 - Final timeline of the impact assessment process .............................................. 85 
Table 7 - Changes compared to the earlier draft .............................................................. 86 
Table 8 - Sector- and product-specific questions of the public consultation ................. 104 
Table 9 - Overview of benefits – preferred option ......................................................... 112 
Table 10 - Overview of costs – preferred option ............................................................ 113 

List of figures 

Figure 1 - Overview of problem drivers and consequences ............................................. 12 
Figure 2 - Responses to the inception impact assessment by categories of respondents . 89 
Figure 3: Word cloud of the responses to the inception impact assessment .................... 90 
Figure 4: Types of respondents ........................................................................................ 91 
Figure 5: Stage in the food supply chain that respondents represent ............................... 91 
Figure 6: Familiarity with sectoral standards ................................................................... 92 
Figure 7: Provision of feedback on sectoral standards ..................................................... 92 
Figure 8: Sustainable agricultural products should do the following… ........................... 93 
Figure 9: Organisations or operators (excl. citizens) deal with standards covering… ..... 94 
Figure 10: Stakeholders deal with sustainability-related requirements from… ............... 94 
Figure 11: Citizens buy food products they think are more sustainable… ...................... 95 
Figure 12: Citizens buy food products they think perform better regarding… ................ 95 
Figure 13: ORTs can be useful for providing more sustainable agricultural products .... 96 
Figure 14: New preferences, technologies and methods require changes for… .............. 96 
Figure 15: Current EU marketing standards affect me or my organisation… ................. 97 
Figure 16: Revisions likely affect me or my organisation… ........................................... 98 
Figure 17: Revising EU marketing standards could be used to address........................... 99 
Figure  18:  Without  a  revision,  the  uptake  and  supply  of  sustainable  products  most 
likely… ........................................................................................................................... 100 
Figure  19:  More  sustainable  agricultural  products  via  standards  can  best  be achieved…
 ........................................................................................................................................ 100 
Figure 20: More sustainable agricultural products can best be achieved through… ..... 101 
Figure 21: EU marketing standards for agricultural products benefit mostly ................ 101 
Figure 22: EU marketing standards for agricultural products benefit mostly ................ 102 
Figure 23: For more sustainable agricultural products, action is needed on… .............. 102 
Figure 24: Costs and benefits of revising specific EU marketing standards .................. 103 
Figure 25: World cloud of responses (translated to English) to open-ended question ... 103 
Figure 26: Intervention logic for the revision of EU marketing standards..................... 128 
Figure 27: Mapping of megatrends for the revision of EU marketing standards ........... 130 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

CAP 

CMO 

common agricultural policy 

common market organisation 

CMO Regulation 

Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 

Commission 

European Commission 

EC 

ECJ 

EU 

European Commission 

European Court of Justice 

European Union 

Evaluation study 2019 

external evaluation support study from 20191 

F&V 

F2F 

FIC 

JRC 

fruit and vegetables 

Farm to Fork 

Food Information to Consumers Regulation2 

Joint Research Centre 

JRC 2022 

literature review by the JRC3 

MkSs 

MSs 

marketing standards 

Member States 

OPC 2019 

public consultation in 20194 

and 

CMO 

1  Areté  et  al.  (2020).  Evaluation  of  marketing  standards  contained  in  the  CMO  Regulation,  the  ‘Breakfast 
Directives’ 
Commission 
(https://doi.org/10.2762/475831). 
2 Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/1169/oj. 
3  Nes,  K.,  Ciaian,  P.  (2021).  Marketing  standards:  A  review  of  the  literature.  JRC  Technical  Report. 
Luxembourg: European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/991707. 

legislation. 

secondary 

European 

Brussels: 

5 

 
                                                 
ORTs 

Q 

REFIT 

SDG 

optional reserved terms 

quarter 

regulatory fitness and performance 

Sustainable Development Goal 

SWD 2020 

Evaluation staff working document from 20205  

TFEU 

UNECE 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 

Workshop 2021 

workshop organised by the JRC in 20216 

4 EC (2019). Evaluation of marketing standards [Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013].  Have Your Say. Brussels: 
European Commission. https://europa.eu/!JKhyqb. 
5  EC  (2020).  Evaluation  of  marketing  standards.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  SWD/2020/0230. 
https://europa.eu/!RU43Ky. 
6 Russo, C. et al. (2022). Workshop on Marketing Standards: Benefits and costs of EU marketing standards for 
agri-food products. JRC Technical Report. Luxembourg: European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/635080. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

EU marketing standards constitute a set of rules that aim to ensure that the single market 
is  supplied  with  standardised  quality  agricultural  products  that  meet  consumer 
expectations,  facilitate  trading  and  ensure  a  level  playing  field  for  EU  producers.  They 
concern the external qualities of products (e.g. fruit and vegetables (F&V)) and the non-
visible qualities that result from particular production processes (e.g. fat content in foie 
gras).    They  generally  comprise  obligatory  rules  and  optional  reserved  terms  (ORTs)7 
with  a  view  to  guaranteeing  the  quality  of  agricultural  products.  They  are  product  or 
sector-specific. Products for which standards are laid down may be marketed under the 
respective  sales  designations  only  if  they  conform  to  those  standards.  The  use  of  these 
sales  designations  is  normally  of  significant  commercial  value  as  consumers  recognise 
them and decide on their purchases relying on them. 

Marketing  standards  fulfil  the  need  for  readily  available  standardised  information  for 
purposes  of  products  being  traded  in  the  supply  chain.  When  marketing  standards 
function well, they keep food of unsatisfactory quality off the market and provide clarity 
for consumers and operators in the chain. They contribute to ensuring conditions of loyal 
competition between all operators selling into the single market and overall they facilitate 
its functioning. 

Therefore,  marketing  standards  make  it  possible  to  reliably  communicate  product 
characteristics  or  attributes  and  in  particular  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.  This  facilitates  trading  and  ensures  fair  conditions  of 
competition for EU producers. 

1.1. 

Political context 

Stakeholders  refer  to  marketing  standards  as  a  ‘common  language’,  which  helps 
operators  and  consumers  lower  transaction  costs,  ensures  loyal  competition  and  a  high 
product quality. Just as any language evolves over time, so do the needs and habits of the 
stakeholders  in  the  food  supply  chain.  Where  this  is  the  case  the  relevant  marketing 
standard  should  be  updated.  The  last  significant  revision  of  specific  EU  marketing 
standards  dates  back  to  2012,  when  e.g.  labelling  requirements  for  olive  oil  were 
introduced and to  2009  when 25 specific standards for  F&V were  consolidated into 10 
standards. Since then, only minor adjustments of the standards took place. 

This revision is also carried out against the backdrop of the Commission’s Farm to Fork 
(F2F) strategy of May 2020 and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (Section 6.1). 
In the F2F strategy it is announced that the revision of EU marketing standards will aim 
to provide for the uptake and supply of sustainable products and to reinforce the role of 
sustainability  criteria8.  The  revision  of  EU  marketing  standards  is  coherent  and 
complementary to  the other actions  under the European Green  Deal  that  pursue  greater 
sustainability of food systems. Coherence was in particular ensured with the forthcoming 

7 ORTs are specific expressions with positive connotations whose use in certain sectors or for certain products 
is regulated to make it easier for producers to communicate value-adding characteristics or attributes of their 
products to buyers and consumers (https://europa.eu/!gv48CY), e.g. eggs can only be sold as ‘free range eggs’ 
if the hens were kept in specific conditions (http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj). 
8 https://europa.eu/!rt73kQ 

7 

 
                                                 
revision of the  Regulation on Food  Information to  Consumers (FIC): the  revisions will 
align certain provisions (e.g. on origin labelling) and remove contradictions (e.g. in date 
marking). The revision of the marketing standards also aims to be complementary to the 
announced revision of animal welfare legislation and the proposal for a sustainable food 
systems framework, by not pre-empting on and allowing compatibility with the general 
sustainability  provisions  which  are  considered  under  these  two  initiatives.  Annex  6 
provides a mapping of the most relevant F2F actions and explains the links and overlaps 
with other initiatives and revisions. 

The  Commission  intends  to  revise  EU  marketing  standards  both  in  the  area  of 
agricultural and the area of fishery and aquaculture products. Preparing the revision the 
Commission  has  published  an  external  evaluation  support  study  of  EU  agricultural 
marketing  standards  (Evaluation  study  2019)9  and  carried  out  an  evaluation  of 
agricultural  marketing  standards  that  included  a  public  consultation  (OPC  2019)10  and 
the  publication  of  a  staff  working  document  (SWD  2020)11.  This  impact  assessment 
covers  agricultural  products  only.  An  impact  assessment  for  fishery  and  aquaculture 
products is carried out separately. 

The revisions discussed in this impact assessment cover those marketing standards that – 
pursuant  to  the  experience  of  stakeholders,  MSs  and  the  Commission  in  their 
implementation as well as due to the evaluation and consultations carried out appear as in 
need  of  modernisation,  simplification  or  increased  responsiveness  to  sustainability 
considerations.  In addition,  the changes discussed are liable to  have significant  impacts 
and imply genuine policy choices. Having said this, there is no need for an overhaul that 
would introduce general changes to the policy of marketing standards. The policy as such 
has  proved  its  value.  Its  principles  are  laid  down  in  the  basic  act  of  the  legislator,  the 
Common Market Organisation Regulation (CMO Regulation). The current revision will 
not reopen that basic act, which has been subject to a recent reform (as part of the 2021 
reform  of  the  CAP)12.  The  revision  operates  subject  to  very  limited  exceptions 
concerning the ‘Breakfast Directives’ at the level of Commission acts (see the following 
Section). 

1.2.  Legal context 

Agricultural marketing standards are one of the policy tools of the Common Agricultural 
Policy (CAP) that promote the specific economic and social objectives listed in Article 
39  TFEU:  the  availability  of  food  at  prices  which  ensure  the  livelihood  of  agricultural 
producers  and  which  consumers  can  afford.  EU  marketing  standards  for  agricultural 
products  are  a  key  element  of  the  Common  Market  Organisation  Regulation  (CMO 
Regulation)13.  Together  with  the  Strategic  Plan  Regulation  and  the  Horizontal 
Regulation, the CMO Regulation constitute the three basic acts implementing the CAP. 

9  Areté  et  al.  (2020).  Evaluation  of  marketing  standards  contained  in  the  CMO  Regulation,  the  ‘Breakfast 
Directives’ and CMO secondary legislation. Brussels: European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2762/475831. 
10 EC (2019). Evaluation of marketing standards [Regulation (EU) No  1308/2013]. Have Your Say. Brussels: 
European Commission. https://europa.eu/!JKhyqb. 
11  EC  (2020).  Evaluation  of  marketing  standards.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  SWD/2020/0230. 
https://europa.eu/!RU43Ky. 
12 See Regulation (EU) 2021/2117, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2117/oj. 
13 https://europa.eu/!trVY9W. 

8 

 
                                                 
More  specifically,  EU  marketing  standards  are  laid  down  in  the  following  legislative 
documents: 

  EP and Council Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation 
of  the  markets  in  agricultural  products14,  laying  down  rules  concerning  marketing 
standards, definitions, designations, sales descriptions, eligibility criteria and optional 
reserved terms for a broad range of sectors; 

  Secondary Commission rules, laying down detailed rules on marketing standards for 

specific sectors; 

  EP  and  Council  ‘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 standards normally stipulate uniform product characteristics for certain agricultural 
products  marketed  in  the  EU.  They  apply  to  both  EU  products  and  imported  products. 
Marketing standards are subject to official controls under Regulation (EU) 2017/625 and 
as  defined  under  some  specific  marketing  standards.  Member  States  must  carry  out 
controls  based  on  a  risk  analysis15.  In  practice,  controls  for  marketing  standards  are 
usually  combined  with  other  checks  to  be  performed  on  operators.  Most  marketing 
standards  regulated  in  Commission  regulations  were  adopted  prior  to  the  Treaty  of 
Lisbon,  in  the  form  of  Commission  regulations  based  on  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1234/200716.  The  latter  was  replaced  in  2014  by  the  CMO  Regulation,  which 
differentiates  between  delegated  and  implementing  powers  for  the  Commission  as 
regards  ‘secondary legislation’. Commission  regulations that were adopted on the basis 
of Regulation (EC) No  1234/2007  must therefore be aligned  accordingly, that is  to  say 
separated into delegated and implementing acts (‘lisbonisation’). 

Given the Commission’s Better Regulation agenda17, all marketing standards considered 
in  the revision should  respect  the  requirement for legislative simplification in  line with 
the Commission’s regulatory fitness and performance (REFIT) programme18. 

2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1.  What is/are the problems? 

The Commission’s recent evaluation of marketing standards demonstrates that the EU’s 
marketing  standards  regime  is  generally  deemed  effective  in  achieving  its  objectives 
(SWD  2020)  and  that  the  costs  are  proportionate  to  the  benefits.  As  such,  agricultural 
marketing  standards  are  one  of  the  policy  tools  of  the  CAP  that  promote  the  specific 
economic and social objectives that are listed in Article 39 TFEU, namely the availability 
of food at prices that ensure the livelihood of producers and that consumers can afford. 

14 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj. 
15  Article  90a  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1308/2013,  as  amended  by  Regulation  (EU)  2021/2117.  possible 
fraudulent or deceptive practices. 
16 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2007/1234/oj. 
17 https://europa.eu/!cB33ft. 
18 https://europa.eu/!xr49HM. 

9 

 
                                                 
However,  the  strength  of  marketing  rules  to  create  stability  and  predictability  by 
specifying  requirements  and  laying  down  standards  for  the  marketing  of  products  can 
diminish when the market evolves and new needs arise due to e.g. technological change, 
new  marketing  strategies  or  evolving  consumer  preferences  (SWD  2020).  Outdated 
standards may impede innovation or fail consumer expectations. In such circumstances, 
marketing  standards  require  adaptation.  The  current  marketing  standards  are  more  than 
ten years old (depending on the sector). Over the last decade, agricultural markets have 
evolved  significantly,  driven  by  innovation  but  also  changing  societal  concerns  and 
consumer  demand.  The  marketing  standards  that  do  not  reflect  these  changes  are  of 
reduced relevance. 

The  necessity  to  transition  to  a  fair,  healthy  and  environmentally  friendly  sustainable 
food system has increasingly become apparent.  While sustainability concerns are often 
addressed in dedicated legislation, such as animal welfare, nutrition or public health, the 
potential  of  marketing  standards  to  contribute  to  sustainability  objectives  is  inherent. 
Requirements  under  marketing  standards  can 
into  specific  product 
characteristics, including specific production practices, or attributes that can contribute to 
the wider context  in  which they operate. Marketing standards can therefore support the 
transition of actors along the food chain and nudge consumers to make more sustainable 
choices. The F2F therefore foresees a revision of EU marketing standards to provide for 
the uptake and supply of sustainable products and to reinforce the role of sustainability 
criteria  (action  18  of  the  F2F’s  Annex).  This  concerns  stakeholders’  behaviours 
throughout  the  food  system.  The  current  marketing  standards  insufficiently  integrate 
sustainability  concerns  and  their  potential  role  to  support  the  transition  to  sustainable 
food systems is thereby hampered. 

translate 

For instance, there is scope for marketing standards to better support diets that are more 
environmentally-friendly,  healthier  and  that  better  promote  animal  welfare  and  thereby 
even  if  done  in  a  targeted  and  incremental  way  contribute  to  the  overarching 
sustainability objectives as laid down in the Green Deal and F2F communications. 

In preparation of this impact assessment, the Commission services organised a workshop 
on  ‘Megatrends  Analysis  for  the  Impact  Assessment:  How  to  ensure  quality  and 
sustainability  in  the  food  supply  chain  in  future  what  role  for  marketing  standards’?  It 
took  place on 27 October 2021 with  participants  from  DG  AGRI, DG SANTE and the 
JRC  who  mapped  relevant  megatrends19;  the  most  relevant  megatrends  were  climate 
change  and  environmental  degradation,  growing  consumerism,  shifting  health 
challenges, aggravating resource scarcity, and accelerating technological change (Annex 
8). 

The specific problems pertaining to the major individual revisions under the agricultural 
marketing standards are detailed in Section 10. 

The need to adapt the existing Commission regulations that govern marketing standards 
to  the  Lisbon  Treaty  (separation  into  implementing  and  delegated  Commission 
regulations)  has  been  discussed  above  (political  and  legal  context).  It  is  a  technical 
adaptation  obligation  that  does  not  leave  room  for  political  choices.  In  and  of  itself  it 
does  not  have  economic  or  social  consequences  and  is,  therefore,  not  specifically 
discussed in the impact assessment. 

19 https://europa.eu/!cP98vD 

10 

 
                                                 
2.2.  What are the problem drivers? 

This  Section  gives  a  general  idea  of  the  drivers  that  suggest  a  need  for  adaptation  of 
marketing  standards.  Having  said  this,  the  drivers  relating  to  the  concrete  ideas  for 
revisions of individual standards tend to be product-specific and are therefore covered at 
their respective level of specificity in Section 10. 

In  the  eyes  of  consumers,  attributes  of  food  do  not  only  encompass  intrinsic 
characteristics  of  food  but  may  also  pertain  to  methods  of  production.  The  latter 
characteristics  cannot  be  readily  ascertained  by  simple  visual  inspection  at  the  time  of 
purchase. Consumers are therefore unable to assess claims made by producers regarding 
such  intangible  attributes,  which  increases  the  asymmetry  of  information  between 
producers  and  consumers  (Figure  1).  The  ensuing  trust  problems  can  lead  to  market 
failures  because  producers  might  falsely  advertise  desirable  attributes  or  neglect  to 
inform  consumers  about  undesirable  ones.  Lack  of  trust  regarding  these  so-called 
‘credence’  attributes  leads  to  an  adverse  selection  problem  where  consumers  distrust 
claims  and  are  unwilling  to  pay  the  premium  that  would  be  necessary  to  compensate 
producers  for  their  extra  costs.  Rules  on  misleading  labelling  practices  can  and  do 
address  this  problem.  The  use  of  standards  can  further  facilitate  vertical  coordination 
between  producers  and  consumers  and  can  also  reduce  the  information  asymmetry  by 
guaranteeing  certain  characteristics  of  a  product  and  its  production  methods20.  The 
Commission’s  evaluation  of  marketing  standards  found  that  they  are  successful  in 
providing consumers with transparent information (SWD 2020). 

Specifying not only product characteristics but also production and distribution methods 
means  that  operators  who  innovate  on  existing  products,  production  and  distribution 
methods may run afoul of existing marketing standards. Therefore, once  set,  marketing 
standards ought to be subject to periodic revisions, where needed, so as to accommodate 
new technologies, marketing strategies and consumer preferences (SWD 2020). 

Marketing standards exist at different levels and in different forms there can be diverging 
national  standards  in  MSs,  international  standards  that  are  voluntary  or  implemented 
differently, or (where there are no public standards) a panoply of private standards, often 
developed by retailers and used in relation to producers. This might create a situation of 
information  overload  for  consumers.  Moreover,  such  discordance  can  lead  to  increased 
transaction  costs,  reduced  transparency  in  business-to-business  transactions,  and 
situations of unfair competition among operators in different MSs, thereby hampering the 
single market. 

Stakeholders generally appreciate the mandatory nature of EU marketing standards that 
are tailored to the specific needs of the single market, help achieve a more homogeneous 
level  of  consumer  protection,  set  sufficiently  strict  minimum  requirements  that  reduce 
‘gold plating’ of quality requirements by retailers, and create a more level playing field 
for  operators  across  MSs.  This  means  by  setting  minimum  harmonised  requirements 
whether for the quality of products or the use of ORTs EU marketing standards add value 
with  respect  to  national,  international  or  private  marketing  standards,  which  cannot 
ensure  the  same  level  of  coherence  and  consistency.  By  reducing  the  necessity  for 
operators  to  segment  the  market  via  their  own  standards,  EU  marketing  standards  also 

20 Rousset et al. (2015). Voluntary environmental and organic standards in agriculture. 
https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrw8fg0rr8x-en; Mancini (2019). Public and private food standards. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28642-2_4. 

11 

 
                                                 
contribute to a fairer allocation of value added among the different stages of the supply 
chain.  More  generally,  marketing  standards  can  induce  pro-competitive  effects  by 
stimulating  trade  and  more  competition  across  markets  (SWD  2020,  JRC  2022, 
Workshop 2021). 

Last but not least, discordance between marketing standards and other rules can develop 
over  time  and  can  be  addressed  by  adjustments  to  the  marketing  standards  (e.g. 
concerning the date marking of eggs for food safety, or exemptions in case of veterinary 
orders for organic standards). 

Figure 1 - Overview of problem drivers and consequences 

2.3.  How likely is the problem to persist? 

Outdated  marketing  standards  may  prevent  operators  in  the  food  supply  chain  from 
harnessing technological progress, making use of innovations in production or marketing, 
and addressing changing consumer demand. With time,  more operators in more sectors 
would  feel  these  limits.  As  national  standards  must  not  deviate  from  EU  marketing 
standards and private standards cannot deliver the same benefits as public standards, the 
only  way  to  accommodate  such  needs  in  the  food  supply  chain  is  to  review  the  EU 
marketing standards. 

The same is true, mutatis mutandis, concerning the demand for greater sustainability in 
the  way  our  food  systems  are  configured.  While  there  seems  to  currently  be  no 
universally agreed definition of what is a ‘sustainable food system’, approximations can 
serve as a working concept. A sustainable food system is a food system that delivers food 
security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental 
bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised. 
This means that it is profitable throughout (economic sustainability), it has broad-based 
benefits for society (social sustainability); and it has a positive or neutral impact on the 
natural environment (environmental sustainability).21 

Changing  consumer  demand  could  for  instance  mean  that  certain  elements  of  existing 
marketing  standards  might  have  come  to  constitute  obstacles  in  the  pursuit  of 
sustainability outcomes. Albeit the overall level of ambition for sustainability of the EU’s 

21  Nguyen  (2018).  Sustainable  food  systems:  Concept  and  framework.  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization, 
Rome. https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CA2079EN/. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
food  systems  will  also  (and  importantly)  be  determined  by  regulatory  action  in  policy 
areas other than marketing standards, the non-adaptation of the standards would impede 
their potential contribution to more sustainability and thereby could slow down the move 
to greater sustainability in the food supply chain. Alternatively, the introduction of a new 
standard  may  generate  the  enabling  conditions  for  greater  satisfaction  of  consumer 
demand and serve producers’ interest in  seeing their sustainability related efforts being 
remunerated. In other instances, trade-offs between the three pillars of sustainability, i.e. 
economic, environmental and social, may have to be arbitrated. 

Private standards often emerge when public marketing standards are lacking. This can be 
advantageous as private standards can be more nimble and targeted. On the other hand, a 
plethora  of  private  standards  across  MSs  can  confound  consumers  and  diminish  the 
advantages of the single market. This is true not least for private sustainability standards. 
In  the  public  consultation,  only  25%  of  respondents  believed  that  a  speedy  and 
comprehensive  uptake  and  supply  of  sustainable  agricultural  products  will  happen 
without a revision of EU marketing standards to address such aspects (Annex 2). 

For  producers,  an  ‘inflation’  of  sustainability  standards  can  also  mean  that  investments 
made to achieve the requirements of one standard may not be useful for the requirements 
of another standard, causing compliance costs to rise, and making switching buyers more 
costly22.  Moreover,  when  standards  are  linked  to  the  use  of  different  terms  or  labels, 
consumers  may  become  confused  by  too  much  information.  They  may  struggle  to 
compare products across schemes23. Finally, to  gain legitimacy, sustainability standards 
must have proﬁcient enforcement mechanisms; public enforcement is often more credible 
than private enforcement. Therefore, while measures taken at other levels may contribute 
to  bringing  more  sustainable  products  on  the  market,  they  would  be  less  effective  than 
actions taken at EU level. 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1.  Legal basis 

Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)  provides 
that the EP and the Council shall establish the provisions necessary for the pursuit of the 
objectives  of  the  CAP.  The  CMO  is  one  of  the  three  basic  acts  that  together  are  the 
founding  instruments  of  the  CAP.  It  contains  basic  provisions  on  marketing  standards. 
The  CMO  Regulation  has  been  subject  to  the  recent  CAP  reform  (2021)  including  its 
section on marketing standards. The Commission will, as part of the current revision, not 
propose to ‘re-open’ the CMO. 

The  CMO  Regulation  confers  on  the  Commission  the  power  to  adopt  delegated  and 
implementing acts, that is to say Commission-level regulations, inter alia to further lay 
down marketing standards for agricultural products (Articles 75-77, 86-88, 91, 227). 

22  Prag  (2016).  Environmental  labelling  and  information  schemes.  https://www.oecd.org/env/labelling-and-
information-schemes.htm. 
23  Drugova  et  al.  (2020).  Are  multiple 
labels  on  food  products  beneficial  or  simply  ignored? 
https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12259;  Giner  &  Brooks  (2019). Policies  for  encouraging  healthier  food  choices. 
https://doi.org/10.1787/11a42b51-en; Strom (2017). What to make of those animal-welfare labels on meat and 
eggs.  https://nyti.ms/2jSaSi2;  Brécard  (2014).  Consumer  confusion  over  the  profusion  of  eco-labels. 
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2013.10.002. 

13 

 
                                                 
In the 2021 reform, basic rules on marketing standards remained untouched. As a result, 
the  scope,  content,  main  empowerments  and  additional  requirements  for  most  of  the 
sectors (e.g. F&V) were kept unaltered. The main modifications may be summarised as 
follows: 

  Production methods and sustainability in the supply chain were added to the elements 
that  the  Commission  should  take  into  account  while  adopting  delegated  acts  on  the 
reservation, amendment and cancellation of ORTs. 

  A  new  provision  is  inserted  on  checks  and  penalties,  whereby  MSs  shall  carry  out 
checks, based on a risk analysis, in order to verify whether the products referred to in 
Article 1(2)  conform  to  the  EU  marketing  standards  and  shall  apply  adequate, 
proportionate and dissuasive administrative penalties. 

  Sector  specific  modifications  were  introduced  for  wine  grape  varieties  and  sectoral 

aspects on the import of wine, which are not covered by the present report. 

Marketing  standards  are  also  contained  in  the  so  called  ‘Breakfast’  Directives.  The 
Directives  are  basic  acts  adopted  by  the  EP  and  the  Council.  The  Directives  contain 
certain powers for the Commission to adopt delegated acts (for changing the Directives’ 
annexes). The legal bases for the revision of the EU marketing standards for agricultural 
products are listed in more detail in Annex 5. 

3.2. 

Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 

EU  legislation  on  marketing  standards  for  agricultural  products  had  for  many  products 
replaced  heterogeneous  pre-existing  national  standards  and  thus  contributed  to  a  level 
playing field for producers across the EU. Harmonised standards are trade-creating and 
promote food security  as they  allow diversification of supplies and increased resilience 
and redundancy. In the absence of EU standards, MSs could apply different rules or no 
rules at all, which would detract from the good functioning of the single market. The ECJ 
has early on adopted judgments that addressed challenges for the single market that arose 
from  diverging  national  product-related  rules.  The  reliance  on  case-law  is  however 
second best to predictable uniform rules, also because exceptions are legally possible, in 
particular  for  consumer  protection  which  has  been  recognised  as  a  ‘mandatory 
requirement’  on  the  basis  of  which  MSs  can  introduce  national  rules.24  While  private 
standards could fill the void to some extent, they would likely differ across operators and 
at the national level, and therefore imply higher transaction costs for trade. 

Short  of  EU  measures,  MSs  lack  coordinative  mechanisms  to  bring  about  a 
harmonisation of marketing standards, nor do they have obvious incentives to self-align. 
From this follows the added value of EU legislation that ensures a consistent and up-to-
date set of marketing standards for the relevant agricultural products across the EU. This 
assessment is also supported by the results of the public consultation: respondents saw a 
key role for the EU in regulating marketing standards (Annex 2). A well-regulated sector 
is  less  susceptible  to  cause  hindrances  for  consumers  and  business  stakeholders  that 
would invite national  measures.  National  competent authorities generally deem  that the 
objectives  of  EU  marketing  standards  respond  to  the  originally  identified  needs, 
problems and issues (Evaluation study 2019). 

24 See for instance, ECJ judgment of 10 January 2006, C-147/04, De Groot en Slot Allium, paras 74 ss. 

14 

 
                                                 
Current marketing standards for agricultural products are set in  existing EU legislation. 
Therefore, by their nature, their revision can only be addressed through EU action. 

3.3. 

Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

Marketing  standards  have  been  a  feature  of  EU  agricultural  and  food  policy  since  the 
early days of the CAP (Evaluation  study 2019), with EU standards for many sectors or 
products going back to the 1970s or even to the early 1960s25. Already then, the purpose 
of  marketing  standards  was  to  keep  products  of  insufficient  quality  off  the  market,  to 
bring production in line with the expectation of consumers, and to facilitate trade within 
the  common  market  based  on  fair  trade  and  common  rules26.  International  marketing 
standards  date  back  even  further,  to  the  early  1950s27.  This  long  history  of  marketing 
standards  at  the  international  level  is  indicative  of  their  value  for  trade  and  it  also 
indicates  that  in  many  cases  individual  countries  cannot  sufficiently  address  the  issue 
through national standards. 

The recent external evaluation support study on EU marketing standards for agricultural 
products concluded that current standards have generally been effective in achieving their 
intended  objectives  but  failed  to  address  new  needs,  problems  and  issues  that  emerged 
after the setting of the current standards (Evaluation study 2019); it also did not address 
sustainability  issues  to  any  larger  extent  (Section  4.2.3).  To  ensure  that  EU  marketing 
standards  continue  to  provide  the  benefits  that  operators  in  the  food  supply  chain  and 
national  competent  authorities  have  confirmed  they  can  provide,  the  current  standards 
need  to  be  updated,  i.e.  action  at  EU  level  is  required  to  ensure  a  consistent  set  of 
marketing standards for relevant agricultural products across the EU that addresses also 
new needs, problems and issues. The external evaluation support study also identified a 
number  of  potential  advantages  of  establishing  EU  marketing  standards  for  sectors  or 
products that are currently not covered. These include better consumer protection through 
more  homogeneous  product  information,  fairer  and  more  equal  treatment  of  producers 
across  MSs,  easier  intra-EU  trade,  better  valorisation  of  the  underlying  agricultural 
products,  and  greater  coherence  of  the  regulatory  framework  for  production  and 
marketing  across  the  EU.  Moreover,  EU  marketing  standards  provide  a  level  playing 
field also for trade with third countries. 

The evaluation also found that EU marketing standards provide significant added value 
compared to international and private marketing standards because they (i) are mandatory 
and  the  requirements  must  be  complied  with  across  the  EU,  (ii)  are  tailored  to  the 
specific operational and market situation of the EU, and (iii) for many products impose 
more demanding quality requirements (SWD 2020). Moreover, and crucially, addressing 

25 Regulation No 136/66/EEC on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats, 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/1966/136/oj; or Regulation No 158/66/EEC on the application of quality standards 
for F&V marketed within the Community, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/1966/158/oj. 
26  Règlement  n°  158/66/CEE  concernant  l'application  des  normes  de  qualité  aux  fruits  et  légumes 
commercialisés (http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/1966/158/oj). 
27 ‘In 1951 an international convention on the naming and composition requirements of particular varieties of 
cheese  was  signed  in  the  Italian  city  of  Stresa.  The  Committee  on  Inland  Transport  of  the  United  Nations 
Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) initiated work to provide quality standards for fresh F&V moving in 
trade in Europe, with the objective of preventing disputes over the handling of these products during transport. 
These standards were to form the basis for the current work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission on quality 
requirements 
the  world’ 
(http://www.fao.org/3/v7700t/v7700t09.htm). 

F&V  moving 

anywhere 

tropical 

trade 

fresh 

for 

in 

in 

15 

 
                                                 
problems stemming from existing EU legislation can by their nature only be achieved at 
EU level. 

And  indeed,  in  the  public  consultation  for  the  recent  evaluation  of  EU  marketing 
standards,  respondents  confirmed  that  EU  marketing  standards  contribute  to  supplying 
the  market  with  products  of  a  standardised  and  satisfactory  quality,  improving  the 
conditions  for  production  and  marketing  and  creating  a  level-playing  field,  providing 
adequate  and  transparent  information  to  consumers,  and  providing  the  purchaser  with 
value  for  money  (OPC  2019).  Similarly,  in  the  public  consultation  for  the  current 
revision of EU marketing standards, respondents stated that achieving the objectives of 
the revision can best be done at the EU level, and almost two thirds of the respondents 
think that this is best done via solutions that resort to compulsory legislation (Annex 2), 
thus supporting a legislative approach at the EU level. 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

4.1.  General objectives 

The  CMO  Regulation  itself  contains  in  its  recitals  several  indications  of  the  policy 
objectives of marketing standards. The latter are: ‘to take into account the expectations of 
consumers  and  to  contribute  to  the  improvement  of  the  economic  conditions  for  the 
production  and  marketing  of  agricultural  products  and  their  quality’  (recital  65).  They 
may  be  revised  ‘to  take  account  of  the  expectations  of  consumers  and  to  improve  the 
economic  conditions  for  the  production  and  marketing  as  well  as  the  quality  of  certain 
agricultural  products,  and  in  order  to  adapt  to  constantly  changing  market  conditions, 
evolving  consumer demands, and developments  in  relevant  international  standards,  and 
in  order  to  avoid  creating  obstacles  to  product  innovation’  (recital  70).  They  should 
furthermore ‘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,  production  method,  conservation, 
storage,  transport,  related  administrative  documents,  certification  and  time  limits, 
restrictions of use and disposal’ (recital 71). 

The general objective of this revision is to modernise and update EU marketing standards 
for agricultural products to ensure the provision of quality products and a level playing 
field across the single market (Table 1). This particularly contributes to the Treaty goal 
of  ensuring  the  rational  development  of  agricultural  production.  The  modernisation  is 
also driven by the need identified in the F2F to stimulate sustainable practices along the 
supply  chain  and  promote  sustainable  food  consumption,  by  the  need  to  address  new 
needs  of  operators  and  consumers,  by  the  requirements  of  the  REFIT  programme  to 
simplify and reduce the administrative burden, and by the obligation to bring the current 
EU marketing standards in line with the legal requirements of the Treaty of Lisbon. 

16 

 
Table 1 - Overview of problems and objectives 

Problems of MkSs 

  Absence of MkSs for some 

products prevents level playing 
field 

  Outdated MkSs compromise 

trust, transparency and innovation 

  MkSs often do not consider 

sustainability (as a dimension of 
product quality)  

Specific objectives  
  Align and simplify 

MkSs 

  Address new needs of 
stakeholders in the 
MkSs 
Integrate more 
sustainability aspects 
in MkSs 

 

General objective 

  Ensuring the 
provision of 
quality products 
and fair 
conditions of 
competition 
across the single 
market 

Note: For a chart with the full intervention logic, see Annex 7. 

4.2. 

Specific objectives 

While  specific  objectives  are  outlined  below  and  included  in  Table  1  above,  further 
specifications  on  ways  to  achieve  and  measure  them  and  what  would  characterise 
successful outcomes can be found in sections on options and their impacts, as well as in 
the monitoring sections. Table 2 provides an overview of the specific objectives pursued 
under each of the individual initiatives presented in Section 10 and Annex 9. 

Table 2 - Overview of specific objectives pursued by individual initiatives 

/

g
n
i
n
i
l

m
a
e
r
t
S

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
l
p
m
i
s

g
n
i
s
s
e
r
d
d
A

s
d
e
e
n
w
e
n

e
c
r
o
f
n
i
e
R

y
t
i
l
i
b
a
n
i
a
t
s
u
s

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Horticultural products  

Definition of cider and 
perry (Section 10.1) 

Reduced-sugar 
juice (Section 10.2) 

fruit 

Added  sugar  in  jams 
& 
(Section 
10.3) 

jellies 

F&V 
Existing 
legislations  (Annex  9 
A.1) 

Origin 
exempted 
(Annex 9 A.2) 

labelling  of 
F&V 

Introduce  a  new  EU  standard  with  detailed  rules  for 
the  marketing  of  cider  and  perry, 
including  a 
definition of cider and of perry, and complemented by 
ORTs. 

Make  it  possible  for  fruit  juice  to  be  labelled  as 
having ‘reduced sugar’ content to target practices that 
can remove natural fruit sugar in the juice.  

Increase the required fruit content in jams and jellies. 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Merge  the  current  rules  of  F&V,  bananas  and  dried 
grapes where technically and legally possible.  

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Revise the current exemption for nuts, dried fruit and 
some minor products in the standard. 

‘Ready  to  eat’  F&V 
(Annex 9 A.3) 

Clarify the definition of products that have undergone 
trimming or cutting and obligation of origin labelling. 

‘Ugly’ F&V (Annex 9 
A.4) 

Bolster  derogations  to  the  marketing  standard  for 
F&V  insofar  as  products  with  cosmetic  defects  are 
concerned.  

‘Force 
majeure’ 
exemption  for  F&V 
(Annex 9 A.5) 

Include  a  temporary  exemption  to  the  application  of 
marketing  standard  for  F&V  in  cases  of  ‘force 
majeure’. 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Sugar 
in 
fruit nectar  (Annex  9 

content 

Adapt  the  nutritional  claims  regarding  sugar  content 
on the front-of-pack label for fruit juice and nectars so 

V 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/

g
n
i
n
i
l

m
a
e
r
t
S

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
l
p
m
i
s

g
n
i
s
s
e
r
d
d
A

s
d
e
e
n
w
e
n

e
c
r
o
f
n
i
e
R

y
t
i
l
i
b
a
n
i
a
t
s
u
s

A.6) 

as to reduce the risk of consumer confusion. 

the 

term 
Use  of 
‘marmalade’ (Annex 9 
A.7) 

Animal products  

Authorise 
designate jam. 

the  use  of 

the  term  ‘marmalade’  to 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Origin 
of 
blends (Section 10.4) 

honey 

Require  the  labelling  of  the  country  of  origin  for  the 
blends of honeys.  

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Liver  weight  for  foie 
gras (Section 10.5) 

of 

Use 
areas (Annex 9 B.1)  

free-range 

Egg 
standards  & 
organic  rules  (Annex 
9 B.2) 

Minimum 
durability 
of eggs (Annex 9 B.3) 

Marking 
of 
(Annex 9 B.4) 

eggs 

ORTs  for  poultrymeat 
(Annex 9 B.5) 

content 

Water 
in 
poultrymeat  (Annex  9 
B.6) 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Maintain  the  existing  marketing  standard  unchanged, 
i.e. force-feeding to ensure the minimum liver weight 
will  remain  necessary,  but  consumers  will  not  be 
potentially misled.  

Amend  the  marketing  standard  to  authorise  solar 
panels  to  be  used  for  ‘free  range’  areas  where  this 
does  not  interfere  with  the  content  of  the  message  to 
of the optional reserved term used. 

Align egg  marketing standards  with rules for organic 
eggs. 

specific  provisions  on 

Abolish 
the  minimum 
durability  for  eggs,  hence  leaving  the  matter  to  EU 
horizontal  rules  on  date  marking  under  FIC  (to  be 
revised under F2F). 

Compulsory marking of eggs on farm as general rule; 
in  justified  cases,  the  legislation  could  allow  for  a 
derogation to the subsequent stage of the chain.  

Maintain  current  system  but  allow  flexibility  and 
make limited adjustments in the definition of the types 
of  production  system; 
terms 
indicating  other  types  of  production  systems  at 
national level should be allowed. 

the  use  of  other 

Maintain  the  current  limits  for  water  content  in 
poultrymeat  and  not  accommodate  the  increasing 
intrinsic  water  contained  in  birds  of  fast-growing 
poultry breeds by loosening the total water limit.  

Downgrading 
of 
poultrymeat  (Annex  9 
B.7) 

Clarify provisions on inspections to allow sorting out 
meat  with  visual  defects  without  downgrading  the 
whole batch. 

Definitions  of  poultry 
products 
(Annex  9 
B.8) 

ORTs 
other 
for 
animals (Annex 9 B.9) 

Introduce  the  necessary  definitions  following  closely 
the corresponding definitions for chicken meat of the 
United  Nations  Economic  Commission  for  Europe 
(UNECE). 

Do not introduce ORTs for animals other than poultry 
as  there  is,  at  this  stage,  no  need  or  EU  added  value 
for  a  specific  marketing  standard  to  regulate  such 
ORTs. 

Arable crops and olive oil 

Sales  in  bulk  of  olive 
oil (Annex 9 C.1) 

Allow MSs to adopt national rules for the bulk sale of 
olive  oil  under  strict  conditions  that  guarantee  safety 
and quality. 

Plant-based 
preparations  (Annex 9 
C.2) 

Keep  the  status  quo  as  the  co-legislator  had  already 
extensive discussions on that topic during the process 
of  amending  the  CMO  Regulation  and  decided  to 

18 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/

g
n
i
n
i
l

m
a
e
r
t
S

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
l
p
m
i
s

g
n
i
s
s
e
r
d
d
A

s
d
e
e
n
w
e
n

e
c
r
o
f
n
i
e
R

y
t
i
l
i
b
a
n
i
a
t
s
u
s

keep the status quo. 

Origin 
(Annex 9 C.3) 

of 

pulses 

Require  the  labelling  of  the  country  of  origin  of 
pulses.  

Ѵ 

Ѵ 

4.2.1.  Streamline and simplify EU marketing standards 

The revision must align the current standards with the requirements of the Lisbon Treaty; 
this  is  less  of  an  objective  than  an  obligation.  The  revision  will  also  look  into  the 
potential  to  simplify  the  existing  legislation  by  consolidating  rules  into  less  numerous 
Commission  acts.  There  are  certain  constraints  concerning  simplification  according  to 
the  national  competent  authorities  that  were  surveyed  in  the  recent  external  evaluation 
support  study  on  EU  marketing  standards  for  agricultural  products  (Evaluation  study 
2019, pp. 11, 201). 

Link with the general objective: Bringing current EU marketing standards for agricultural 
products  in  line  with  the  requirements  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty  is  part  of  current  legal 
obligations. 

4.2.2.  Address new needs of stakeholders 

The  recent  evaluation  of  EU  marketing  standards  for  agricultural  products  found  that 
some  existing  standards  may  not  or  no  longer  sufficiently  accommodate  changes  in 
technology, marketing strategies and consumer preferences (SWD 2020). This need has 
also been confirmed in the public consultation where respondents supported the revision 
of  the  standards  for  the  various  products  to  take  into  account  evolving  consumer 
preferences, technological change and new production methods (Annex 2). Therefore, the 
revision  of  EU  marketing  standards  for  agricultural  products  should  take  the  need  for 
such changes into account and thus avoid having a negative effect on innovation. By the 
same token, the effect of changes on sustainability in all its dimensions should be duly 
taken into account (see next objective). 

Link  with  the  general  objective:  Revising  the  standards  to  take  into  account  new 
developments  (that  can  affect  competition)  means  they  can  be  modernised  to  reflect 
current  needs  and  (quality)  expectations  of  stakeholders  to  ensure  the  continued 
provision of quality products and condition of fair competition among operators. 

4.2.3.  Add more sustainability criteria 

In  the  recent  evaluation  of  EU  marketing  standards  for  agricultural  products,  the  only 
link  between  the  standards  and  sustainability  that  was  addressed  was  in  the  context  of 
food waste; the  external  evaluation  support study  did not  find  conclusive evidence that 
marketing standards would contribute to increased food waste (Evaluation  study  2019). 
However, since then the Commission published its F2F that proposes to review the EU 
marketing  standards  for  agricultural  products  with  a  view  to  ensuring  the  uptake  and 
supply of sustainable products and reinforcing sustainability criteria. Therefore, one of the 
specific objectives of the current initiative is to capture the effects of this new sustainable 
food  ambition,  to  try  to  fill  the  analytical  gap  left  open  by  the  recent  evaluation,  to 
identify  which  marketing  standards  can  be  accordingly  adapted  now,  and  to  address 
where pertinent relevant sustainability issues through EU marketing standards. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Link with the general objective:  Including sustainability criteria in marketing standards, 
in particular concerning production and distribution methods, can lead to enhancing the 
offer of quality products (as defined for consumer also by reference to their production 
and  distribution  methods)  and  promote,  in  this  respect,  a  level  playing  field,  while 
contributing to the overall transition towards more sustainable food systems as envisaged 
by the F2F. 

4.2.4.  Why  certain  marketing  standards  are  planned  to  be  revised  while 

others not 

Against the backdrop of  the wide range of EU  marketing standards  laid  down for  each 
product  and/or  sector,  this  Impact  Assessment  envisages  the  revision  (in  substance)  of 
certain marketing standards only. 

Generally  speaking,  the  drivers  that  led  the  Commission  to  envisage  a  change  in  the 
status  quo  of  certain  marketing  standards  are  linked  to  one  or  more  of  the  following 
considerations:  the  need  to  adjust  certain  marketing  standards  to  technological 
development and innovation; the margin to simplify complex rules and/or reunite several 
separate  acts;  the  possibility  to  enhance  sustainability;  a  widespread  concern  or  push 
from operators or civil society, as expressed in the OPC; the inputs received by Member 
States  during  their  consultation;  the  experience  gathered  in  the  Evaluation  2019  and  in 
the Workshop 2021; the aim to enhance consistency with other EU policies. 

More  specifically,  the  reasons  for  modifying  certain  marketing  standards  are  described 
under the relevant points of Section 10 and Annex 9. 

As regards  the absence of an approach to  revise all marketing standards  in  general, the 
following considerations apply. 

In  the  Evaluation  2019,  it  was  concluded  that  there  were  no  significant  limitations  in 
terms of effectiveness, no significant potential for simplification, no significant issues in 
terms  of  relevance  or  coherence  for  the  existing  marketing  standard  for  chocolate 
(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)  and  coffee 
(Directive  1999/4/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  February 
1999 relating to coffee extracts and chicory extracts). Also, the open public consultation 
did not bring suggestions for improvement from stakeholders, including in particular as 
regards sustainability or simplification, nor did Member States raised difficulties with the 
current  specifications.  Therefore,  the  Commission  does  not  intend  to  revise  these 
standards. 

As  regards  hops,  there  are  no  marketing  standards  for  hops  as  such,  only  minimum 
marketing  requirements  and  quality  characteristics  of  hops  and  hop  products.  These 
requirements  are  currently  being  examined  with  Member  States  experts  as  part  of  a 
modernisation  exercise  of  the  legislation  concerning  hops,  including  also  imports  and 
controls. Therefore, hops was not included in this Impact Assessment. 

Marketing  standards  for  other  products28,  such  as  for  bovine  meat,  bananas,  milk  and 
milk  products  or  wine  function  well.  Moreover,  the  open  public  consultation  did  not 
bring  suggestions  for  improvement  from  stakeholders  nor  did  Member  States  raised 

28 See Annex 5 for a full list of legal bases and legislation for marketing standards. 

20 

 
                                                 
difficulties  with  the  current  system.  Consequently,  the  Commission  does  not  intend  to 
amend the relevant legislations. 

4.3.  Consistency with other EU policies 

The  public  consultation  for  the  recent  evaluation  of  EU  marketing  standards  for 
agricultural  products  found  that  respondents  agreed  that  the  current  EU  standards  are 
consistent with other EU policies, such as EU rules of food safety, on food information to 
consumers, on geographical indications, and on organic products (OPC 2019). This is in 
line with the marketing standard policy’s complementary objectives against the backdrop 
of the listed policies. Modernising and simplifying the standards is not expected to affect 
this basic relationship of consistency. 

By  reinforcing  sustainability  criteria,  the  revision  can  contribute  to  the  other  actions 
under  F2F  and  Europe’s  Beating  Cancer  Plan29,  which  aim  to  promote  more 
sustainability  and  healthy  diets.  Having  said  this,  integrating  environmental  and  social 
sustainability  elements  in  marketing  standards  can  imply,  in  certain  instances,  overlaps 
with  dedicated  legislation  or  trade-offs  between  the  three  pillars  of  sustainability 
(economic,  environmental  and  social).  These  instances  are  specifically  discussed  in 
relation to the sectoral changes that are considered, as well as in relation to the economic, 
social and environmental impacts. 

To  ensure  consistency  with  other  EU  policies  can  be  challenging  where  choices  under 
other policies will be made subsequent to the revision of the marketing standards (see the 
proposal for a legislative framework for sustainable food systems under  Action 1 of the 
F2F). Having said this, changes considered in this impact assessment focus on revisions 
that appear, at  this  juncture, relevant  and proportionate to  achieve incremental progress 
on  sustainability  and  contribute  at  the  same  time  to  the  overall  sustainability  transition 
envisaged by the forthcoming legislative framework for sustainable food systems. What 
is more, they have, more often than not, a technical dimension that subsequent horizontal 
approaches  are  unlikely  to  have.  Nevertheless,  the  sequencing  of  the  F2F  actions 
suggests that further adaptations to marketing standards cannot be excluded if they prove 
necessary  to  align  to  forthcoming  sustainability  principles,  objectives,  definitions  and 
responsibilities  contained  in  horizontal  legislative  framework  for  sustainable  food 
systems. 

The  Commission  is  committed  to  high  standards  of  fundamental  rights.  The  revision 
respects  the  rights  enshrined  in  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European 
Union  (Articles  51,  52)30;  an  effective  system  of  EU  marketing  standards  will  in 
particular contribute to stakeholders’ ability to conduct a business on a level playing field 
across the single market (Article 16). 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

Given  the  heterogeneous  nature  of  the  different  individual  revisions,  which  cover 
different  marketing  standards  for  different  products  in  different  sectors,  there  are  no 
general  options  for  the  overall  initiative  that  would  cover  the  possibilities  of  each 
individual revision in a comprehensive way and map a sufficiently concrete and realistic 
decision  space  for  policy  makers.  The  options  of  each  of  the  individual  revision  to 

29 https://ec.europa.eu/health/system/files/2021-02/eu_cancer-plan_en_0.pdf. 
30 http://data.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj. 

21 

 
                                                 
achieve  the  objectives  are  therefore  described  in  the  assessments  of  each  of  the 
significant  revisions (Section 10). Planned  revisions of marketing standards  that do not 
necessitate a full-fledged impact assessment as per the Commission’s Better Regulation 
Framework are presented in Annex 9. 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

The revision of EU marketing standards for agricultural products actually covers a series 
of  individual  revisions  of  separate  standards  for  different  products  in  different  sectors. 
While generally unrelated and independent from each other, they are rooted in the same 
principles of the marketing standards policy. The impacts that can be addressed at a more 
general level are discussed here. 

What is common to all of the revisions is that the underlying quantitative evidence may 
be characterised as limited as ‘the academic literature on marketing standards is scarce’ 
(JRC  2022,  p.  6).  Unfortunately,  neither  the  external  evaluation  support  study 
(Evaluation  study  2019),  nor  the  evaluation  (SWD  2020),  nor  the  public  consultation 
(Annex  2),  nor  the  targeted  consultation  of  MSs  (Annex  2),  nor  the  JRC  workshop 
(Workshop  2021),  nor  ad  hoc  consultations  with  stakeholders  allowed  to  fully  map  the 
situation  in  terms  of  concrete  quantitative  information  on  costs  and  benefits.  (Annex  4 
describes the methods used to address this dearth of hard data and explains the key role 
of  targeted  consultations  and  the  use  of  expertise  within  the Commission  used  to  close 
that  gap.)  This  being  said,  stakeholders,  including  consumers,  generally  expect  that  the 
benefits  of  a  revision  of  marketing  standards  outweigh  the  costs,  and  also  qualitative 
information can be relied on while factoring in its limitations. 

6.1.  Likely impact in terms of contributions to the SDGs 

As  the  JRC  workshop  has  shown  (Workshop  2021),  and  as  the  likely  economic,  social 
and environmental impacts discussed below show, revising marketing standards can help 
achieve  several  Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDG31).  In  particular,  such  a  revision 
can: 

  contribute to food security, nutrition and sustainable agriculture (SDG2); 
  Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages (SDG3); 
  build confidence and create market opportunities (SDG8); 
  define a common ‘language’ for all participants in a supply chain (SDG8); 
  facilitate business transactions through given quality requirements (SDG8); 
  develop markets and facilitate market access (SDG8), e.g. by granting farmers in least 

developed countries access to the EU market; 

  increase profitability of producers (SDG8); 
  help reduce food loss and waste and use natural resources efficiently (SDG12); 
  lower greenhouse gas emissions without threatening food production (SDG13); 
  contribute to biodiversity protection (SDG15). 

31 https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313. 

22 

 
                                                 
6.2.  Likely impacts on fundamental rights 

All policy options respect the fundamental rights and observe the principles recognised in 
particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Further impacts 
on fundamental rights are not anticipated under any of the options. 

6.3.  Likely impacts on digitalisation 

DG  AGRI  discussed  the  initiative  with  DG  DIGIT  and  verified  that  there  is  no  major 
digital impact of the initiative and no need for new systems, IT standards, databases, or 
communications tools32. This confirmed the findings of the technical workshop that did 
not  identify  any  significant  impact  of  digitalisation  on  marketing  standards  as  such 
(Workshop 2021). 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

Given  the  heterogeneous  nature  of  the  different  individual  revisions,  which  cover 
different  marketing  standards  for  different  products  in  different  sectors,  there  are  no 
general  options  for  the  overall  initiative  that  would  cover  the  possibilities  of  each 
individual revision in a comprehensive way and map a sufficiently concrete and realistic 
decision space for policy-makers. The comparison of the different options for each of the 
individual  significant  planned  revisions  are  therefore  described  in  detail  in  the 
assessments of each of these revisions (Section 10). 

Nevertheless,  the  effectiveness  of  the  different  initiatives  in  achieving  the  specific 
objectives referred to in point 4.2 is presented in the following Table 3: 

Table 3 - Mapping of the achievement of the specific objectives 

Horticultural products  

/

g
n
i
n
i
l

m
a
e
r
t
S

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
l
p
m
i
s

g
n
i
s
s
e
r
d
d
A

s
d
e
e
n
w
e
n

e
c
r
o
f
n
i
e
R

y
t
i
l
i
b
a
n
i
a
t
s
u
s

Definition of cider 
and perry 
(Section 10.1) 

Reduced-sugar fruit 
juice 
(Section 10.2) 

Added sugar in jams 
& jellies 
(Section 10.3) 

Existing F&V 
legislations 
(Annex 9 A.1) 

Origin labelling of 
exempted F&V 
(Annex 9 A.2) 

Introduce a new EU standard with detailed rules for 
the  marketing  of  cider  and  perry,  including  a 
definition of cider and of perry, and complemented 
by ORTs. 

Make  it  possible  for  fruit  juice  to  be  labelled  as 
having  ‘reduced  sugar’  content  to  target  practices 
that can remove natural fruit sugar in the juice.  

Increase  the  required  fruit  content  in  jams  and 
jellies. 

– 

– 

0 

Merge the current rules of F&V, bananas and dried 
grapes where technically and legally possible.  

++ 

Revise  the  current  exemption  for  nuts,  dried  fruit 
and some minor products in the standard. 

– 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

0 

+ 

+ 

+ 

32 24 November 2021: Online  meeting between DG  AGRI.G1, DG DIGIT.01 and DG DIGIT.D2 to discuss 
the possible digitisation dimension of the revision of EU marketing standards for agricultural products. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
‘Ready to eat’ F&V 
(Annex 9 A.3) 

‘Ugly’ F&V 
(Annex 9 A.4) 

the  definition  of  products 

Clarify 
that  have 
undergone  trimming  or  cutting  and  obligation  of 
origin labelling. 

Bolster  derogations  to  the  marketing  standard  for 
F&V insofar as products with cosmetic defects are 
concerned.  

‘Force majeure’ 
exemption for F&V 
(Annex 9 A.5) 

Include  a  temporary  exemption  to  the  application 
of  marketing  standard  for  F&V  in  cases  of  ‘force 
majeure’. 

Sugar content in fruit 
nectar 
(Annex 9 A.6) 

Use of the term 
‘marmalade’ 
(Annex 9 A.7) 

Animal products  

Origin of honey 
blends 
(Section 10.4) 

Liver weight for foie 
gras 
(Section 10.5) 

Use of free-range 
areas 
(Annex 9 B.1)  

Egg standards & 
organic rules 
(Annex 9 B.2) 

Minimum durability 
of eggs 
(Annex 9 B.3) 

Marking of eggs 
(Annex 9 B.4) 

ORTs for poultrymeat 
(Annex 9 B.5) 

Water content in 
poultrymeat 
(Annex 9 B.6) 

the  nutritional  claims  regarding  sugar 
Adapt 
content on the front-of-pack label for fruit juice and 
nectars  so  as  to  reduce  the  risk  of  consumer 
confusion. 

Authorise  the  use  of  the  term  ‘marmalade’  to 
designate jam. 

Require  the  labelling  of  the  country  of  origin  for 
the blends of honeys.  

the 

standard 
existing  marketing 
Maintain 
unchanged, 
the 
force-feeding 
minimum  liver  weight  will  remain  necessary,  but 
consumers will not be potentially misled.  

to  ensure 

i.e. 

Amend  the  marketing  standard  to  authorise  solar 
panels to be used for ‘free range’ areas  where this 
does  not  interfere  with  the  content  of  the  message 
to of the optional reserved term used. 

Align  egg  marketing  standards  with  rules  for 
organic eggs. 

Abolish  specific  provisions  on 
the  minimum 
durability for eggs, hence leaving the matter to EU 
horizontal  rules  on  date  marking  under  FIC  (to  be 
revised under F2F). 

Compulsory  marking  of  eggs  on  farm  as  general 
rule;  in  justified  cases,  the  legislation  could  allow 
for  a  derogation  to  the  subsequent  stage  of  the 
chain.  

Maintain  current  system  but  allow  flexibility  and 
make  limited  adjustments  in  the  definition  of  the 
types of production system; the use  of other terms 
indicating  other  types  of  production  systems  at 
national level should be allowed. 

Maintain  the  current  limits  for  water  content  in 
poultrymeat  and  not  accommodate  the  increasing 
intrinsic  water  contained  in  birds  of  fast-growing 
poultry breeds by loosening the total water limit.  

Downgrading of 
poultrymeat 
(Annex 9 B.7) 

Clarify  provisions  on  inspections  to  allow  sorting 
out  meat  with  visual  defects  without  downgrading 
the whole batch. 

Definitions of poultry 

Introduce 

the  necessary  definitions  following 

24 

/

g
n
i
n
i
l

m
a
e
r
t
S

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
l
p
m
i
s

g
n
i
s
s
e
r
d
d
A

s
d
e
e
n
w
e
n

e
c
r
o
f
n
i
e
R

y
t
i
l
i
b
a
n
i
a
t
s
u
s

+ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

– 

– 

+ 

– 

– 

++ 

++ 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

0 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

– 

– 

0 

0 

– 

0 

0 

0 

+ 

– 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
products 
(Annex 9 B.8) 

ORTs for other 
animals 
(Annex 9 B.9) 

closely  the  corresponding  definitions  for  chicken 
meat of the United Nations Economic Commission 
for Europe (UNECE). 

Do  not  introduce  ORTs  for  animals  other  than 
poultry  as  there  is,  at  this  stage,  no  need  or  EU 
added  value  for  a  specific  marketing  standard  to 
regulate such ORTs. 

Arable crops and olive oil 

Sales in bulk of olive 
oil (Annex 9 C.1) 

Plant-based 
preparations (Annex 9 
C.2) 

Allow MSs to adopt national rules for the bulk sale 
of  olive  oil  under  strict  conditions  that  guarantee 
safety and quality. 

Keep the status quo as the co-legislator had already 
extensive  discussions  on  that  topic  during  the 
process  of  amending  the  CMO  Regulation  and 
decided to keep the status quo. 

/

g
n
i
n
i
l

m
a
e
r
t
S

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
l
p
m
i
s

g
n
i
s
s
e
r
d
d
A

s
d
e
e
n
w
e
n

e
c
r
o
f
n
i
e
R

y
t
i
l
i
b
a
n
i
a
t
s
u
s

0 

0 

+ 

0 

++ 

+ 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Origin of pulses 
(Annex 9 C.3) 

Require  the  labelling  of  the  country  of  origin  of 
pulses.  

– 

++ 

++ 

Note: –– very negative, – negative, 0 no change or marginal, + positive, ++ very positive 

As regards efficiency, Table 4 summarises, from a qualitative standpoint, the impacts of 
the preferred option for the revision of the various standards as referred to in Section 10 
and Annex 9: 

Table 4 - The costs-benefit impacts of the specific objectives given the revisions 

Costs 

Benefits 

Horticultural products  

Definition of cider 
and perry 
(Section 10.1) 

Reduced-sugar fruit 
juice 
(Section 10.2) 

Added sugar in jams 
& jellies 
(Section 10.3) 

Existing F&V 
legislations 
(Annex 9 A.1) 

Origin labelling of 
exempted F&V 
(Annex 9 A.2) 

‘Ready to eat’ F&V 
(Annex 9 A.3) 

‘Ugly’ F&V 
(Annex 9 A.4) 

Introduce a new EU standard with detailed rules for 
the  marketing  of  cider  and  perry,  including  a 
definition of cider and of perry, and complemented 
by ORTs. 

Make  it  possible  for  fruit  juice  to  be  labelled  as 
having  ‘reduced  sugar’  content  to  target  practices 
that can remove natural fruit sugar in the juice.  

Increase  the  required  fruit  content  in  jams  and 
jellies. 

Merge the current rules of F&V, bananas and dried 
grapes where technically and legally possible.  

Revise  the  current  exemption  for  nuts,  dried  fruit 
and some minor products in the standard. 

the  definition  of  products 

Clarify 
that  have 
undergone  trimming  or  cutting  and  obligation  of 
origin labelling. 

Bolster  derogations  to  the  marketing  standard  for 
F&V  insofar  as  products  with  cosmetic  defects  are 
concerned.  

‘Force majeure’ 
exemption for F&V 

Include a temporary exemption to the application of 
marketing  standard  for  F&V  in  cases  of  ‘force 

25 

+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

+ 

0 

0 

0 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Annex 9 A.5) 

majeure’. 

Sugar content in fruit 
nectar 
(Annex 9 A.6) 

Adapt the nutritional claims regarding sugar content 
on the front-of-pack label for fruit juice and nectars 
so as to reduce the risk of consumer confusion. 

Use of the term 
‘marmalade’ 
(Annex 9 A.7) 

Animal products  

Origin of honey 
blends 
(Section 10.4) 

Liver weight for foie 
gras 
(Section 10.5) 

Use of free-range 
areas 
(Annex 9 B.1)  

Egg standards & 
organic rules 
(Annex 9 B.2) 

Minimum durability 
of eggs 
(Annex 9 B.3) 

Marking of eggs 
(Annex 9 B.4) 

ORTs for poultrymeat 
(Annex 9 B.5) 

Water content in 
poultrymeat 
(Annex 9 B.6) 

Authorise  the  use  of  the  term  ‘marmalade’  to 
designate jam. 

Require the labelling of the country of origin for the 
blends of honeys.  

the 

standard 
existing  marketing 
Maintain 
unchanged, 
the 
force-feeding 
minimum  liver  weight  will  remain  necessary,  but 
consumers will not be potentially misled.  

to  ensure 

i.e. 

Amend  the  marketing  standard  to  authorise  solar 
panels  to  be  used  for  ‘free  range’  areas  where  this 
does not interfere with the content of the message to 
of the optional reserved term used. 

Align  egg  marketing  standards  with  rules  for 
organic eggs. 

Abolish  specific  provisions  on 
the  minimum 
durability  for eggs,  hence leaving the  matter to EU 
horizontal  rules  on  date  marking  under  FIC  (to  be 
revised under F2F). 

Compulsory  marking  of  eggs  on  farm  as  general 
rule;  in  justified  cases,  the  legislation  could  allow 
for  a  derogation  to  the  subsequent  stage  of  the 
chain.  

Maintain  current  system  but  allow  flexibility  and 
make  limited  adjustments  in  the  definition  of  the 
types  of  production  system;  the  use  of  other  terms 
indicating  other  types  of  production  systems  at 
national level should be allowed. 

Maintain  the  current  limits  for  water  content  in 
poultrymeat  and  not  accommodate  the  increasing 
intrinsic  water  contained  in  birds  of  fast-growing 
poultry breeds by loosening the total water limit.  

Downgrading of 
poultrymeat 
(Annex 9 B.7) 

Clarify  provisions  on  inspections  to  allow  sorting 
out  meat  with  visual  defects  without  downgrading 
the whole batch. 

Definitions of poultry 
products 
(Annex 9 B.8) 

ORTs for other 
animals  
(Annex 9 B.9) 

Introduce 
following 
the  necessary  definitions 
closely  the  corresponding  definitions  for  chicken 
meat  of  the  United  Nations  Economic  Commission 
for Europe (UNECE). 

Do  not  introduce  ORTs  for  animals  other  than 
poultry  as  there  is,  at  this  stage,  no  need  or  EU 
added  value  for  a  specific  marketing  standard  to 
regulate such ORTs. 

Arable crops and olive oil 

Sales  in  bulk  of  olive 
oil 
(Annex 9 C.1) 

Allow MSs to adopt national rules for the bulk sale 
of  olive  oil  under  strict  conditions  that  guarantee 
safety and quality. 

Costs 

Benefits 

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

n/a 

n/a 

+ 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

0 

+ 

Plant-based 

Keep the status quo as the co-legislator had already 

n/a 

n/a 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
preparations 
(Annex 9 C.2) 

extensive  discussions  on  that  topic  during  the 
process  of  amending  the  CMO  Regulation  and 
decided to keep the status quo. 

Origin 
(Annex 9 C.3) 

of 

pulses 

Require  the  labelling  of  the  country  of  origin  of 
pulses.  

+ 

+ 

Costs 

Benefits 

Overall net tendency 
Note: Where no monetary quantification was possible, impacts are provided in qualitative terms, 
indicating general trends (0 no or only negligible change, + medium, ++ high). 

+ (26) 

+ (9) 

Finally,  in  terms  of  coherence  with  other  policy  initiatives,  as  discussed  in  the  Staff 
Working  Document,  the  assessment  had  not  identified  cross-sectoral  unintended  or 
unexpected  effects.  This  is  not  altogether  surprising  as  marketing  standards  pursue 
objectives that are different from those underpinning other policy measures, such as for 
example EU health rules or animal welfare rules applying to agricultural products. Table 
5 summarises, from a qualitative standpoint, the coherence of the preferred options with 
overarching policies, based on the respective discussions for each revision in Section 10 
and Annex 9. 

Table 5 - Coherence of the policy options with overarching objectives of EU policies 

Green 
Deal 

Animal 
welfare 

FIC 

Horticultural products  

Definition of cider 
and perry 
(Section 10.1) 

Reduced-sugar fruit 
juice 
(Section 10.2) 

Added sugar in jams 
& jellies 
(Section 10.3) 

Existing F&V 
legislations 
(Annex 9 A.1) 

Origin labelling of 
exempted F&V 
(Annex 9 A.2) 

‘Ready to eat’ F&V 
(Annex 9 A.3) 

‘Ugly’ F&V 
(Annex 9 A.4) 

Introduce  a  new  EU  standard  with  detailed  rules 
for  the  marketing  of  cider  and  perry,  including  a 
definition of cider and of perry, and complemented 
by ORTs. 

Make  it  possible  for  fruit  juice  to  be  labelled  as 
having  ‘reduced  sugar’  content  to  target  practices 
that can remove natural fruit sugar in the juice.  

Increase  the  required  fruit  content  in  jams  and 
jellies. 

Merge the current rules of F&V, bananas and dried 
grapes where technically and legally possible.  

Revise  the  current  exemption  for  nuts,  dried  fruit 
and some minor products in the standard. 

the  definition  of  products 

Clarify 
that  have 
undergone  trimming  or  cutting  and  obligation  of 
origin labelling. 

Bolster  derogations  to  the  marketing  standard  for 
F&V insofar as products with cosmetic defects are 
concerned.  

‘Force majeure’ 
exemption for F&V 
(Annex 9 A.5) 

Include  a  temporary  exemption  to  the  application 
of  marketing  standard  for  F&V  in  cases  of  ‘force 
majeure’. 

Sugar content in fruit 
nectar 
(Annex 9 A.6) 

Adapt 
the  nutritional  claims  regarding  sugar 
content  on  the  front-of-pack  label  for  fruit  juice 
and  nectars  so  as  to  reduce  the  risk  of  consumer 
confusion. 

+ 

++ 

++ 

0 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

Use of the term 

Authorise  the  use  of  the  term  ‘marmalade’  to 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

++ 

++ 

0 

0 

++ 

+ 

0 

0 

+ 

++ 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
‘marmalade’ 
(Annex 9 A.7) 

Animal products  

Origin of honey 
blends 
(Section 10.4) 

Liver weight for foie 
gras 
(Section 10.5) 

Use of free-range 
areas 
(Annex 9 B.1)  

Egg standards & 
organic rules 
(Annex 9 B.2) 

Minimum durability 
of eggs 
(Annex 9 B.3) 

Marking of eggs 
(Annex 9 B.4) 

ORTs for poultrymeat 
(Annex 9 B.5) 

Water content in 
poultrymeat 
(Annex 9 B.6) 

designate jam. 

Green 
Deal 

Animal 
welfare 

FIC 

Require  the  labelling  of  the  country  of  origin  for 
the blends of honeys.  

+ 

0 

++ 

the 

Maintain 
existing  marketing 
standard 
the 
force-feeding 
unchanged, 
minimum  liver  weight  will  remain  necessary,  but 
consumers will not be potentially misled.  

to  ensure 

i.e. 

Amend  the  marketing  standard  to  authorise  solar 
panels to be used for ‘free range’ areas where  this 
does  not  interfere  with  the  content  of  the  message 
to of the optional reserved term used. 

Align  egg  marketing  standards  with  rules  for 
organic eggs. 

Abolish  specific  provisions  on 
the  minimum 
durability for eggs, hence leaving the matter to EU 
horizontal  rules  on  date  marking  under  FIC  (to  be 
revised under F2F). 

Compulsory  marking  of  eggs  on  farm  as  general 
rule;  in  justified  cases,  the  legislation  could  allow 
for  a  derogation  to  the  subsequent  stage  of  the 
chain.  

Maintain  current  system  but  allow  flexibility  and 
make  limited  adjustments  in  the  definition  of  the 
types of production system; the use of other terms 
indicating  other  types  of  production  systems  at 
national level should be allowed. 

Maintain  the  current  limits  for  water  content  in 
poultrymeat  and  not  accommodate  the  increasing 
intrinsic  water  contained  in  birds  of  fast-growing 
poultry breeds by loosening the total water limit.  

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

++ 

++ 

0 

0 

+ 

+ 

– 

+ 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

++ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

Downgrading of 
poultrymeat 
(Annex 9 B.7) 

Clarify  provisions  on  inspections  to  allow  sorting 
out  meat  with  visual  defects  without  downgrading 
the whole batch. 

Definitions of poultry 
products 
(Annex 9 B.8) 

ORTs for other 
animals 
(Annex 9 B.9) 

Introduce 
the  necessary  definitions  following 
closely  the  corresponding  definitions  for  chicken 
meat of the United Nations Economic Commission 
for Europe (UNECE). 

Do  not  introduce  ORTs  for  animals  other  than 
poultry  as  there  is,  at  this  stage,  no  need  or  EU 
added  value  for  a  specific  marketing  standard  to 
regulate such ORTs. 

+ 

+ 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

++ 

0 

Arable crops and olive oil 

Sales in bulk of olive 
oil 
(Annex 9 C.1) 

Allow MSs to adopt national rules for the bulk sale 
of  olive  oil  under  strict  conditions  that  guarantee 
safety and quality. 

Plant-based 
preparations 
(Annex 9 C.2) 

Keep the status quo as the co-legislator had already 
extensive  discussions  on  that  topic  during  the 
process  of  amending  the  CMO  Regulation  and 
decided to keep the status quo. 

+ 

0 

0 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Origin of pulses 

Require  the  labelling  of  the  country  of  origin  of 

++ 

+ 

++ 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Green 
Deal 

Animal 
welfare 

FIC 

(Annex 9 C.3) 

pulses.  

Note: –– harmful, – negative, 0 neutral, + coherent, ++ contributes 

8.  PREFERRED OPTION 

Given  the  heterogeneous  nature  of  the  different  individual  revisions,  which  cover 
different  marketing standards  for different  products  in  different  sectors, there is  no one 
preferred option for the overall initiative; the preferred options for each of the different 
individual  revisions  are  described  in  the  assessments  of  each  of  the  revisions  (Section 
10). 

9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

Monitoring  and  evaluation  are  two  key  linked  activities  for  reviewing  EU  policies,  but 
need to be clearly distinguished. 

Monitoring  is  the  set  of  techniques  that  enable  to  analyse,  check  and  control  the 
functioning of marketing standards’ rules throughout a certain period of time. 

Given  the  complexity  of  the  initiative,  which  consists  of  different  individual  revisions 
covering  different  products  in  different  sectors  and  different  types  of  marketing 
standards,  and  given  the  lack  of  available  data  sources,  implementing  a  monitoring 
system  for  ‘marketing  standards’  in  general  would  not  be  proportionate.  Instead,  the 
monitoring  of  each  marketing  standard  will  be  undertaken  by  the  Commission  at  a 
disaggregated  level.  Therefore,  the  monitoring  for  each  of  the  different  individual 
revisions is described in the assessments of each of these revisions (in the last paragraph 
of  each  of  the  five  sub-sections  of  Section  10)  where  proportionate  solutions  are 
proposed and the development of alternative data sources is described. This will enable 
to acquire more data that would add up to the data sources currently available and ensure 
recurrent update, review, improvement and modernisation of the system throughout time 
by means of a data-based approach. 

Evaluation  relates to  the  question whether the tool  of marketing standards achieves the 
policy objectives. 

Marketing  standards  are  subject  to  the  ‘evaluate  first  principle’  (Articles  75(5)(c)  and 
75(6)  CMO),  according  to  which  an  evaluation  is  necessary  before  proposing 
amendments. The Evaluation was shared with the European Parliament and the Council. 
An evaluation will precede future amendments, in line with the Better Regulation agenda 
and  with  the  Commission’s  commitment  to  regularly  evaluate  EU  activities.  A  broader 
evaluation  of  the  overall  initiative  may  possibly  be  considered  after  adoption  by 
legislators  of  the  new  framework  law  for  sustainable  food  systems,  in  particular  if  it 
appears  necessary  with  a  view  to  reviewing  marketing  standards  against  a  future 
framework  law  for  sustainable  food  systems.  This  would  be  without  prejudice  to  the 
evaluation  systems  to  be  put  in  place  separately  for  each  marketing  standard,  which  is 
differentiated for each marketing standard, as discussed in last paragraph of each of the 
five sub-sections of Section 10. 

A useful element to contribute to the adequate monitoring and evaluation of agricultural 
marketing  standards  is  constituted  by  the  activity  regularly  carried  out  within  the  Civil 
Dialogue  Groups  (CDGs).  CDGs  assist  the  Commission  and  help  to  hold  a  continuous 

29 

 
 
 
dialogue on all matters relating to the CAP, particularly in their configurations to discuss 
issues relating to arable crops and animal products33. 

10.  ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL REVISIONS 

While several revisions are part of this initiative, most represent minor changes for which 
it would be disproportionate to carry out a comprehensive assessment; these revisions are 
discussed  briefly  in  Annex  9.  The  criterion  to  distinguish  between  marketing  standards 
that are examined in Section 10 and those that are included in  Annex 9 depends on the 
expected  magnitude  of  the  modification’s  impact.  In  Section  10  are  discussed  the 
changes that meet at least two out of the three following indicators: 

  expectations over possible significant  impacts (or possibility to  identify such impacts 
ex-ante),  including  with  regard  to  their  novelty  (e.g.  the  introduction  of  a  new 
marketing standard for cider or the inclusion of reduced-sugar juices in the marketing 
standard for juices); 

  existence  of  actual  policy  choices  (such  as  in  all  marketing  standards  examined  in 

Section 10); 

  political sensitivity that goes beyond the mere technical nature of the amendment (e.g. 
changes  to  the  marketing  standard  for  foie  gras,  origin  labelling  of  honey  blends,  or 
changes to the sugar level in jams). 

The respective assessment is based on the inputs received and consultations carried out 
throughout the Better Regulation process. 

Despite  the  diversity  of  products  and  sectors  concerned,  this  Impact  Assessment 
addresses the current revision of agricultural marketing standards as a whole, particularly 
in the light of the following: 

  their  unitary  consideration  by  the  F2F  Strategy,  under  the  umbrella  of  one  same 
Action:  covering  several  marketing  standards  within  one  same  initiative  will  overall 
enhance consistency of the policies; 

  the fact that the CMO Regulation lays down common rules for all marketing standards; 
  the  fact  that  the  objectives  of  this  revision,  namely  sustainability,  simplification  and 
lisbonisation,  are  common  to  several  marketing  standards  and  should  thus  be 
considered together. 

10.1.  Marketing standards for cider and perry 

According to a 2019 Euromonitor briefing34, Western Europe is the world’s largest cider 
region in terms of consumption (52% of global volume, 1.2 billion litres in 2017). The 
UK is  the largest  cider  market  in  Western Europe (71% of volume, 848 million  litres). 
Within  the  EU,  cider  (including  perry35)  is  traditionally  produced  in  France,  Germany, 
Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  Spain,  Finland,  Ireland,  Italy,  Poland  and  Sweden.  Cider 
experienced  the  fastest  relatively  recent  growth  in  Portugal,  Greece  and  Germany 
(respectively 56%, 35% and 21% between 2012 and 2017). 

https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/committees-and-expert-

33 
groups/civil-dialogue-groups/cdg-explained_en 
34 Euromonitor, Passport – Cider in Western Europe- June 2019. 
35 Perry is made from pears. 

30 

 
                                                 
In terms of market size, Euromonitor data indicates that the market for cider and perry in 
EU28 in 2019 was about EUR 6.2 billion36 (EUR  2.3 billion across EU 27).37￼, and if 
Western  Europe  is  about  half  the  global  market,  this  means  that  according  to  this 
estimate its cider market was about EUR 6.4 billion, thus corroborating the Euromonitor 
estimate. 

Experts  foresee  growth  perspectives  for  the  product  in  the  coming  years  in  Western 
Europe,  driven  by  a  tendency  to  premium  quality,  health  and  wellness  and  consumers’ 
desire to explore new flavours38. 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 size, although there are some large producers, mainly in the UK, France, the 
Netherlands,  Denmark,  Ireland,  Spain  and  Germany39.  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 fruits40. 

COMEXT  data  show  that  imports  from  outside  the  EU27  increased  between  2012  and 
2019 from 8 to 23 million litres and then decreased to reach 15 million litres in 2021. The 
imports in value followed a similar trend (14 million € in 2012 – 13 million € in 2021). 
Exports  outside  the  EU27  have  been  increasing  in  the  last  ten  years,  from  about  54 
million litres in 2012 to 163 million litres in 2021 (with pre-COVID levels around 250 
million  litres);  the  exports  value  increased  as  well,  although  slightly  slower  due  to 
decreasing prices. 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.  In  this  situation  of  price  decline,  a  new  standard  should 
provide companies with an opportunity for a clear market segmentation and create value 
for their products. 

Because of the novelty of such a standard and the fact that policy choices will need to be 
made, it is considered  essential to provide in this Section details on various options for 
the  design  of  this  standard  and  on  their  respective  economic,  social  and  environmental 
impacts. 

10.1.1. Problem definition 

Currently  no  market  standard  for  cider  and  perry  exists  at  EU  level  (see  more  detailed 
explanation  below)  and  the  creation  of  one  would  certainly  have  an  impact  on  the 
economic  operators  in  the  sector,  as  well  as  on  producers  of  the  raw  material  and  on 

36  Extracted  from  Euromonitor  Passport  data  for  alcoholic  drinks,  category  ‘Cider/Perry’,  total  value  retail 
selling price in current prices, aggregated over all MSs. 
37 https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cider-market-to-garner-26-21-bn-globally-by-2031-at-5-0-cagr-
allied-market-research-301492420.html. 
38 Euromonitor, Passport – Cider in Western Europe- June 2019. 
39 https://aicv.org/en/members. 
40 https://aicv.org/en/industry-data. 

31 

 
                                                 
consumers.  This  marketing  standard  has  therefore  been  prioritised  for  a  more  detailed 
assessment in this Section as it is paramount to identify the various actors affected by an 
EU standard, identify the possible options, the value added, and the pros and cons of each 
of them to support a well-informed choice. 

The terms ‘cider’ and ‘perry’ are currently used in the EU for a multitude of beverages 
with different key characteristics. For instance, various types of products, from pre-mix 
products  with  added  sugars  to  alcopops41  with  5%  to  100%  apple  juice  are  labelled  as 
‘cider’.  This  leads  to  conditions  of  unfair  competition  among  producers  as  not  all 
consumers  readily  discern  the  differences  of  the  products  that  are  sold  as  ‘cider’  or 
‘perry’. National standards in certain MSs may apply to home-grown production but do 
not  apply  to  products  imported  from  other  MSs  due  to  the  freedom  of  movement  of 
goods in the Single Market. Imported products must comply with the different standards 
of the MS of sales. 

The exact magnitude of the problem cannot be quantified in financial terms as the limited 
available  data  on  production  and  trade  does  not  distinguish  between  the  various 
categories  of  products  marketed  under  the  generic  terms  ‘cider’  and  ‘perry’.42 
Nevertheless, AICV, the European Cider and Fruit Wine Association, confirmed that the 
issue  is  linked  to  the  absence  of  a  marketing  standard  in  a  letter  that  it  sent  to  the 
European Commission in 2015, inviting it to address the identified risks by establishing a 
marketing  standard  regulating  basic  elements  of  cider  and  perry.  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’43 as well as 
in the replies and contributions received during the public consultation on the revision of 
the EU agricultural marketing standards. 

Specific  questions  on  the  cider  sector  in  the  questionnaire  of  the  public  consultation 
yielded between 26 and 33 replies, depending on the question. Only a minority of these 
respondents  favoured  keeping  the  status  quo.  A  majority  of  respondents  indicated  a 
preference  for  the  addition  of  optional  reserved  terms  (ORTs),  followed  by  the 
establishment of a marketing standard (more or less strict). 

The  Commission  also  received  nearly  a  dozen  written  contributions  from  public 
authorities  and  from  the  cider  sector.  One  of  them44  favours  the  setting  up  of  a  basic 
marketing  standard,  while  the  others45  ask  for  more  ambitious  rules  (minimum 
percentage of apple/pear juice) to be established. 

41 Any kind of flavoured alcoholic beverages with relatively low alcohol content. 
42 The available data aggregate the various categories of cider at best under 3 different categories (COMEXT), but 
most often under 1 single category. So, the market sizes indicated above correspond to the various categories of 
ciders grouped into one. 
43 https://doi.org/10.2762/475831 
44 AICV. 
45 French Ministry of Agriculture, Syndicat national des transformateurs cidricoles (FR), Fédération nationale 
des producteurs de fruits à cidre (FR), Syndicat des cidriers indépendants de France, Cidrerie du Pays d’Auray 
(FR),  Maison  cidricole  de  Normandie  (FR),  The  Cider  Mill  (IE),  Stonewell  Cider  (IE),  EU  citizen  (IE), 
Bryggeriforeningen (DK). 

32 

 
                                                 
The  terms  ‘cider’  and  ‘perry’  are  used  as  generic  terms  also  in  the  absence  of  an 
international  definition.  They  cover  a  multitude  of  products  with  different 
characteristics46 47. 

There  are,  however,  standards  for  these  products  in  some  MSs.  They  mainly  differ 
according  to  the  following  key  criteria,  which  have  a  strong  impact  on  the  production 
costs and the quality of the product48: 

  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); 

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

cider/perry (up to 50% in FR); 

  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. 

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

Some MSs have cider-specific, ‘base-level’ marketing standards (e.g. Denmark, Finland, 
Slovakia,  Sweden).  In  Sweden,  for  example,  15%  minimum  of  the  fermented  cider 
should come from apple juice. 

Several  MSs  do  not  have  cider  marketing  standards:  e.g.  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Germany, 
Ireland and the Netherlands. In Germany, production guidelines have been developed by 
the cider sector. They are complemented by labelling rules under the German legislation. 

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

Introducing  an  EU  marketing  standard  for  cider  and  perry  would  allow  defining  the 
essential  (minimum)  requirements  to  be  met  by  the  products  concerned,  thereby 
contributing to a level playing field among producers. It would also enhance consumers’ 
trust  in  beverages  bearing  the  denominations  ‘cider’  and  ‘perry’  and  enhance  the 
products’ value. If sufficiently ambitious, such a standard can be expected to add value 
and strengthen the authentic character of cider and perry as craft products. The marketing 
standard  could  also  define  a  range  of  parameters  (e.g.  product  names  or  ORTs),  their 
corresponding  technical  characteristics  (e.g.  authorised  treatments  and  substances),  and 
define the raw materials  authorised for their production on the model of the legislation 
concerning  oenological  practices  or  fruit  juices.  Products  would  have  to  comply  with 

46  Areté  et  al.  (2020).  Evaluation  of  marketing  standards  contained  in  the  CMO  Regulation,  the  ‘Breakfast 
Directives’ and CMO secondary legislation. Brussels: European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2762/475831. 
47  The  only  regulated  elements  at  international  level  are  food  additives  permitted  in  the  production  of  cider 
through Codex Alimentarius and EU legislation. 
48 Ricome, Solano & Ciaian (2022).  Benefits and costs of EU marketing standards in the cider sector. Results 
from interviews with stakeholders (2022). 

33 

 
                                                 
specific  labelling  rules  depending  on  their  composition  or  production  process  as  a 
complement to those already provided by the food information to consumers regulation. 

10.1.2. Options to achieve the objectives 

Baseline 

Currently, there are no specific rules  governing the marketing of cider and perry at  the 
EU  level.  The  situation  remains  as  described  under  Section  10.1.1.  The  CMO 
Regulation49  empowers  the  Commission  to  issue  delegated  acts  for  setting  marketing 
standards for new products  in  order to  take into account  the expectations of consumers 
and the need to improve the quality and the economic conditions for the production and 
marketing of agricultural products. 

Policy Options 

Option  I:  This  Option  consists  of  defining  optional  reserved  terms  (ORTs),  without 
setting up marketing standards as such at the EU level. Those terms could be used only if 
certain  product  conditions  to  be  set  in  the  legislation  are  met.  Proposed  ORTs  are 
indicated  below.  The  ORTs  can  direct  consumers  towards  higher  quality  products50  or 
help  them  make  purchasing  decisions  on  the  basis  of  the  sugar  content  (similarly  to 
wines). 

National rules, insofar as  they  exist, as well as the use of the generic terms  ‘cider’ and 
‘perry’ for a variety of products would remain largely unchanged. 

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 must be processed on farm); 
  ‘Craft’ (made from pure fresh juice, no use of industrial processes, no overpressing51); 
  ‘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)52. 

Option  II:  This  Option  consists  of  establishing  a  basic  marketing  standard  at  the  EU 
level,  covering  inter  alia  the  origin  of  alcohol  in  cider  and  perry  (fruit).  It  leaves  the 
definition  of  more  demanding  requirements  to  MSs;  such  a  standard  would  be 
complemented by ORTs. This would ensure a baseline harmonisation at EU level while 
remaining complementary to existing national rules. 

49  Regulation  (EU)  No 1308/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  a  common 
organisation of the markets in agricultural products. 
50 Article 84 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 
51 French technical term: ‘rémiage’. 
52 X and Y to be determined in consultation with MSs in the Expert Group. 

34 

 
 
                                                 
In the following it is illustrated how such an approach could be operationalised: 

Definition of cider: 

Cider  means  the  product  which  is  obtained  from  the  partial  or  complete  alcoholic 
fermentation of: 

1.the juice of fresh apples, or 

2.the reconstituted juice of concentrate made from the juice of apples, or 

3.a mixture of the juices referred to in points 1 and 2. 

The content in apple juice, by weight of the finished product, is not specified. 

The following ingredients and food additives could be added: 

  potable water and sugars, before or after fermentation; 
 
fresh or reconstituted apple juice after fermentation; 
  a  limited  volume  of  fresh  or  reconstituted  pear  juice,  before  or  after 

fermentation; 

  natural flavourings (apple and pear); 
 

food additives permitted by the EU legislation. 

The product may be un-carbonated or carbonated by  fermentation  or by  injection of 
carbon dioxide. 

Fortification of cider by the addition of distilled alcohol is not permitted. 

A dealcoholised cider contains no more than 0.5% alcohol by volume (abv). 

A partially dealcoholised cider contains more than 0.5% abv and no more than 1.2% 
abv.  This  definition  excludes  all  fruit  wines,  fruit  spirits  and  alcohol  fortified  fruit 
wine-based products. 

Definition of perry: 

Perry  means  the  product  which  is  obtained  from  the  partial  or  complete  alcoholic 
fermentation of: 

1.the juice of fresh pears, or 

2.the reconstituted juice of concentrate made from the juice of pears, or 

3.a mixture of the juices referred to in points 1. and 2. 

The content in pear juice, by weight of the finished product, is not specified. 

The following ingredients and food additives could be added: 

  potable water and sugars, before or after fermentation; 
 
fresh or reconstituted pear juice, after fermentation; 

35 

 
 
  a  limited  volume  of  fresh  or  reconstituted  apple  juice,  before  or  after 

fermentation; 

  natural flavourings (apple and pear); 
 

food additives permitted by EU legislation. 

The product may be un-carbonated or carbonated by  fermentation  or by  injection of 
carbon dioxide. 

Fortification of perry by the addition of distilled alcohol is not permitted. 

A dealcoholised perry contains no more than 0.5% abv. 

A partially dealcoholised perry contains more than 0.5% abv and no more than 1.2% 
abv.  This  definition  excludes  all  fruit  wines,  fruit  spirits  and  alcohol  fortified  fruit 
wine-based products. 

ORTs complementing the marketing standard for cider and perry: 

  Made from pure fresh juice; 
  Farmhouse; 
  Craft; 
  Natural effervescence; 
  Dry; 
  Semi-dry; 
  Sweet. 

Option III: This Option consists of establishing a more ambitious standard, leading to a 
higher level of harmonisation within the EU. ORTs would complement those rules. 

This  Option  requires  that  the  cider  and  perry  are  made  from  a  minimum  percentage  of 
fruit juice (fresh and/or reconstituted). 

Definition  of  cider:  Cider  means  the  product  which  is  obtained  from  the  partial  or 
complete alcoholic fermentation of: 

1.the juice of fresh apples, or 

2.the reconstituted juice of concentrate made from the juice of apples, or 

3.a mixture of the juices referred to in points 1. and 2. 

A cider must contain, by weight of the finished product, not less than 50% apple juice as 
referred  to  under  points  1  to  3  above.  The  50%  corresponds  to  the  middle  ground  of 
current national rules, which vary from no specification of minimum juice to 100%. 

The remainder of the volume may come from the addition of: 

  a limited volume of potable water and sugars, before or after fermentation; 
  a limited volume of fresh or reconstituted pear juice, before or after fermentation; 
  a limited volume of fresh or reconstituted apple juice, after fermentation; 

36 

 
 
 
  natural flavourings (apple and pear); 
 

food additives permitted by EU legislation. 

The  product  may  be  un-carbonated  or  carbonated  by  fermentation  or  by  injection  of 
carbon dioxide. 

Fortification of cider by the addition of distilled alcohol is not permitted. 

A dealcoholised cider contains no more than 0.5% abv. 

A partially dealcoholised cider contains more than 0.5% abv and no more than 1.2% abv. 
This definition excludes all fruit wines, fruit spirits and alcohol fortified fruit wine-based 
products. 

Definition  of  perry:  Perry  means  the  product  which  is  obtained  from  the  partial  or 
complete alcoholic fermentation of: 

1.the juice of fresh pears, or 

2.the reconstituted juice of concentrate made from the juice of pears, or 

3.a mixture of the juices referred to in points 1. and 2. 

A perry must contain, by weight of the finished product, not less than 50% pear juice as 
referred to under points 1 to 3 above. 

The remainder of the volume may come from the addition of: 

  a limited volume of potable water and sugars, before or after fermentation; 
  a  limited  volume  of  fresh  or  reconstituted  apple  juice,  before  or  after 

fermentation; 

  a limited volume of fresh or reconstituted pear juice, after fermentation; 
  natural flavourings (apple and pear); 
 

food additives permitted by EU legislation. 

The  product  may  be  un-carbonated  or  carbonated  by  fermentation  or  by  injection  of 
carbon dioxide. 

Fortification of perry by the addition of distilled alcohol is not permitted. 

A dealcoholised perry contains no more than 0.5% abv. 

A partially dealcoholised perry contains more than 0.5% abv and no more than 1.2% abv. 
This definition excludes all fruit wines, fruit spirits and alcohol fortified fruit wine-based 
products. 

ORTs complementing the marketing standard: 

  Made from pure fresh juice; 
  Farmhouse; 
  Craft; 
  Natural effervescence; 

37 

 
 
  Dry; 
  Semi-dry; 
  Sweet. 

The  three  options  will  contribute  to  the  F2F  objective  of  better  informing  consumers 
about  the  characteristics  of  the  food  they  purchase  (social  sustainability).  This  is 
achieved by way of reserving the use of the ales designation to compliant products and 
creating  transparency  about  their  characteristics.  The  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 
will 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  labels  –  organic  and 
geographical 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/ 
pears53 and cider/perry which co-generate environmental advantages compared with that 
of more industrial methods (environmental sustainability). More details on sustainability 
aspects are provided in the sections below. 

10.1.3. Impacts of the different policy options 

Likely economic impacts 

Benefits of an EU marketing standard for cider and perry 

The expected general benefits of the introduction of an EU marketing standard for cider 
and perry as compared to the status quo include the following: 

 

Improvement of the overall coherence of the regulatory framework applying to cider 
and perry production and marketing across the EU, thus facilitating intra-EU trade and 
ensuring  a  level  playing  field  for  producers.  Clear  rules  about  the  products  and 
labelling  will  reduce  trade  uncertainties  and  transactional  costs  for  economic 
operators. 

  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  demand 
and added value accruing in the sector. 

  Better  valorisation  of  local  and  EU  apple  and  pear  production,  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. 

In addition, in a recent study, the JRC identifies the following benefits54: 

  Transaction cost savings, because an EU marketing standard would: 

53 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. 

54 Ricome, Solano & Ciaian (2022). Benefits and costs of EU marketing standards in the cider sector. Results 
from interviews with stakeholders. 

38 

 
                                                 
o  facilitate the functioning of the cider/perry supply chain; 
o  facilitate business to business transactions; 
o  reduce barriers to trade, within and outside the EU; 
o  reduce  misleading  information  related  to  the  production  of  cider/perry,  and 

o 

therefore provide better information to consumers; 
limit the negative impact resulting from the national regulations that several MSs 
have introduced to accompany the growth of the cider/perry sector. 

  Potentially  unfair  competition  between  EU  and  non-EU  ciders/perries  would  be 

reduced. 

  The introduction of a marketing standard for cider and perry falls under the definition 
of technical regulation of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT 
Agreement). Therefore, the TBT Agreement applies to these requirements. The TBT 
Agreement provides in particular that “technical regulations shall not be more trade-
restrictive  than  necessary  to  fulfil  a  legitimate  objective”  and  follow  a  principle  of 
non-discrimination  against  imports  from  third  countries.  The  proposed  measure 
(option  III)  does  not  imply  any  discrimination  between  domestic  and  imported 
products  and  in  scope  is  not  more  trade  restrictive  than  necessary  to  fulfil  its 
objectives,  namely  to  inform  consumers  and  improve  the  level  playing  field  for 
producers.  There  is  no  other  less  trade  restrictive  option  contributing  to  the  same 
extent to the policy objective in question. 

 

In  the  absence  of  an  EU  marketing  standard,  operators  may  produce  cider/perry  in 
MSs  which  have  little  regulation  and  sell  it  in  more  highly  regulated  MSs, 
notwithstanding  national  standards  as  applied  in  some  MSs  to  national  products 
(reverse discrimination is not prohibited by Single Market law). 

  An EU marketing standard would reduce or eliminate the diverging legal differences 
governing  the  marketing  of  cider/perry  products  (by  removing  part  of  or  all 
differences  between  standards  across  MSs).  It  could  also  contribute  to  lessening  the 
proliferation of private marketing standards. 

  Sparkling  alcoholic beverages  using  fermented sugar  as  ingredients  are  emerging.  If 
they  contain  a  small  quantity  of  fermented  apple  or  pear  juice,  they  can  use,  in  the 
absence  of  an  EU  marketing  standard, the  name ‘cider’  or  ‘perry’  or  related  claims. 
This undermines loyal competition and can mislead consumers about the nature of the 
product. 

  Such  general  benefits  would  apply  to  all  three  Options,  however  with  increasing 

benefits as the requirements increase from Option I to Option III. 

  The specific benefits of ORTs (Option I) and a basic marketing standard (Option II) as 

compared with the status quo can be identified, as follows: 
o  creating value for the sector by way of market segmentation; 
o  supporting growth of the sector and more easily competing against other alcoholic 

beverages (beer, alcopops); 

o  allowing  consumers  to  have  discernible  product  diversity  and  thus  the  ability  to 

easily differentiate higher quality products. 

  A  more  ambitious  standard  (Option  III)  is  expected,  in  addition  to  the  benefits  of 
Options  I  and  II,  to  further  increase  the  value  added  for  the  producers  meeting  its 
requirements, and guarantee a higher level of quality (i.e. minimum content of apple 
or pear juice) applying to all products labelled ‘cider’ and ‘perry’. This Option would 
thus benefit the market segment of traditional producers who often integrate in local 
supply  chains  with  fewer  intermediaries  (fruit  juice  concentrate  industries  and 

39 

 
 
secondary  processing  industries  producing  industrial  cider/perry)  between  producer 
and consumer55. It would also respond to the increasing demand for shortened supply 
chains, as mentioned in the F2F strategy. 

The  experience  of  Quebec,  as  reported  in  the  written  contribution  of  the  Syndicat  des 
Cidriers  Indépendants  de  France,  is  demonstrative  of  the  dynamics  of  cider  production 
with  or  without  marketing  standards.  In  Quebec,  a  region  traditionally  known  for  the 
quality of its cider, the sector suffered from industrial overproduction as from the 1970s 
when cider was officially re-introduced in Quebec after several years of prohibition. The 
offer  of  cider  grew  very  rapidly,  in  particular  due  to  an  industrial  production  which 
created 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  result  was  a  drastic  fall  in  consumption.  As  a  result  of  the  problems 
encountered, the production of cider in Quebec is now governed by strict rules. The cider 
manufactured  in  Quebec  must  derive  from  at  least  80%  of  juice  extracted  from  apples 
harvested in Quebec, in addition to respecting various definitions, production conditions 
and labelling. Since the introduction of this strict framework, sales of cider from Quebec 
have steadily increased over the years. 

Costs of an EU marketing standard for cider/perry 

The JRC study points to the following potential costs of introducing a marketing standard 
for cider/perry: 

  Higher  costs  are  likely  to  occur  for  producers  (within  and  outside  the  EU)  that 
currently produce according to lower standards if they would like to continue to sell 
their product  with  the  name  “cider”. These  producers have  always  the  choice  not  to 
upgrade  their  production  to  the  new  standard  and  sell  their  product  under  a  name 
different from cider/perry; 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 cider/perry may incur losses in market shares should stricter 
standards be implemented (especially Option III, to a lower extent Options I and II). 
Having said this, the industrial manufacturers producing these kinds of beverages are 
often active in other beverage markets and products and could adapt their marketing 
strategy. 

  The marketing standard according to Option III may limit innovation possibilities for 
products  sold  under  the  name  ‘cider’  to  adjust  the  product  to  what  consumers  may 
demand (e.g. flavoured ciders); 

  The more prescriptive the standard, the more significant the costs for certain operators 
now invested in lower quality ‘industrial’ cider. Having said this, such products and 
other innovative ones can continue to be marketed, albeit under other trade names than 
‘cider’ or ‘perry’. 

Likely impact on SMEs and competitiveness 

Traditional  and  craft  ciders/perries  are  mostly  produced  by  SMEs56.  These  stand  to 
benefit  from  harmonised  and  detailed  rules  in  the  EU,  especially  if  such  rules  allow  a 

55 While there is no definition of traditional cider, it is generally understood that traditional (and craft) refer to 
methods of production implemented by small producers, excluding the use of industrial processes. This would 
include i.a. 100% fresh apple juice, no pasteurisation, no use of additives (e.g. Arabic gum to create artificial 
turbidity). 

40 

 
                                                 
clear differentiation of the various types of ciders and perries in the market and, a fortiori, 
if  certain  minimum  requirements  applied  that  allowed  consumers  to  distinguish  such 
drinks from other products. In addition, the existence of a marketing standard should lead 
to  a  more  level  playing  field,  lower  transaction  costs  and  reduced  barriers  to  trade, 
including in relation to international trade. The magnitude of the benefits is a function of 
the ambition as  represented by the three Options:  lowest  under Option  I, highest  under 
Option III. On the other hand, companies producing lower quality ciders/perries  - albeit 
often  produced  by  larger  industrial  facilities  -  could  be  negatively  affected  by  the 
marketing  standard  if  consumers  demanded  less  of  their  products  because  of  the 
orientation effect towards higher quality beverages that the standard would induce. Costs 
would  also  arise  for  these  companies  if  they  decided  to  meet  the  higher  requirements 
stemming from the standard in order to be able to keep using the sales designation. 

Likely social impacts 

While  the  main  objective  of  the  proposed  Options  is  of  an  economic  nature,  i.e.  to 
facilitate  the  development  of  the  sector  and  the  efficiency  of  the  single  market,  a 
marketing standard for cider and perry would bring more homogeneous information  on 
the  characteristics  and  the  quality  of  cider  and  perry,  therefore  improving  consumer 
information  (ranked  Options:  III  >  I/II).  This  would  also  contribute  to  the  objective  of 
F2F  to  empower  consumers  to  make  informed  food  choices.  This  is  important, 
considering  that  cider  and  perry  include  alcohol,  even  if  to  a  lower  extent  than  other 
products. 

Cider  and  perry  are  indeed  favoured  by  consumers  looking  for  beverages  with  a  lower 
alcohol  content  and  could  be  suitable  for  vegan  consumers  or  consumers  intolerant  to 
cereals (unlike wine and beer)57. 

Traditional  cider/perry  production  is  often  located  in  rural  areas.  It  therefore  supports 
rural  economies  and  rural  employment58.  If  more  local  apples  and  pears  are  used  to 
produce  cider  and  perry  due  to  the  introduction  of  the  marketing  standard,  this  would 
benefit local producers. Furthermore, it may contribute to improved employment, as it is 
more  labour  intensive  than  large-scale  industrial  production59.  The  more  ambitious  the 
standard is formulated, the more local producers stand to benefit from it, the higher the 
territorial impact in rural areas. 

Likely environmental impacts 

The  production  of  traditional  ciders  and  perries  not  fit  for  the  table  apple  market,  is 
adapted  to  extensive  silvopastoral  systems  (high-stem  trees  with  pasture  and  livestock) 
that require little fertiliser, relying on local traditional apple and pear varieties usually not 
fit  for  the  table  market  that  contribute  to  maintaining  agricultural  genetic  diversity  and 

56  JRC  technical  report  “Benefits  and  costs  of  EU  marketing  standards  in  the  cider  sector  –  Results  from 
interviews with stakeholders” (2022). 
57 Euromonitor, Passport – Cider in Western Europe- June 2019. 
58 Written contribution from SNTC during public consultation. + JRC technical report “Benefits and costs of 
EU marketing standards in the cider sector – Results from interviews with stakeholders” (2022). 
59 https://www.ifa.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2015-Apple-growers-pre-budget-final-submission-Final-
July-20151.pdf. 

41 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
are  often  rustic  and  adapted  to  their  environment60.  While  silvopastoral  systems  offer 
opportunities as carbon-sinks61, they contribute to the objectives of the European Climate 
Law62. Moreover, 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 needed, which can 
help  reduce  production  losses  –  and  improve  resource  use  –  as  can  the  possibility  to 
utilise  fruits  not  suitable  for  the  ‘fresh  market’  (e.g.  because  of  visual  defects)63. 
Consequently, the cultivation of apple and pear orchards dedicated to the production of 
cider/perry requires less or no pesticide use. This, in turn, contributes to maintaining or 
restoring biodiversity and limiting pollution of the environment. A marketing standard, if 
sufficiently ambitious and trusted, could lead to a higher production of quality cider and 
perry64, thereby possibly increasing the valorisation of fruits which do not conform to the 
fresh  product  marketing  standard  (limitation  of  waste).  Such  impact  would  be  less 
important in case of less demanding EU rules (Options I and II) or in the absence of EU 
rules (baseline). All options are in line with the ‘do no significant harm principle’. 

Likely impacts on simplification or administrative burden 

Introducing  an  EU  marketing  standard  for  cider  and  perry  is  expected  to  lead  to  some 
regulatory  costs  at  MS  level,  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 delegated act; 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. 

The functioning of the Single Market  implies that  MSs may have to  control ciders  and 
perries complying with different rules: those of their Member State (if they have national 
rules in place) and those of other MSs in the case of imported beverages. This checking 
against different rules would be avoided or lessened if a marketing standard were set up 
at EU level. 

Given the combination of the two above-mentioned elements, impacts on simplification 
and administrative burden could turn out to be either negative or neutral. 

60 Le pré-verger, pour une agriculture durable – F. Coulon, P. Pointereau, I. Meiffren 
(https://www.yumpu.com/fr/document/read/26833491/les-vergers-traditionnels-et-les-alignements-darbres-
tatards-portail-/68). 
61  Silvopastoral  systems  capture  CO2  through  both  developed  trees  and  grass,  in  comparison  to  intensively 
grown orchards that have generally a lower vegetation cover (less or no grass between trees and reduced tree 
size). 
62 Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the 
framework  for  achieving  climate  neutrality  and  amending  Regulations  (EC)  No  401/2009  and  (EU) 
2018/1999. 
63  JRC  technical  report  “Benefits  and  costs  of  EU  marketing  standards  in  the  cider  sector  –  Results  from 
interviews with stakeholders” (2022). 
64 Contribution of ‘le syndicat des cidriers indépendants de France’ to the public consultation: experience of 
setting a strict cider legislation in Quebec. 

42 

 
                                                 
Who would likely be affected 

MSs  would  have  to  change  their  national  legislation  if  and  when  an  EU  marketing 
standard or ORTs deviate from their national current standards. Then again, the nature of 
controls  applying  to  ciders  and  perries  imported  from  other  MSs  would  change  and 
synergies could be achieved. 

Those  processors  (within  and  outside  the  EU)  who  would  need  to  upgrade  their 
production process to meet the requirements of the new EU marketing standard would be 
affected  negatively,  although  they  would  still  be  able  to  market  their  product  under 
another  sales  designation.  However,  producers  whose  products  would  already  comply 
with the new marketing standard would benefit as they stand to benefit from a more level 
playing field. Farmers would be positively affected, due to an increased demand for fruits 
used  as  raw  material  driven  by  the  ORTs  and  by  the  minimum  percentage  of  juice 
(option III). 

Consumers  would  benefit  from  better  at-first-glance  information  from  the  label  and  a 
more  transparent  and  harmonised  market.  Prices  for  products  in  line  with  the  new 
standard might increase. Given that lower quality alcoholic beverages made with apples 
or  pears  could  still  be  marketed  under  other  designations,  consumers  preferring  those 
products would not be worse off. 

10.1.4. Comparison of options 

Effectiveness 

Given the impacts highlighted in the above sections, it is expected that Option III would 
be  the  most  effective  for  ensuring  fair  competition  between  producers,  reinforcing  the 
authenticity  of  cider  and  perry  and  improving  information  to  consumers.  This  would 
benefit  mostly  producers  of  traditional/craft  products  and  improve  consumers’  trust  in 
those products. Options I and II would also bring improvements over the baseline but to a 
lower extent than Option III. 

Efficiency 

Although  Option  III  could  bring  the  highest  benefits  for  certain  producers  and 
consumers,  it  would  require  national  authorities  to  spend  more  resources  on  the 
legislative and control tasks that would result from an ambitious EU marketing standard. 
Options I and II on the other hand would have lesser effect on the existing national and 
private marketing rules, albeit to the detriment of the benefits for certain producers and 
consumers.  Because  of  these  trade-offs  and  the  lack  of  quantitative  data,  it  is  not 
straightforward to determine which option would be the most efficient. 

Baseline  Option I  Option II  Option III 

Costs 

Compliance costs incurred by food 
business operators intra and extra EU 
(direct) 

  Operators (higher quality segment – 
no  need  to  upgrade  production 
process) 

  Operators (lower quality segment – 

0 

0 

0 

0 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
need to upgrade production process 
or 
name 
of 
loss 
‘Cider/perry’) 

use 

of 

Regulatory costs incurred by regulators 
(direct) 

Benefits 

Economic opportunities for food business 
operators intra and extra EU (direct) 

Wider range of products – market 
segmentation (direct) 

Improved consumer information (direct) 

Coherence 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 

- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

- 

- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

-- 

-- 

++ 

+ 

++ 

Establishing  EU  rules  for  the  marketing  of  cider  and  perry  is  consistent  with  the  CAP 
objectives  in  the  Treaty,  among  others  ensuring  a  fair  standard  of  living  for  the 
agricultural  community  and  stabilising  markets.  There  are  marketing  standards  in 
existence  for  other  beverages  (wine,  spirit  drinks)  and  they  are  generally  deemed 
beneficial for consumers and producers alike. 

The 2020 Commission staff working document for the evaluation65 concluded positively 
on  the  general  coherence  of  agricultural  marketing  standards  with  other  EU  policies.  It 
did not address the specific case of cider and perry. However, via their link to food and 
also  the  way  food  is  produced,  EU  rules  for  the  marketing  of  cider  and  perry  would 
strengthen  the  links  to  health  policy,  especially  as  regards  FIC.  Coherence  with 
environmental  policy  and  the  objectives  of  the  European  Climate  Law  would  also  be 
reinforced if those marketing rules result in the application of more traditional production 
methods, such as in particular under Option III. 

Proportionality 

None of the three proposed Options implies fully substituting EU rules for national rules 
or private guidelines (e.g. for fixing higher percentage of (fresh) juice  or setting the list 
of  permitted  additives,  defining  further  ORTs).  A  certain  level  of  subsidiarity  would 
remain whatever Option chosen. However, Option I is the most compatible with existing 
rules or guidelines. In that sense, the new EU rules for the marketing of cider and perry 
would remain proportionate. 

10.1.5. Preferred option 

The three possible options for the introduction of a cider/perry marketing standard can be 
justified  by  the  improvements  that  a  new  standard  would  provide  to  the  functioning  of 
the EU cider/perry market – for both operators (especially SMEs on the medium and high 

65 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/swd2020-230-
evaluation-marketing-standards_en.pdf. 

44 

 
 
                                                 
quality segments) and consumers. Such benefits are expected to be higher if the EU rules 
are more detailed. Keeping the status quo and not introducing a standard means none of 
these impacts would materialise. 

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 support the establishment of an EU marketing standard for cider 
and perry.66  However, they  differed on the level  of ambition of that standard, one such 
contribution  favouring  a  minimal  standard  while  the  others  requesting  more  ambitious 
rules67. 

Given  these  opinions  and  the  assessment  of  the  economic,  social  and  environmental 
impacts  carried  out  in  the  above  sections,  the  Commission’s  preferred  option  is  to 
introduce an ambitious standard with detailed rules for the marketing of cider and perry, 
including  a  definition  of  ‘cider’  and  ‘perry’,  and  to  complement  this  by  ORTs  (Option 
III). The Commission considers that the other options would not sufficiently achieve the 
objectives as explained in Section 10.1.1. 

10.1.6. Monitoring and evaluation of impacts 

The Commission will make use of existing channels to monitor the implementation and 
collect information and data of the functioning of marketing standards in the market. This 
includes tabling a regular dedicated discussion on the standards in the Expert Group on 
the  Common  Organisation  of  the  Market  in  agricultural  products,  which  meets  several 
times  per  year,  with  delegates  from  MS  authorities,  as  well  as  in  the  Civil  Dialogue 
Group with relevant stakeholders. The Commission will investigate in those discussions 
whether  further  data  is  available,  beyond  what  MSs  and  stakeholders  provided  in  the 
course of this impact assessment (e.g. typology of the different cider/perry products, their 
current market share and evolution over past years, their economic importance, national 
legislations in place). This information will be used, together with others, in a study that 
the  Commission  is  planning  to  conduct  in  the  medium-term  on  the  functioning  of  the 
marketing  standards  and  their  contribution  to  the  market  functioning.  While  this  study 
will not provide for monitoring of impacts as such, it will identify remaining data gaps 
and may identify new data sources. 

10.2.  Reduced-sugar fruit juices 

10.2.1. Problem definition 

In  the  EU,  beverages  with  100%  fruit  juice  content  (fresh  or  from  concentrate)  can  be 
labelled  ‘fruit  juices’.  In  2018,  the  estimated  EU  ‘apparent  consumption’68  of  ‘fruit 
juices’ was 5.9 million litres. The ‘apparent per capita consumption’ of fruit juices and 
nectars together69 was estimated at 17.6 litres per year in the EU2870. In terms of market 

66  On  top  of  the  replies  to  the  questionnaire,  8  over  11  elaborate  written  contributions  indicated  their 
preference for a marketing standard completed by ORTs. 
67 FNPFC asked for 70% apple juice, CIF and Maison cidricole de Normandie for 100%. 
68 The UN Statistics Division uses this term, see 
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/environmentgl/gesform.asp?getitem=116. 
69  Council  Directive  2001/112/EC  of  20  December  2001 relating  to  fruit  juices  and  certain  similar  products 
intended for human consumption, OJ L 10/58 (hereinafter the ‘Juice Directive’) differentiates between several 
categories  of  fruit  juice  based  beverages:  fruit  juice,  fruit  juice  from  concentrate,  concentrated  fruit  juice, 
water  extracted  fruit  juice,  dehydrated/powdered  fruit  juice,  fruit  nectar.  Fruit  juice  is:  The  fermentable  but 

45 

 
                                                 
 
size, Euromonitor data indicates that the market for ‘100% juice’ across all MSs is worth 
around EUR 11 billion (EUR 11.3 billion in 2021, EUR 10.5 billion in 2020, and EUR 
12.2  billion  in  2019).71  In  terms  of  EU  trade  with  third  countries,  fruit  juices  represent 
EUR 1.6 billion of exports and EUR 1.7 billion of imports.72 

Based on the above figure of 17.6 litres per year per capita, 100% fruit juices and nectars 
are  a  non-negligible  proportion  of  EU  citizens’  diets.  As  a  matter  of  comparison,  the 
average annual apparent consumption per capita of fresh apples in the EU27 in 2021 is 
estimated  at  15  kg,  and  for  fresh  oranges  13  kg73.  Yet,  it  takes  2-3  oranges  to  make 
120ml  of  juice,  the  equivalent  of  a  glass.  Drinking  one  glass  of  juice  is  therefore 
considered to contain  the energetic equivalent  of two or three  fresh oranges,  a quantity 
rarely consumed in one seating because the feeling of satiety is reached before that74. 

Linked  to  this  question  of  the  relative  energetic  intake  when  consuming  a  one  glass  of 
fruit  juice  versus  one  whole  fruit,  there  are  calls  by  the  WHO,  health  experts  and 
consumer  associations  to  reduce  the  free  sugar  intake  in  diets,  including  free  sugars 
content in processed food, such as the sugars contained in 100% fruit juices (hereinafter 
‘fruit juices’) and from fruit juice concentrates75. This is reflected in the F2F objectives 
and  in  particular  the  action  concerning  reformulation  of  processed  products.  Marketing 
standards are not the best or only tool to influence the level of consumption of products. 

unfermented  product  obtained  from  the  edible  part  of  fruit  which  is  sound  and  ripe,  fresh  or  preserved  by 
chilling  or  freezing  of  one  or  more  kinds  mixed  together  having  the  characteristic  colour,  flavour  and  taste 
typical  of  the  juice  of  the  fruit  from  which  it  comes.  Flavour,  pulp,  and  cells  obtained  by  suitable  physical 
means from the same species of fruit may be restored to the juice. Fruit juice from concentrate is: The product 
obtained  by  reconstituting  concentrated  fruit  juice  defined  in  point  2  with  potable  water.  Concentrated  fruit 
juice  is:  The  product  obtained  from  fruit  juice  of  one  or  more  fruit  species  by  the  physical  removal  of  a 
specific proportion of the  water content.  Where the product is intended for direct consumption, the removal 
shall be at least 50 % of the water content. Water extracted fruit juice is: The product obtained by diffusion 
with water of pulpy whole fruit whose juice cannot be extracted by any physical means, or dehydrated whole 
fruit. Dehydrated/powdered fruit juice is: The product obtained from fruit juice of one or more fruit species by 
the  physical  removal  of  virtually  all  the  water  content.  Fruit  nectar  is:  The  fermentable  but  unfermented 
product which is obtained by adding water with or without the addition of sugars and/or honey to the products 
defined in points 1 to 4 to fruit purée and/or to concentrated fruit purée and/or to a mixture of those products. 
70 AIJN Liquid Fruit Market Report of 2019: https://www.aijn2019report.com/aijn2019report/homepage. For 
their statistical data, AIJN has decided to aggregate fruit juice (100% juice content) and nectars (25-99% juice 
content). AIJN is the “Association de l’industrie des jus et nectars de fruits et de légumes de la CE” and it is 
the main association representing EU fruit juice producers. 
71 Extracted from Euromonitor Passport data, total value retail selling price in current prices. 
72 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/agrifood-extra-
eu27_en.pdf. 
73 EU Agricultural Outlook for Markets, Income and Environment 2021 – 2031 available 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/farming/facts-and-figures/markets/outlook/medium-term_en. 
74 Science-et-vie.com,  « Boire le jus d’un  fruit équivaut-il à  le  manger ? »,  Science-et-vie.com, 30 novembre 
2014. 
75 See, e.g., Spain’s reply to the targeted consultation: ‘As regards fruit juices and fruit jams, we consider that 
it  would  also  be  appropriate  to  analyse  the  possibility  of  revising  the  marketing  standards,  specifically  as 
regards  the  possibility  of  allowing  the  reduction  of  the  sugar  content,  as  the  technological  developments 
currently available in the food industry would allow this.’ See also, WHO recommendations of 2015: ‘A new 
WHO guideline recommends adults and children reduce their daily intake of free sugars to less than 10% of 
their total energy intake. A further reduction to below 5% or roughly 25 grams (6 teaspoons) per day would 
provide additional health benefits.’, WHO defines free sugars as monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) 
and  disaccharides  (such  as  sucrose  or  table  sugar)  added  to  foods  and  drinks  by  the  manufacturer,  cook  or 
consumer,  and  sugars  naturally  present  in  honey,  syrups,  fruit  juices  and  fruit  juice  concentrates 
https://www.who.int/news/item/04-03-2015-who-calls-on-countries-to-reduce-sugars-intake-among-adults-
and-children.  See  also  EFSA  scientific  opinion  on  the  tolerable  upper  intake  level  for  dietary  sugars  of  28 
February 2022 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/7074. 

46 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
Nevertheless, some stakeholders conclude that the sugar content in fruit juices should be 
decreased  via  a  revision  of  the  relevant  marketing  standard,  as  defined  in  Council 
Directive 2001/112/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to fruit juices and certain similar 
products intended for human consumption (hereafter the ‘Juice Directive’)76. 

The sugar of ‘fruit juices’ has to come from the naturally-occurring sugar present in the 
fruit used as a raw material and is considered as being “free sugars” as defined by WHO 
and the European Food  Safety  Authority  (EFSA). No other sugar–nor sweeteners—can 
be  added,  according  to  the  Juice  Directive.  Moreover,  these  naturally-occurring  sugars 
cannot  be  removed from fruit juices without the  product  losing its designation  as  ‘fruit 
juice’, because the marketing standard defines the technologies and treatments that can 
be  used  for  processing  the  juice  and  the  minimum  Brix  level  that  fruit  juice  from 
concentrate must meet77. Brix means the sugar content of an aqueous solution. 

There  is  growing  consumer  demand  for  fruit  juices  with  reduced  naturally-occurring 
sugar  content78  while  the  juice  producing  sector  recognises  that  the  “ongoing 
authenticity,  organoleptic  quality  and  natural  characteristics  of  the  juices”  need  to  be 
preserved79.  Such  products  are  arriving  on  the  EU  market  thanks  to  new  processing 
techniques. One such technique is enzymatic fermentation that converts fructose, glucose 
and sucrose sugars into prebiotic fibres and other non-digestible fibres. The technology 
has been shown to reduce sugar content by up to 80% while preserving the vitamins and 
other  nutrients  in  the  fruit.  The  process  moderates  the  sweetness  of  the  juice  while 
intensifying  the  fruit  flavour.  For  the  time  being,  the  product  will  be  marketed  in  the 
USA, with a 30% sugar reduction.80 Another process already used to market a product in 
the  EU  is  reverse  osmosis  to  remove  naturally  occurring  sugars  in  the  fruit  juice.81 
Reverse osmosis is most commonly known for its use in drinking water purification from 
seawater,  removing  the  salt  and  other  effluent  materials  from  the  water  molecules.  A 
third developing process is based on yeast fermentation and the product will soon come 
to market in the EU as well.82 A chromatographic process with resins absorbing the sugar 
in the juice is also being developed, as well as a process using bacterial fermentation to 
convert  the  sugar  in  gluconic  acid83.  According  to  juice  manufacturers,  this  list  is  not 
limitative  and  the  sector  is  actively  developing  a  number  of  other  potential  innovative 

76  http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/112/2014-10-05.  The  Juice  Directive  can  be  amended  via  an  ordinary 
legislative procedure based on Article 43 TFEU. Delegated Acts may be adopted based on Articles 7 and 7a of 
the Directive to amend all Annexes to the Directive, with the exception of Part I of Annex I, and of Annex II. 
See Annex 5 of this Impact Assessment. 
77 Directive 2001/112/EC, Annex V - Minimum Brix levels for reconstituted fruit juice and reconstituted fruit 
purée. 
78  ‘Thanks  to  growing  awareness  of  the  adverse  effects  of  consumption  of  too  much  sugar,  consumers  are 
starting  to  become  more  concerned  about  hidden  sugars  in  categories  that  were  once  considered  to  be 
healthy… they are showing greater interest in sugar reduction… interest in sugar reduction increased by 16% 
over 
since  2016.’, 
https://www.bevindustry.com/articles/94659-juice-manufacturers-address-consumer-concerns-with-
fortification. 
79 Contribution of PepsiCo to the public consultation. 
80 https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2022/01/10/Better-Juice-seals-first-commercial-deal-to-bring-
sugar-reduced-fruit-juice-to-market-by-Spring-2022. 
81  See 
fruit-based  drink 
https://www.cidou.fr/cidou-lance-les-desucres/. 
82 Conference call with Austria Juice, a B2B fruit juice operator based in Austria, of 4 May 2022. 
83 Conference call with Austria Juice of 4 May 2022. 

the  brand  Cidou,  marketed 

and  has  nearly  doubled 

to  October  2021 

the  12  months 

‘Désucrés’  by 

in  France: 

labelled 

(96%) 

the 

47 

 
                                                 
processes to reduce sugar in fruit juices, some of which are still covered by trade secrecy 
and could not yet be shared with the Commission services84. 

They are a novelty and, for the time being, ‘niche’ products. They cannot be labelled as 
‘fruit  juice’  according  to  the  current  marketing  standard.  The  inability  to  use  the  sales 
designation ‘fruit juice’ has operators hesitate to develop this type of products at a greater 
scale, as there is a commercial risk to market the products under different designations. 
Given consumer-demand for reduced sugar content in processed food, the development 
of reduced-sugar fruit juices should not be hindered by EU rules. 

Currently, these new juice-based beverages are marketed using another designation,  yet 
sold  next  to  fruit  juices  in  retail  outlets.  This  could  lead  MSs  to  potentially  adopt 
diverging national approaches to these reduced-sugar ‘fruit juices’85, creating distortions 
to competition across the single market86 and confusion for consumers. As not regulated, 
the quality of these beverages is also not harmonised by EU rules. 

The Juice  Directive is  clear on this  aspect.  Article 6 states that  ‘…  only the treatments 
and substances listed in part II of Annex I and the raw materials complying with Annex 
II may be used to manufacture the products defined in part I of Annex I.’ Fruit juices can 
only  be  subject  to  a  limited  list  of  treatments  and  contain  a  limited  list  of  additional 
ingredients (such as vitamins, minerals, food additives, restored flavour, pulp and cells). 
Moreover, the Juice Directive fixes minimum Brix levels that fruit juice from concentrate 
must meet. 

The Juice Directive, in which the relevant marketing standard for juices is enshrined, is 
the  result  of  carefully  balanced  compromises  between  the  various  national  preferences 
and,  as  past  and  current  discussions  with  MS  and  stakeholders  have  shown,  politically 
very sensitive. Opening the Juice Directive to integrate a new designation for fruit juices 
with  reduced (naturally-occurring) free sugars has therefore been prioritised for  a more 
detailed  assessment  in  this  Section  to  identify  and  evaluate  the  impacts  of  the  possible 
change to support a well-informed choice. 

The  existing  EU  regulations  relating  to  consumer  information  and  health  claims  allow 
labelling  reduced-sugar  products  if  the  reduction  is  at  least  30%.  However,  the  Juice 
Directive  limits  such  a  possibility  for  juices  for  the  reasons  mentioned  above.  Hence, 
currently,  the  ‘fruit  juice’  sales  designation  could  not  be  used  in  the  EU  for  reduced-
sugar fruit juices. 

84 Conference call with Austria Juice of 4 May 2022; email exchanges with AIJN in June 2022. 
85 During a  conference call  with the DGCCRF on 31 January 2022, it  was explained that there are ongoing 
administrative actions in France regarding the use of the designation ‘fruit juice’ by Cidou’s Désucrés. During 
a  conference  call  with  Austria  Juice  on  4  May  2022,  it  was  explained  that  the  Austrian  authorities  were 
prepared  to  authorise  the  marketing  of  reduced-sugar  fruit  juices  under  the  designation  “beverage  based  on 
juice with reduced sugar”. As the products are not yet commercialised in other MSs, their respective position 
on this is not yet defined. 
86 A parallel could be drawn with ‘raw chocolate’ or ‘whole fruit chocolate’ where emerging products falling 
outside of 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, OJ L 197/19 are regulated at Member State 
level  and  the  manufacturers  cannot  use  the  designation  ‘chocolate’:  ‘Ritter  Sport’s  new  chocolate  bar  made 
from  100%  cocoa  falls  foul  of  German  food  regulators.  [...]  The  country’s  regulators  ruled  that  a  new 
sugar.’ 
chocolate 
chocolate 
https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2021/02/04/Ritter-Sport-s-new-chocolate-bar-made-from-100-
cocoa-falls-foul-of-German-food-regulators. The Chocolate Directive has not been considered for a revision at 
this stage. 

contains 

labelled 

because 

can’t 

bar 

no 

be 

it 

48 

 
                                                 
As such products will become increasingly available on the EU market, there could be a 
need to set an EU legal framework to maintain the standard of fruit juices and ensuring 
effective  and  fair  competition,  as  well  as  ensuring  the  quality  and  integrity  of  these 
reduced-sugar juices, because even with the best consumer information on the labels, not 
all  technically  possible  treatments  to  reduce  sugar  content  can  per  se  be  considered 
acceptable  as  not  denaturing  the  fruit  juice.  For  the  purpose  of  consumer  protection, 
products that have undergone special treatments to reduce the natural free sugars content 
need  to  be  clearly  labelled  to  inform  consumers  about  the  new  processes  involved  to 
reduce sugar content, as well as about the different composition of the juice as compared 
to the original juice, e.g. content of novel carbohydrates or other substances created from 
enzymatic processes. Currently, sugar-reduced fruit juices are not falling under the Juice 
Directive. However, they are clearly labelled as regards to the characteristics of the food, 
their  method  of  manufacture  or  production  and  whether  a  component  naturally  present 
has been substituted with a different component, in order not to mislead consumers. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  sector  is  developing  processes  that  can  remove  a  large 
proportion  of  the  naturally-occurring  sugar  in  juices.  The  sector  is  in  favour  of  a 
flexibility  to  be  able  to  market  sugar-reduced  juices  as  ‘fruit  juice’,  even  if  the  sugar 
reduction does not reach the 30% threshold required by the regulation on health claims 
(so-called ‘silent sugar reduction’). Like for soft drinks, the sector is of the opinion that 
there is consumer demand for a range of juices with varying levels of reduced sugar87. 

This Section explores the possibility to modernise the fruit juice marketing standard and 
to  enable  the  use  of  the  designation  ‘fruit  juice’  for  juices  with  reduced  (naturally-
occurring)  sugar  under  the  Juice  Directive,  keeping  in  mind  that  consumers  need  to  be 
informed about the new identity, property and composition of the product. 

Because of the novelty  of such  reduced-sugar products and the  fact  that  policy  choices 
will  need  to  be  made,  it  is  considered  necessary  to  provide  in  this  Section  details  on 
various options for including these products into the Juice Directive and to identify ex-
ante to the extent possible their respective potential economic, social and environmental 
impacts. 

In parallel, in keeping with the public health objective to reduce (free) sugar content in 
processed products, it is explored in Annex IX whether the labelling of  fruit juices and 
fruit  nectars  should  be  adapted,  as  nectars  are  the  only  fruit-based  drinks  in  the  Juice 
Directive that can contain added sugar on top of naturally-occurring sugar. This change is 
however  limited  to  optional  nutrition  claim  labelling,  without  affecting  the  product 
composition.  It  is  considered  of  a  technical  nature  and  thus  was  not  selected  to  be 
examined in the same level of details. 

10.2.2. Options to achieve the objectives 

Baseline 

The  baseline  is  to  take  no  action  at  EU  level.  The  reduced-sugar  products  continue  to 
develop  outside  the  framework  of  the  Juice  Directive.  In  accordance  with  Regulation 
(EU) No 1169/2011  on the provision  of food information to  consumers,  consumers are 
nevertheless appropriately informed about the product’s characteristics. In addition, any 
treatments  or  additional  ingredients  falling  within  the  scope  of  the  definition  of  “novel 

87 Conference call with Austria Juice of 4 May 2022. 

49 

 
                                                 
food”  would  have  to  comply  with  the  authorisation  procedure  laid  down  in  Regulation 
(EU) No 2015/2283 on novel foods88. 

Policy options 

In view of the above, the options to address this issue are: 

Option I: to authorise in Annex I, part II of the Juice Directive certain treatments in fruit 
juice to reduce naturally-occurring sugar and, because in fruit juice from concentrate the 
sugar  level  will  be  reduced  below  the  mandatory  levels  in  the  Juice  Directive,  add  a 
derogation  to  the  minimum  Brix  levels  for  fruit  juices  from  concentrate  (provided  that 
water addition does not overpass the water extracted for concentration). These juices will 
be  allowed  to  use  the  sales  designations  such  as  ‘fruit  juice’,  ‘fruit  juice  from 
concentrate’. With no sugar reduction target and no additional qualitative requirements, 
the  quality  appreciation  being  left  to  consumers.  The  option  would  not  require  a 
minimum  of  30%  reduction.  The  reduction  would  appear  in  the  mandatory  nutrition 
declaration  required  by  FIC  but  not  as  a  prominent  ‘reduced-sugar’  claim.  Regulation 
(EU)  No  1169/2011  on  the  provision  of  food  information  to  consumers  continues  to 
apply  so  that  consumers  are  appropriately  informed  about  the  product’s  characteristics 
(process involved for reducing sugars as well as other compositional changes, if any, that 
occur other than the sugar level). 

Option  II:  to  authorise  in  Annex  I,  part  II  of  the  Juice  Directive  certain  treatments  or 
additional ingredients to reduce naturally-occurring sugar89, while preserving a minimum 
qualitative  aspects  of  the  final  products  (e.g.  nutrients,  taste,  mouthfeel),  for  the  use  of 
the  designation  fruit  juice  (fruit  juice  from  concentrated,  etc.).  This  option  would  also 
entail adding a derogation to the minimum Brix levels that fruit juices from concentrate 
must meet when the concentrated fruit juice is reduced in sugar through one or the other 
of  the  newly  authorised  treatments  (provided  that  water  addition  does  not  overpass  the 
water  extracted  for  concentration).  The  option  would  not  require  a  minimum  of  30% 
reduction.  In  case  lower  than  30%,  the  sugar  reduction  would  appear  in  the  mandatory 
nutrition  declaration  required  by  FIC  but  the  ‘reduced-sugar’  claim  would  not  be 
allowed.  Only  if  higher  than  30%,  this  claim  would  be  possible.  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers continues to apply so that 
consumers  are  appropriately  informed  about  the  product’s  characteristics  (process 
involved for reducing sugars as  well as other compositional changes, if  any, that occur 
other than the sugar level). 

Option III: as Option II, but the reduction of sugar should be at least 30% compared to a 
similar product,  in  accordance with  the regulation  on health claims. The  designation of 
the fruit juice that has been sugar-reduced should be clearly indicated: fruit juice, sugar 
reduced.  Regulation  (EU)  No  1169/2011  on  the  provision  of  food  information  to 
consumers  continues  to  apply  so  that  consumers  are  appropriately  informed  about  the 

88 Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel 
foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing 
Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 1852/2001, OJ L 327, 11.12.2015, p. 1–22, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/2283/oj. For example, when 
approving  processes,  it  will  need  to  be  ensured  that  no  disadvantages  for  consumers  occur,  e.g.  by 
enzymatically converting sugar into longer molecular carbohydrates that are normally not present or present at 
different levels in regular fruit juice that has not undergone the sugar-reducing process. 
89 Other nutrients, such as minerals, vitamins and fibres would remain at the same level. 

50 

 
                                                 
product’s  characteristics  (process  involved  for  reducing  sugars  as  well  as  other 
compositional changes, if any, that occur other than the sugar level). 

Discarded option: lowering across the board the minimum Brix levels that reconstituted 
fruit juice and reconstituted fruit purée must meet, without introducing the possibility for 
the  sector  to  use  the  above-described  sugar-reducing  processes.  No  MS  or  stakeholder 
either  touched  on  this  or  asked  for  this.  The  levels  in  the  Juice  Directive  are  either 
consistent with  international  standards set  in  the Codex or already lower slightly  lower 
for some products (e.g. apples 11.2 instead of 11.5, raspberries 7 instead of 8). Lowering 
these levels alone would not address the problem, because the processes to reduce sugar 
in  fruit juice would still not  be authorised in  the  marketing standard  for the produce to 
keep  the  designation  ‘fruit  juice’  or  ‘fruit  juice  from  concentrate’.  The  Brix  levels  as 
defined  in  the  Juice  Directive  are  the  result  of  a  compromise  between  the  different 
stakeholders and represent to the closest extent possible the actual sugar level of the juice 
extracted from the fresh fruit. Lowering these levels alone would lead the sector to have 
to  further dilute all their juices from  concentrate. Already when a juice is  reconstituted 
with water from concentrate, the customers partly pay for added water. If Brix levels are 
lowered  across  the  board  linking  it  to  the  use  of  a  regulated  sugar-reducing  process,  a 
greater proportion of the price paid by the customer of fruit juice from concentrate would 
go  to  simple  water  and  this  would  lead  to  consumer  confusion  as  to  what  the  product 
actually is. In addition, further dilution would also reduce the proportion of all the other 
nutrients (minerals, vitamins, fibres). Therefore, this option is discarded. 

10.2.3. Impacts of the different policy options 

Likely economic impacts 

Options I, II and III: For the time being, reduced-sugar fruit juice is  a novelty ‘niche’ 
product. Some reduced-sugar products are already marketed in France90 or will soon be 
in  the  rest  of  the  EU91  –  and  perhaps  other  MSs  without  having  been  signalled  to  the 
Commission.  There  is  therefore  no  market  share  data,  let  alone  any  trade  data  on  this 
specific  product,  nor  any  comparison  with  trade  on  regular  fruit  juice.  They  cannot  be 
labelled as ‘fruit juice’, for the reasons explained above. Adapting the Juice Directive for 
this product, almost pre-emptively given the limited trade, would provide the sector as a 
whole,  whether  for  future  imports  from  outside  the  EU  or  future  marketing  intra-EU, 
with  a  positive  impact  in  terms  of  assurance  of  return  on  investment,  hence  a  positive 
economic  impact  for  the  manufacturers.  All  three  of  the  proposed  Options  are  actually 
giving  a  new  right  to  potential  importers  (using  the  denomination  “fruit  juice”  on  their 
products).  None  of  the  Options  imply  any  discrimination  between  domestic/imported 
products  and  their  scope  is  not  more  trade  restrictive  than  necessary  to  fulfil  the 
objective, namely to encourage reformulation of produce to reduce sugar content and to 
inform consumers about it. There is no other less trade restrictive option contributing to 
the same extent to the policy objectives in question. 

90  See,  e.g.,  fruit-based  drinks  labelled  ‘Désucrés’  by  the  brand  Cidou,  marketed  in  France  only,  not  in 
Belgium or  Luxembourg:  https://www.cidou.fr/cidou-lance-les-desucres/.  For the  moment,  as  this product is 
an  emerging  product,  it  is  the  Commission’s  understanding  that  there  is  no  existing  cross-border  trade. The 
AIJN also explained that it did not know about this new segment until the Commission started its consultation 
of the sector in February 2021. 
91 Conference call with Austria Juice of 4 May 2022. 

51 

 
                                                 
Processing  the  fruit  juice  to  reduce  its  sugar  content  has  an  additional  cost  for  the 
manufacturer92.  By  ensuring  these  products  can  use  the  recognised  designations  “fruit 
juice”,  “fruit  juice  from  concentrate”,  “concentrated  fruit  juice”  etc.  from  the  Juice 
Directive,  because  they  are  indeed  a  beverage  made  of  almost  exclusively  fruit  juice93, 
manufacturers  could  develop  this  product  to  wider  scale,  enabling  them  to  potentially 
market  it  more  widely  in  the  single  market  and  have  economies  of  scale,  i.e.  greater 
availability for the consumers and if the market economics permit, greater affordability. 

In addition, these products would be labelled ‘fruit juice’ (more limited under Option III, 
because only those with at least 30% sugar-reduction would be labelled fruit juices, and 
option  II,  because  minimum  qualitative  aspects  of  the  final  products  would  need  to  be 
met, than under the other Option I, where the sugar-reduction techniques are authorised 
without  additional  qualitative  requirement)  and  be  marketed  as  such,  no  longer  being 
treated  as  a  soft  drink  in  some  MSs.  This  would  provide  economic  benefits  and  a 
premium  price  as  consumer  would  be  disposed  to  pay  a  higher  price.  While  Option  I 
leaves more margin to the industry to produce also reduced-sugar juice regardless of the 
final  quality  aspects  of  the  products,  Options  II  and  III  provide  more  opportunities  in 
terms  of  market  segmentation,  allowing  for  a  better  appreciation  of  the  quality  of  the 
final product. 

Either of the three  Options would apply without discrimination  both  to  imported juices 
and  juices  produced  in  the  EU.  Importer  could  continue  to  import  ‘conventional’  fruit 
juice  or  benefit  from  the  recognition  of  the  sugar-reducing  techniques  to  import  their 
products under the Juice Directive designations and market them in the single market as 
such.  Already,  sugar-reduced  “fruit  juices”  can  be  imported,  and  like  EU-produced 
sugar-reduced fruit juices, they cannot use the Juice Directive designations and have to 
comply with the European rules on food information to consumers. 

Likely impact on SMEs and competitiveness 

Options I, II and III: The processes to reduce naturally-occurring sugar in fruit juice are 
being developed by a variety of actors, both SMEs94 and larger players95. Setting an EU-
wide regulatory framework by adopting a uniform, regulated approach across the single 
market would put them on an equal footing to compete, giving them the necessary legal 
certainty  to  further  their  project  and  develop  their  commercial  strategies.  The  possible 
use of the fruit juice sales designation would constitute an advantage for the marketing of 
such products. 

One of such processes developed to date is based on reverse osmosis, a process that has 
developed  greatly  in  recent  decades  and  that  has  progressed  from  an  emerging 
technology  to  become  a  consolidated,  efficient  and  competitive  process96.  Other 

92  Several  different  processes  are  being  explored  by  the  industry  to  address  the  consumers’  demand  for 
reduced-sugar  fruit  juice,  each  having  a  different  range  of  costs,  either  in  the  initial  investment  in  new 
production techniques, or in the actual process of production itself, or both. 
93 And the other already authorised ingredients as per the Juice Directive. 
94  The  brand  Cidou  benefits  from  the  French  ‘PME+’  label,  indicating  that  it  is  a  SME.  Better  Juice  Ltd. 
received  a  grant  from  the  European  Union  Horizon  2020  fund,  in  part  due  to  its  SME  status 
(https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/867406). 
95  Austria  Juice  is  one  of  the  leading  manufacturers  of  beverage  ingredients  and  flavour  solutions,  over  a 
dozen  production  plants  situated  in  Europe.  https://www.just-drinks.com/contractors/manufacturing/austria-
juice/. 
96 https://condorchem.com/en/blog/reverse-osmosis-applications/. 

52 

 
                                                 
emerging processes to produce reduced-sugar fruit juices have just been or are about to 
be  developed  and  will  soon  start  being  commercialised97.  Regulating  to  recognise  that 
these  processes  produce  authentic  reduced-sugar  fruit  juices  would  give  the  necessary 
legal certainty and foster the development of these processes. 

Once there is  legal  certainty as to the approach  applicable to  reduced-sugar fruit juices 
produced with this process, many existing operators could decide to make the necessary 
investments to expand their product range98. 

Option III would be more limiting in terms of competitiveness, because the process used 
to reduce the sugar content would necessarily have to reach 30%, putting an added layer 
of requirement and difficulty for new entrants. 

Option  I  would  provide  more  competitive  advantages  to  big  companies  allowing  for  a 
larger expansion of economies of scales. Option II would be more favourable to SMEs, 
which  are  usually  more  focused  on  the  final  quality  of  the  product  and  closer  to  the 
source of the raw material. 

Manufacturers of fruit juices that do not reduce the sugar content would have the choice 
to develop their own line of sugar-reduced juices, if they wish, or continue to compete in 
the  juice  segment  based  on  other  characteristics  of  their  product,  as  is  already  the  case 
(price, attractive fruit blends, quality marking such as organic origin, etc.). 

Likely social impacts 

Options I, II and III: Empowering consumers to make informed, healthy and sustainable 
food  choices  is  one  of  the  objectives  of  the  F2F99.  Ensuring  that  the  consumers  get 
products  with  reduced-sugar  content  (reduced-sugar  fruit  juice  with  an  overall  better 
nutritional profile) would contribute to that objective, so would ensuring that the product 
names  do  not  create  confusion  for  the  consumers  and  lead  them  to  choosing  a  product 
that  is  not  in  accordance  with  their  expectations.  Consumers  should  indeed  not  be 
confused  about  the  true  characteristics  and  composition  of  product  sugar-reduced  fruit 
juice. To avoid consumers from being confused or misled, it is important that consumers 
receive  comprehensive  and  clear  information  about  the  juice  having  been  processed  to 
reduce its natural sugar content, as well as any other compositional changes, if any. By 
calling  such  novel  products  “fruit  juice”,  consumers  need  to  be  comprehensively 
informed  about  the  different  characteristics  of  this  product  as  compared  to  other  “fruit 
juice” products on the market100. 

97 E.g. BetterJuice product will be commercialised in the USA, while Austria Juice’s product will start being 
commercialised in the EU. 
98  The  reverse  osmosis  is  already  widely  used  in  the  food  industry  “from  concentrates  of  egg  whites,  fruit 
juices and gelatins, to removal of bacteria and brine in meat or alcohol removal from spirits. Dairy, starch and 
sugar industries are also users of the RO plant working process.” See https://condorchem.com/en/blog/reverse-
osmosis-applications/. 
99 See section 2.4 of F2F. 
100 In line  with the letter and the spirit of EU food law,  Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of 
food  information  to  consumers,  Article  7  Fair  information  practices:  1.  Food  information  shall  not  be 
misleading,  particularly:  (a)  as  to  the  characteristics  of  the  food  and,  in  particular,  as  to  its  nature,  identity, 
properties, composition, quantity, durability, country of origin or place of provenance, method of manufacture 
or production; (b) by attributing to the food effects or properties which it does not possess; (c) by suggesting 
that  the  food  possesses  special  characteristics  when  in  fact  all  similar  foods  possess  such  characteristics,  in 
particular by specifically emphasising the presence or absence of certain ingredients and/or nutrients; (d) by 

53 

 
                                                 
 
For the moment,  such products  are entirely new  on the EU market  (Cidou’s ‘désucrés’ 
was launched in 2020)  and consumers have little access  to them. Removing barriers to 
trade  inside  the  single  market  by  providing  a  single  EU-level  framework  would 
encourage  the  development  of  the  product  and  make  it  more  widely  accessible  to 
consumers in the EU. 

It is also necessary to regulate what can be accepted as an authorised process to reduce 
sugar  and  how  it  should  be  communicated  to  consumers  through  labelling,  to  ensure 
consumers have  all the necessary elements  to  make an informed decision and that they 
get a quality product – not a fruit juice diluted with water so as to reduce the sugar level. 
Both  national  authorities  and  private  laboratories  confirmed  that  properly  produced 
reduced-sugar  fruit  juice  are  only  adulterated  as  to  their  sugar  content,  other  nutrients, 
such  as  vitamins,  fibres  and  minerals,  remaining  preserved  at  the  original  level101,  and 
that the state of science and technology to date allows to verify this so as to authenticate 
the product102. 

Regulation  would  provide  a  standard  for  the  industry  against  which  to  develop, 
manufacture and commercialise the product, as well as for MSs to set up the appropriate 
controls. This is by definition the role of marketing standards, as explained above in this 
impact  assessment:  ‘guarantee  [...]  the  quality  of  agricultural  products  [and]  make  it 
possible to reliably communicate product characteristics or attributes for purposes of the 
trade  of  the  products  concerned  in  the  supply  chain  including  in  relation  to  the  final 
consumer.’ 

While the development of a reduced-sugar processed product fits entirely with the health 
objectives of the F2F, a marketing standard only makes the product more marketable and 
aims to ensure consumers are properly informed and neither misled nor confused about 
the  products.  We  cannot  prejudge  whether  and  to  what  extent  consumers  would  shift 
their current  consumption of fruit juices  to  these reduced-sugar products.  Making  them 
more  widely  available  gives  the  consumers  the  choice,  and  the  availability  of  healthier 
options than regular fruit juices or other beverages with higher sugar content constitutes a 
step  towards  a  healthier  diet,  provided  that  the  processes  do  not  alter  negatively  the 
composition of the original juice that undergoes sugar reduction. 

Option I would not ensure that the use of the technology to reduce sugar would respect 
minimum  quality  aspects  to  consumers.  In  Option  II  and  III,  on  the  contrary,  the 
consumer protection aspect is more prominent. 

Under Options I and II, the reduction would be ‘silent’, in the sense that it would appear 
in the mandatory nutrition declaration required by FIC but not as a prominent ‘reduced-

suggesting,  by  means  of  the  appearance,  the  description  or  pictorial  representations,  the  presence  of  a 
particular food or an ingredient, while in reality a component naturally present or an ingredient normally used 
in  that  food  has  been  substituted  with  a  different  component  or  a  different  ingredient.  2.  Food  information 
shall be accurate, clear and easy to understand for the consumer. 
101  As  described  in  section  on  the  problem  definition,  depending  on  the  process  used,  either  the  sugar  is 
filtrated out, or it is transformed in fibres or gluconic acid. None of the processes developed to date purport to 
modify  the  level  of  other  nutrients  in  the  juice,  or  vitamins  or  minerals.  In  case  there  are  compositional 
variations introduced, such modifications need to be clearly communicated to the consumer. 
102  Conference  call  with  the  DGCCRF  of  31  January  2022.  Confirmed  by  conference  call  with  Laboratory 
Eurofins  on  6  April  2022.  Austria  Juice  takes  the  view  that  some  of  the  processes  explored by  the  industry 
deliver less authenticity. Any of the processes that would be added to the Directive would therefore have to be 
carefully evaluated with the sector, MSs, the JRC, etc. to ensure their effects on the juices. 

54 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
sugar’ claim, unless the reduction reaches at least 30% of sugar normally contained. The 
sector believes that there is a market demand for products that cannot reach this threshold 
as they are appreciated anyway by the consumer. 

Under Option III, which would mandate a sugar reduction of at least 30% and not any 
value below that, the emphasis on the health aspect is even more prominent, but the risk 
is  that  less  product  would  be  sold  on  the  market  with  such  a  low  level  of  sugar  as 
compared  to  Option  II.  However,  with  a  required  mandatory  indication  of  the  product 
being  sugar  reduced,  consumers  would  be  more  prominently  alerted  about  the  sugar-
reduced characteristic of the product. 

Likely environmental impacts 

We  do  not  anticipate  any  direct  environmental  effects  for  this  revision.  Since  the 
products  are  already  or  will  be  commercialised  independently  from  a  regulation  at  EU 
level,  the  overall  environmental  impact  of  the  production  and  consumption  of  these 
products  on  climate  change,  air  quality,  water  quality  and  quantity,  biodiversity,  soil 
quality or resources, land use change or degradation, waste production and recycling, etc. 
will remain at the same level whether the EU acts or not. None of the processes used to 
reduce  naturally-occurring  sugars  are  understood  to  necessitate  the  use  of  products 
impacting significantly the environment. While the regulation is expected to scale up the 
reduced-sugar fruit juices, it is expected to remain a small segment that will also displace 
some current sales of regular fruit juices. 

Likely impacts on simplification or administrative burden 

Options  I,  II  and  III:  Allowing  reduced-sugar  juices  to  use  the  sales  designation  fruit 
juice would entail an additional level of control by public authorities. It could be argued 
that this could add to the administrative burden. However, for example in France, where 
this  type  of  product  is  already  marketed,  authorities  have  already  tested  the  juice  with 
their established methods for inspection and controls for authenticity. Private laboratories 
that provide quality control testing on juices also confirm  that the conventional  isotope 
methods can be used to verify the processes used to  reduce the sugar and that only the 
sugar  was  reduced103.  In  the  case  of  Cidou’s  ‘Désucrés’,  the  FR  authorities  have  been 
able  to  verify  the  technology  used  and  the  authenticity  of  the  product104.  The  FR 
inspection services would see an administrative benefit of a regulation at EU level of this 
new  product,  to  have  a  clear,  uniform  standard  against  which  to  control  the  quality  of 
these  juices  and  authorise  marketing  claims  of  reduced-sugar  fruit  juices105.  The  three 
Options are roughly equivalent in term of administrative burden. 

Who would likely be affected 

Economic operators (e.g. juice producers, manufacturers, bottlers, retailers) would have a 
clear legal framework within which to develop their products. Consumers would have the 
assurance of the integrity and quality of the product they are purchasing and consuming, 
and  as  these  products  develop  and  clear  labelling  requirements  about  the  true 
characteristics of the product, about the process used and changes introduced to the fruit 
juice will ensure that consumers are not mislead about the true nature of the product. In 

103 Conference call with Laboratory Eurofins on 6 April 2022. 
104 Conference call with the DGCCRF of 31 January 2022. 
105 Conference call with the DGCCRF of 31 January 2022. 

55 

 
                                                 
the  medium-term  they  would  have  the  choice  to  shift  their  consumption  habits  to 
reduced-sugar fruit juices. Setting a standard would give public authorities a legal basis 
for treatment of these products as well as for controls. 

10.2.4. Comparison of options 

Effectiveness 

All  three  Options  give  legal  certainty  to  operators  developing  products  that  ultimately 
aim at reducing the intake of sugar. All three Options will comply with the FIC rules on 
labelling  requirements  in  order  to  ensure  that  consumers  are  not  misled  about  the  true 
nature of the product. 

Coherence 

In terms of coherence with the current FIC Regulation and its ongoing revision, all three 
Options would neither overlap with it nor would they be incoherent with it. First, the FIC 
Regulation covers all products sold for consumer consumption and does not provide for 
specific rules regarding fruit juices, which are therefore contained in the Juice Directive. 
All  three  Options  cover  the  composition  and  labelling  of  a  specific  fruit-juice-based 
product, which would only be regulated the Juice Directive. Second, none of the Options 
propose  to  derogate  from  the  FIC  Regulation  or  its  revision  regarding  front-of-pack 
labelling  or  nutrient  profile.  All  the  Options  actually  complement  the  FIC  Regulation 
whereas  the  latter  does  not  provide  for  specific  indications  how  to  label  reduced-sugar 
fruit juice. 

Efficiency 

By  acting  at  the  EU  level,  operators  get  the  assurance  of  an  equal  treatment  across  the 
single  market.  Similarly,  all  consumers  across  the  EU  would  have  access  to  the  same, 
comprehensive  information  on  the  labels  for  similar  products,  including  about  the 
process applied and changes of the product composition and a minimum quality ensured, 
as opposed to leaving it to MSs to regulate on the labelling or the industry to come up 
with  their  own  labelling  proposal.  As  detailed  above,  none  of  the  options  have 
anticipated  impacts  on  the  environment.  Conversely,  they  can  be  expected  to  have  a 
positive economic impact and a positive impact on SMEs and competitiveness, as well as 
a  positive  impact  on  social  sustainability.  The  processes  currently  used  to  remove 
naturally  occurring  sugars  are  novel  in  the  fruit-based  beverage  sector,  the  regulation 
would  need  to  ensure  that  the  processes  used  are  safe,  consumers  are  comprehensively 
informed and ensure the quality of the final product. 

Option  I  would  be  mainly  focused  on  the  allowed  technology,  with  no  prescription  of 
qualitative aspects, which would be left to the consumers to appreciate. 

Options  II  and  III  would  instead  ensure  that  the  final  products  respect  minimum 
qualitative aspects. 

Option III sets  the bar at  a higher level  in  terms of sugar reduction than Option  II. As 
such,  while  providing  products  where  at  least  30%  of  the  sugar  has  been  removed,  it 
would  offer  less  economic  opportunities  to  operators  and  may  result  in  less  products 
available  to  consumers  on  the  market.  Under  Option  II,  a  wide  range  of  products  with 
different  levels  of  reduced  sugar  content  would  be  available  to  the  consumers  on  the 
market,  whereas  under  Option  III,  consumers  would  only  have  access  to  conventional 
juices  or  reduced-sugar  juice  of  at  least  30%  reduction.  However,  without  a  clear 

56 

 
threshold, this variety of available products might conversely turn into higher consumer 
confusion.  A  threshold  of  at  least  30%  does  provide  clarity  to  the  consumers,  who  are 
already accustomed to this level for all other products using a sugar-reduction nutritional 
claim, in line with the current nutritional claim regulation. 

Baseline  Option I  Option II  Option III 

Costs 

Compliance costs incurred by food business 
operators (direct) 

Regulatory costs incurred by regulators 
(direct) 

Benefits 

Economic opportunities for food business 
operators (direct) 

Wider range of products/services (direct) 

Improved information (direct) 

Improved welfare, health (indirect) 

10.2.5. Preferred option 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 

- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

- 

- 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

- 

- 

+ 

+ 

+++ 

+ 

The preferred option is Option III–lay down at the EU level the authorisation of certain 
treatments  or  additional  ingredients  in  fruit  juice  to  reduce  naturally-occurring  sugar 
while permitting the use of the sales designation fruit juice, fruit juice from concentrate, 
etc. and ensuring a minimum  quality of the final  product as  well as  at  least  30% sugar 
reduction.  In  order  to  correctly  inform  consumers,  the  products  would  still  need  to 
comply with the FIC rules, requiring that consumers be informed that a process has been 
applied  to  reduce  sugars  as  well  as  other  compositional  changes  other  than  the  sugar 
level, if any. 

The approach creates a clear legal framework and allows for commercial plannability for 
both  larger  players  and  SMEs  which  are  developing  this  new  product  and  enables  the 
basis  for  a  return  on  investment  concerning  their  research  and  development.  Science  is 
advanced  enough  to  allow  for  the  verification  of  the  authenticity  of  the  sugar-reduced 
fruit  juices  and  it  does  not  add  a  significant  burden  on  national  control  authorities. 
Therefore, if a treatment is authorised in the Juice Directive, it should mean that it meets 
the standard for the product to use one of the designations in the Juice Directive. There is 
a  demand  for  processed  products  reformulation,  especially  products  with  lower  free 
sugars content, both from consumers and health authorities. The approach addresses this 
demand.  However,  given  that  food  business  operators  and  consumers  are  already 
accustomed  to  the  threshold  of  30%  reduction  for  all  products  as  regards  nutritional 
claims  on  sugar  content,  it  appears  more  coherent  to  use  the  same  30%  threshold  for 
reduced-sugar  fruit  juices  (i.e.  Option  III),  rather  than  allowing  any  possible  level  of 
reduced sugar content, even below 30% (Option II). 

57 

 
 
10.2.6. Monitoring and evaluation of impacts 

The  evolution  of  this  product  in  terms  of  sales  and  market  shares  in  the  EU  will  be 
monitored  over  the  medium-term  using  market  reports  and  Euromonitor  data,  to  assess 
the uptake and consumer interest of reduced-sugar fruit juices. Similarly to the approach 
for cider and perry, the Commission will also make use of existing channels to monitor 
the implementation and collect information and data on how the marketing standards are 
implemented in the market by operators, how they are perceived by consumers, how they 
are  controlled  by  authorities,  what  their  general  added  value  is.  This  includes  tabling  a 
regular  dedicated  discussion  on  the  standards  in  the  Expert  Group  on  the  Common 
Organisation  of  the  Market  with  delegates  from  MSs’  authorities  and  in  the  Civil 
Dialogue Group with relevant stakeholders. The information will be used, together with 
others,  in  a  study  that  the  Commission  foresees  to  conduct  within  five  years  of  the 
application  of  the  revision  on  the  functioning  of  the  marketing  standards  and  their 
contribution to the market functioning, including for the modifications that are covered in 
this impact assessment. This study should not come too close after the regulatory changes 
come  into  force,  so  as  to  leave  enough  time  for  business  operators  to  adapt  and  for 
consumers to lastingly change their purchasing behaviours. 

Objectives  

Measures of success and monitoring indicators 

1. Processed products should be 
reformulated to have lower added 
sugar. 

2. Consumers should have access 
to processed products containing 
lower levels of added sugar. 

3. Consumers should have clear 
and transparent information on 
food products. 

Reduced-sugar  fruit  juices  are  produced,  where  naturally-occurring 
sugars are removed 

- Composition of fruit juices and reduced-sugar fruit juices marketed in 

the EU (market research) 

Choices of jams and jellies offered to consumers contain lower levels of 
added sugar 

- Consumer perceptions (consumer research) 
- Statistics on consumer purchasing behaviour changes (market 
research, including sales of reduced-sugar fruit juices vs other 
beverages) 

- Statistics on household consumption of products containing fruit and 
vegetables (including Eurostat’s survey on consumption of F&V, as 
well as national nutritional surveys) 

Labelling  of  reduced-sugar  fruit  juices  is  clear  and  transparent  to 
consumers 

- Consumer perceptions (consumer research) 
- Consistency of Member States implementation and enforcement 
(Member States reports in the Expert Group on the Common 
Organisation of the Market in agricultural products with delegates 
from MS authorities) 

10.3.  Sugar levels in jams 

10.3.1. Problem definition 

Euromonitor  data  indicates  that  the  market  for  ‘Jams  and  Preserves’  across  all  MSs  is 
growing, standing currently at EUR 2.6 billion (EUR 2.4 billion in 2019, EUR 2.5 billion 
in 2020).106 As mentioned in the context of fruit juices, there are calls to reduce the free 
sugars intake in  diets.  Free sugars include sugars naturally occurring in  fruit juices and 

106 Extracted from Euromonitor Passport data, total value retail selling price in current prices. 

58 

 
                                                 
fruit juice concentrates, including free sugars consumed via processed products107. Jams 
and jellies contain a significant amount of sugars from both the raw material and added 
sugar.  Sugars  in  jams  and  jellies  from  the  (complete)  fruit  do  not  count  as  free  sugars, 
free sugars comprise added sugars (mostly sucrose) as well as sugars naturally occurring 
in fruit juice and concentrated fruit juice used in the production of jams and jellies. The 
nutrient of concern is free sugars, therefore, from a health perspective, the sugar provided 
by  added  sugars  as  well  as  by  fruit  juice  or  fruit  juice  as  an  ingredient  needs  to  be 
reduced. 

Jams,  jellies  and  marmalades  are  regulated  at  EU  level  by  Council  Directive 
2001/113/EC  of  20  December  2001  relating  to  fruit  jams,  jellies  and  marmalades  and 
sweetened  chestnut  purée  intended  for  human  consumption  (hereinafter  the  ‘Jam 
Directive’)108. The Jam Directive sets a minimum amount for sugar (naturally occurring 
sugar  and  added  sugar)  in  all  products  covered  by  the  Jam  Directive  (jam,  jelly,  extra 
jam, extra jelly, marmalade, chestnut puree): 

‘Products  defined  in  part  I  must  have  a  soluble  dry  matter  content  of  60%  or  more  as 
determined by refractometer, except for those products in respect of which sugars have been 
wholly or partially replaced by sweeteners. 

Without prejudice to Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/13/EC, Member States may, however, in 
order to take account of certain particular cases, authorise the reserved names for products 
defined in part I which have a soluble dry matter content of less than 60%.’109 

This  is  in  line  with  the  international  standard,  the  Codex  Alimentarius  on  jams,  which 
sets a range of 60 to 65%110. 

In parallel, for jam the Jam Directive requires a minimum level of fruit content, with the 
quantity of fruit pulp or puree not less than 350g per kilo of the finished product. The use 
of the term ‘extra jam’ is reserved for products containing a higher level of fruit – 450g 
per kilo.  In most MSs,  extra jam sales have already largely  superseded jam  sales111.  In 
France112, extra jams already represented 72% of the volumes produced in 2017 – 94 000 
tonnes of extra jams were produced in 2017, versus 37 000 tonnes of standard jam. Two 
years  before,  the  standard  jam  segment  was  at  36  000  tonnes,  while  the  extra  jam 
segment was at 90 000 tonnes. There had been a clear increase in the extra category since 
2015 compared to the standard jam category.113 According to the sector, these numbers 

107  See  EFSA  scientific  opinion  on  the  tolerable  upper  intake  level  for  dietary  sugars  of  28  February  2022 
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/7074. 
108  Council  Directive  2001/113/EC  of  20  December  2001  relating  to  fruit  jams,  jellies  and  marmalades  and 
sweetened chestnut purée intended for human consumption, OJ L 10/67. 
109 Annex I, part II of the Directive. The 60% threshold excludes starch as starch is not a soluble dry matter. 
110  See  section  3.2  of  Codex  Alimentarius  Standard  for  Jams,  Jellies  and  Marmalades  CXS  296-2009,  as 
amended in 2020 https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/codex-texts/list-standards/en/. 
111  Conference  call  with  Profel  of  27  January  2022.  Profel  explains  that  the  standard  jam  segment  is 
“marginal”  in  Belgium  and  the  Netherlands.  No  precise  figures  for  these  MSs  nor  the  rest  of  the  EU  were 
provided. 
112 J. Lendrevie, Mercator 2007, ‘Le cas Bonne Maman’.  According to recent market analyses, France (with 
578,000  tonnes)  remains  the  largest  jam,  jelly,  puree  and  paste  consuming  country  in  the  EU,  comprising 
approx.  35%  of  total  volume,  exceeding  the  figures  recorded  by  the  second-largest  consumer,  Germany 
(258,000  tonnes),  twofold.  https://www.globaltrademag.com/france-consumes-most-of-jam-jelly-puree-and-
paste-in-the-eu/ of 18 February 2021. 
113 Study by Agrex Consulting for FranceAgriMer of December 2019 ‘Competitivite des produits de seconde 
transformation de l‘industrie agroalimentaire française’. 

59 

 
                                                 
are even higher in 2021, the segment of jams no longer being relevant in Belgium and the 
Netherlands, for example, while it historically persists in Scandinavian MSs because the 
offer has not yet adapted to expand the extra jam segment and lower the price difference 
between jams and extra jams like it happened in France, Belgium and Germany114. 

Marketing  standards  may  not  be  the  best  or  only  tool  to  influence  the  level  of 
consumption  of  free  sugars-containing  products.  Nevertheless,  some  MSs115  and 
stakeholders116 conclude that a “decrease of the sugar content” of jams and jellies should 
be helped along via a revision of the relevant marketing standard, as defined in the Jam 
Directive117.  There  is  a  call  to  act  at  the  EU  level118.  This  bid  is  also  in  line  with  F2F 
objectives  and  in  particular  the  action  concerning  the  reformulation  of  processed 
products. 

Jams  and  jellies  are  by  definition  products  containing  mostly  fruit,  which  contain 
naturally occurring sugars, and added sugar. Without the addition of a minimum level of 
sugar, the  cooked fruit does not  have enough inherent  sugar to  attain  a jellified texture 
together  with  the  added  and  naturally  occurring  pectin.  Jellification  is  an  essential 
process required to reach the desired mouthfeel known by consumers and the necessary 
preservability by reducing dramatically the availability of water for the development of 
bacteria,  yeast  or  mould.  Jam  is  therefore  preservable  for  a  long  period  even  once  the 
container is opened which is also a product quality that consumers seek119. 

The  Jam  Directive  also  foresees  that,  without  having  to  fulfil  any  specific  conditions, 
MSs  can  adopt  national  regulations  derogating  from  this  minimum  in  the  direction  of 

(6 

July 

2021 

roughly  25  grams 

114 Conference call with Profel of 27 January 2022. 
115 Replies of Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland, Croatia, and Poland to the consultation of MSs. 
116  See  WHO  recommendations  of  2015:  ‘A  new  WHO  guideline  recommends  adults  and  children  reduce 
their daily intake of free sugars to less than 10% of their total energy intake. A further reduction to below 5% 
or 
teaspoons)  per  day  would  provide  additional  health  benefits.’ 
https://www.who.int/news/item/04-03-2015-who-calls-on-countries-to-reduce-sugars-intake-among-adults-
and-children. See also EFSA draft scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars of 
22 
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/safety-dietary-sugars-draft-opinion-open-public-
consultation. 
117  The  Jam  Directive  can  be  amended  via  an  ordinary  legislative  procedure  based  on  Article  43  TFEU. 
Delegated Acts may be adopted based on Article 5 of the Directive itself for Annex II and Part B of Annex III. 
See Annex 5 of this Impact Assessment. 
118 See comments from France to the targeted consultation: ‘la modification de la réglementation devrait donc 
s’accompagner d’un point d’attention particulier sur l’information du consommateur afin d’éviter qu’il ne soit 
induit  en  erreur  ou  que  ne  soient  placés  en  concurrence  sous  la  même  appellation  et  sans  précisions 
complémentaires  sur  l’étiquetage  des  produits  respectant  les  critères  de  fabrication  "traditionnels"  de  la 
confiture,  et  d'autres  pouvant  y  déroger,  notamment  pour  en  réduire  les  coûts  ou  la  qualité.’  See  comments 
from  Estonia  to  the  targeted  consultation:  ‘a  new  agreement  on  the  minimum  sugar  content  should  be 
considered. The potential related effects on food safety are necessary to take into account when considering 
the  changes,  such  as  the  use  of  preservatives  for  reduced  sugar  jams,  which  in  turn  may  lead  to  a  higher 
consumption of preservatives. Under the current requirements it is possible to make jams with a lower sugar 
content only if sugar is replaced by a sweetener. When considering the consumers’ expectations, consideration 
should be given to allowing jams  with lower content of sugar (to be named as jams) but  without the use of 
sweeteners. Consideration should also be given to whether the proportion of fruit should be increased if sugar 
is reduced. Traditions and consumer expectations must also be taken into account when finding solutions (e.g. 
jam must have a very sweet taste).’ 
119  See  e.g.  France  DGCCRF’s  page  on  jams:  ‘Jam  is  synonymous  with  pleasure,  flavours  and  scents  of 
yesteryear.  It  is  the  art  of  preserving  by  sugar,  fruits,  vegetables,  stems,  roots,  leaves  or  flowers  that  are 
cooked  in  order  to  bring  them  to  a  sufficient  degree  of  dehydration  to  ensure  their  preservation’ 
https://www.economie.gouv.fr/dgccrf/Publications/Vie-pratique/Fiches-pratiques/Confitures-gelees-
marmelades-de-fruits. 

60 

 
                                                 
lowering  it120.  Seven  MSs  have  called  for  a  lowering  of  the  minimum  sugar  content in 
jams  in  the  Jam  Directive  during  the  targeted  consultation121.  Seven  MSs  have  already 
used the possibility to adopt a derogation to the minimum in their national legislation122. 
In these MSs, consumers have access to products labelled jams that have a lower level of 
added sugar, and do not bear the health claim ‘reduced sugar’. 

As  stated  in  the  Jam  Directive,  the  derogation  possibility  exists  to  cater  to  national 
preferences  and  this  translates  in  a  heterogeneous  range  of  minimum  levels  in  the  EU, 
from  30  to  55%.  There  are  no  calls,  neither  from  MSs123  nor  from  the  sector124,  to 
harmonise this, as they see this flexibility as necessary to ‘respect both consumer demand 
for  lower  sugar  products  and  their  cultural  traditions  and  recipes’125.  The  sector  has 
adapted to the variety of national levels for sugar content126. There have been no claims 
from either MSs or the sector that the principle of the free movement of products within 
the  EU  is  not  observed  in  accordance  with  the  rules  and  principles  laid  down  in  the 
Treaty. 

Some  MSs  do  not  see  a  need  to  revise  the  rule  on  sugar  content  in  jams,  either  at  EU 
level  or only at  national level,  while some others do but  would not  agree on one value 
(the values set differ between 30% to 55%). There is a lack of consensus amongst MSs as 
to what could be a lower minimum level should this be revised in the Jam Directive. 

There  is  already  a  segment  of  the  jam  market  with  reduced  amount  of  added  sugar,  in 
compliance with  the regulation  on health claims made on foods127. To be able to  claim 
that a jam is ‘reduced in sugar’, the reduction of sugar must at least 30%% compared to a 
similar jam and the amount of energy of the jam bearing the claim must be equal to or 
less  than  the  amount  of  energy  in  a  similar  jam128.  Even  though  the  Jam  Directive 
requires a minimum amount of sugar, it also foresees the possibility that product with a 

120 Annex I of the Directive: “Without prejudice to Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/13/EC, Member States may, 
however, in order to take account of certain particular cases, authorise the reserved names for products defined 
in part I which have a soluble dry matter content of less than 60 %.” 
121 Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland, Croatia, Poland. 
122  France,  Germany,  and  the  Netherlands  have  set  the  minimum  sugar  content  at  55%,  Ireland  is  at  50%, 
whereas Austria and Italy have minimum content at 45%,  with the added requirement in Italy that the label 
indicate ‘to be kept in the refrigerator after opening.’ The level in Portugal is even lower, at 30%. In reply to 
the  targeted  consultation,  Poland  explained  that  it  already  has  national  regulations  on  jams  with  a  reduced 
sugar  content,  which  is  indicated  to  consumers  in  the  name  of  these  products  and  allows  them  to  make 
informed choices in accordance with the principles of a balanced diet. 
123 No MS raised this in reply to the targeted consultation. 
124 See Profel’s submission of 14 January 2022. 
125 Ibid. 
126 Profel’s  submission of 24  August 2021: “the Directive already allows  for variations regarding a reduced 
sugar content when implementing the Directive at national level, while serving as the reference against which 
to measure any such national derogations. Therefore it would be wrong to assume that lowering the minimum 
soluble dry matter content of the Directive would result in an increase of reduced-sugar products.” 
127 https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/30/jam-wars-reducing-sugar-britain. 
128  Regulation  (EC)  No  1924/2006  of  the  European  parliament  and  of  the  council  of  20  December  2006  on 
nutrition and health claims made on foods: “REDUCED [NAME OF THE NUTRIENT] A claim stating that 
the content in one or more nutrients has been reduced, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the 
consumer, may only be made where the reduction in content is at least 30 % compared to a similar product …. 
… The claim ‘reduced sugars’, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be 
made if the amount of energy of the product bearing the claim is equal to or less than the amount of energy in 
a similar product.” http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2006/1924/oj. 

61 

 
                                                 
reduced  amount  of  sugar  could  co-exist  while  using  the  sales  designation  ‘jam’129. 
Combining  the  Jam  Directive  with  the  regulation  on  health  claims,  there  are  therefore 
two categories of products with the designation ‘jams’130 with two different amounts of 
sugar:  jams  and  reduced-sugar  jams  with  at  least  30%  less  sugar.  Given  that  there  is  a 
fixed  minimum  in  the  Jam  Directive,  the  sector  has  no  flexibility  what  to  market:  it  is 
either a jam with the required minimum amount of sugar or a sugar-reduced jam with at 
least 30% less sugar. The sector estimates that, for example in France, the reduced-sugar 
jam  segment  represents  roughly  14%  of  the  total  jams’  sales  (France  is  the  main  EU 
producer of jams, before Germany and Italy131). Other products containing very low level 
of or even no added sugar already exist on the EU market, they are designated as ‘fruit 
spreads’ and include other additives such as guar gum or xanthan to reach gel texture and 
provide a different culinary experience to consumers132. 

In light of the above, this Section explores to what extent the marketing standard for jams 
and extra jams could be revised to lead to a lowering of the level of free sugars133. 

The  so  called  ‘Breakfast  Directives’,  including  the  Jam  Directive,  are  the  result  of 
carefully  balanced  compromises  between  the  various  national  preferences  and,  as  past 
and  current  discussions  with  MSs  and  stakeholders  have  shown,  politically  sensitive. 
Because  of  this  political  sensitivity  that  goes  beyond  the  mere  technical  nature  of  the 
amendment  and  the  fact  that  policy  choices  will  need  to  be  made,  it  is  considered 
necessary  to  provide  in  this  Section  details  on  various  options  for  opening  the  Jam 
Directive to revise the formulation of jams to lower the level of free sugar and to identify 
ex-ante  to  the  extent  possible  their  respective  potential  economic,  social  and 
environmental impacts. 

In parallel, a flexibility on the use of the product designation “marmalade” is explored in 
Annex  IX,  without  affecting  the  product  composition.  This  change  is  considered  of  a 
technical nature and thus was not selected to be examined in the same level of details. 

10.3.2. Options to achieve the objectives 

Baseline 

The Jam Directive remains unchanged, with a minimum amount of total sugar at 60% of 
the  soluble  dry  matter,  and  the  possibility  for  MSs  to  derogate  to  this  minimum  by 
lowering it in their national markets. 

Policy options 

In view of the above, the options to address the issue of sugar content in jams and jellies 
are: 

129 See Article 2(4) of the Directive 2001/113/EC: “The labelling shall indicate the total sugar content by the 
words  ‘total  sugar  content  …  g  per  100  g’,  ….  The  sugar  content  need  not,  however,  be  indicated  where  a 
nutrition claim is made for sugars on the labelling pursuant to Directive 90/496/EEC”. 
130  Applicable  as  well  to  jellies,  extra  jams,  extra  jellies,  marmalades,  jelly  marmalades  and  sweetened 
chestnut purées. The term ‘jams’ is used here as a generic. 
131 Study by Agrex Consulting for FranceAgriMer of December 2019 ‘Competitivite des produits de seconde 
transformation de l‘industrie agroalimentaire francaise’. 
132 Conference call with Profel of 28 October 2021. 
133 The Jam Directive authorizes the use of sweeteners to replace wholly or partially the sugars of all products 
covered by the Jam Directive. 

62 

 
                                                 
Option  I:  to  remove  the  required  minimum  amount  of  sugar  entirely  in  the  Jam 
Directive134; 

Option II: to lower the required minimum amount of sugar, and to set it at, for example, 
55% like done in France, Germany and the Netherlands or at 50%; 

Option III: to increase the general minimum fruit content to 450g/1000g (as opposed to 
350g/1000g  currently),  so  far  reserved  for  ‘extra  jam’  and  ‘extra  jelly’135.  This  option 
touches neither the minimum sugar content nor the possibility for MSs to derogate from 
it but rather replaces the current definition of jams and jellies by what currently qualifies 
as  ‘extra  jam’  or  ‘extra  jelly’.  In  addition,  a  new  (even)  higher  fruit-content  category 
would  be  created  for  what  could  be  designated  as  ‘extra  jam’  or  ‘extra  jelly’  after  the 
revision136.  However,  this  option  does  not  necessarily  exclude  the  previous  ones  and 
could be combined, in principle, with option I or with option II, but this would not affect 
their respective impacts, which are assessed individually. 

10.3.3. Impacts of the different policy options 

Likely economic impacts 

Option I: Without a standard sugar content at EU level, each operator would be able to 
use the designation ‘jam’ no matter what the level of sugar is, including added sugar, in 
the  product.  This  would  create  disruption  within  the  sector  and  increase  confusion  for 
consumers.  It  would  de-segment  the  market.  MSs  would  regulate  at  national  level  and 
trade  within  the  single  market  would  fall  back  to  the  basic  principles  of  ‘Cassis  de 
Dijon’137:  national  standards  on  sugar  level  would  not  prevent  imports  of  jams  with 
higher  sugar  content.  In  terms  of  flexibility  for  MSs,  this  option  would  have  the  same 
end-result as the current situation, because a national derogation possibility already exists 
in  the  Jam  Directive,  and,  in  practical  terms,  MSs  would  tend  to  keep  their  currently 
applied values for the minimum sugar content. On the other hand, it would remove any 
reference value that today is anchored in the Jam Directive138. It is likely that in such a 
scenario,  several  MSs  (the  ones  not  making  use  of  the  current  derogation  possibility) 
would  revert  to  the  Codex  Alimentarius  standard,  which  sets  a  range  between  60  and 
65%,  so  as  to  not  disrupt  external  trade  for  their  national  operators;  this  would  clearly 
defeat the purpose of the revision as sugar amounts in jam would remain as high if not 
higher than today. Moreover, in a situation where the EU minimum level is replaced by 

134 For example, Germany proposed, in reply to the targeted consultation: “Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on 
the  provision  of  food  information  to  consumers  requires  the  sugar  content  of  pre-packaged  foods  to  be 
indicated in the nutrition declaration. Article 2(4) of Directive 2001/113/EC, which contains the indication of 
the total sugar content of jams, jellies, marmalades and chestnut purée, should be deleted in the light of this 
background.” 
135 See the current ‘extra jam’ definition in Annex I, Part I Definitions of the Directive 2011/113/EC: “‘Extra 
jam’ is a mixture, brought to a suitable gelled consistency, of sugars, the unconcentrated pulp of one or more 
kinds of fruit and water. … The quantity of pulp used for the manufacture of 1 000 g of finished product must 
not be less than: 450 g as a general rule, 350 g for redcurrants, rowanberries, sea-buckthorns, blackcurrants, 
rosehips and quinces, 250 g for ginger, 230 g for cashew apples, 80 g for passion fruit.” 
136 Range to be defined, but at least 500-550g of fruit per 1kg. 
137 Judgment of the Court of 20 February 1979. - Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein. 
-  Reference  for  a  preliminary  ruling:  Hessisches  Finanzgericht  -  Germany.  -  Measures  heaving  an  effect 
equivalent to quantitative restrictions. - Case 120/78. 
138 To note, when asked about the existing differences between MSs in terms of sugar content in jams, the sector 
explained that since they conform to cultural traditions and national consumer demand, the sector has necessarily 
adapted to them and it is economically sensible. 

63 

 
                                                 
national  levels  fixed  freely  by  MSs,  it  would  be  difficult  for  operators  to  use  a  health 
claim of ‘reduced sugar’ without a reference basis for comparison. Therefore, this option 
could disincentivise further the development of reduced-sugar jams. 

In  sum,  the  costs  and  burdens  for  operators  who  would  have  to  adapt  to  potentially  27 
diverging national  regulation on sugar content and have difficulty to market a reduced-
sugar product in this context, especially SMEs, and MSs having to regulate on the sugar 
content  and  control  the  sugar  amount  would  increase  considerably  under  this  option, 
while the innovation would be put at risk. 

Option II: Currently, the minimum  is  the EU rule, but  for the few MSs which apply a 
derogation to allow a lower level. If the minimum is lowered to 55% or 50% of sugar, the 
economic  impact  for  operators  would  be  considerable  (in  MSs  not  applying  the 
derogation)  as  they  would  have  to  reformulate  their  products  and  entirely  adapt  their 
labelling. 

A  minimum  content  fixed  at  EU  level  for  jams  allows  a  reference  value  for  the  claim 
‘reduced sugar’, providing a valuable marketing tool for operators who have developed 
such  products.  If  the  value  is  reduced  considerably  below  60%,  operators  intending  to 
claim  ‘reduced-sugar  jam’  would  be  obliged  to  reduce  the  sugar  content  to  levels  that 
would  render  the  product  barely  consistent  with  a  jam  texture  and  even  less 
preservable139.  This  would  also  disincentivise  the  development  of  reduced-sugar  jams. 
Currently,  jams  with  a  42-43%  of  sugar  content  have  almost  the  same  mouthfeel  as 
regular  jams,  but  a  much  shorter  preservation  once  the  pot  is  opened,  as  the  sector 
confirmed140.  Lowering  across  the  board  the  minimum  amount  of  sugar  at  55  or  even 
50%  could  in  effect  make  the  ‘reduced-sugar’  jams  segment  disappear.  Indeed,  with 
these levels of sugar, the claim ‘reduced-sugar’ could no longer be used, since it would 
require that the jams contain only 38.5% (for a standard at 55%) or less of sugar, a level 
at which the product no longer has the characteristics of a jam since it would have serious 
problems of preservation, mouthfeel and consistency141. 

Moreover, under this option, the industry would have to re-orient all of their production 
lines, reformulate all of their recipes for MSs where lower level of sugars were not  yet 
allowed.  This  would  have  a  non-negligible  economic  impact  on  the  industry.  First,  the 
pectins  that  can  be  used  with  lower  sugar  level,  an  essential  ingredient  to  induce  the 
jellification,  are  twice  as  expensive  as  the  standard  pectins,  and  they  are  twice  as 
costly142.  So  the  cost  of  manufacture  would  be  significantly  increased.  Second,  the 
density of the added sugar (1,59g/ml) is much higher than the density of fruits (+/-1g/ml). 
So, if sugar content is lowered across the board, it would have an impact on the sizing of 
the jars for all the products, or reversely on the price per kilo of product if the jars are not 
resized, i.e. either a major economic impact on the supply chain if jars are resized, or a 
price  increase  for  each  buying  act  for  the  consumer  if  they  are  not.  In  addition,  if  the 
industry considers keeping the same volume for jars, they will contain less jam (in term 

139 Conference call with Profel of 27 January 2022. 
140 Conference call  with Profel of 27 January 2022 and meeting with Profel and Andros/Materne of 27 June 
2022:  not  only  is  the  jam  with  reduced-sugar  not  perservable  outside  a  refrigerated  area,  but  it  will  only 
preserve a few weeks at most, compared to several months for normal jam. 
141 Conference call with Profel of 27 January 2022 and meeting with Profel and Andros/Materne of 27 June 
2022. 
142 Meeting with Profel and Andros/Materne of 27 June 2022. 

64 

 
                                                 
of weight) that will either not preserve well or contain preservatives (that we would have 
to authorize if we want to avoid food waste). 

The EU would also have a lower level of sugar content than other third countries whose 
requirements are aligned to the Codex Alimentarius. This measure could have an impact 
on trade, especially with our main trading partners for jams because EU jams would no 
longer  conform  to  the  international  standards,  as  they  would  be  too  low  in  sugars.  In 
2020, the EU exported 43.7 million euros  worth of jams to the UK, 16.3 million euros to 
Russia,  7.5  million  euros  to  China  and  5.5  million  euros  to  Israel143.  There  would  be 
trade disruptions as products from the EU with a lower total sugar content that the one of 
the Codex Alimentarius (a range of 60 to 65% or greater) could no longer be marketed as 
jams or jellies outside the EU 144. On the other hand, since the total sugar content is only 
a minimum, any imported product with a total sugar content above this minimum could 
continue to be marketed as “jam” in the EU. 

In sum, this option would have a significant economic impact. 

Option  III:  Raising  the  content  of  fruit  in  jams  would  automatically  reduce  the  sugar 
added. This could theoretically raise the costs for the processors but  this is estimated to 
be a marginal increase as  the vast  majority of jams  produced in  the EU  already  have a 
level of fruit content equal to or above the one currently required for extra jams. It would 
however  improve  the  general  quality  of  the  final  product.  Fruit  is,  in  principle  but  not 
always,  more  expensive  than  sugar  and  its  availability  is  less  stable,  depending  on 
weather  events,  quality  of  the  crops  and  fresh  consumption  demand.  Raising  the  fruit 
content in jams to the level of extra jams across the board would only have an impact of 
cost  and  organisation  of  production  on  manufacturers  that  do  not  produce  extra  jams, 
because  for  their  products,  they  would  have  to  modify  their  production  to  increase  the 
fruit  content  to  continue  using  the  product  name  ‘jam’.  The  segment  of  extra  jams  is 
however  already  dominant  in  several  MSs,  so  a  majority  of  manufacturers  are  already 
producing  and  selling  jams  with  higher  fruit  content  and  in  practice,  they  have  part  of 
their production lines devoted to jams aside from those for extra jams145. Products with 
lower  fruit  content  could  still  be  marketed  as  fruit  spread,  but  no  longer  as  jam,  and 
compete with the range of fruit spreads already developing on the market. The economic 
impact would therefore be rather limited. Moreover, this is the segment with the largest 
consumer demand and the retailers have pushed the demand on the industry to increase 
their output of extra jam, so prices at retail level in several MSs are already equivalent for 
jams and extra jams146. The current ‘extra jams’ and ‘extra jellies’ would be marketed as 
‘jams’ and ‘jellies’ respectively, and a new premium segment would be  created to with 
an even higher fruit-content for what could be designated as ‘extra jam’ or ‘extra jelly’ 
after  the  revision.  The  outcome  of  which  would  be  a  better  market  segmentation  in 
respect to the current thresholds. 

143 Source: Eurostat (Comext), latest update: 17 Jan 2022 for product 200710 - Jams, fruit jellies, marmalades, 
fruit or nut purée and fruit or nut pastes, obtained by cooking, whether or not containing added sugar or other 
sweetening  matter,  homogenised  preparations.  Reversely,  the  EU  only  imported  from  the  United  Kingdom 
16.6 million euros and Turkey 1.3 million euros, and other third country imports were much lower. 
144 Profel explains: “The Codex Standard fixes the brix level for jam at 60° brix, and it is common practice for 
many Export markets to use this Standard as the basis for their requirements. A modification of the European 
products  could  result  in  EU  based  manufacturers  no  longer  able  to  export  the  standard  products  to  export 
markets (albeit with specific labelling), and not being commercially viable when including the additional costs 
involved with holding additional stock keeping units (SKUs).” Profel’s submission of 14 January 2022. 
145 Conference call with Profel of 27 January 2022. 
146 Conference call with Profel of 27 January 2022. Meeting with Profel and Andros/Materne on 27 June 2022. 

65 

 
                                                 
There  would  be  some  costs  to  the  sector  to  adapt  all  the  labels  for  packaging.  This 
economic impact could be addressed in a similar way as it was addressed with the Jam 
Directive on fruit juice with a transition phase in the application of the new rules, so as to 
get  rid  of  stocks.  These  costs,  however,  could  be  recouped  especially  for  the  most 
dynamic  operators  who  would  wish  to  diversify  their  market  supply  further  towards 
higher quality and prices. In fact, as the extra jam reached a considerable market share, 
part of the industry has already been looking for further market segmentation, and in this 
respect the present option would create an economic opportunity. 

This  would  be  compatible  with  the  international  marketing  standard,  the  Codex 
Alimentarius, as it already foresees that countries can elect to designate as ‘jam’ product 
containing  not  less  than  45%  fruit  in  the  finished  product.  Moreover,  this  would  apply 
without discrimination to both EU produced jams and imported jams. Finally, as already 
explained,  the  majority  of  jams  sold  on  the  EU  market,  whether  EU  produced  or 
imported, already is ‘extra jam’ containing at least 450 g of fruit per kilo. As result, no 
significant impact on trade is expected with this change. 

To summarise the potential impact on international trade, Option I removes the minimum 
total  sugar  content  requirement  (less  trade-restrictive),  Option  II  lowers  the  minimum 
total  sugar  content  requirement  and EU exports to  third countries could  not  be labelled 
“jam”  anymore  in  these  countries  (trade-restrictive)  and  Option  III  increases  the  total 
fruit  content  requirement,  which  is  compatible  with  the  existing  international  standard 
(less  trade-restrictive).  None  of  the  options  imply  any  discrimination  between 
domestic/imported  products.  Option  I  does  not  contribute  to  the  objective  of 
reformulating the products with less sugar added, while Options II and III do, but Option 
II has a significant economic impact and is more trade-restrictive, putting EU producers 
at a disadvantage. There is no other less trade restrictive option contributing to the same 
extent to the policy objective in question. 

Likely impact on SMEs and competitiveness 

The  jam  market  is  a  mature  market,  where  incumbents  are  striving  to  maintain  their 
market  shares  based  on  products  that  vary  relatively  little147.  In  France,  Germany, 
Belgium, Finland, or Hungary, for  example, the market  is  shared between large  groups 
and  a  number  of  smaller  undertakings.  Smaller  players  that  sell  their  products  through 
supermarkets  can  be  faced  with  an  unfavourable  balance  of  power  compared  to  large 
groups  that  dominate  the  market148.  However,  even  in  such  a  mature  market,  smaller 
undertakings  are  still  able  to  differentiate  themselves  and  gain  market  shares  in  their 
domestic  market  as  well  as  on  export  markets149.  The  options  touching  on  the  sugar 
content  could  affect  operators,  with  large  players  perhaps  better  placed  to  absorb  with 
cost  adjustments  given  the  economies  of  scale  linked  to  size.  Having  said  this,  SMEs 
would have more flexibility to change their production lines because of the smaller scale 
of  production  concerned.  As  SMEs  are  in  general  closer  to  the  territory  and  to  the 
suppliers of fruit, Option III would be more favourable to them, providing them with the 
opportunity  to  use  these  links  to  source  more  fruit  to  produce  higher  value  added 
products. 

147 Businesscoot, The Jam Market - France, 13 December 2021. 
148 Businesscoot, The Jam Market - France, 13 December 2021. 
149 See e.g. ‘Rigoni di Asiago, double-digit growth in 2020’ https://www.efanews.eu/en/item/16814-rigoni-di-
asiago-double-digit-growth-in-2020.html. 

66 

 
                                                 
Likely social impacts 

The  average  consumption  of  jam  is  between  20-30g  per  serving  as  an  add-on  to  other 
foods, such as bread or yogurt150. The average sugar intake from a single serving of jam 
is  limited.  Nevertheless,  as  explained  in  the  previous  Section  on  fruit  juices,  the 
European  Consumer  Association  BEUC  acknowledges  that  for  the  transition  towards 
more  sustainable  food  systems  to  materialise,  consumers  need  to  change  their  lifestyle 
and  diets,  and  for  this  they  need  better  information,  regulations  and  nudging151. 
Empowering consumers  to  make informed, healthy and sustainable  food choices is  one 
of the objectives of the F2F strategy152. Ensuring that the consumers get more wholesome 
products (jams with higher complete fruit content and less free sugar) would contribute 
to that objective. The three options respond to the F2F objective on the reformulation of 
processed products,  in  particular  aiming  at  reducing the  amount of  free sugars in  jams, 
towards a healthier food consumption (health sustainability). 

Options  I  and  II:  From  a  food  waste  perspective,  a  minimum  amount  of  sugar  is 
necessary  to  ensure  a  practicable  shelf  life153.  Jams  with  lower  amount  of  sugar  are  de 
facto  often  specifically  labelled  as  ‘to  be  kept  in  the  refrigerator  after  opening’  (e.g. 
Italian legislation154) and the lower the amount of sugar, the shorter the shelf life once the 
jam pot has been opened. If the sugar content is lowered, the shelf life becomes a factor 
to be considered in weighing the options. As noted above, in Italy, the minimum has been 
lowered  to  45%  but  the  impact  on  the  shelf  life  was  considered  significant  enough  to 
require  the  additional  labelling.  Setting  the  content  below  60%,  within  a  range  where 
jellification would still be sufficiently stable155, would require choosing a shorter shelf-
life, depending on diverging personal consumption habits (i.e. how many times it is taken 
out of the refrigerator after opening and until it is finished, depending on how long the 
open  jar  is  left  unrefrigerated  while  in  use,  at  which  room  temperature,  etc.).  As  a 
consequence,  this  durability  aspect  could  drive  also  a  packaging  adaptation  towards 
smaller  conditioning  portions  with  the  related  problem  of  packaging  increase  and 
possible  packaging  waste.  Robust  and  reliable  evidence  is  currently  not  available  to 
confidently go down the path. 

From  a  nutritional  point  of  view,  any  of  the  options  altering  the  minimum  content  of 
sugar  (whether  removing  it  or  lowering  it)  does  not  properly  address  the  nutritional 
problem, as a higher sugar content than 50% or 55% would still be allowed. Option I and 
II are the only possible options for fruit jellies. In order to provide a health benefit, only 
reduced (total) sugar fruit jellies could be considered. 

Option  III:  This  option  would  have  no  impact  on  the  shelf  life  of  the  jams,  as  the 
minimum level of sugar is not changed, while the free sugars would be lower. The option 
would  aim  to  impact  the  level  of  free  sugar  in  jams  and  the  amount  of  complete  fruit 

150 Profel’s submission of 14 January 2022. Notably, portions used in the food service are usually around 28g, 
which, according to Profel, corresponds to enough to spread on two slices of bread. 
151 Meeting with BEUC on 5 January 2022 on food labelling and promotion. 
152 See section 2.4 of the F2F. 
153  The  jellification  limits  the  possibilities  of  exchange  with  the  outside  (risk  of  fermentation  and  mould 
development) and prevents the migration of elements within the jam (recrystallization of sugar). Jellification is 
a  function of a careful balance between  sugar, acidity and  pectins (the  most commonly  used  gelling agent). 
Conference call with Profel of 27 January 2022. 
154 See JRC literature review. 
155  The  sector  considers  that  below  circa  30%,  the  jellification  is  no  longer  adequate.  Conference  call  with 
Profel, 27 January 2022. 

67 

 
                                                 
consumed, but not the shelf life, since the total sugar content would remain unchanged. It 
would also not remove the possibility for MSs to authorise lower minimum sugar content 
and not prevent the marketing of ‘reduced-sugar’ jams; therefore, consumers would get 
higher quality jam with more complete fruit content without undermining possibilities for 
reduced sugar products. At equal serving size, this change would lead to an increase of 
the complete fruit content in jams and a lower intake of free sugars. From a nutritional 
point of view, should consumer not otherwise change their dietary habits in the preferred 
option and continue to consume the same proportion of jams, under this option their free 
sugars  intake  would  decrease  and  they  would  consume  more  complete  fruit.  This  is 
however very relative, given that the market share of standard jams is already limited in 
the EU. The main impact of this option would be to no longer have products with lower 
complete fruit content available on the EU market, raising the standard across the board 
for consumers, ensuring higher quality for consumers. According to the sector, standard 
jam  is  actually  mostly  purchased  by  institutional  catering,  such  as  hospitals,  nursing 
homes, schools and the like156. With the increase in fruit content across the board, these 
populations would be offered a better quality product. 

Incidentally,  raising  the  fruit  content  in  jams  across  the  board  also  means  that  fruit 
producers would have a potentially greater outlet for their produce that cannot be sold for 
fresh consumption, addressing indirectly the issue of waste along the supply chain157. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  jellies  are  already  a  product  produced  from  fruit  juice  and 
sugar, rather than from fruit pulp like jams. From a nutritional point of view, the natural 
sugar  contained  in  jellies  is  health-wise  not  superior  to  ‘added  sugars’158.  As  regards 
jellies  specifically,  the  revision  would  therefore  not  have  a  significant  impact  from  a 
nutritional point of view. 

Likely environmental impacts 

Options I and II: As regards food waste, the same considerations made above are valid 
here  as  well.  Direct  environmental  impacts  are  not  expected.  Jams  would  still  be 
produced on the basis of complete fruit as raw materials and added sugar. As explained 
below, the amount of added sugar used in jams would depend on national standards, and 
to arrive at product with shelf life and gel consistency required for jams, these national 
standards would be within the range of the current EU standard. As regards Option II, a 
real  decrease  on  the  minimum  sugar  content  could  affect  the  self-live  durability  and 
therefore possibly would increase food waste in the short term and drive changes in the 
longer  term  towards  smaller  portion  conditioning  with  the  consequent  increase  in 
packaging  use  and  waste.  Moreover,  reducing  sugar  content  requires  using  specific 
pectins to jellify the jam, and twice as much. Yet, pectins are not used as dry matter, but 
in an aqueous solution. This means that to obtain the same amount of jam, more energy 

156 Meeting with Profel and Andros/Materne on 27 June 2022. 
157  The  magnitude  of  this  effect  is  not  quantifiable,  part  of  the  producers  dedicate  their  production  to 
transformation,  others  use  it  as  an  outlet,  and  whether  a  product  not  marketable  for  fresh  consumption  is 
nevertheless  suitable  for  transformation  depends  on  the  type  of  aspect  affecting  its  marketability,  on  the 
organisation of the producer and the processor to purchase this product and on the product itself (whether it is 
an apple or a strawberry, whether it is the necessary Brix level, taste, etc.). 
158  See  EU  Framework  for  national  initiatives  on  selected  nutrients,  Annex  II:  Added  Sugars,  Introduction: 
“The term "added sugars" is additionally considered to include sugars present in honey, syrups, and fruit juices 
and  fruit 
juice  concentrates.”  https://ec.europa.eu/health/publications/added-sugars-annex-eu-framework-
national-initiatives-selected-nutrients_en. 

68 

 
                                                 
would have to be used to evaporate the excessive water159. Finally, because of the higher 
level of water in a lower sugar jam, the pasteurising time is increased to limit as much as 
possible  the  development  of  mould  and  bacteria,  which  also  requires  an  added 
consumption of energy. Therefore, Option II has the highest environmental impact of all 
three Options. 

Option  III:  No  direct  environmental  effect  is  expected.  Fruit  used  in  jam  and  jelly 
production are the same as produced for fresh consumption and fruit producers generally 
favour selling their production for fresh consumption because they get a better price160. 
Processing into jams is an outlet for fruit that do not conform to marketing standards for 
fresh consumption, because of size or appearance. In addition, given the small segment 
of the jam market currently represented by ‘standard’ jams, increasing the minimum fruit 
content  in  jams  would  only  impact  a  limited  proportion  of  the  jam  produced  and 
consumed. This segment will either be absorbed by the existing ‘extra jam’ segment, or 
continue  to  be  marketed  under  a  different  sales  designation  than  ‘jam’,  or  disappear. 
Therefore, increasing the fruit content in jams is not anticipated to lead to an increase in 
production.  If  anything,  it  may  create  an  increased  outlet  for  fruit  not  conforming  to 
marketing standards for fresh consumption and in this sense, have a positive impact on 
food waste. However, this positive impact is difficult to quantify, as it depends on each 
type of fruit and each producing region in the EU. 

Likely impacts on simplification or administrative burden 

Option I: As explained above, MSs could decide to occupy the ground abandoned by the 
EU  standard  by  referring  to  the  Codex  Alimentarius  or  by  setting  their  own  national 
standards. In terms of controls and checks on conformity of labelling, it would create an 
additional administrative burden. 

Option II: The controls would be the same as before, as they are already based on a risk 
analysis  for  all  marketing  standards161.  Modifying  one  aspect  of  an  already  existing 
marketing standard such as the one on jams will require to adapt methods for inspection 
and  authenticity  and  fraud  controls  with  this  changed  parameter,  but  it  does  not  entail 
creating  new  controls.  It  would  replace  the  derogations  already  existing  in  France, 
Germany and the Netherlands for example, so it could be considered as a simplification. 

Option III: As in Option II, the controls would be the same as before, as they are already 
based  on  a  risk  analysis  for  all  marketing  standards162.  Modifying  one  aspect  of  an 
already  existing  marketing  standard  such  as  the  one  on  jams  will  require  to  adapt 

159 Meeting with Profel and Andros/Materne on 27 June 2022: 20-30min of additional cooking time would be 
required to obtain the correct consistency, which would in turn also degrade the fruit quality. 
160  See  e.g.  https://www.freshplaza.com/article/9376260/prices-for-idared-apples-dropped-to-price-level-of-
industrial-apples-in-poland/  ‘Wholesale  prices  for  apples  of  this  variety  are  announced  at  the  level  of  0.40-
0.50  PLN/kg  ($0.10-0.12/kg).  However,  real  sales  of  large  batches  of  Idared  apples  are  made  even  at  0.30 
PLN/kg ($0.07/kg) – this is the price level of industrial apples.’ 
161  Article  90a(3)  of  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: “Member States 
shall carry out checks, based on a risk analysis, in order to verify whether the products referred to in Article 
1(2) conform to the rules laid down in this Section and shall apply administrative penalties as appropriate.” 
162  Article  90a(3)  of  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: “Member States 
shall carry out checks, based on a risk analysis, in order to verify whether the products referred to in Article 
1(2) conform to the rules laid down in this Section and shall apply administrative penalties as appropriate.” 

69 

 
                                                 
methods for inspection and authenticity and fraud controls with this changed parameter, 
but  it  does  not  entail  creating  new  controls.  The  Codex  Alimentarius  for  jams  already 
allows  this  possibility,  so  this  would  not  entail  a  misalignment  with  the  international 
standard or complicate MSs’ controls to a large degree163. However, operators who want 
to  continue  to  market  products  with  a  low  fruit  content  (i.e.  350  to  450  g  per  kilo  of 
finished  product)  will  have  to  change  their  sales  designations  and  therefore  their 
labelling. 

Who would likely be affected 

Economic operators such as jam manufacturers would be affected as they would have to 
reformulate  their  products  and  reorganise  their  production  lines,  to  adapt  to  either  new 
national standard or a new EU standard, assuming they do not settle for a different sales 
designation  than  jam.  Most  of  the  manufacturers  in  extra  jam  would  however  have  an 
opportunity to re-segment their market to a higher value-added product under Option III. 
Under Option III, fruit producers would stand to benefit as they would have an increased 
outlet  for  their  production.  This  would  not  be  the  case  under  the  other  two  options. 
Consumers  would  either  have  a  product  with  lower  sugar  content  across  the  board 
(Option II), but with less margin for products using the claim ‘reduced sugar’, and less 
guaranteed nutritional and preservation characteristics or a product with higher complete 
fruit content across the board (Option III), with the possibility of national derogations for 
lower  sugar  and  claiming  ‘low  sugar’  products.  In  the  case  of  removing  the  minimum 
amount  of  sugar  (Option  I),  consumers  might  find  it  difficult  to  compare  products 
conforming  to  different  national  standards  in  terms  of  sugar  content  and  public 
authorities  would  also  have  to  deal  with  the  different  national  standards  in  terms  of 
controls and labelling. 

10.3.4. Comparison of options 

Effectiveness 

Only  Options  II  and  III  would  have  the  actual  effect  of  reducing  the  amount  of  added 
sugar  in  jams  and  jellies  and  thus  ultimately  potentially  contribute  to  reducing  sugar 
intake. 

Under  Option  I,  as  explained,  it  is  likely  that  several  MSs  would  revert  to  the  Codex 
Alimentarius  standard,  which  sets  a  range  between  60  and  65%,  so  as  to  not  disrupt 
external trade for their national operators; this would be ineffective as sugar amounts in 
jam would remain as high if not higher than today. 

Coherence 

In terms of coherence with the current FIC Regulation and its ongoing revision, all three 
Options would neither overlap with it nor would they be incoherent with it. First, the FIC 
Regulation covers all products sold for consumer consumption and does not provide for 
specific rules regarding jams, which are thus contained in the Jams Directive. All three 
Options cover the composition and labelling of jams, which would only be regulated the 
Jams  Directive.  Second,  none  of  the  Options  propose  to  derogate  from  the  FIC 
Regulation  or  its  revision  regarding  front-of-pack  labelling  or  nutrient  profile.  All  the 

163 See sections 3.1.2(a) and 8.2.1 of the Codex Alimentarius. 

70 

 
                                                 
Options actually complement the FIC Regulation where the latter does not  provide any 
specific prescriptions on fruit or sugar content on jams. 

Efficiency 

The Options changing the amount of sugar (i.e. lowering the minimum amount of sugar 
or  removing  the  minimum  sugar  amount)  have  more  drawbacks  than  advantages. 
Removing  the  minimum  amount  entirely  would  open  the  door  to  different  national 
standards, with little effect on consumer health if the content of free sugars in jams and 
jellies is not reduced. 

Changing  the  threshold  for  the  amount  of  sugar  in  jams  for  proper  preservation, 
consistency and mouthfeel is highly technical, would have significant economic impact 
and  non-negligible  environmental  impact,  and  might  not  result  in  a  consensus  among 
MSs – i.e. there could be a lot of debate whether the value should be at 45, 50 or 55%. 

The  Option  to  lift  the  standard  by  allowing  the  continued  use  of  the  sales  designation 
‘jam’ and ‘jelly’ only for products with a higher minimum fruit content than currently the 
case  would  ensure  that,  for  jams,  only  higher  quality  products  –  i.e.  those  with  more 
complete fruit and therefore less free sugars – could be marketed as jam. This approach 
based  on  the  fruit  content  would  reduce  the  amount  of  free  sugars  in  jams  without 
opening the technical issue of lowering the minimum amount of sugar, which might not 
reach a consensus amongst MSs and, even if it would, it would have costly consequences 
on  all  affected  actors.  Consumers  would  get  access  to  ‘jams’  with  higher  fruit  content 
and less free sugar. On balance, with a view to serving the objective of a reformulation of 
processed products, this Option appears to be the most efficient for jams. 

Baseline  Option I  Option II  Option III 

Costs 

Compliance costs incurred by food business 
operators (direct) 

Regulatory costs incurred by regulators 
(direct) 

Negative effects on market functioning 
(market disruption for food business 
operators, reduced innovation, consumer 
confusion) 

Benefits 

Economic opportunities for food business 
operators (direct) 

Wider range of products/services (direct) 

Improved welfare, health (indirect) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

71 

-- 

-- 

-- 

0 

+ 

0 

-- 

- 

-- 

0 

+ 

+ 

- 

- 

- 

+ 

+ 

++ 

 
 
10.3.5. Preferred option 

In  light  of  the  above,  the  preferred  option  is  Option  III  -  to  increase  the  minimum 
complete  fruit  content  in  jams  and  jellies.  The  current  level  of  fruit  content  used  for 
‘extra jam’ and ‘extra jellies’ could be used as the new level of fruit content to be used 
for  ‘jams’  and  ‘jellies’,  while  a  yet-higher  fruit  content  value  could  be  used  for  the 
products  named  ‘extra  jam’  and  ‘extra  jellies’.  This  is  an  economically  sound  option 
based on demand-driven market segmentation considerations, both from a single market 
and international trade point of view, which promotes more wholesome product with less 
free  sugars.  It  does  not  create  additional  food  waste.  It  creates  no  new  administrative 
burden and is the most likely to reach MSs approval, while maintaining the status quo on 
the possibility for MSs to adapt to their national preferences and reduce in their national 
legislation the minimum sugar content of jams and jellies, hence for MSs that have not 
already done so to lower in their national legislation the minimum sugar content of jams 
and jellies. 

While  Option  II  of  lowering  across  the  board  the  sugar  content  of  jams  would  have  a 
simplification aspect, given the variety of positions among MSs on the actual value to be 
set, this Option is the least likely to reach MSs’ approval. In addition, this Option would 
have a significant economic impacts, potentially create additional food waste and a non-
negligible environmental impact. Finally, Option I would not fulfil the objective because 
the legal void would likely be replaced by a diversity of national approaches or at least a 
reference to the international standard of 60-65%. 

10.3.6. Monitoring and evaluation of impacts 

Reviewing at regular intervals the level of sales of jams  and other products covered by 
the Jam Directive vs other spreadable products or other fruit-based products, as well as 
expanding  the  scope  of  existing  surveys  such  as  Eurostat’s  survey  on  consumption  of 
F&V, as well as national nutritional surveys, to other products containing fruit will both 
be used to evaluate the level of consumption of jams and jellies in the EU. Here also, the 
Commission  will  make  use  of  existing  channels  to  monitor  the  implementation  and 
collect  information  and  data  on  how  the  marketing  standards  are  implemented  in  the 
market by operators, how they are perceived by consumers, how they are controlled by 
authorities, what  their  general added value is. This  includes tabling a regular dedicated 
discussion  on  the  standards  in  the  Expert  Group  on  the  Common  Organisation  of  the 
Market  in  agricultural  products  with  delegates  from  MS  authorities  and  in  the  Civil 
Dialogue Group with relevant stakeholders. The information will then be used, together 
with others, in a study that the Commission foresees to conduct within five years of the 
application  of  the  revision  on  the  functioning  of  the  marketing  standards  and  their 
contribution to the market functioning, including for the modifications that are covered in 
this impact assessment. This study should not come too close after the regulatory changes 
come  into  force,  so  as  to  leave  enough  time  for  business  operators  to  adapt  and  for 
consumers to lastingly change their purchasing behaviours. 

Objectives  

Measures of success and monitoring indicators 

1. Processed products should be 
reformulated to have lower added 
sugar. 

Jams and jellies are produced using lower amounts of added sugars 

- Composition of jams and jellies marketed in the EU (market research) 

2. Consumers should have access 
to processed products containing 

Choices of jams and jellies offered to consumers contain lower levels of 
added sugar 

72 

 
lower levels of added sugar. 

- Consumer perceptions (consumer research) 
- Statistics on consumer purchasing behaviour changes (market 

research, including sales of jams vs other products) 

- Statistics on household consumption of products containing fruit and 
vegetables (including Eurostat’s survey on consumption of F&V, as 
well as national nutritional surveys) 

- Consistency of Member States implementation and enforcement 
(Member States reports in the Expert Group on the Common 
Organisation of the Market in agricultural products with delegates 
from MS authorities) 

10.4.  Marketing standards for honey 

10.4.1. Problem definition 

The market for honey in the EU is growing, according to Euromonitor data, from EUR 
2.0  billion  in  2019  to  EUR  2.2  billion  in  2020  to  EUR  2.3  billion  in  2021.164  With  an 
annual  production  of  218  000t165  the  EU  is  the  world’s  second  largest  producer  (after 
China).  12%  of  the  world  honey  production  comes  from  the  EU.  Importing  175  000 
t/year166, the EU is also the world’s second importer of honey (after the US), representing 
30%  of  the  world’s  honey  imports.  Imported  honeys  are  mainly  used  on  honey  blends 
that are labelled as ‘Blend of non-EU honeys’ or ‘Blend of EU and non-EU honeys’. 

The revision of Council Directive 2001/110/EC (‘Honey Directive’)167 is controversially 
discussed. Stakeholders and certain MSs have been very vocal about an urgent review at 
Council  level  that  should  ‘improve’  on  the  origin  labelling  of  honey  and  introduce 
obligatory country of origin labelling for honey blends. Honey origin labelling has also 
been  raised  in  parliamentary  questions168.  In  the  public  consultation,  beekeeping 
organisations  voiced  their  preference  for  stricter  country  of  origin  labelling,  whereas 
honey  packers  showed  a  preference  for  ‘EU/non  EU’  labelling.  Against  this  backdrop 
and  its  political  sensitivity,  the  standard  has  been  chosen  for  a  more  detailed  impact 
assessment. 

The Honey Directive lays down a marketing standard for honey. (Article 75 of the CMO, 
which  lists  the  agricultural  sectors  for  purposes  of  marketing  standards,  does  not  cover 
honey.) This particular legal basis makes the Honey Directive a specific case that differs 
from  other  marketing  standards.  Rules  on  origin  labelling  are  laid  down  in  the  current 
Honey Directive with a specific reference (in Art.4(b)) to Regulation 1169/2011 on food 
information to consumers. The Directive lays down quality and labelling provisions for 
honey169. The Directive stipulates inter alia that the country or countries of origin shall 
be  indicated  on  honey.  However,  if  honey  originates  in  more  than  one  country,  it  may 
instead  be  labelled  ‘Blend  of  EU  honeys’,  ‘Blend  of  non-EU  honeys’  or  ‘Blend  of  EU 
and non-EU honeys’ (Article 2(4) of the Directive) depending on the respective multiple 
origins. 

164 Extracted from Euromonitor Passport data, total value retail selling price in current prices. 
165 FAO data 2020. 
166 UN Comtrade 2020. 
167. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/110/oj. 
168 For example: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-006450_EN.html. 
169 https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/about-codex/en/. 

73 

 
                                                 
MSs  and  stakeholders  have  been  calling  for  changes  to  the  Directive’s  provisions  on 
origin  labelling.  So  far  the  Commission  considered  the  existing  rules  as  proportionate 
and in line with the existing horizontal rules on origin labelling of food as laid down in 
FIC170, which stipulates that food information shall not be misleading, in particular as to 
the  country  of  origin.  In  December  2020,  the  Council  discussed  the  question.  MSs  did 
not  agree on Council  conclusions  proposed by the German Presidency.  The Presidency 
conclusions  from  December  2020  call  upon  the  Commission  to  start  working  on  a 
legislative proposal to amend the Honey Directive with a view to introducing rules that 
require the specification of the countries of origin of the honey used in honey blends171. 
The current rules allow the indication of countries of origin in honey blends but operators 
also  have  the  possibility  to  use  simplified  labelling  (EU/non-EU)  for  blends.  In  such 
cases, consumers would be unable to discern from which countries specifically the honey 
in a blend originates and in which proportions/shares. 

With  a  self-sufficiency  of  about  60%172  the  EU  market  depends  on  imports  of  honey 
from  third  countries.  Currently,  the  EU  imports  honey  from  120  countries.  Eight 
countries  account  for  more  than  90%  of  all  EU  imports  (Ukraine,  China,  Mexico, 
Argentina,  Cuba,  Brazil,  Uruguay  and  Turkey)173.  The  main  importing  MSs  are 
Germany, Poland, Belgium and Spain. Most of the imported honey is used in blends and 
marketed  in  retail  under  brand  names.  About  80%  of  the  honeys  sold  in  retail  are 
blends174. Blends of honey may contain honey from more than ten countries.175  

Some MSs also want the respective shares (in percentages) of blended multiple-country 
of  origin  honey  to  be  labelled.  Others  argue  in  favour  of  keeping  the  existing  rule,  i.e. 
allowing indications such as ‘blend of EU honeys’, ‘blend of non-EU honeys’, ‘blend of 
EU  and  non-EU  honeys’.  Where  third-country  honey  is  concerned,  the  European 
Federation of Honey Packers  and Distributors (F.E.E.D.M.)  could  envisage introducing 
labelling of geographical regions, e.g. ‘honey from Central America’, but this is not the 
preferred option for a majority of MSs. 

10.4.2. Options to achieve the objectives 

Baseline 

The  status  quo  would  be  to  continue  with  mandatory  country  of  origin  labelling  for 
honey  but  allow  the  EU/non-EU  labelling  of  blends.  Depending  how  relevant  origin 
information is for the individual consumer, the existing rules allow everybody to make an 
informed choice. 

Policy options 

As regards the origin labelling of honey blends, the following options appear possible: 

170 Regulation (EU) No 1609/2011. 
171 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14048-2020-INIT/en/pdf. 
172 The EU produces ~218 000 tonnes of honey per year, imports 175 000 tonnes and exports 30 000 tonnes, 
DG  AGRI  market 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/animals-and-animal-
products/animal-products/honey_en. 
173 COMEXT data 2017-2021. 
174 Information from F.E.E.D.M. (European Federation of Honey Packers and Distributers). 
175 Public Consultation specific contribution F.E.D.E.M., p. 2. 

presentation 

74 

 
                                                 
  Option  I:  continued  use  of  ‘EU’  with  a  replacement  of  the  term  ‘non-EU’  with  the 

non-EU countries of origin 

  Option  II:  continued  use  of  ‘EU’  with  a  replacement  of  the  term  ‘non-EU’  with 

transnational geographic region of origin 

  Option 

III:  obligatory 
(Member States and third countries) 
IV:  obligatory 

  Option 

indication  of  all 

indication  of  all 

individual  countries  of  origin 

individual  countries  of  origin 

(Member States and third countries), including the percentage 

10.4.3. Impacts of the different policy options 

Likely economic impacts 

Consumers interested in the origin of the honey they buy find currently a broad choice of 
single-origin  honeys  in  supermarkets.  However,  when  it  comes  to  (cheaper)  honey 
blends,  they  are  often  confronted  with  the  label  ‘blend  of  EU  and  non-EU  honeys’.  If 
such  honey  is  10%  from  the  EU  and  90%  from  non-EU  countries,  or  vice  versa, 
consumers would not know. Consumers buying the cheaper product get less information. 
On the other hand, keeping labelling costs down may contribute to the supply of cheaper 
products to consumers who may not have strong preferences regarding the origin of the 
honey they buy and who are happy with the status quo. 

Several  MSs  have  already  implemented  or  have  notified  the  intention  to  implement 
national rules concerning the indication of the precise origin of honey in blends packed in 
their  territories  (e.g.  IT,  EL,  ES,  FR,  PT  and  RO),  which  is  in  line  with  the  current 
Directive and if introduced at EU level correspond to option III. 

Stakeholders  reported  that  changing  the  current  provisions  on  honey  origin  labelling 
towards  obligatory  indication  of  the  origin  of  honey  in  honey  blends  would  have  a 
potentially  significant  economic  impact  on  honey  packers  that  buy  honey  in  bulk  from 
producers in and outside the EU, often blend it and sell it to retailers. The honey packers 
use  blends  to  achieve  a  stable  quality  (taste,  colour,  liquidity)  and  are  happy  with  the 
status quo. Honey blends are determined mainly by floral origin (e.g. robinia, sunflower) 
and  less  by  geographic  origin  (e.g.  Spain,  Ukraine).  The  current  blend  labelling 
requirements (EU/non-EU) facilitate this business model as they allow flexibility in the 
underlying composition of the honey without occasioning the need to change the label. 

The consequence of labelling the country of origin for honey blends (option I, II, III, IV) 
would  be  that  packers  would  have  to  frequently  change  labels  on  consumer  packs 
whenever the origin of honey changes which in particular would make options III and IV 
difficult for them. Space on honey labels is also limited, in particular when honey is sold 
in portion packs (e.g. 20 g) for out-of-home consumption. 

Honey  packers  highlighted  the  economic  impact  in  the  public  consultation176.  On  the 
other hand, representatives of EU beekeepers call for country-of-origin labelling (Options 
III and IV) with a view to allowing consumers to make more informed decisions. To the 
extent that producers in third countries were no longer lumped together as ‘non-EU’, they 
could  better  differentiate  their  honey  in  the  blends  and  appeal  to  consumers.  Even  if 
some  EU  producers  claim  that  country-of-origin  labelling  will  stimulate  consumers  to 

176 Specific contribution to the public consultation by F.E.E.D.M. p. 2. 

75 

 
                                                 
choose EU origin it is unlikely that honey imports are negatively impacted given the low 
self-sufficiency of honey and the price competitiveness of imported honey. 

The  changes  of  origin  labelling  fall  under  the  definition  of  technical  regulation  of  the 
WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement). Therefore, the TBT 
Agreement applies to these requirements. The TBT Agreement provides in particular that 
“technical  regulations  shall  not  be  more  trade-restrictive  than  necessary  to  fulfil  a 
legitimate objective” and follow a principle of non-discrimination  against imports from 
third  countries.  The  proposed  change  (option  III)  does  not  imply  any  discrimination 
between  domestic/imported  products  and  in  scope  is  not  more  trade  restrictive  than 
necessary  to  fulfil  its  objective,  namely  to  inform  consumers  (for  example  about  the 
origin of food).  

Likely impact on SMEs and competitiveness 

EU  honey  producers,  which  are  almost  exclusively  SMEs,  could  benefit  from  a 
potentially  growing market  due to  better consumer information; they could  also  benefit 
from  the  possibility  to  better  differentiate  and  valorise  their  honey  in  the  blends.  This 
could be achieved by combining on a pack’s label the origin (countries) of the honey as 
well as the respective constituent shares. Different degrees of the granularity of the data 
can be envisaged. Option  II  and  III would most likely have such positive effect  on EU 
honey producers, option I and option IV to a lesser extent. 

On  the  other  hand,  honey  packers,  who  are  often  also  SMEs,  would  be  negatively 
affected. Again,  the impact  on them would be different  in  accordance with  the level  of 
detail required from the label. In particular Option IV increases administrative burden for 
packers. Transnational geographical indications would allow the packers more leeway in 
not  having  to  relabel  their  products  and  trace  their  inputs  than  a  country-of-origin 
labelling would. 

Likely social impacts 

There  is  interest  from  consumers  to  know  details  about  the  origin  of  honey  in  blends. 
Consumer  organisations  did  not  raise  the  point  in  the  public  consultation  but  did  so  in 
previous Civil Dialogue Groups for apiculture. So all options going beyond the baseline 
(I, II, III, IV) would address improved consumer information in general. 

Given that producers are generally speaking SMEs situated in rural areas, they stand to 
benefit  from  more  detailed  origin  labelling  of  honey  blends.  Such  effect  would  be 
relevant for all options beyond the status quo. 

Consumers that are less interested in the origin of blended honey could potentially face 
higher  honey  prices  when  rules  on  origin  labelling  would  be  strengthened  if  operators 
reflect (part of) these additional higher costs in their prices. This negative effect would go 
along with the detailed requirements of origin information that is given. Option IV would 
increase  prices  of  cheap  retail  brands  the  most,  option  III  less  and  option  I  and  II 
probably not at all. 

Likely environmental impacts 

Mere labelling changes  are not expected to change the environmental impacts of honey 
production, even if the contribution of beekeeping to pollination and biodiversity is clear. 

76 

 
 
Strengthening  the  rules  of  origin  labelling  (in  particular  options  III  and  IV)  might 
stimulate  informed  consumers  to  buy  honey  from  certain  countries  which  will  have  a 
positive impact on the beekeeping sector in these countries and the connected effects on 
pollination and biodiversity. 

Likely impacts on simplification or administrative burden 

As  is  the  case  for  other  products,  also  for  honey  the  problem  in  relation  to  origin 
labelling  is  that  there  are  no  methods  of  analysis  that  would  allow  determining  the 
country of origin based on a sample of the product. This is not possible for single origin 
products  and  certainly  not  for  blends.  Checks  on  origin  can  only  be  based  on 
documentation  and  would  require  more  sophisticated  traceability  and  segregation 
systems to be put in place. 

If  country-of-origin  labelling for honey blends were introduced, this would entail  some 
additional challenges for the controls. For a system based on country-of-origin labelling 
to  be  credible,  the  corresponding  control  regime  would  have  to  be  based  on  checking 
documentation of the blending process at the level of the honey packers.  This would be 
even  more  the  case  for  percentages  (option  IV).  Such  a  regime  would  introduce 
administrative costs for MSs and would also increase compliance costs for the packers. 
However, the additional control efforts would take place within the framework of already 
existing controls, sometimes even in combination with other food related controls, so that 
the total administrative costs for honey controls would only increase marginally. 

In  contrast  to  the  case  of  olive  oil,  the  EU  is  a  net  importer  of  honey,  with  a  high 
diversity of origins and a retail market dominated by blends. 

Experience  with  country-of-origin  labelling  in  other  products  has  shown  the  limits  of 
labelling  the  countries  of  origin  in  mixture  products,  as  foreseen  in  options  III  and  IV. 
For  instance,  country-of-origin  labelling  is  well  established  for  several  meats177  (beef, 
pigmeat,  poultry,  sheep  and  goats);  minced  meat,  however,  can  also  be  labelled  as 
‘EU/non-EU origin’ (the current status quo for honey). 

Who would likely be affected 

Introducing country-of-origin labelling for honey blends (options I, II, III, IV) is likely to 
benefit  producers  in  the  EU,  assuming  that  certain  consumers  increasingly  look  for 
regional sources  of foodstuff. Honey packers would be negatively affected. The impact 
on consumers is mixed, with better information but possibly higher prices for the blends 
(see  under  social  impacts).  Impacts  on  honey  producers  in  third  countries  are  minor, 
certain origins might welcome a more differentiated labelling (e.g. Ukraine) others might 
prefer the current rules (e.g. China). 

177 Regulation (EC) No 1337/2013. 

77 

 
                                                 
10.4.4. Comparison of options 

As regards the specific issue for honey as discussed in the Council and also raised in the 
public  consultation,  it  essentially  concerns  the  pros  and  cons  that  an  adjustment  to  the 
way origin is labelled would have in terms of consequences for the economic and social 
sustainability  of  honey  production  and  packing  in  the  EU.  The  consumer  information 
angle has been emphasised as important in this respect. 

Effectiveness 

All options would have the effect of improved consumer information, Options III and IV 
more than Options I and II. However, Option I would create less administrative burden to 
operators and would be coherent with the principle of the single market. 

Coherence 

In  terms  of  coherence  with  the  current  FIC  Regulation  and  its  ongoing  revision,  all 
Options would neither overlap with it nor would they be incoherent with it. First, the FIC 
Regulation covers all products sold for consumer consumption and does not provide for 
specific rules regarding honey. All Options cover origin labelling of honey, none of the 
Options propose to derogate from the FIC Regulation. 

Efficiency 

A country-of-origin labelling of honey (option III) on packs would satisfy the respective 
consumer  demand  and  would  be  in  the  economic  interest  of  honey  producers.  Middle-
ground solutions (option II) would try to strike a balance between the competing interests 
of producers and packers in the EU. Such solutions would introduce greater granularity 
to the labelling rules that currently apply to blends while stopping short of a full-fledged 
country-of-origin label requirement. For instance, instead of the current ‘blend of EU and 
non-EU  honeys’,  transnational  geographical  regions  of  the  world  could  be  used  for 
honeys from non-EU countries. However the transnational geographic region might not 
always  give  the  appropriate  consumer  information.  For  example  honey  from  Turkey 
would not always come from Asia and honey from Ukraine and Moldova would be from 
Europe but not from EU. This option may also raises difficult questions of definition of a 
transnational geographic region. This discards option II. 

The continued use of ‘EU’ for the parts of the blends that contain honey produced in the 
EU with a replacement of the term ‘non-EU’ with the non-EU countries of origin (option  
I) would be compatible with the idea underpinning the single market and the fact that EU 
honey complies with uniform high quality production methods regardless of the identity 
of  the  MS.178  Although  third  countries  producers  and  packers  would  benefit  from  the 
possibility  to  better  differentiate  and  valorise  their  honey,  this  option  may  induce 
supplementary costs for third countries’ producers and packers. 

Labelling  the  percentage  shares  of  honeys  (option  IV)  from  individual  countries  would 
generate  significant  costs  for  packers.  Honey  blends  that  packers  produce  for  a  certain 
retail  brand  mostly  consist  of  several  batches.  The  percentage  share  of  honeys  from 
individual  countries  is  characteristic  for  a  single  batch  but  can  vary  between  batches. 

178  See  also  in  a  related  context :  para  45  of  ECJ,  Case  C‑485/18,  Lactalis  ,  judgement  of  1  October  2020, 
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-485/18. 

78 

 
                                                 
Sometimes  the  percentage  for  different  countries  might  only  change  marginally. 
However,  for  each  batch  a  different  label  would  be  necessary  without  that  the  product 
changes its characteristics. Changing labels for each batch would require interruption and 
adjustment  of  production  processes  (e.g.  printing,  gluing).  It  is  doubtful,  therefore, 
whether such a regime would be effective and efficient and discards option IV. 

Baseline  Option 

Costs 

Compliance costs incurred by food 
business operators (direct) 

Regulatory costs incurred by 
regulators (direct) 

Negative effects on market 
functioning (market disruption for 
food business operators, reduced 
innovation, consumer confusion) 

Benefits 

Economic opportunities for food 
business operators (direct) 

Wider range of products/services 
(direct) 

Improved welfare, health (indirect) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

I 

++ 

++ 

++ 

0 

+ 

0 

Option 
II 

Option 
III 

Option 
IV 

+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

0 

0 

- 

- 

- 

+ 

+ 

0 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

0 

0 

10.4.5. Preferred option 

Option III, consisting of introducing a requirement to indicate the individual countries of 
origin  on  blends,  is  therefore  considered  the  preferred  option.  Compared  to  the  status 
quo, this proposal would offer the exact identification of the countries of origin, thereby 
satisfying consumer demand. 

10.4.6. Monitoring and evaluation of impacts 

The  impact  will  be  evaluated  by  monitoring  the  development  of  sales  of  honey  with 
different  origin  indication.  This  information  is  not  available  on  a  routine  basis.  A 
representative market survey will be necessary. Ideally, the Commission will base such 
survey on information from the individual MSs. 

10.5.  Marketing standards for foie gras 

10.5.1. Problem definition 

Force-feeding raises increasing concerns from an animal welfare perspective. The current 
EU marketing standard is perceived as legalising animal suffering. On the other hand the 
current standard ensures the quality of a product that is very much related to the cultural 
heritage in some MSs. 

79 

 
 
 
 
Poultry  marketing  standards  contain  as  a  quality  criterion  for  a  product  using  the  sales 
designation  ‘foie  gras’  a  minimum  liver  weight  requirement  for  ducks  of  300g  and  for 
geese  of  400g.  Normal  liver  weights  are  50  g  (duck)  and  70g  (goose).  The  different 
weights account for the differentiation of a fatty liver (foie gras) and a ‘normal’ one and 
is  relevant  for  the  product  (Evaluation  study  2019,  pp.  168-169).  Under  the  relevant 
marketing standard, the designation ‘foie gras’ must not be used for a product that derive 
from birds’ livers below this weight. 

The  minimum  weight  can  in  practice  only  be  achieved  by  force-feeding  (in  French 
‘gavage’)  the  ducks  or  geese.  Force-feeding  means  feeding  the  birds  more  than  they 
would  voluntarily  eat.  It  involves  forced  daily  feeding  of  controlled  amounts  of  feed 
during the two last weeks of fattening of in total 15-16 weeks for ducks and 16-24 weeks 
for geese. Foie gras is in principle a seasonal product, traditionally consumed around end 
of year celebrations but is available all around the year. 

The minimum liver weight aims to guarantee the quality of the final product in line with 
consumer expectations179. The public consultation (and more generally the discussion of 
force-feeding  in  public)  has  shown  two  opposed  camps  concerning  the  existing  EU 
marketing  standard  for  foie  gras:  the  industry,  in  particular  in  France  and  the  French 
government, and animal welfare NGOs as well as some other MSs. The industry insists 
that  the  EU  marketing  standard  be  kept  and  even  extended  to  processed  foie  gras.  The 
NGOs argue that the standard should be abolished because of animal welfare reasons. In 
view  of  the  controversy  surrounding  force-feeding,  which  entails  trading  off  very 
different but fundamental values when making a decision on a revision of the underlying 
marketing standard, this standard has been chosen for a more detailed impact assessment. 

Foie gras production is not regulated in EU legislation relating to animal welfare. For the 
opponents of force-feeding, the minimum required liver weight in the marketing standard 
for  poultry  constitutes  an  EU  rule  that  is  conducive  to  animal  suffering  and  should 
therefore be abolished. 

Force-feeding  is  currently  allowed  in  five  MSs  (FR,  HU,  BG,  ES,  BE).  In  total,  these 
countries produced close to 20,000 tonnes of foie gras in 2020 (about 18,000 t from duck 
and  2000  from  goose),  representing  about  90%  of  the  world’s  production.  (Production 
outside the EU mainly takes place in China that is also a big exporter). In terms of animal 
welfare, this corresponds to about 60 million ducks and 5 million goose that are force fed 
in the EU every year180. In terms of market value, the global consumption value of foie 
gras was just above EUR 1 billion in 2015, which means that with a share of 90% of the 
global market, the EU market for foie gras in 2015 was just under EUR 1 billion181. The 
EU exports about 2,000 tonnes per year (10% of its production) with an export value of 
EUR  50  million182.  Main  destinations  are  Japan,  Israel,  Hong  Kong  and  Switzerland. 
Imports are marginal (about 40 tonnes per year from China). 

France represents 75% of the EU’s foie gras production, but its output fell 20% in 2021 
(to  11,674  tonnes)  due  to  persistent  problems  with  the  spread  of  avian  influenza, 

179 NormoFoie Study, INRA UMR GenPhySE, 2018. 
180  Information  from  EuroFoieGras  and  https://www.poultryworld.net/poultry/other-species/production-of-
foie-gras-falls-for-3rd-consecutive-year/. 
181 https://www.wicz.com/story/46400543/foie-gras-market-size-in-2022-with-cagr-of-increasing-demand-
challenges-growth-strategies-top-companies-analysis-portfolio-swot-analysis-and-forecast. 
182 COMEXT average 2019-2021. 

80 

 
                                                 
amounting to a total decline of 30% since 2019. Only Hungary and France produce goose 
foie  gras,  Hungary  being  the  world’s  first  producer.  From  the  6,500  fattening  farms  in 
France 35% feed less than 100 animals. In Hungary, 90% of the foie gras production is 
coming from farms that raise between 50 and 100 geese by batch. The first trading MSs 
are Hungary and Bulgaria in intra-EU trade, with 36% and 27% of total EU-trade in foie 
gras, respectively, followed by France (18%) and Belgium (15%)183. 

10.5.2. Options to achieve the objectives 

Baseline 

Maintain the minimum liver weight element of the marketing standard. 

Policy options 

Apart from the baseline three options are technically conceivable: 

 
 

I: Remove the minimum liver weight element of the marketing standard184. 
II: Maintain the minimum liver weight but introduce obligatory labelling as ‘produced 
via  force-feeding’;  using  the  term  foie  gras  for  light  livers  (produced  without  force-
feeding)  would  not  be  allowed,  as  it  would  not  be  consistent  with  the  purpose  of 
keeping the minimum weight as a marketing standard. 

A third option of banning force-feeding in the EU has been discarded from the options 
assessed. While this option is regularly raised by stakeholders, a ban cannot be achieved 
by a change in marketing standards on its own. A ban would have to be introduced under 
the  animal  welfare  legislation  and  would  mean  that  the  marketing  standard  for  the 
minimum liver weight would have to be removed (as in option I). 

A ban would also have broader implications (e.g. on national practices). Article 13 TFEU 
states that in formulating Union policies, the Union and MSs shall “pay full regard to the 
welfare  requirements  of  animals,  while  respecting  the  legislative  or  administrative 
provisions  and  customs  of  the  Member  States  relating  in  particular  to  religious  rites, 
cultural traditions and regional heritage”. The Council of Europe adopted in 1999, in the 
framework of the ‘European Convention on the Protection of Animals kept for Farming 
Purposes’, a recommendation stating that the production of foie gras shall be carried out 
only where it is current practice and then only in accordance with standards laid down in 
domestic  law  (Article  24)185.  This  concerned  five  MSs  in  which  foie  gras  is  produced. 
There are no EU harmonised rules regulating production standards for foie gras. Banning 
force-feeding  would  constitute  a  trade-off  with  MSs’  sovereignty  about  their  cultural 
heritage and go beyond the above-mentioned Convention. At the national level, there are 
examples  in  MSs  for  such  prohibitions  of  the  production  method.  This  also  invites  the 
related question which is the appropriate reference framework for possible prohibitions, 

183  Information  from  EuroFoieGras  and  https://www.poultryworld.net/poultry/other-species/production-of-
foie-gras-falls-for-3rd-consecutive-year/. 
184 At the public consultation also the option of introducing a maximum liver weight was tabled and supported 
by  animal  welfare  NGOs.  This  option  was  not  further  considered  in  this  impact  assessment  because  a 
maximum liver cannot be a quality criterion for foie gras because a fatty liver develops only above a certain 
minimum weight. The animal welfare concerns that the NGOs intended to address are fully covered by option 
I that would abolish the marketing standard completely. 
185 https://web.archive.org/web/20090401220339/http:/www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-
operation/biological_safety%2C_use_of_animals/farming/Rec%20Muscovy%20ducks%20E%201999.asp. 

81 

 
                                                 
the  EU  or  rather  MSs;  accordingly,  economic  and  social  sustainability  considerations 
may  give  rise  to  different  trade-offs.  If  the  choice  were  to  ban  force-feeding  at  the  EU 
level under the appropriate framework, the existing marketing standard would logically 
have to be adapted. 

As regards sustainability, all alternatives have valid elements and an assessment depends 
on which sustainability dimension is prioritised. Maintaining the standard (baseline and 
option II) would be compatible with ensuring the economic sustainability of a traditional 
production system in certain MSs. Removing the standard (option I) would address social 
sustainability with  a view to  animal  welfare concerns related to  force-feeding. While it 
would not amount to a ban on force-feeding, the effect of the marketing standard would 
be  lessened  due  to  the  premium  prices  that  the  use  of  the  sales  designation  currently 
fetch. 

10.5.3. Impacts of the different policy options 

Likely economic impacts 

The  baseline  (status  quo)  or  option  II  (status  quo  +  labelling)  would  ensure  business 
continuity for producers. The current minimum liver weight ensures that a product sold 
as  foie  gras  respects  the  high  quality  standard.  Marketing  livers  of  lower  weight  (less 
fatty)  as  ‘foie  gras’  is  not  possible  under  the  current  legal  framework,  and  this  would 
remain unchanged under option II. Such livers or related products are often marketed as 
‘foie fin’, which is not a harmonised marketing standard. The standard allows for market 
segmentation  and  contributes  to  the  creation  of  value  for  ‘foie  gras’  as  a  quality-
guaranteed premium product. During the public consultation, producers insisted that the 
marketing  standard  ought  to  be  kept  lest  they  face  significant  negative  economic 
consequences. The available evidence tends to corroborate the importance of the standard 
for  the  livelihood  of  the  producers  of  ducks  and  geese  for  foie  gras:  According  to 
information  from  EuroFoieGras186,  the  sector’s  European  umbrella  organisation,  foie 
gras  production  represents  50,000  direct  and  150,000  indirect  jobs.  The  production  is 
characterised by small family enterprises187. 

Abolishing  the  standard  (option  I)  risks  having  significant  negative  economic 
consequences for the current producers of foie gras. For one, they would not be able to 
rely on the standard in export markets in the EU to protect via labelling and exclusivity 
the original product from being undercut by different products being marketed under the 
same  sales  name  that  would  not  display  the  same  quality  characteristics  nor  entail  the 
same  production  costs.  It  is  debatable  whether  producers  could  maintain  their  legal 
protection in their own MS if the EU standard were abolished. The freedom of movement 
of goods (Article 34 TFEU) would speak in favour of an openness to competing products 
from abroad (single market). However, this freedom can be subject to certain exceptions 
where  the  protection  of  consumers  is  concerned  (Article  36  TFEU  and  so  called 
‘mandatory requirements’ developed by the ECJ). Private labels would likely be used to 
enable consumers to  recognise the original product. Further signalling effects would be 
due to the price points that would likely remain very different depending on the ability to 
differentiate oneself from the products in the absence of a right to exclusivity concerning 
the designation ‘foie gras’. Another avenue to distinguish oneself to a certain extent from 
other  products  would  be  the  use  of  protected  geographical  indications  or  traditional 

186 https://www.eurofoiegras.com/en/. 
187 https://lefoiegras.fr/le-savoir-faire/liens-en-region. 

82 

 
                                                 
guaranteed  specialities,  where  these  avail.  This  would  be  possible  for  producers  under 
both options I and II. 

Under  the  baseline  and  option  II,  consumers  of  ‘foie  gras’  can  rely  on  the  sales 
designation  certifying  the  expected  quality.  Introducing  a  compulsory  labelling  about 
forced  feeding  (option  II)  could  possibly  lead  to  lower  sales,  if  increased  transparency 
about production methods fosters changes in consumption. 

There are citizens who make a deliberate choice not to buy ‘foie gras’ because of animal 
welfare concerns. However, abolishing the marketing standard alone (option I) would not 
bring about this result with certainty. 

Indeed, the absence of an EU standard would come with some uncertainty, depending on 
legal  assumptions  (e.g.  national  standards  based  on  cultural  traditions  and  regional 
heritage)  and  risks  that  cannot  be  assessed  in  this  report.  Even  if  the  EU  marketing 
standard  would  be  removed,  foie  gras  could  still  be  produced.  It  can,  therefore,  not  be 
excluded  that  abolishing  the  marketing  standard  (option  I)  would  lessen  consumer 
information  about  the  quality  of  the  product  designated  as  ‘foie  gras’.  Such  an  effect 
would stand ill against the very rationale underpinning marketing standards. 

Likely impact on SMEs and competitiveness 

The  producers  of  foie  gras  are  nearly  exclusively  SMEs.  In  case  the  minimum  liver 
weight  in  the  EU  marketing  standard  was  deleted  (option  I)  and  the  foie  gras  was  no 
longer linked to defined quality criteria, these traditional producers – if they continued to 
produce  according  to  current  standards  at  higher  costs  –  would  face  competition  from 
other producers at lower prices. On the other hand, also the producers of those products 
could  be  SMEs.  And  if  foie  gras  production  lost  its  challenged  animal  welfare 
connotation  among  certain  consumer  groups,  demand  might  increase  and  thus  benefit 
these producers. 

Likely social impacts 

Animal welfare is a societal concern. Animal welfare NGOs have been campaigning for 
abolishing the minimum liver weight (option I) in the EU marketing standard for many 
years, based on a number of scientific studies188. Option II (keeping the minimum weight 
but  labelling  force-feeding)  would  still  raise  serious  concerns  from  animal  welfare 
groups  because  EU  legislation  would  maintain  a  quality  standard  that  can  only  be 
achieved  via  animal  suffering.  Even  if  the  precise  animal  welfare  aspects  of  foie  gras 
production  are  debated  among  scientists189,  it  is  clear  that  the  practice  forces  birds  – 
which are eventually slaughtered for human  food purposes – to  ingest  feed above their 
natural needs. The process is stressful for the birds. The fatty liver, which develops due 
to force-feeding, is abnormal and pathological. The minimum liver weight has also been 
a  subject  of  several  questions  from  Members  of  the  European  Parliament  to  the 
Commission. 

188 Rochlitz I & Broom DM (2017). The welfare of ducks during foie gras production, Animal Welfare, 26:2, 
135-149,  https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.26.2.135;  Guémené  D,  Guy  G,  Noirault  J,  Garreau-Mills  M, 
Gouraud P & Faure JM (2001). Force-feeding procedure and physiological indicators of stress in male  mule 
ducks, British Poultry Science, 42:5, 650-657, https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660120088489. 
189 Synthesis note by Guy G & Fernandez X, INRA, October 2013: ‘Impact of gavage on the welfare and state 
of play of the studies regarding alternatives to gavage’; Guémené D, Guy G, Mirabito L, Serviere J & Faure 
JM (2007). Bien-être et élevage des palmipèdes. INRAE (https://productions-animales.org/article/view/3435). 

83 

 
                                                 
On  the  other  hand,  foie  gras  generates  income  in  rural  areas  and  is  deemed  a  cultural 
heritage in some MSs. In France the Code Rural190, for example, states that foie gras is 
part of the cultural and gastronomic heritage protected in France, and defines foie gras as 
liver of a duck or a goose specially fattened by force-feeding191. The discontinuation of 
the EU marketing standard (option I) could however be seen by certain stakeholders as 
an interference in the national heritage. 

Likely environmental impacts 

Compared  to  other  poultry  products,  foie  gras  is  produced  with  a  relatively  low  feed 
conversion. To a  certain extent, a discontinuation of force-feeding (e.g.  under option  I) 
would  free  feed  resources  (in  particular  maize)  for  other  uses  (with  higher  feed 
conversion). Or, in the absence of alternative uses, (intensive) maize production in some 
regions  could  decline  together  with  production  of  foie  gras.  However,  it  is  difficult  to 
quantify these volumes and in any case they would be too small to imply any measurable 
environmental impact. 

Likely impacts on simplification or administrative burden 

Removing  the  minimum  liver  weight  from  the  marketing  standard  (option  I)  would 
eliminate  a  regulatory  requirement.  Control  and  enforcement  would  not  be  necessary 
anymore.  However,  controls  on  other  aspects  of  the  marketing  standard  would  be 
maintained  (such  as  ORTs,  definition  of  cuts,  water  content,  etc)  so  that  the  impact 
cannot  be  quantified.  In  any  case  the  impact  would  only  be  relevant  for  the  five  MSs 
where foie gras production takes place. 

Who would likely be affected 

Foie gras producers and processors would be the most affected by amending the current 
marketing  standard  (options  I  and  II).  Consumers  could  also  be  affected  in  as  much  as 
they rely on the current EU standard and could possibly be confused about the quality of 
the  product  designated  as  foie  gras.  Animal  welfare  NGOs  have  been  campaigning  for 
abolishing  the  marketing  standard  (option  I)  for  years.  Depending  on  the  final  option 
chosen,  NGOs  would  see  their  campaign  being  successful  or  not  and  articulate  this 
strongly. 

10.5.4. Comparison of options 

Effectiveness 

Option II would have the effect of improved consumer information. However, it can be 
assumed that consumers of foie gras are aware of the animal welfare concerns linked to 
the production method. 

Coherence 

In  terms  of  coherence  with  the  Animal  Welfare  legislation  and  its  current  revision,  all 
Options  would  neither  overlap  with  nor  would  they  be  incoherent  with  it.  In  case  foie 
gras production would be forbidden, the marketing standard would become redundant. 

190 https://agriculture.gouv.fr/le-foie-gras-de-la-fourche-la-fourchette. 
191 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006584967/. 

84 

 
                                                 
Efficiency 

Eliminating the minimum liver weight element from the EU marketing standard (option 
I) would likely entail animal welfare gains even if such a marketing standard would not 
constitute a prohibition to produce foie gras using force-feeding. The precise magnitude 
of these gains would depend on certain legal outcomes which are difficult to anticipate at 
the time of drafting this impact assessment. From today’s vantage point, it is likely that 
the share of ‘foie gras’ from force-fed birds would diminish, especially on EU markets. 
The result in the producing MSs, which are of course also important ‘consuming’ MSs, is 
uncertain: it is  well possible that domestic law that  exist today would shield  traditional 
producers  from  changing  their  production  practice  and,  hence,  from  seeing  the  market 
share in their home markets affected. 

Maintaining  the  EU  standard  (baseline  and  option  II)  would  be  compatible  with  the 
original rationale of the marketing standards policy which is to certify a certain product 
quality to  the benefit  of  the consumers of the product.  The producers concerned would 
not incur economic losses due to an opening of the sales designation to what they would 
view as non-compliant products. 

Baseline 

Option I 

Option II 

Costs 

Compliance costs incurred by food business 
operators (direct) 

Regulatory costs incurred by regulators (direct) 

Negative effects on market functioning (market 
disruption for food business operators, reduced 
innovation, consumer confusion) 

Benefits 

Economic opportunities for food business operators 
(direct) 

Wider range of products/services (direct) 

Improved welfare, health (indirect) 

10.5.5. Preferred option 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

- 

- 

-- 

0 

0 

0 

The political debate around force-feeding is still ongoing. In order not to pre-empt these 
ongoing  discussions,  the  impact  assessment  does  not  identify  at  this  stage  a  preferred 
option.  It  seems  appropriate  to  remain  open  to  discussing  this  issue  further  with  the 
European Parliament and in the Council. 

10.5.6. Monitoring and evaluation of impacts 

Given  that  there  is  no  preferred  option  in  this  case,  a  future  monitoring  and  evaluation 
plan  cannot  be  developed  at  this  stage;  this  can  only  be  done  if  there  is  a  decision  to 
revise the marketing standard. 

85 

 
 
86 

 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

Lead DG 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 

Decide planning 

PLAN/2020/8824 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

Timing 

Table 6 - Final timeline of the impact assessment process 

Publication of the inception impact assessment 

Publication of the consultation strategy 

Start of the public consultation 

JRC workshop 

Targeted consultation of MSs 

Publication of the JRC literature review 

Publication of the JRC workshop report 

Submission of the draft impact assessment to the RSB 

Opinion of the RSB 

Submission of the revised draft impact assessment to the RSB 

Opinion of the RSB 

Interservice Group 

19 January 2021 

29 March 2021 

8 June 2021 

9 September 2021 

17 September 2021 

17 December 2021 

19 January 2022 

7 February 2022 

4 March 2022 

22 July 2022 

21 September 2022 

At the beginning of the impact assessment process, the following Services were invited 
to nominate an official to participate in the interservice group: SG, SJ, CLIMA, COMP, 
ENV,  GROW,  JRC,  JUST,  MARE,  RTD,  SANTE,  TRADE.  During  the  process,  also 
officials from DIGIT and CNECT were added to the group to help cover the digitisation 
dimension. There were four meetings of the group, on 29 September 2020, 18 February 
2021, 1 December 2021, and 26 January 2022. A last meeting of the Group was held on 
27  January  2023,  before  the  launch  of  the  inter-service  consultation  of  the  impact 
assessment. During this same meeting, the Group also discussed the legislative proposals. 
These meetings were complemented by electronic consultations with the ISG on the JRC 
workshop in May 2021, on the consultation of the MSs (Annex 2) in September 2021 and 
on  the  revised  impact  assessment  report  in  June  2022.  For  additional  transparency  and 
collaborative work, ISG members had access to a dedicated group on Teams where drafts 
and other relevant resources were accessible and shared in a timely manner. 

87 

 
 
3.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB 

Table 7 - Changes compared to the earlier draft 

The Board’s recommendation  
on what to improve 

How the IA report has been modified 

Clarification  on  the  coherence  with  the  upcoming 
revision  of  the  Regulation  on  food  information  to 
consumers  was  added  in  the  relevant  parts  of  the 
impact assessment. 

(1) The report should clarify how coherence with the 
upcoming  revision  of  the  Regulation  on  food 
information to consumers will be ensured. It should 
outline  where  exactly  where  these  overlaps  will 
occur  and  what  the  solution  is  to  avoid  duplication 
of costs and incoherence between different pieces of 
legislation.  Clarification  of 
is 
particularly  important  for  the  marketing  standards 
related  to  origin  labelling  (honey,  pulses  and  egg 
marking)  and  sugar  content  (jams,  fruit  juices  and 
nectars).  Specific  initiatives  directly  relevant  for 
marketing  standards  are  listed  in  the  report, but  the 
relevance  and  overlap  with  marketing  standards 
should be set out explicitly. 

issues 

these 

(2)  The  report  should  establish  a  clear  relationship 
between  all  the  marketing  standards  listed  in  the 
annex  of  the  report  and  those  that  are  subject  to 
revision and discussed in the report. It should clarify 
why  no  new  standards  are  put  forward  (except  for 
cider and perry) and explain if there is any scope for 
new  marketing  standards  (e.g.  for  the  quality  of 
olive oil). 

At the beginning of Section 10, it was clarified that 
the  criterion 
to  distinguish  between  marketing 
standards that are examined in Section 10 and those 
that  are  included  in  Annex  9  depends  on  the 
expected  magnitude  of  the  modification’s  impact. 
Rationale on the absence of initiative with respect to 
the quality of olive oil was added, see footnotes 286 
and 288. 

A  list  of  criteria  justifying  whether  an  in-depth 
assessment  was  needed  was  added 
the 
introduction  to  Section  10  (see  above).  Additional 
the 
explanations  as 
Commission  to  choose  among  policy  alternatives 
were added in relevant parts of Annex 9. 

the  ability 

regards 

for 

in 

(3)  The  rationale  for  the  selection  of  the  five 
standards for a more in-depth assessment should be 
elaborated  further  in  the  problem  definition.  The 
report  should  also  clarify  why  sensitive  topics  such 
as  the  sales  description  of  plant-based  preparations 
and the water content in poultry are not assessed in 
depth,  given  that  political  sensitivity  is  one  of  the 
criteria for carrying out an in-depth assessment. The 
report should provide convincing arguments that the 
introduction of new standards and the changes to the 
existing 
in-depth 
assessments will not result in significant impacts. It 
should take into account that although some impacts 
may  be  small  in  absolute  terms,  they  may  be 
particularly 
some  groups  of 
stakeholders. 

standards  not 

significant 

selected 

for 

for 

(4) The report should spell out more clearly how all 
these initiatives, in particular those assessed in more 
depth,  are  consistent  with  the  objectives  set  out  in 
the  European  Climate  Law  and  Sustainable 
Development Goals 

Additional references to the European Climate  Law 
and  Sustainable  Development  Goals  were  added  in 
Annex 6. 

in 

the 

(5) The report should strengthen the impact analyses 
and  comparisons  of  options 
in-depth 
assessments.  The  cost  calculations  to  estimate  the 
administrative  burden  of  the  marketing  standards 
assessed  in  depth  should  be  detailed  to  allow  the 
reader  to  follow  the  calculation  method.  Only  costs 
and  savings  for  businesses  and  citizens  should  be 
counted  for  the  One  In,  One  Out  purposes.  The 
report  should  more  systematically  compare  the 
options  for  each  assessed  standard  in  terms  of 
effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence.  In  cases 
where  there  is  no  preferred  option  (the  foie  gras 

The  comparison  of  options  was  strengthened  in 
relevant  parts  of  Section  10.  Some  of 
the 
explanations in Annex 4 were replicated in Annex 3. 
The  last  row  referring  to  authorities  under  the  One 
In,  One  Out  approach  of  the  Table  9  in  Annex  3 
(overview  of  benefits)  was  deleted.  The  direct 
adjustment  costs  in  Table  10  of  Annex  3  (Costs 
related to the one in one out approach) were deleted. 
In Section 10, the sections on juices, jam, honey and 
foie  gras  were  updated  and  now  address  more 
explicitly the effectiveness, efficiency and coherence 
of  the  options. Point  5  under  Section 10 (foie  gras) 

88 

 
How the IA report has been modified 

was expanded. 

the 

The Commission will make use of existing channels 
to  monitor 
implementation  and  collect 
information and data of the functioning of marketing 
standards  in  the  market.  This  includes  tabling  a 
regular dedicated discussion on the standards in the 
Expert  Group  on  the  Common  Organisation  of  the 
Market in agricultural products, which meets several 
times  per  year,  with  delegates  from  MS authorities, 
as well as in the Civil Dialogue Group with relevant 
stakeholders. 

Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 were added in Section 
7 as regards effectiveness, efficiency and coherence 
of the initiatives. 

The Board’s recommendation  
on what to improve 
standards),  it  should  present  clearly  the  available 
choice in terms of differences in costs and benefits. 

(6)  The  report  should  be  clearer  on  the  envisaged 
monitoring arrangements to overcome the identified 
data  and  evidence  challenges  and  specify  when  an 
evaluation will be carried out. 

(7) The report should follow more closely the format 
of  the  impact  assessment  report  (Tool  11  of  the 
Better Regulation Toolbox), including by integrating 
the key insights of the individual assessments in the 
main sections of the report. 

4.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

Evidence 

The evidence used in this impact assessment draws above all on: 

  EC  (2019).  Evaluation  of  marketing  standards  [Regulation  (EU)  No  1308/2013]. 

Have Your Say. Brussels: European Commission. https://europa.eu/!JKhyqb 

  Areté  et  al.  (2020).  Evaluation  of  marketing  standards  contained  in  the  CMO 
Regulation,  the  ‘Breakfast  Directives’  and  CMO  secondary  legislation.  Brussels: 
European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2762/475831 

  EC (2020). Evaluation of marketing standards. Commission Staff Working Document 

SWD/2020/0230. https://europa.eu/!RU43Ky 

  Deré, M. (2019). The possibility of new marketing standards for agricultural products. 
Library  and  e-Resources  reading  suggestions.  Brussels:  European  Commission; 
plus ad hoc desktop research by DG AGRI. 

  EC (2021). Agricultural products – revision of EU marketing standards, Feedback and 
statistics. Have Your Say. Brussels: European Commission. https://europa.eu/!uJqxdD 
  EC  (2021).  Agricultural  products  –  revision  of  EU  marketing  standards, 
Say.  Brussels.  European  Commission. 

Public consultation.  Have  Your 
https://europa.eu/!VUQcBu; incl. submitted position papers 

  Nes,  K.,  Ciaian,  P.  (2021).  Marketing  standards:  A  review  of  the  literature. 
JRC Technical Report. Luxembourg: European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/991707 
  Russo,  C.  et  al.  (2022).  Workshop  on  Marketing  Standards:  Benefits  and  costs  of 
EU marketing standards for agri-food products. JRC Technical Report. Luxembourg: 
European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/635080 

  ECORYS & WUR (2022). Study on agri-food imports and their role in the EU supply 
chains. Final Report. Luxembourg: European Union. https://doi.org/10.2762/980065 
In-house expertise of the Commission services 

 

89 

 
External expertise 

The  external  expertise  used  in  this  impact  assessment  comes  above  all  from  the 
consultation processes and the contributions facilitated by the JRC: 

  Stakeholders via the public consultations (EC 2019, EC 2021) 
  Member States via the targeted consultation (Annex 2) 
  Stakeholders and experts via technical workshops, civil dialogue groups and targeted 

consultation (Annex 2) 

  Technical experts via the JRC workshop (Russo et al. 2022) 
  Academic state-of-the-art via the JRC literature review (Nes & Ciaian, 2022) 
  Contractors via their reports (Areté et al. 2020, ECORYS & WUR 2022) 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION (SYNOPSIS REPORT) 

1.  CONSULTATION STRATEGY 

The consultation invited relevant stakeholders and the public at large to provide feedback 
on  possible  policy  options  for  a  revision  of  EU  marketing  standards  for  agricultural 
products, and on their likely impacts. Its objectives were in particular to (i) obtain views 
on shortfalls of the current marketing standards framework, and (ii) receive feedback on 
the range of possible policy options. Given that stakeholders had already been consulted 
for the recent more general evaluation of marketing standards, the consultation addressed 
more  particularly  the  potential  of  marketing  standards  to  increase  the  supply  of 
sustainable products and to simplify current legislation. 

Mapping of stakeholders 

Marketing  standards  regulate  the  sales  of  agricultural  products  to  consumers.  As  such, 
they affect operators along the whole respective supply chains, including consumers, as 
well as all those with  an interest  in  food and how it is  produced, or those interested in 
human  nutrition.  Given  possible  substitution  effects  between  different  agri-food 
products, also operators in supply chains of products that are not covered by marketing 
standards may have an interest in the revision. As marketing standards are enforced and 
controlled  at  the  national  level,  MSs’  competent  authorities  are  likewise  concerned  by 
any  revision  of  the  standards.  This  means  the  following  stakeholders  were  identified  in 
particular:  operators  in  the  targeted  supply  chains  and  their  associations;  consumers  and 
consumer  groups;  operators  in  the  supply  chains  in  other  sectors,  private  certification 
bodies  and  sustainability  initiatives;  civil  society  organisations;  MSs’  ministries  and 
customs and control  authorities; international  organisations  and third countries;  and the 
scientific community and policy support bodies. 

Consultation method and communication activities 

The consultation featured the following components: 

  Publication of the roadmap to gather first reactions by stakeholders and citizens. 
  Public consultation; publication of the results on the consultation website. 

90 

 
 
 
  Technical  workshop  with  selected  experts  from  the  food  supply  chain,  consumer 
groups,  NGOs,  and  academia,  in  collaboration  with  the  JRC;  publication  of  the 
outcomes of the workshop in a technical report. 

  Written consultations of MSs’ authorities. 
  Discussions  with  MSs  representatives  in  Commission  expert  groups  and  with 

representatives of stakeholders and NGOs in civil dialogue groups. 

  Complementary  consultations  of  and  bilateral  exchanges  with  key  stakeholders  via 

email and ad hoc video meetings. 

2.  ROADMAP 

Stakeholders and citizens could provide their feedback on the roadmap from 19 January 
until 16 February 2021192. In total, the Commission received 156 instances of feedback; 
most came from business associations (56), companies/business organisations (36), non-
governmental organisations (17), public authorities (16), and EU citizens (14) (Figure 2). 

Figure 2 - Responses to the inception impact assessment by categories of respondents 

Only three instances of feedback were received from countries outside the EU (one each 
from the UK, Nepal, and Georgia), while most from within the EU came from Germany 
(58), and Spain (26) and Belgium (26). The sectors most commonly commented on were 
poultry  &  eggs  and  F&V  (Figure  3),  with  the  various  responses  striking  a  balance 
between  feedback  demanding  more  or  stricter  EU  marketing  standards,  feedback 
demanding a reduced scope, and feedback expressing contentment or demanding a more 
case-by-case revision of individual standards. 

192 https://europa.eu/!fpU7dy 

91 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 3: Word cloud of the responses to the inception impact assessment 

3.  PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

Introduction 

Between 8 June and 31 August 2021, the Commission carried out a public consultation 
on the revision of EU marketing standards for agricultural products using its EUSurvey 
platform193.  The  consultation  gathered  331  responses.  After  the  exclusion  of  duplicate 
answers  from  the  same  entities  and  the  responses  from  a  coordinated  campaign  in 
support of maintaining the status quo on standards relating to force-feeding and foie gras, 
304 responses remained. Not all respondents answered all questions, and some questions 
allowed multiple answers, i.e. where absolute numbers are given, answers do not always 
add  up  to  the  same  total.  This  is  solely  a  summary  of  the  contributions  made  by 
stakeholders  to  the  public  consultation  on  the  revision  of  EU  marketing  standards  for 
agricultural products. It cannot in any circumstances be regarded as the official position 
of  the  Commission  or  its  services.  Responses  to  the  consultation  activities  cannot  be 
considered as a representative sample of the views of the EU population. 

Overview of respondents 

Most  responses  were  given  by  business  associations  and  EU  citizens,  followed  by 
individual businesses and NGOs, public authorities, trade unions and others (Figure 4). 
Where  respondents  represented  organisations,  their  size  was  mostly  micro  (103 
respondents),  followed  by  small,  large  and  medium  organisations  (56,  42,  and  31 
respondents, respectively)194. Most respondents were active in agricultural production or 
the processing for food products (Figure 5). 

193 https://europa.eu/!VUQcBu. 
194 Micro: 1-9 employees, small: 10-49, medium 50-249, large: 250 employees or more. 

92 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 4: Types of respondents 

7%

4%

5%

18%

19%

24%

23%

Business association

EU citizen

Company/business

NGO

Public authority

Trade union

Other

Figure 5: Stage in the food supply chain that respondents represent 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Agricultural production

Primary food processing

Subsequent processing

Commodity trade

Distribution and wholesale

Intermediary trade

Retail

Consumption

Food services & hospitality

Other

Overview of results 

Familiarity with and relevance of marketing standards 

Most respondents stated that they were familiar with the standards for poultrymeat, eggs, 
milk  and  dairy,  beef  and  veal,  and  F&V  (Figure  6).  The  existing  or  possible  EU 
marketing  standards  on  which  most  respondents  provided  feedback  were  those  for 
poultrymeat, followed by eggs, F&V, other meats, and plant-based protein (Figure 7). An 
overwhelming majority  of respondents  (83%) affirmed that a revision of EU marketing 
standards for agricultural products would likely affect them. 

93 

 
 
 
Figure 6: Familiarity with sectoral standards 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Poultrymeat

Eggs

Milk & dairy

Beef & veal

Fruit & vegetables

Honey

Spreadable fats

Fruit juices & jams

Olive oil & olives

Bananas

Processed F&V

Cider

Hops

None

Other

Figure 7: Provision of feedback on sectoral standards 

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

94 

 
 
 
Respondents’ views on sustainability and marketing standards 

Figure 8: Sustainable agricultural products should do the following… 

0

50

100

150

200

250

mitigate climate change
protect biodiversity
preserve natural resources
reduce GHG emissions
reduce food loss and waste
improve animal welfare
use less hazardous chemicals
reduce deforestation
improve water and air quality
improve farmers' incomes
improve soil management
contribute to food security
facilitate a circular economy
provide transparent information
promote fair trade
are traceable along the chain
increase food safety
use renewable energy
protect public health
protect workers’ rights
offer social benefits
offer economic gains
are more wholesome
reduce agricultural land use
impede food fraud
are affordable
use the bioeconomy
promote innovation
other
I don't know / no answer

Of a list of possible environmental, social and economic criteria that could characterise 
‘sustainable’ food, all were chosen by a large number of respondents (Figure 8). 

The  standards  most  respondents  from  organisations  or  operators  dealt  with  were  in  the 
fields of animal welfare, traceability, climate change, and food safety (Figure 9). Most of 
the  sustainability-related  standards  these  respondents  dealt  with  where  EU  marketing 
standards or standards of MSs or their regions (Figure 10). 

95 

 
 
Figure 9: Organisations or operators (excl. citizens) deal with standards covering… 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

animal welfare

country of origin or traceability

climate change

food safety

biodiversity (incl. biosafety)

public health and nutrition

water quality and water use

other environmental issues

soil quality

fair trade

deforestation and land-use

rural heritage or culinary traditions

food loss and waste

other

I don't know

Figure 10: Stakeholders deal with sustainability-related requirements from… 

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

0

EU marketing
standards

standards of
MSs or
regions

international
or 3rd-country
standards

voluntary
public
schemes

private
standards

other

Among  responding  citizens,  most  buy  agri-food  products  that  they  think  are  more 
sustainable than alternative products, some also if they are more expensive (Figure 11). 
When  shopping  for  food,  those  citizens  mostly  buy  products  they  think  perform  better 
regarding  traceability  and  origin,  rural  heritage  or  culinary  tradition,  fair  trade,  climate 
change, animal welfare, and biodiversity (Figure 12). 

96 

 
 
 
Figure 11: Citizens buy food products they think are more sustainable… 

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

exclusively,
also if more
expensive

regularly, if
not more
expensive

occasionally or
for some
products only

rarely

never

I don't know

Figure 12: Citizens buy food products they think perform better regarding… 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

traceability or country of origin
rural heritage / culinary traditions
fair trade
climate change
animal welfare
biodiversity (incl. biosafety)
food safety
deforestation and land-use
other environmental issues
food loss and waste
public health and nutrition
water quality and water use
soil quality
other
I don’t know

Respondents’  views  on  the  role  of  EU  marketing  standards  for  agricultural 
products 

For the revision of EU  marketing standards for  agricultural  products,  most  respondents 
strongly  agreed  or  agreed  that  ORTs  can  be  useful  for  providing  more  sustainable 
agricultural  products  (Figure  13).  To  take  into  account  evolving  consumer  preferences, 
technological change and new production methods, respondents thought that changes of 
EU marketing standards are desirable in the following sectors (in terms of excess ‘yes’ 
over  ‘no’):  poultrymeat,  eggs,  and  other  meats,  and  plant-based  protein  products, 
followed by F&V and honey (Figure 14). 

Regarding  the  current  EU  marketing  standards  for  agricultural  products,  most 
respondents  stated  that  they  affect  them  or  their  organisation  either  very  positively  or 
positively. A large number was neutral, did not know or did not answer (Figure 15). A 
revision  of  the  standards  to  enhance  the  uptake  and  supply  of  sustainable  agricultural 
products  or  to  take  into  account  evolving  consumer  preferences,  technological  change 

97 

 
 
 
and  new  production  methods  was  considered  by  a  majority  of  respondents  to  affect 
themselves or their organisation  either very positively or positively, with  again,  a large 
part of respondents being either neutral or not knowing or answering (Figure 16). 

Figure 13: ORTs can be useful for providing more sustainable agricultural products 

17%

3%

3%

19%

strongly agree

38%

agree

neither agree or disagree

disagree

strongly disagree

I don't know / no answer

20%

Figure 14: New preferences, technologies and methods require changes for… 

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

poultrymeat

eggs

other meats

plant-based protein

fruit & vegetables

honey

bananas

fruit juices & jams

olive oil & table olives

cider

hops

others

yes

no

98 

 
 
 
Figure 15: Current EU marketing standards affect me or my organisation… 

6%

7%

7%

13%

12%

22%

33%

very positively

positively

neither nor

negatively

very negatively

I don't know

No answer

99 

 
 
Figure 16: Revisions likely affect me or my organisation… 

(revisions for sustainability (top) and for evolving consumer preferences, technological 
change and new production methods (bottom)) 

7%

22%

11%

32%

7%

21%

22%

5%

21%

1%

5%

very positively

positively

neither nor

negatively

very negatively

I don't know

No answer

very positively

positively

neither nor

negatively

very negatively

I don't know

No answer

13%

32%

Most  respondents  thought  that  a  range  of  environmental,  social  and  economic  aspects 
could  be  addressed  through  a  revision  of  EU  marketing  standards,  at  least  as  a 
possibility:  in  particular  environment,  climate  change,  biodiversity,  food  loss  &  waste, 
animal  welfare,  food  security,  health  &  nutrition,  and  food  fraud.  At  the  same  time,  a 
significant  minority thought  that sustainability considerations should not  be covered by 
marketing  standards  but  by  dedicated  instruments,  while  many  respondents  were 
indifferent, did not know or did not answer (Figure 17). 

Most  respondents  also  thought  that  without  a  revision,  the  uptake  and  supply  of 
sustainable agricultural products would most likely not happen or happen slower or to a 
limited extent (Figure 18). Most respondents also thought that the uptake and supply of 
sustainable agricultural products though marketing standards can best be done at the EU 
level  (Figure  19).  Similarly,  most  respondents  thought  that  the  uptake  and  supply  of 
sustainable agricultural products can best be achieved through compulsory legislation or 
compulsory  legislation  in  combination  with  other  measures,  while  only  a  minority 

100 

 
 
thought  that  this  can  be  achieved  better  using  improved  consumer  information,  official 
guidelines, self-regulation by operators, or other measures (Figure 20). 

Figure 17: Revising EU marketing standards could be used to address 

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

environment

climate change

biodiversity

food loss & waste

animal welfare

food security

 health & nutrition

food fraud

consumer appeal

competitiveness

econ. development

trade

society at large

working conditions

margins in the chain

employment

other

(strongly) agree

neither nor

(strongly) disagree

I don't know / no answer

101 

 
 
Figure  18:  Without  a  revision,  the  uptake  and  supply  of  sustainable  products  most 
likely… 

22%

21%

does not happen

happens slower or to a
limited extent

happens anyway in a
similar way

I don't know / no answer

25%

32%

Figure 19: More sustainable agricultural products via standards can best be achieved… 

5%

8%

22%

4%

5%

56%

at the international level

at EU level

at the national level

by private operators

other

I don't know / no answer

102 

 
 
 
Figure 20: More sustainable agricultural products can best be achieved through… 

6%

9%

25%

40%

compulsory legislation

official guidelines

self-regulation by operators

improved consumer info

a combination of these

other

I don't know / no answer

8%

5%

7%

Most respondents thought that agricultural producers and consumers would benefit most 
from  a  revision,  followed  by  retailers  and  primary  food  processors  (Figure  21).  A 
majority  of  respondents  also  believed  that  large  enterprises  would  benefit  most  from  a 
revision, followed by medium-sized ones, small enterprises, and micro enterprises or the 
self-employed (Figure 22). 

Figure 21: EU marketing standards for agricultural products benefit mostly 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Agricultural production

Commodity trade

Primary food processing

Intermediary trade

Subsequent processing

Distribution and wholesale

Retail

Food services & hospitality

Consumption

Other

No answer

103 

 
 
 
Figure 22: EU marketing standards for agricultural products benefit mostly 

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

0

self-employed,
micro enterpr.

small enterpr. medium-sized

large enterpr.

enterprises

I don't know /
no answer

Regarding  the  products  where  action  is  needed  on  marketing  standards  to  ensure  the 
uptake and supply of sustainable agricultural products – and keeping in mind the size of 
the respective sectors – most respondents believed that this is the case for poultrymeat, 
other meats, eggs, honey, and plant-based protein products (Figure 23). When it comes to 
an  economic  assessment  of  revising  EU  marketing  standards  in  line  with  their 
expectations,  respondents  generally  expected  that  benefits  outweighed  related  costs  – 
even if hardly any respondent could provide concrete estimates (Figure 24). 

Figure 23: For more sustainable agricultural products, action is needed on… 

0

50

100

150

200

poultrymeat

other meats

eggs

honey

plant-based protein

fruit juices & jams

cider

olive oil & olives

fruit & vegetables

bananas

hops

more/different standards

no change

fewer/no standards

104 

 
 
 
Figure 24: Costs and benefits of revising specific EU marketing standards 

0

25

50

75

terms for poultry production

force-feeding of poultry

water in poultrymeat

coverage of frozen poultrymeat

free-range areas for laying hens

ORTs for other meat production

durability on egg packs

standards for plant-based protein

origin labelling for honey

ready to eat pre-cut and fresh F&V

origin labelling of olive oil

harvesting year on olive oil

standards for cider

bulk sale of olive oil

import of green bananas

reduced sugar in juice

calling all jams "marmalade"

minimum sugar content in jams

standards for hops

For the chosen revision, I can
provide estimates for the
administrative burden

For the chosen revision, I have
no data but the benefits likely
outweigh the burden

For the chosen revision, I have
no data but the burden likely
outweighs benefits

Some  respondents  also  provided  additional  information  in  response  to  an  open-ended 
question (Figure 25) or in the form of a document they uploaded to EUSurvey; this was 
assessed qualitatively. 

Figure 25: World cloud of responses (translated to English) to open-ended question 

To prepare the actual revisions of individual EU marketing standards and to get a better 
understanding  of  the  views  and  needs  of  stakeholders  and  citizens,  the  survey  also 

105 

 
 
 
covered more sector- and product-specific questions regarding the uptake and supply of 
sustainable agricultural products, the results of which are reported in Table 8. 

Table 8 - Sector- and product-specific questions of the public consultation195 

Which action is needed on ORTs for fruit and vegetables (except bananas)? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

Which action is needed on obligatory rules for fruit and vegetables (except bananas)? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

Currently, there are no explicit rules covering mixes of uncut and pre-cut F&V 
The current rules are clear and should not be changed 
The rules should be clarified when it comes to mixes of uncut and pre-cut products, but pre-
cut products should continue to be exempt from conforming to the marketing standards 
The rules should be clarified when it comes to mixes of uncut and pre-cut products, and pre-
cut products should conform to the standards, except that they are not ‘intact’ 
I don’t know 
Other 
No answer 

Which action is needed on ORTs for bananas? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

Which action is needed on obligatory rules for bananas? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 

23 
19 
18 
1 
3 
240 

22 
18 
23 
2 
1 
238 

20 
17 

12 

14 
11 
234 

8 
8 
5 
2 
2 
279 

7 
7 
10 
3 
0 

195 The questionnaire to stakeholders in the public consultation covered a larger range of sectors than what is 
covered  in  this  impact  assessment.  For  the  sectors  not  covered  in  the  impact  assessment,  the  analysis 
concluded  that  no  revision  would  be  pursued  at  this  stage,  either  because  no  changes  were  considered 
necessary or because the reflection is not yet mature at this stage. 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
No answer 

How should the import of bananas be regulated in EU marketing standards? 
The restriction to import only unripe (green) bananas should be kept 
The import of ripened bananas should be allowed and encouraged via labelling 
The import of ripened bananas should be allowed only if accompanied by a certificate on their 
ripening conditions 
The import of ripened (yellow) bananas should be allowed without limitations. 
I don’t know 
Other 
No answer 

Which action is needed on ORTs for fruit juices and fruit jam? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

Which action is needed on obligatory rules for fruit juices and fruit jam? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

How should the labelling of juice with reduced sugar content be regulated? 
The current ban on reducing the sugar content in juice should be maintained 
Juice should be allowed to have a reduced sugar content (any label indicating the reduced 
sugar content would have to be in line with applicable rules for such claims) 
I don’t know 
Other 
No answer 

How should the minimum sugar content in jams be regulated in EU marketing standards? 
The current minimum sugar content for jams should be kept 
The current minimum sugar content for jams should be reduced 
The minimum sugar content for jams should be reduced as long as this does not result in a 
significantly shorter shelf-life of the jams 
The minimum sugar content for jams should be removed but the relative sugar content has to 
be indicated 
The minimum sugar content for jams should be removed 
I don't know 
Other 
No answer 

Currently a product cannot be marketed as ‘marmalade’ if it is not made from citrus fruit 
The definition of marmalade being made from citrus fruit should continue to apply 
EU marketing standards should not define ‘marmalade’; this definition could be determined at 
national level 

277 

8 
3 
6 

5 
5 
5 
272 

10 
17 
9 
0 
1 
267 

8 
14 
16 
0 
0 
266 

5 
13 

10 
10 
266 

8 
1 
6 

7 

3 
10 
2 
267 

18 
4 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EU marketing standards should allow marketing a product as ‘marmalade’ if it is made from 
other fruit than citrus fruit 
I don’t know 
Other 
No answer 

Which action is needed on ORTs for cider? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

Which action is needed on obligatory rules for cider? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

Currently there is no EU marketing standard for cider 
There should continue to be no EU marketing standard for cider 
To help clarify the ingredients and production methods used, ORTs should be introduced 
EU marketing standards should regulate the juice, sugar and alcohol content in cider 
EU marketing standards should be introduced to regulate all relevant aspects of the product 
I don’t know 
Other 
No answer 

Which action is needed on ORTs for eggs? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

Which action is needed on obligatory rules for eggs? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

Currently, innovations like solar panels in free range areas for laying hens are not allowed 
The current restrictions on the use of free range areas should be kept 
There should be more flexibility on using free range areas for laying hens if the new use 
contributes to sustainability and does not harm animal welfare 
There should be more flexibility on using free range areas for laying hens 

108 

8 

6 
2 
266 

3 
18 
5 
0 
1 
277 

6 
13 
6 
0 
1 
278 

5 
11 
5 
7 
3 
2 
271 

24 
40 
15 
1 
0 
224 

13 
39 
27 
1 
0 
224 

14 
55 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I don’t know 
Other 
No answer 

Currently, the min. durability on egg packs should be not more than 28 days after laying 
The current rules on minimum durability on egg packs should remain 
There should be no specific provisions on minimum durability in marketing standards; food 
hygiene and horizontal rules on date marking (‘use by’, ‘best before’) should prevail 
I don’t know 
Other 
No answer 

Which action is needed on ORTs for poultrymeat? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

Which action is needed on obligatory rules for poultrymeat? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

Are you aware of the differences between the standards underlying the ORTs for poultry 
production systems (e.g. ‘extensive indoor’, ‘free range’, ‘traditional free range’ etc.)? 
Yes 
Somewhat 
No 
I don't know 
No answer 

5 
2 
218 

34 
15 

25 
6 
224 

24 
64 
30 
1 
0 
185 

29 
21 
68 
2 
0 
184 

94 
25 
2 
2 
181 

Are additional terms for labelling of poultrymeat from different production systems needed? 
There should be no EU ORTss for poultrymeat production systems, and operators should be 
free to use any term to market their products as long as it is not misleading 
The current EU terms for the labelling of poultrymeat should be maintained, but operators 
should be free to use new terms in addition to the regulated ones 
The number of ORTs that can be used to describe production systems should be expanded. 
The current number of ORTs for poultrymeat from different production systems is sufficient 
and should be maintained 
The number of ORTs that can be used to describe production systems should be reduced 
I don’t know. 
Other 
No answer 

2 

16 

57 
25 

9 
5 
8 
182 

Current standards limit the total water content in poultrymeat in the interest of consumers; 
fast-growing poultry breeds have a higher water content but can increase resource efficiency 
The current rules on water content in poultrymeat should remain 
The rules on water content in poultrymeat should continue to focus on total water content but 

15 
14 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
allow regular adjustments to technical and genetic developments 
The rules on water content in poultrymeat should focus on extraneous water content only 
The rules on water content in poultrymeat should be tightened and the limits for the total water 
content in poultrymeat should be reduced 
I don't know 
Other 
No answer 

27 
39 

19 
6 
184 

The definition of fresh poultrymeat in EU marketing standards does not include frozen meat 
The current definition of fresh poultrymeat in the EU marketing standards should remain 
The definition of fresh poultrymeat in the EU marketing standards should be revised to 
include frozen poultrymeat 
I don't know 
Other 
No answer 

33 
58 

22 
5 
186 

Currently, EU marketing standards for foie gras set a minimum liver weight 
Current EU marketing standards for foie gras should be maintained 
Remove min. weight, but allow label for foie gras made from minimum-weight livers 
The minimum weight requirement should be removed from the EU standards 
A maximum weight requirement should be introduced to avoid force-feeding 
I don't know 
Other 
No answer 

Which action is needed on ORTs for other meats? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

Which action is needed on obligatory rules for other meats? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

39 
4 
2 
51 
26 
8 
174 

6 
44 
13 
0 
0 
241 

7 
36 
21 
0 
0 
240 

Should a system with relevant ORTs (e.g. ‘pasture-fed’) to indicate aspects of animal welfare 
also be introduced to define production systems for other animals than poultry? 
Yes 
No 
I don't know 
No answer 

57 
6 
4 
237 

Which action is needed on ORTs for hops? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 

110 

6 
5 
3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

Which action is needed on obligatory rules for hops? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

Currently, there are no marketing standards for hops, but EU regulation sets minimum 
marketing requirements and quality characteristics of hops and hop products 
The current system for hops shall be maintained 
New marketing standards for hops should be adapted 
I don't know 
Other 
No answer 

Which action is needed on ORTs for honey? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

Which action is needed on obligatory rules for honey? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

1 
0 
289 

6 
3 
5 
1 
0 
289 

6 
8 
6 
0 
284 

8 
12 
18 
0 
1 
265 

3 
12 
25 
0 
0 
264 

Currently, the country or countries of origin where honey has been harvested shall be indicated, 
but for blends this indication can be replaced with ‘blend of EU/non EU honeys’ 
Current EU rules on the labelling of honey should remain unchanged 
Honey processors should have the option to label honey as from ‘EU’ or ‘non EU’ origin 
Only for blends should there be the option to label them as ‘blend of EU/non EU honeys’ 
Blends should have to be labelled with percentages of honey from EU and non EU origin 
Labelling of individual countries should be the rule; in blends, honey from EU origin can be 
labelled as ‘EU’, but other honey should be labelled with the individual third countries  
I don't know 
Other 
No answer 

4 
2 
0 
6 
14 

4 
14 
260 

Which action is needed on ORTs for olive oil and table olives 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 

7 
12 
11 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

Which action is needed on obligatory rules for olive oil and table olives 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

How should the labelling of the origin of olive oil be regulated in EU marketing standards? 
The origin of olive oils should not have to be indicated in any form 
The current rules on the designation of the origin of olive oils should be maintained 
The designation of origin of olive oils should be made more specific and require that the 
countries where the olives are harvested are indicated 
The designation of origin of olive oil should be made more specific and require that the 
countries and regions where the olives were grown are indicated 
I don’t know 
Other 
No answer 

How should the bulk sale of olive oil to consumers be regulated in EU marketing standards? 
The bulk sale of olive oil to consumers should in principle remain banned 
The bulk sale of olive oil to consumers should be allowed if it is covered by equivalent 
authenticity guarantees and hygiene, labelling and traceability rules as are already in place for 
olive oil or for bulk sales of other products 
The bulk sale of olive oil to consumers should be allowed without any restrictions 
I don’t know 
Other 
No answer 

How should the labelling of olive oil be regulated in EU marketing standards? 
As is currently the case, the indication of the harvesting year should be voluntary 
Indicating the harvesting year on extra-virgin and virgin olive oil should be mandatory 
Indicating the harvesting year on extra-virgin and virgin olive oil as well as the date of 
bottling should be made mandatory 
I don't know 
Other 
No answer 

Which action is needed on ORTs for plant-based protein products? 
No change 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

Which action is needed on obligatory rules for plant-based protein products? 
No change 

0 
0 
274 

8 
7 
15 
0 
0 
274 

0 
7 
6 

15 

3 
2 
271 

12 
16 

1 
3 
0 
272 

15 
8 
7 

3 
0 
271 

9 
30 
7 
2 
4 
252 

9 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Addition (more) 
Revision (different) 
Reduction (fewer) 
Elimination (none) 
No answer 

Currently there are no EU marketing standards for plant-based protein products 
There should continue to be no EU marketing standards for plant-based protein products 
EU marketing standards for plant-based protein products should be introduced but be limited 
to aspects linked to sustainable production and healthy diets 
EU marketing standards for plant-based protein products should be introduced across the 
board 
I don’t know 
Other 
No answer 

29 
10 
3 
0 
253 

6 
13 

27 

5 
8 
245 

4.  WRITTEN CONSULTATION OF MSS 

All  MSs  were  consulted  in  a  targeted  consultation  from  17  September  to  14  October 
2021; 17 MSs submitted replies. MSs confirmed that marketing standards are a specific 
instrument  that  works  and  facilitates  trade.  They  acknowledged  that  there  is  scope  for 
updating  them,  but  they  also  pointed  out  that  duplications  between  this  initiative  and 
other initiatives relating to sustainable food production should be avoided, as should be 
duplications  of  standards  that  are  already  defined  at  the  international  level,  not  least  to 
avoid  creating  technical  barriers  to  trade.  While  marketing  standards  may  not  be  the 
appropriate instrument for certain sustainability issues as there are dedicated certification 
schemes,  ORTs  can  be  used  as  voluntary  additions  to  the  minimum  requirements 
prescribed  by  specific  standards.  Overall,  for  developing  a  sustainable  food  system  the 
approach must be comprehensive, not scattered, and marketing standards are not the only 
way to take account of the various aspects of sustainability. Also, as marketing standards 
are product-specific, their revision should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

Regarding issues where they saw a need for a revision of marketing standards, these were 
origin  labelling  for  honey  blends,  water  content  in  poultrymeat,  food  waste  in  F&V, 
sugar content in jams and juices, date marking on eggs, foie gras, labelling of olive oil, 
and  standards  for  plant-based  food.  But  even  if  MSs  generally  agreed  that  marketing 
standards are beneficial, what they did not provide were any concrete figures or estimates 
relating to the possible impact of a revision of any of the marketing standards. (As one 
MSs wrote: ‘In any case, and even without quantifying the cost-benefit ratio, we believe 
that the revision of marketing standards for agricultural products in the EU could have a 
positive impact.’). 

5.  TECHNICAL WORKSHOP 

The technical workshop organised by the JRC on 9 September 2021 found that196: 

  Marketing standards are welcomed by EU firms, in particular because they: 

196 Russo et al. (2022), https://doi.org/10.2760/635080. 

113 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
o  reduce transaction costs and information asymmetries, and increase transparency; 
o  facilitate trade, grant market access, and level the playing field; and 
o  support product-differentiation strategies and favour supply of quality products. 

  Certification and control costs for EU firms appear relatively modest. 
  EU marketing standards provide benefits for consumers. 
  Benefits of marketing standards outweigh the costs. 
  Minor  adjustments  of  marketing  standards  may  discourage  innovation  and  fail  to 
capture new trends in consumer demand and to comply with F2F recommendations. 
  Updating current marketing standards may enhance market efficiency and contribute 

to a more sustainable food system. 

  Extending EU marketing standards regulations to new products calls for an evaluation 

of costs and benefits in each sector as it could result in overregulation. 

More information is required to guide the regulatory process better. 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? 

1.  PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE 

As  also  explained  in  Annex  4,  this  impact  assessment  does  not  rely  on  modelling  or 
similar  analytical  techniques  given  that  changes  in  marketing  standards  are  difficult  to 
capture in modelling exercises due to their technicality. Therefore, it mostly makes use of 
a  qualitative  assessment  of  the  evidence  listed  in  Annex  1.  Moreover,  as  explained  in 
Section 6, neither the external evaluation support study (Evaluation study 2019), nor the 
evaluation  (SWD  2020),  nor  the  public  consultation  (Annex  2),  nor  the  targeted 
consultation  of  MSs  (Annex  2),  nor  the  JRC  workshop  (Workshop  2021),  nor  the 
literature review (JRC 2022), nor ad hoc  consultations with stakeholders delivered cost 
estimates,  but  all  confirm  qualitatively  that  benefits  outweigh  costs.  To  the  (limited) 
extent  possible,  available  information  is  presented  and  discussed  in  the  assessments  of 
the key revisions (Section 10). The lack of data does not permit quantification of benefits 
but Table 9 provides a qualitative overview of the key benefits of the preferred options. 
Table 10 presents an estimation, based on literature review, of compliance costs for the 
preferred option for the five marketing standards assessed in detail in this report. 

2.  SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

Table 9 - Overview of benefits – preferred option 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

Benefits  for  citizens  and 
consumers 

n/a 

Direct benefits 

- clearer information to consumers (better product identification), empowering 
consumers to make informed, healthy and sustainable food choices. 
- environmental benefits due to better use of resources (reduced waste) and more 
environmentally-friendly management of orchards for traditional production of cider 
and perry. 

Benefits for businesses 

n/a 

- better valorisation of products. 

114 

 
 
 
- increased legal certainty  and standards updated to fit with recent developments. 

Indirect benefits 

Benefits for businesses 

n/a 

- level playing field and facilitated business to business transactions and trade within 
and outside the EU. 

Administrative cost savings related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach* 

Benefits for businesses 

n/a 

-  The  streamlining  of  existing  marketing  standards  legislation  will  result  in  lower 
administrative costs for businesses by aligning or merging some rules. 
-  The  introduction  of  EU  marketing  standards  for  cider  and  perry  will  harmonise 
rules  within  the  EU,  thereby  lowering  the  recurring  administrative  costs  for 
businesses for complying with standards. 

Table 10 - Overview of costs – preferred option 

II. Overview of costs – Preferred option197 

Cider  and 
perry 

Direct adjustment 
costs 
- compliance with 
newly introduced 
EU standards, 
including possible 
reformulation 

Direct 
administrative 
costs 
- adaptation of 
labelling 198 

Direct regulatory 
fees and charges 

Direct 
enforcement costs 
- new system of 
controls and 
enforcement 199 

Indirect costs 

Fruit 
juices200   

Direct adjustment 
costs 

Direct 

Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

n/a 

n/a 

EUR 10 
million 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

EUR 0.5 
million 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

0 

0 

n/a 

~0 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

~0 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

~0 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

197 Given the nature of this impact assessment, which covers various individual standards, a full quantification 
is  not  possible  –  in  particular  because  of  limited  data  available  on  the  sectors  covered  by  the  initiatives, 
including on costs. Further available information on costs, mainly qualitative, is presented in Section 10. 
198 Recurring labelling costs are business-as-usual. Changes to labels are assessed to be minor as the change in 
marketing  standard  requires  a  change  in  the  text  on  the  label  but  would  not  require  redesigning  the  whole 
label. 
199 Controls on marketing standards are usually combined with other controls. Additional recurring costs are 
therefore estimated to be negligible. 
200 The changes proposed under the preferred option for the revision of marketing standards for fruit juice will 
not change mandatory requirements. The administrative burden is therefore set to zero. Businesses producing 
sugar-reduced fruit juices who decide to update their labels as provided for under the proposed revision will 
face  a  one-off  cost;  considering  that  such  products  are  still  a  novelty  on  the  EU  market,  the  impact  on 
businesses of adapting labels is assessed negligible. 

115 

 
 
                                                 
administrative 
costs 

Direct regulatory 
fees and charges 

n/a 

Direct 
enforcement costs 

n/a 

Jams 

Honey 

Indirect costs 

Direct adjustment 
costs201 

Direct 
administrative 
costs 
- adaptation of 
labelling197 

Direct regulatory 
fees and charges 

Direct 
enforcement costs 
- revised controls 

Indirect costs 

Direct adjustment 
costs 

Direct 
administrative 
costs 
- adaptation of 
labelling 
- improved 
traceability and 
segregation system 

Direct regulatory 
fees and charges 

Direct 
enforcement costs 
- revised controls 

Indirect costs 

Foie 
gras203   

Direct adjustment 
costs 

Direct 
administrative 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

0 

EUR 10 
million 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

~0 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

~0 

n/a 

n/a 

EUR 7 million  Not 

quantifiable 202 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

0 

0 

n/a 

~0 

n/a 

0 

n/a 

n/a 

~0 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

~0 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

~0 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

~0 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

~0 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

~0 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

201 The change proposed under the preferred option to raise the minimum fruit content would affect about 15% 
of products on the market, as most manufacturers offer products with a higher fruit content than the minimum 
standard. This type of jam is mostly purchased by institutional catering, such as hospitals, nursing homes and 
schools.  It  is  not  expected  that  manufacturers  reformulate  these  to  meet  the  revised  marketing  standards. 
Products with lower fruit content could still be marketed as fruit spread. 
202  The  preferred  option  for  the  revision  of  honey  requires  country  origin  labelling.  This  will  likely  require 
honey  packers  to  relabel  their  products  depending  on  the  exact  origin  of  batches,  and  could  translate  in  a 
recurring  adaptation  of  the  label.  It  is  however  not  possible  to  estimate  the  frequency  of  the  changes  to  the 
label, nor to distinguish this from the business-as-usual costs. 
203 The impact assessment does not identify a preferred option for foie gras at this stage. The costs reflected in 
the table are therefore equal to zero, corresponding to the baseline. 

116 

 
                                                 
costs 

Direct regulatory 
fees and charges 

n/a 

Direct 
enforcement costs 

n/a 

Indirect costs 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Costs related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach 

TOTAL  Direct and 

n/a 

n/a 

indirect 
adjustment costs 

Administrative 
costs (for 
offsetting) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

EUR 10.0 
million 

EUR 17.5 
million 

n/a 

0 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

0 

n/a 

n/a 

0 

n/a 

3.  RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS 

III. Overview of relevant Sustainable Development Goals – Preferred Option(s) 
Relevant SDG 

Expected progress towards the Goal 

Comments 

#2 

#3 

#8  

#12  

#13 

#15 

Contribute to food security, nutrition and sustainable agriculture.   The revision brings the EU closer to the 

  Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages 

(Support high quality production).  

goals. 

  Develop  markets 

and 
in particular for farmers in least developed countries. 

facilitate  market 

access,  

  Build confidence and create market opportunities. 
  Define  a  common  ‘language’ for  all  participants  in  a  supply 

chain. 

  Facilitate  business 
requirements. 
Increase profitability of producers. 

transactions 

 

through  given  quality 

Help  reduce  food  loss  and  waste  and  use  natural  resources 
efficiently.  

Lower  greenhouse  gas  emissions  without  threatening  food 
production 

Contribute to biodiversity protection 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS 

This impact assessment largely relies on stakeholder consultation and literature review. It 
does  not  rely  on  modelling  or  similar  analytical  techniques  given  that  changes  in 
marketing  standards  are  difficult  to  capture  in  modelling  exercises  due  to  their 
technicality.  As  explained  in  the  introduction  to  Section  6,  there  is  a  general  lack  of 
available quantitative data, considering that marketing standards are largely technical and 
the sectors covered in this report very specific. Therefore, this impact assessment mostly 
makes use of a qualitative assessment of the evidence listed in Annex 1. This includes in 
particular the external evaluation support study by the contractor (Evaluation study 2019) 
and the staff working document (SWD 2020) on the evaluation of marketing standards, 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JRC literature review, the JRC report on the technical workshop, and input received by 
stakeholders through various consultation activities. 

Regarding  stakeholder  consultation,  a  limited  number  of  feedbacks  were  received 
following  publication  of  the  roadmap  (156  feedbacks)  as  well  as  a  limited  number  of 
responses to the public consultation (304 respondents). Moreover, questions on sectoral 
initiatives  in  the  public  consultation  were  replied  by  an  even  lower  number  of 
respondents  (between  23  and  141  depending  on  the  sector).  For  this  reason,  key 
stakeholders  were  also  extensively  reached  through  complementary  consultations  and 
bilateral exchanges via email and ad hoc video meetings. 

The assessment also draws on information from additional scientific publications and the 
grey literature, which are referenced in the footnotes. It also uses the Commission’s in-
house expertise to evaluate the available qualitative information, which is still evidence. 
To  the  extent  possible,  available  information  originating  from  different  sources  was 
triangulated.  Moreover,  a  consensus  emerged  from  the  received  feedback  that  the  cost 
impact of the initiative is very modest and the trade-offs with the resulting benefits  are 
positive.  The  limitations  of  qualitative  evidence  are  factored  into  the  assessment;  to 
improve future assessment of marketing standards, the report proposes under the relevant 
Sections an approach to improve the availability of quantitative evidence and information 
gathering in future. 

Given  the  heterogeneous  nature  and  technical  nature  of  the  different  options  for  the 
revisions  of  marketing  standards  for  products  in  different  sectors,  and  given  the 
differences in policy relevance, assessing the impacts in a single consolidated framework 
was  not  considered  appropriate,  because  of  the  lack  of  quantitative  data  that  makes  it 
difficult to use any kind of metrics and the limited homogeneity that would result from 
the  analysis.  Therefore  we  prioritised  the  most  relevant  revisions  (based  on  their 
expected  impacts,  their  novelty  or  because  of  the  sensitivity  with  stakeholders),  and  – 
taking  a  case-wise  approach204  –  we  made  more  comprehensive  assessments  of  the 
prioritised  revisions  in  the  report.  The  other  revisions,  which  represent  only  minor 
changes for which there are no actual policy choices, no significant impacts or which are 
technical and not politically sensitive, are then discussed more briefly in Annex 9. 

Assessment of administrative burden 

The  identification  of  the  administrative  burden  which  would  result  from  the  preferred 
option under the five most relevant initiatives results from the assessment of options for 
which the methodology is described above. Their quantification is however largely based 
on literature review. 

For cider and perry, Eurostat data on the number of entreprises manufacturing cider and 
other  fruit  wines  was  used  as  proxy  of  the  number  of  cider  and  perry  producers, 
corresponding  to  773  for  2019205,  with  an  average  of  two  to  three  stock  keeping  units 
(SKUs)  per  manufacturer.  Costs  for  compliance  with  new  marketing  standards,  in 
particular  linked  reformulation  of  products  not  complying  with  the  new  standards,  and 

204 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100;  https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919862424. 
205 Annual detailed enterprise statistics for industry [sbs_na_ind_r2], 2019 data. 

118 

 
                                                 
costs  for  relabelling  the  product  are  based  on  the  estimates  provided  in  studies206. 
Changes to labels are assessed to be minor as the change in marketing standard requires a 
change  in  the  text  on  the  label  but  would  not  require  redesigning  the  whole  label.  The 
cost was therefore estimated at EUR 1 000 per stock keeping unit. It was assumed only 
25%  of  cider  and  perry  products  would  require  reformulation  and  relabelling  as  over 
50% of manufacturers are located in MSs where national or private standards are already 
in place or where producers already apply higher standards (e.g. under national or private 
standards); in addition in other countries, small traditional producers also already apply 
such higher standards. Recurring labelling costs are considered business-as-usual. 

The resulting calculation of costs is as follows: 

-  Direct  adjustment  costs  for  compliance  with  newly  introduced  EU  standards, 

including possible reformulation: 

number of SKUs (2000) 
X 
cost for reformulation (EUR 20 000) 
X 
share of affected operators (25%) 
= EUR 10 million 

-  Direct administrative costs for adaptation of labelling: 

number of SKUs (2000) 
X 
cost for change in label (EUR 1 000) 
X 
share of affected operators (25%) 
= EUR 0.5 million 

The changes proposed under the preferred option for the revision of marketing standards 
for  fruit  juice  will  not  change  mandatory  requirements.  The  administrative  burden  is 
therefore  set  to  zero.  Businesses  producing  sugar-reduced  fruit  juices  who  decide  to 
update their labels as provided for under the proposed revision will face a one-off cost; 
considering  that  such  products  are  still  a  novelty  on  the  EU  market,  the  impact  on 
businesses of adapting labels is assessed negligible and was not quantified. 

For jams, in absence of quantitative data, the number of producers was estimated based 
on experts’ opinion at around 450, with an average of 40 to 50 SKUs per manufacturer. 
The change proposed under the preferred option to raise the minimum fruit content from 
350g  to  450  g  per  kilo  would  affect  about  15%  of  products  on  the  market,  as  most 
manufacturers offer products with a higher fruit content than the minimum standard. This 
type  of  jam  is  mostly  purchased  by  institutional  catering,  such  as  hospitals,  nursing 
homes and schools.  It  is not  expected that manufacturers  reformulate these to  meet  the 
revised  marketing  standards,  as  most  manufacturers  already  propose  alternative  jams 
with  higher  fruit  contents.  Products  with  lower  fruit  content  could  still  be  marketed  as 
fruit spread, which would require a change in labelling. The raise of the minimum fruit 

206 Developing a Framework for Assessing the Costs of Labelling Changes in the UK, 2010; Cost Schedule for 
Food  Labelling  Changes,  2008;  FDA  Labeling  Cost  Model,  2003,  Cost  of  Reformulating  Foods  and 
Cosmetics, 2002. 

119 

 
                                                 
content for extra jam from 450g to 500g per kilo implies that those products with a fruit 
content  between  450g  and  500g  per  kilo  would also  require  a  change  in  labelling.  It  is 
estimated  that  overall  approximately  50%  of  the  products  would  have  to  be  relabelled. 
Costs for relabelling the product are based on the same estimates than for cider and perry 
(EUR 1 000 per stock keeping unit, see above). Similarly to cider and perry, changes to 
labels are assessed to be minor as the change in marketing standard requires a change in 
the  text  on  the  label  but  would  not  require  redesigning  the  whole  label.  Recurring 
labelling costs are considered business-as-usual. 

The resulting calculation of costs is as follows: 

-  Direct administrative costs – adaptation of labelling: 

number of SKUs (20 000) 
X 
cost for change in label (EUR 1 000) 
X 
share of affected operators (50%) 
= EUR 10 million 

For  honey,  the  costs  for  improving  the  traceability  and  segregation  allowing  country 
origin  labelling  of  honey  blends  are  estimated  as  a  percentage  of  the  total  EU  market 
value.  The percentage corresponds  to  an  average of the estimations (between 0.1% and 
0.5%), used in a similar study207 of the administrative burden resulting from setting up a 
traceability  and  segregation  system  for  origin  labelling.  The  EU  honey  market  is 
estimated at a value of EUR 2.3 billion (EU consumption is estimated at 366 000 t.). The 
costs for recurring adaptation of the label in function of the exact origin of batches could 
not be estimated as the required frequency of label changes is unknown, and it is unclear 
which share of these recurring costs are business-as-usual. 

The resulting calculation of costs is as follows: 

Direct  administrative  costs  for  adaptation  of  labelling  and  improved  traceability  and 
segregation system: 

market value (EUR 2.3 billion) X 0.3% 
= EUR 7 million 

For  foie  gras,  the  impact  assessment  does  not  identify  a  preferred  option  at  this  stage. 
The costs are therefore equal to zero, corresponding to the baseline. 

Controls  on  marketing  standards  are  usually  combined  with  other  controls.  Additional 
recurring costs for controls, relevant for cider and perry, jams, fruit juices and honey, are 
therefore estimated to be negligible and were not quantified. 

207 Évaluation de l’application du décret n° 2016-1137 relatif à l’indication de l’origine du lait et du lait et des 
viandes utilisés en tant qu’ingrédients, 2019. 

120 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 5: LEGAL BASES AND LEGISLATION FOR MARKETING 
STANDARDS 

All legislation where EU marketing standards for agricultural products are set out 
(by sector/product): 

Eggs and hatching eggs: 

  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  589/2008  laying  down  detailed  rules  for 
implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards marketing standards 
for eggs, OJ L 163/6; 

  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  617/2008  laying  down  detailed  rules  for 
implementing Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards marketing standards for eggs 
for hatching and farmyard poultry chicks, OJ L 168/5; 

Fruit and vegetables: 

  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 laying down detailed rules 
for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the F&V 
and processed F&V sectors, OJ L 157/1; 

  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1666/1999  of  28  July  1999  laying  down  detailed 
rules  for  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2201/96  as  regards  the 
minimum marketing characteristics for certain varieties of dried grapes; 

Bananas: 

  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  1333/2011  laying  down  marketing 
standards  for  bananas,  rules  on  the  verification  of  compliance  with  those  marketing 
standards and requirements for notifications in the banana sector, OJ L 336/23; 

Poultrymeat: 

  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  543/2008  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  the 
application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1234/2007  as  regards  the  marketing 
standards for poultrymeat, OJ L 157/46; 

Bovine meat: 

  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  566/2008  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  the 
application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing of the 
meat of bovine animals aged 12 months or less, OJ L 160/22; 

  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, OJ L 204/1; 

  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1825/2000  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  the 
application of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council as regards the labelling of beef and beef products, OJ L 216/8; 

Hops: 

  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1850/2006  of  14  December  2006  laying  down 

detailed rules for the certification of hops and hop products, OJ L 355/72; 

121 

 
  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1295/2008 of 18 December 2008 on the importation 

of hops from third countries, OJ L 340/45; 

Milk and milk products: 

  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  445/2007  provides  detailed  rules  for  applying 
Regulations  (EC)  No  2991/94  and  (EEC)  No  1898/87  regarding  the  use  of  the 
designation ‘butter’, OJ L 106/24; 

  Commission Decision 2010/791/EU on the descriptions of milk and milk products the 
exact  nature  of  which  is  known  because  of  traditional  use  and/or  when  the 
designations are clearly used to describe a characteristic quality of the product, OJ L 
336/55; 

  Council  Directive  2001/114/EC  of  20  December  2001  relating  to  certain  partly  or 
wholly  dehydrated  preserved milk  for human  consumption208, OJ  L  15/19, based on 
Article 43 TFEU (CAP); 

  First  Commission  Directive  79/1067/EEC  on  Community  methods  of  analysis  for 
testing certain partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human consumption, OJ 
L 327/29; 

  First  Commission  Directive  87/524/EEC  on  Community  methods  of  sampling  for 

chemical analysis for the monitoring of preserved milk products, OJ L 306/524; 

  Directive  (EU)  2015/2203  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25 
November  2015  on  the  approximation  of  the  laws  of  the  Member  States  relating  to 
caseins  and  caseinates  intended  for  human  consumption  and  repealing  Council 
Directive 83/417/EEC209, OJ L 314/1, based on Article 114 TFEU (Single Market); 
  Commission  Decision  2010/791/EU  listing  the  products  referred  to  in  the  second 
subparagraph of point III(1) of Annex XII to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 
(dehydrated milk), OJ L 336/55; 

Olive oil: 

  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  29/2012  of  13  January  2012  on 

marketing standards for olive oil, OJ L 12/14; 

  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, OJ L 248/1; 

Wine: 

  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 file, OJ L 149/1; 

  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 

208 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/114/2013-11-18. 
209 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2015/2203/oj. 

122 

 
                                                 
and  organoleptic  characteristics  of  grapevine  products  and  notifications  of  Member 
States decisions concerning increases in natural alcoholic strength, OJ L 149/53; 

  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 procedure,  restrictions of  use, 
amendments  to  product  specifications,  cancellation  of  protection,  and  labelling  and 
presentation, OJ L 9/2; 

  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, OJ L 9/46; 

  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,  amending  Commission 
Regulations  (EC)  No  555/2008,  (EC)  No  606/2009  and  (EC)  No  607/2009  and 
repealing  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  436/2009  and  Commission  Delegated 
Regulation (EU) 2015/560, OJ L 58/1; 

Fruit juices: 

  Council  Directive  2001/112/EC  of  20  December  2001  relating  to  fruit  juices  and 
certain  similar  products  intended  for  human  consumption210,  OJ  L  10/58,  based  on 
Article 43 TFEU (CAP); 

Jams, jellies, marmalades and sweetened chestnut purée: 

  Council Directive 2001/113/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to fruit jams, jellies and 
marmalades and sweetened chestnut purée intended for human consumption211, OJ L 
10/67, based on Article 43 TFEU (CAP); 

Cocoa and chocolate: 

  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  consumption212,  OJ  L 
197/19, based on Article 114 TFEU (Single Market); 

Coffee and chicory: 

210 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/112/2014-10-05. 
211 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/113/2013-11-18. 
212 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/36/2013-11-18 

123 

 
                                                 
  Directive  1999/4/EC of the  European Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  February 
1999 relating to coffee extracts and chicory extracts, OJ L 66/26, based on Article 114 
TFEU (Single Market); 

Honey: 

  Council  Directive  2001/110/CE  of  20  December  2001  relating  to  honey213,  OJ  L 

10/47, based on Article 43 TFEU (CAP); 

Sugar: 

  Council  Directive  2001/111/EC  of  20  December  2001  relating  to  certain  sugars 
intended for human consumption214, OJ L 10/53, based on Article 43 TFEU (CAP). 

Empowerments for Delegated Acts under Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 

  Article  75(2):  marketing  standards  by  sectors  or  products,  at  all  stages  of  the 

marketing, as well as derogations and exemptions from such standards; 

  Article 75(6): new marketing standards (e.g. for cider and perry). It  should be noted 
that  in  accordance  with  this  provision  a  Commission  report  to  the  European 
Parliament and to the European Council is required before any change can be made to 
the list of products covered by EU marketing standards. This impact assessment can 
serve as the said report; 

  Article 76(4): derogations to additional requirements for marketing of F&V; 
  Article 77(5): trade for hops; 
  Articles 78(3) and (4): definition and sale descriptions laid down in Annex VII; 
  Article 79(1): tolerance; 
  Article 83(4): application of national rules for certain products or sectors; 
  Articles 86, 87(2), 88(3): optional reserved terms; 
  Article 89: equivalence of imported products. 

Empowerments for Implementing Acts under Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 

  Article  91:  rules  for  the  implementation  of  provisions  contained  in  the  CMO 

Regulation and in Delegated Acts. 

ANNEX 6: MAPPING OF RELEVANT OTHER INITIATIVES 

Mainstreaming sustainability into EU policies is at the heart of the European Green Deal, 
the  Commission’s  strategy  to  implement  the  United  Nation’s  2030  Agenda  and  the 

213 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/110/2014-06-23. 
214 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/111/2013-11-18. 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDGs).215  In  this  regard,  the  European  Green  Deal  is 
Europe’s long-term growth strategy and contributes to progressing towards at least 12 of 
the  17  SDGs.  A  number  of  legislative  and  non-legislative  efforts  announced  by  the 
Commission under the Green Deal, most notably the F2F strategy216 (F2F), the Circular 
Economy Action Plan217 (CEAP) and the Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan218, are relevant 
for the present assessment, especially when considering the policy options that entail the 
incorporation of sustainability elements in the revised marketing standards. 

In  addition,  the  Commission  is  working  on  a  new  initiative  (Healthier  together219)  to 
support  EU  countries  to  improve  the  health  of  citizens  by  reducing  the  burden  of  the 
main Non-Communicable Diseases. This initiative will help MSs and stakeholders address 
challenges  in  cardiovascular  diseases,  diabetes,  chronic  respiratory  diseases,  mental 
health and neurological disorders, and also health determinants (in coordination with the 
Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan). The priorities and actions have been discussed with the 
Member  States  in  the  subgroup  of  the  Steering  Group  on  Promotion  and  Prevention220 
and  with  the  stakeholders  at  the  Health  Policy  Platform221.  The  outcome  of  the 
discussions will be presented on 22 June 2022222 in a webinar hosted by Commissioner 
Kyriakides. The actions identified in the initiative will feed into actions to be supported 
under the EU4Health programme. 

1.  THE FARM TO FORK STRATEGY 

F2F  aims  at  designing  a  fair,  healthy  and  environmentally  friendly  food  system.  The 
strategy was launched by the Commission in May 2020 as a comprehensive approach to 
value food sustainability and improve lifestyles, health, and the environment. The goal is 
to reduce the environmental and climate footprint of the EU food system by: 

  ensuring  that  the  food  chain,  covering  food  production,  transport,  distribution, 
marketing  and  consumption,  has  a  neutral  or  positive  environmental  impact, 
preserving  and  restoring  the  land,  freshwater  and  sea-based  resources  on  which  the 
food system depends; helping to mitigate climate change and adapting to its impacts; 
protecting land, soil, water, air, plant and animal health and welfare; and reversing the 
loss of biodiversity; 

  ensuring  food  security,  nutrition  and  public  health  –  making  sure  that  everyone  has 
access to sufficient, nutritious, sustainable food that upholds high standards of safety 
and quality, plant health, and animal health and welfare, while meeting dietary needs 
and food preferences; and; 

  preserving  the  affordability  of  food,  while  generating  fairer  economic  returns  in  the 
supply  chain,  so  that  ultimately  the  most  sustainable  food  also  becomes  the  most 
affordable,  fostering  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU  supply  sector,  promoting  fair 
trade,  creating  new  business  opportunities,  while  ensuring  integrity  of  the  single 
market and occupational health and safety. 

215 COM(2019) 640 final. 
216 COM(2020) 381 final. 
217 COM(2020) 98 final. 
218 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_342. 
219 https://ec.europa.eu/health/latest-updates/flash-report-stakeholder-webinar-healthier-together-eu-non-
communicable-diseases-initiative-15-2021-12-16_en. 
220 https://ec.europa.eu/health/non-communicable-diseases/steering-group_en. 
221 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/hpf/. 
222 ncd_20220622_ag_en_2.pdf (europa.eu). 

125 

 
                                                 
The strategy calls for an acceleration of the shift to sustainable food production and lists 
27  actions,  including  the  revision  of  EU  marketing  standards  for  agricultural  products, 
which  is  subject  of  this  impact  assessment.  A  revision  of  the  marketing  standards  for 
fisheries and aquaculture products is carried out in a separate but coordinated initiative. 

In general terms, initiatives in the F2F aim at: 

  ensuring sustainable food production; 
  stimulating  sustainable  food  processing,  wholesale,  retail,  and  food  services’ 

practices; 

  promoting  sustainable  food  consumption,  facilitating  the  shift  towards  healthy, 

sustainable diets; 
and reducing food loss and waste. 

While  all  initiatives  pursue  the  goal  of  a  transition  towards  a  more  sustainable  food 
system, but there are more specific initiatives that are directly relevant for the revision of 
marketing standards, also to ensure coherence: 

  Action 1: Proposal for a legislative framework for sustainable food systems, Q4 2023. 
  Action 7: Evaluation and revision of the existing animal welfare legislation, Q4 2023. 
  Action 14: Develop an EU code and monitoring framework for responsible business 

and marketing conduct in the food supply chain 

  Action 15: Launch initiatives to stimulate reformulation of processed food, Q4 2021. 
  Action 16: Set nutrient profiles to restrict promotion of food, Q4 2022. 
  Action 20: Harmonised mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling, Q4 2022. 
  Action 21: Proposal to require origin indication for certain products, Q4 2022. 
  Action  23:  Proposal  for  a  sustainable  food  labelling  framework,  now  merged  with 

Action 1 (Q4 2023). 

  Action 27: Proposal for a revision of EU rules on date marking, Q4 2022. 

The Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy will play a key role 
in  the  transformation  of  the  EU  food  systems.  The  CAP,  will  play  a  particularly 
important role as the Member States will have to consider the objectives and targets of 
the  F2F  Strategy  in  their  National  Strategic  Plans.  In  its  2017  Communication  “The 
Future of  Food and Farming” in  which it set  out  its ideas for the CAP  framework post 
2020, the Commission identified 13 of the 17 SDGs to which the CAP could contribute 
while  noting  that  the  CAP  objectives  should  fulfil  both  Treaty  obligations  as  well  as  a 
number of SDGs. 

Proposal for a legislative framework for sustainable food systems (FSFS) 

As  regards  Action  1  above,  this  horizontal  legislation  will  aim  at  mainstreaming 
sustainability into all food related policies and strengthen the overall resilience of the EU 
food system.223 The action aims at  laying down definitions relevant  to  sustainable food 
systems, including the definition of ‘sustainable food system’. Furthermore, it will set out 

223  Inception  impact  assessment,  28  September  2021,  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-
your-say/initiatives/13174-Sustainable-EU-food-system-new-initiative_en;  also  see:  Bock  et  al.  (2022). 
Concepts for a sustainable EU food system, https://doi.org/10.2760/381319. 

126 

 
                                                 
general principles, objectives, requirements and responsibilities for all actors of the food 
system. 

The Framework law will also introduce a general framework for the establishment of an 
EU sustainability label (Action 23) that would cover environmental and socio-economic 
aspects. Those aspects, as well as substation rules of sustainability claims will be further 
detailed in secondary legislation. 

Changes considered in this impact assessment therefore focus on revisions that appear, at 
this juncture, relevant and proportionate to achieve incremental progress on sustainability 
and thus contribute to the sustainability transition promoted by the Framework law and 
the F2F. In any case, the sequencing of the F2F actions suggests that further adaptations 
to  marketing  standards  cannot  be  excluded  should  they  prove  necessary  to  align  the 
standards  to  horizontal  policy  choices.  As  explained  in  the  Commission’s  inception 
impact assessment for the framework law, it could function as a lex generalis, while lex 
specialis,  such  as  the  marketing  standards  policy,  would  address  further  specific 
sustainability considerations. 

Revision of EU marketing standards for fishery and aquaculture products 

The  revisions  of  EU  marketing  standards  for  agricultural  products  and  for  fishery  and 
aquaculture products are two separate initiatives although under the same F2F heading. 
All  relevant  Commission  services  were  part  of  the  Interservice  Groups  for  each  of  the 
two revisions (Annex 1), but both the sectors and the scope of the revisions  are distinct 
and therefore also the approaches followed for the impact assessments were different224. 

EU Code of Conduct on Responsible Food Business and Marketing Practices 

The  EU  Code  of  Conduct  on  Responsible  Food  Business  and  Marketing  Practices  is  a 
voluntary industry initiative, launched in July 2021 under the F2F. It aims to improve the 
sustainability  performance  mainly  of  the  food  processing,  food  service  and  distribution 
industry  and  sets  out  aspirational  objectives  and  corresponding  indicative  actions, 
including  one  on  improved  food  consumption  patterns  in  the  EU225.  Signatories  have 
made  individual  commitments  under  the  Code,  which  also  include  commitments  on 
reformulation.226 

224  Apart  from  addressing  sector-specific  technical  issues  regarding  minimum  sizes  and  grading  of  fish,  the 
impact  assessment  for  the  revision  of  EU  marketing  standards  for  fishery  and  aquaculture  products  is  also 
different in that it focuses on adding labelling to inform consumers about the sustainability of seafood  – in a 
context  where  there  are  already  established  private  sustainability  schemes  in  the  sector  and  the  overarching 
F2F initiative on sustainability labelling is still only forthcoming. 
In contrast, the revision of EU marketing standards for agricultural products focuses on aligning current rules 
with the requirements of the Treaty of Lisbon and on updating them to take into account technological change 
and  evolving  consumer  preferences.  Where  a  revision  targets  sustainability  concerns,  it  does  not  do  so  via 
labelling  but  within  the  logic  of  agricultural  marketing  standards  (e.g.  in  the  case  of  ‘ugly’  F&V  by  re-
balancing aesthetical vs food waste concerns, or in the case of installing solar panels in free-range areas for 
poultry by expanding an existing list of permitted dual-uses of such areas). Where a revision does touch upon 
the  ‘labelling’  of  certain  information,  indicating  the  origin  of  produce  has  always  been  part  of  agricultural 
marketing standards, and also the ORTs that can be used on poultry products are part of the existing standards. 
225 https://ec.europa.eu/food/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy/sustainable-food-processing/code-
conduct_en. 
226 https://ec.europa.eu/food/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy/sustainable-food-processing/code-
conduct/individual-pledges_en. 

127 

 
                                                 
Revision of the Regulation on Food Information to Consumers 

As  part  of  F2F,  the  Commission  announced  to  revise  EU  rules  on  the  information 
provided  to  consumers227.  The  aim  of  revising  FIC  is  to  ensure  better  labelling 
information  to  help  consumers  make  healthier  and  more  sustainable  food  choices  and 
tackle food waste, by proposing to: 

 

introduce  harmonised  mandatory  front-of-pack  nutrition  labelling  and  set  nutrient 
profiling criteria to restrict claims made on foods; 

  extend mandatory origin or provenance information for certain products, and; 
 

revise the rules on date marking (‘use by’ and ‘best before’ dates). 

In addition, the proposed revision of FIC will follow up on the Europe’s Beating Cancer 
Plan by considering introducing mandatory indications of the list of ingredients and the 
nutrition declaration for all alcoholic beverages. 

While  there  are  certain  overlaps  between  the  two  initiatives,  the  revision  of  EU 
marketing  standards  focuses  more  on  quality  characteristics  rather  than  on  nutrient 
content  (e.g.  fruit  content  in  jams  or  juices);  it  revises  and  aligns  origin  labelling  of 
existing marketing standards, also by removing exemptions (e.g. honey blends, or fresh 
and dried pulses, dried fruits); and it removes data marking where this contradicts other 
EU rules (e.g. for eggs). All those revisions where there is a potential overlap with FIC 
were  discussed  and  agreed  between  the  relevant  services,  both  within  the  ISG  and  in 
bilateral meetings. 

2.  THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY ACTION PLAN 

Under  the  European  Green  Deal,  the  Commission  announced  the  Circular  Economy 
Action  Plan  (CEAP)  in  March  2020228.  The  CEAP  is  a  new  sustainable  product  policy 
framework that includes measures along the entire life cycle of products with the aim of 
strengthening  European  competitiveness,  protecting  the  environment  and  giving  new 
rights  to  consumers.  These initiatives will help  the EU deliver on its commitments  and 
actions  under  SDGs  6,  12,  and  15,  as  well  as  on  other  SDGs  from  a  crosscutting 
perspective  that  considers  a  healthy  planet  a  prerequisite  for  healthy  people  and 
prosperity. One of the measures introduced under the CEAP aims at reducing the risk of 
false green claims on products sold on the EU market (‘green washing’). 

European Climate Law 

The  European  Climate  Law229  writes  into  law  the  goal  set  out  in  the  European  Green 
Deal for Europe’s economy and society to become climate-neutral by 2050. The law also 
sets the intermediate target of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 
2030,  compared  to  1990  levels.  Climate  neutrality  by  2050  means  achieving  net  zero 
greenhouse  gas  emissions  for  EU  countries  as  a  whole,  mainly  by  cutting  emissions, 
investing in green technologies and protecting the natural environment. The law aims to 
ensure that all EU policies contribute to this goal and that all sectors of the economy and 
society play their part, ensuring strong coherence across Union policies with the climate 
neutrality objective. The Climate law also contains a commitment to engage with sectors 

227 https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/labelling-and-nutrition/food-information-consumers-legislation_en. 
228 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_de. 
229 https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/european-green-deal/european-climate-law_en. 

128 

 
                                                 
to  prepare  sector-specific  roadmaps  charting  the  path  to  climate  neutrality  in  different 
areas of the economy. 

EU  marketing  standards  contribute,  where  pertinent,  to  achieving  this  climate-neutral 
goal,  in  line  with  the  specific  objective  of  the  current  initiative  to  address  relevant 
sustainability issues. 

Green claims initiative 

Currently,  there  are  no  detailed  rules  on  substantiating  green  claims.  Under  the  Unfair 
Commercial  Practices  Directive230,  national  competent  authorities  can  only  prohibit 
environmental  claims  that  they  find  to  be  misleading  towards  consumers  on  a  case-by-
case basis. In this context, the Commission plans to table a legislative proposal requiring 
green claims to be substantiated by using a standard methodology assessing the impact of 
EU products on the environment, namely the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and 
the Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) methods. Both methods were developed 
by the Commission and are enshrined in Commission Recommendation 2013/179 on the 
use  of  common  methods  to  measure  and  communicate  the  life  cycle  environmental 
performance of products and organisations. 

As  the  title  of  the  Recommendation  indicates,  PEF  and  OEF  are  life  cycle  assessment 
methods.  Environmental  performance  is  calculated  taking  into  consideration  the 
environmental  impacts  throughout  the  supply  chain,  from  the  extraction  or  growing  of 
resources  to  the  end  of  life  of  the  product  or  the  product  portfolio  of  an  organisation, 
respectively. 

The  initiative  measures  performance  on  16  impact  categories:  climate  change;  ozone 
depletion;  human  toxicity  (cancer  effects);  human  toxicity  (non-cancer  effects); 
particulate  matter;  ionising  radiation;  photochemical  ozone  formation;  acidification; 
eutrophication 
(marine); 
ecotoxicity  (freshwater);  land  use;  resource  depletion  (water);  resource  depletion 
(mineral and fossil). 

(freshwater);  eutrophication 

(terrestrial);  eutrophication 

Based on the PEF methodology, a number of Product Environmental Footprint Category 
Rules (PEFCRs) have been developed or are under development. PEFCRs are the set of 
rules that specify how the PEF method shall be applied for a specific product category. 

Interaction with the revision of EU marketing standards for agricultural products: 

The  green  claims  initiative  and  the  revision  of  the  marketing  standards  have  different 
objectives.  While  the  former  addresses  voluntary  claims  and  defines  requirements  for 
substantiating such claims, the second considers the introduction of regulatory standards 
that provide transparency on certain sustainability aspects for food. It is not clear whether 
the revision of marketing standards will address any of the 16 impact categories defined 
under  the  PEF  methodology.  If  it  does,  consistency  with  the  PEF  methodology  will  be 
ensured. On the other hand, the sustainability aspects considered under the policy options 
for the standards revision addressing other impact categories than the ones defined by the 
PEF  methodology  could  feed  into  the  ongoing  work  on  the  PEFCR  initiatives.  In  this 
way, both initiatives complement each other and can potentially achieve synergies. 

230 Directive 2005/29/EC, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2005/29/oj. 

129 

 
                                                 
Green consumer empowerment 

Under  the  CEAP,  a  legislative  proposal  on  empowering  consumers  for  the  green 
transition  will  complement  the  green  claims  initiative  described  above.  The  aim  of  the 
initiative is to improve consumer information and strengthen consumer protection against 
that  counteract  Green  Deal  and  CEAP  objectives,  e.g. 
commercial  practices 
greenwashing and early  obsolescence. The consumer empowerment initiative is linked to 
the New Consumer Agenda adopted by the Commission in November 2020 that entails an 
update  of  the  overall  strategic  framework  of  the  EU  consumer  policy.  The  green 
transition is one of the five priority areas of the New Consumer Agenda. 

Interaction with the revision of EU marketing standards for agricultural products: 

The  scopes  of  the  two  initiatives  are  different.  The  green  consumer  empowerment 
initiative aims to address voluntary sustainability logos or labels and online information 
tools. The revision of the marketing standards considers the introduction of a regulatory 
standard  providing  transparency  on  specific  sustainability  aspects  (fundamentally 
different  approach  than  a  logo  or  label)  and  does  at  this  stage  not  consider  any  online 
information  tool.  This  means  that  there  will  not  be  any  regulatory  overlap  between  the 
two  initiatives.  Furthermore,  the  policy  options  considered  under  the  revision  of  the 
marketing  standards  are  in  line  with  and  support  the  principles  underpinning  the  green 
consumer empowerment initiative, i.e. enhancing transparency on product sustainability 
for the consumer. 

Revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 

In a ‘circular economy’, waste is reduced and goods are re-used and recycled as much as 
possible. This means that packaging waste should also be reduced, and packaging should 
be made easier to recycle. 

The  Commission  proposed  in  2022  to  revise  the  requirements  on  packaging  and 
packaging waste in the EU231. This would include assessing how to: 

 
 
 
 

improve packaging design to promote reuse and recycling 
increase recycled content in packaging 
tackle excessive packaging 
reduce packaging waste. 

In particular the use of single-use plastics for packaging fresh F&V will be addressed by 
this  initiative,  i.e.  this  aspect  does  not  need  to  be  discussed  in  this  IA  as  it  will  not  be 
covered in the context of the F&V marketing standards. 

231 https://europa.eu/!KMRg3W. 

130 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 7: ILLUSTRATION OF THE INTERVENTION LOGIC 

Figure 26: Intervention logic for the revision of EU marketing standards 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 8: STRATEGIC FORESIGHT FOR THE REVISION 

The Commission services organised a workshop on ‘Megatrends Analysis for the Impact 
Assessment: How to ensure quality and sustainability in the food supply chain in future – 
what role for marketing standards?’ that took place on 27 October 2021 with participants 
from DG AGRI, DG SANTE and the JRC. 

At  the  workshop,  participants  mapped  megatrends  according  to  their  relevance  and 
related  knowledge,  and  identified  and  discussed  consequences  and  policy  implications. 
The  most  relevant  megatrends  were  climate  change  and  environmental  degradation, 
growing  consumerism,  shifting  health  challenges,  aggravating  resource  scarcity,  and 
technological  change  and  hyperconnectivity,  while  awareness  and 
accelerating 
knowledge on the latter is less developed (Figure 27). 

The implications of climate change and resource scarcity were identified to be: 

  more frequent shocks to supply chains 
  greater vulnerability to shocks 
 
increasing prices 
  decreasing quality 
  growing market imbalances 
 

increasing pressure on producers to become more diversified 

Those of consumerism and health challenges were identified to be: 

increasing confusion about quality and what is healthy 

  growing demand for functional/superfoods232 
  development of more niche markets and greater market segmentation 
 
  growing brand activism 
  growing pressure on companies to increase transparency 
  deteriorating  public  health  requiring  more  government  actions  and  affecting  the 

availability and cost of health services 

  growing  importance  of  countries  in  other  world  regions  (Asia,  Africa),  with  food 

supply chains focusing more on these markets 

232 Functional foods are foods that contain one or more added ingredients to provide a positive health benefit. 
Superfoods are foods that have a very high nutritional density. 

132 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 27: Mapping of megatrends for the revision of EU marketing standards 

133 

 
 
 
In terms of implications of these megatrends for marketing standards and their effects on 
stakeholders, the participants suggested the following points: 

  Marketing standards have to be simple to understand and stable in a changing world. 
  The standards have to give assurance, but given that expectations change they cannot 

be stable in the absolute but need to keep changing, too. 

  Marketing standards should be simple but informative and reliable. 
  The standards should reflect European values and build a common understanding. 
  They  could  use  digital  tools  in  business-to-business  and  business-to-consumer 

interactions. 

  Marketing standards should be created with consumer input. 
  The standards should take into account their impact on inequalities. 
  They should be made fit for new, future food sales channels. 

ANNEX 9: OTHER SECTORAL INITIATIVES 

Annex  9  covers  revisions  of  marketing  standards  for  which  only  minor  changes  are 
considered, for which there are no actual policy choices, no real significant impacts, or 
which are technical and not politically sensitive (e.g. minor revisions to adjust marketing 
standards  based  on  stakeholder  feedback  or  revisions  due  to  legal  requirements).  For 
these revisions, it would be disproportionate to carry out a comprehensive analysis; this 
annex  therefore  presents  the  key  considerations  taken  into  account  for  the  proposed 
revision. The five initiatives for which clearly distinct policy options could be identified 
are covered in Section 10. 

A.  HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS 

1. 

Grouping existing fruit & vegetables legislation 

The marketing standard rules on F&V and bananas in the existing secondary regulations 
were never aligned to the Lisbon treaty and the empowerments in the CMO regulation as 
reviewed in 2013. Moreover, they are dispersed in different legal acts. 

The revision of some of these legal acts, which is necessary for the introduction of some 
of the changes presented in the next sub-sections (2 to 5), requires their alignment to the 
Lisbon Treaty. This would be an opportunity to bring into one consolidated legal text the 
dispersed  rules  for  these  products,  thus  contributing  to  their  simplification  and 
harmonisation.  In  practice,  this  would  mean  merging  three  different  regulations  on 
marketing standards concerning bananas, dried grapes and other F&V (fresh, processed). 

The  merging  of  the  different  rules  into  a  single  text  is  a  technical  change  with  the 
benefits  of  simplifying  the  presentation  of  the  legislation  and  the  access  to  it  by 
stakeholders for a similar set of products. 

134 

 
 
 
2. 

Extending origin labelling to some F&V products that are currently 
exempted 

The  current  rules  on  marketing  standards  for  F&V,  contained  in  Commission 
Implementing  Regulation  543/2011  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  the  application  of 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1234/2007  in  respect  of  the  F&V  and  processed  F&V 
sectors (the “F&V Regulation”) exempt certain nuts (both in-shell and kernels, and their 
mixtures), dried fruits, mushrooms, capers and saffron from the application of the general 
marketing  standard233.  Except  for  some  basic  requirements  (sound,  clean,  free  of  pest 
damages, free of foreign smell, etc.), the general marketing standard – from which these 
products are exempted - requires identification of the packer and/or dispatcher and of the 
country of origin on the label of the product. Nonetheless, the labelling of the origin is of 
growing  interest  for  the  consumer  and  should  be  increased  to  allow  for  an  informed 
choice. 

MSs producing nuts and dried fruits argue that such an exception is obsolete and should 
be  removed  in  particular  for  nuts.  Some  of  these  products  witness  positive  production 
and consumption trends  (nuts). Having said  this, their production share of the fruit and 
vegetable  sector  remains  small.  The  EU  nuts  and  similar  fruits  volume  of  production 
accounted  for  1.1  million  tonnes  in  2019234.  The  share  of  this  sub-sector  accounts  for 
about the 5.3% of the total intra EU trade value for fresh F&V235. For example, Spain is 
the main producer of almonds (shelled or in-shell) in the EU236 and it exports a share of 
55% of the total intra EU trade. In 2021, approximately 299 thousand tonnes of shelled 
almonds  were  imported  into  the  EU  (for  the  large  majority  from  the  USA),  and  19 
thousand tonnes were exported (mostly to the UK, Switzerland and the USA). 

The removal of the exception for nuts and dried fruits would have  some impact for the 
administration  in  terms  of  control,  although  these  already  have  to  take  place  on  other 
aspects,  but  can  be  considered  a  technical  change  –  aligning  rules  for  these  niche 
products  with  the  rest  of  F&V.  The  single  change  of  this  removal  would  be  that  the 
origin  labelling  rules  would  apply  to  these  exempted  products,  including  nuts,  dried 
fruits,  capers  and  saffron,  as  requested  by  certain  MSs237.  This  would  be  a  simple 
alignment with the rules for other F&V.  Like for fresh F&V, it would apply equally to 
EU  MSs  and  third  countries238.  Such  a  change  could  improve  transparency  for 
consumers,  who  have  increasing  choice  in  the  market  of  products  including  as  regards 
the geographical origins. A change could therefore help consumers take more informed 
decisions. To the extent that this encourages the consumption of nuts and dried fruits as 
an alternative to less wholesome snacks, it may also contribute to better nutrition. 

233 Article 4(6) of Regulation (EU) No 543/2011. 
234 https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS. 
235 Comext data, 2021. 
236 With 356 thousand tonnes in 2021, Spain produced roughly 70% of the total EU almond production. 
237 As cited in the previous section, notable ES and IT, which are the two main EU producing MSs of nuts. 
238 Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 would be applicable to these products as well in the case of 
mixes: “If the products in a mix originate in more than one Member State or third country, the full names of 
the countries of origin may be replaced with one of the following, as appropriate: (a) ‘mix of EU fruit’, ‘mix 
of EU vegetables’ or ‘mix of EU fruit and vegetables’; (b) ‘mix of non-EU fruit’, ‘mix of non-EU vegetables’ 
or  ‘mix  of  non-EU  fruit  and  vegetables’;  (c)  ‘mix  of  EU  and  non-EU  fruit’,  ‘mix  of  EU  and  non-EU 
vegetables’ or ‘mix of EU and non-EU fruit and vegetables’.” 

135 

 
                                                 
For public authorities the change would create consistency concerning the application of 
the marketing standards to F&V. 

As regards economic operators and trade, the overall impact is expected to be marginal 
(adapting  the  labelling)  or  even  beneficial  (opportunity  to  put  forward  a  new  selling 
feature). 

3. 

Trimmed and cut fruit and vegetables 

Stakeholders and MSs have repeatedly asked for more clarity concerning the labelling of 
origin  of  ‘ready  to  eat’  and  ‘kitchen  ready’  fruit  and  vegetables  (F&V).  These  are  for 
example sold as sliced and pre-packed products. The Commission has been pointing out 
that  the  general  principle  set  by  the  CMO  is  that  F&V  may  only  be  marketed  if  the 
country of origin is indicated.239 However, stakeholders continue to ask for clarification. 
It  seems  that  the  relevance  of  this  general  principle  for  the  said  products  is  unclear. 
Operators also argue that the current rules are difficult to apply in practice. 

Most of the confusion seems  to  be caused by the  fact  that the terms ‘ready to eat’ and 
‘kitchen ready’ are not defined in the current regulation240. 

A solution would be to redraft the relevant provision241 by removing the references to the 
terms  ‘ready  to  eat’  and  ‘kitchen  ready’  and  clarify  that  products  having  undergone 
trimming and cutting should conform to the obligation to indicate the country of origin. 

On  top  of  the  clarification  for  stakeholders  and  administrations,  the  benefits  of  this 
change  would  be  an  increased  transparency  for  operators  and  consumers  to  make  an 
informed  choice.  Some  operators  sourcing  their  raw  materials  from  different  origins 
would prefer to remove the obligation to indicate the origin for these products. While of 
course these would ensure them more flexibility, this change would be to the detriment of 
consumer’s  informed  choice  and  stand  ill  against  the  general  marketing  standard 
principle. 

Despite the fact that this clarification is rather technical in nature, it would bring benefits 
for  most  of  operators,  mainly  SMEs,  consumers,  and  rural  areas.  Most  of  the  facilities 
preparing  ready  to  eat  solutions  are  located  close  to  production  areas.  They  are  often 
owned by producer organisations242. As such, they are a source of value added for rural 
areas  and  farmers.  Moreover,  aligning  the  rules  for  ‘ready  to  eat’  F&V  to  those 

239  Annex  1,  Part  A.4(B)  of  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  543/2011  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  the 
application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1234/2007  in  respect  of  the  fruit  and  vegetables  and  processed 
fruit and vegetables sectors, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2011/543/2021-11-15. 
240  The  term  is  however  used  and  defined  in  Regulation  (EC)  2073/2005  of  15  November  2005  on 
microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, article 2(g): “‘ready-to-eat  food’  means food intended by the  producer 
or the manufacturer for direct human consumption without the need for cooking or other processing effective 
to  eliminate  or  reduce  to  an  acceptable  level  micro-organisms  of  concern”.  OJ  L  338,  22.12.2005,  p.  1, 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2005/2073/oj. In addition, in Regulation (EC) 1333/2008 of 16 December 2008 on 
food additives, annex II, Part D, there is a reference to unprocessed fruit and vegetables, which are listed as 
including  both  “entire  fresh  fruit  and  vegetables”  and  “peeled,  cut  and  shredded  fruit  and  vegetables”,  in 
addition 
16, 
and 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/1333/oj. 
241 Article 4(1)(d) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 543/2011. 
242 For example https://florette.fr/qui-sommes-nous/. 

vegetables”. 

31.12.2008, 

“frozen 

354, 

fruit 

OJ 

to 

p. 

L 

136 

 
                                                 
applicable to the other products would put an end to situations where F&V mixes in the 
same packaging contain products that must comply with different rules, making it easier 
in  particular  for  SMEs  to  apply  them.  More  transparency  on  the  labelling  may  also 
encourage more consumption of F&V. 

4. 

‘Ugly’ fruit and vegetables 

Fruit  and  vegetables  characterised  by  aesthetic  defects  are  sometimes  referred  to  as 
‘ugly’.  They  may  be  misshapen,  undersized  or  have  colour  defects.  They  do  not, 
therefore, conform to the F&V marketing standards (sound, fair and marketable). 

Under the F&V Regulation, products that do not conform to the marketing standard can 
be used for industrial processing.243,244 MSs can also decide that such ‘ugly’ F&V can be 
marketed to consumers subject to certain conditions: either they are labelled as ‘intended 
for  processing’  or  sold  directly  by  producers  to  the  final  consumer  on  farmers’ 
markets.245 According to the industry and retailers, the market for ‘ugly’ F&V is a niche 
market and consumer demand for such products is at this stage rather limited. 

The defects of ‘ugly’ F&V make them unsuitable for packaging and/or transport on long 
distances. Such defects are not only cosmetic but may affect the capacity of the products 
to  resist  decay or make them unfit to  be properly arranged and packed to avoid  shocks 
and bruises. In addition, because of their defects their prices are lower. 

Therefore, it would seem that valorising ‘ugly’ F&V in their fresh state would be most 
promising in the context of local sales and supply chains without long ways of transport. 
In order to  facilitate such an approach, the existing derogations in  the F&V Regulation 
could  be  reinforced.  For  instance,  it  could  be  stipulated  that  there  should  be  not  more 
than  one  intermediary  between  producer  and  consumer.  In  addition,  the  existing 
derogations in Articles 4(3) and 4(4) of the F&V Regulation could be set at the EU level, 
instead of leaving the decision at the discretion of the MSs. 

The  changes  regarding  the  derogations  in  the  F&V  Regulation  are  unlikely  to  have  a 
substantial effect. They would bring benefits for every actor involved. They could reduce 
food waste, offer consumers more opportunities  to  buy F&V at  more affordable prices, 
and benefit SMEs including producer organisations active in short supply chains. To the 
extent  that  ‘ugly’  F&V  are  sold  cheaper  and  lead  to  the  consumption  of  more  F&V,  a 
positive  impact  can  be  expected  for  nutrition.  As  for  public  authorities,  the  easing  of 
rules  may  benefit  them  slightly.  Trade  is  not  expected  to  be  affected  in  any  significant 
way, not least because ‘ugly’ F&V are rarely transported over long distances. 

243 F&V that have defects with consequences for their organoleptic qualities (blemishes, decay, severe attacks 
of pests affecting the inner quality of the product, etc.) cannot be marketed at all. 
244 Article 4(1)a(i) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2011/543/2021-11-15. 
245 Articles 4(3) and 4(4) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 allow MSs to derogate from minimum 
quality requirements if products are sold to consumers for their personal use and intended for processing or if 
they are sold locally by producers. 

137 

 
                                                 
5. 

‘Force majeure’ exemption 

The  recent  eruption  of  the  volcano  on  La  Palma  rendered  the  bananas  grown  non-
compliant  with  the  EU  marketing  standard246  due  the  ash  layer  covering  the  fruit.  This 
suggested  the  desirability  to  have  the  possibility  to  derogate  in  exceptional  situations 
from the otherwise applicable marketing standards247. 

Producers  that  face  exceptional  circumstances  not  imputable  to  their  behaviour  (‘force 
majeure’)  suffer  economic  hardship  if  their  F&V  produce  cannot  be  sold  while  the 
impact  on  the  product  may  only  be  a  cosmetic  one,  as  was  the  case  in  Spain.  The 
possibility to grant exemptions would provide the possibility to avoid this loss of income 
and product. The work of public authorities would be facilitated as controls would take 
into account such exemption. Consumers may find more temporarily ‘irregular’ products 
on  the  market,  but  due  to  the  exceptional  circumstances  they  are  expected  to  be  aware 
and willing to support producers by accepting such F&V on a temporary basis. Finally, 
food waste would be prevented. 

6. 

Sugar content in fruit nectars 

‘Fruit nectar’ is the sales designation for beverages with 25-99% juice content. Under the 
Juice Directive, only ‘fruit nectars’ may contain added sugar and/or sweeteners. 

As explained in  Section 10.2  on reduced-sugar  fruit juice, from  a health  point of view, 
the total free sugar content is relevant. For fruit juice and fruit nectar, this means the total 
sugar content as all sugars that nectar may contain (sugars from fruit juice, added sugars 
including honey etc.) count as free sugars. Therefore, the total sugar content is the health 
relevant  information  for  consumers  and  this  is  available  in  the  mandatory  nutrient 
labelling. 

However, in addition to the difference on ingredients, fruit juices and fruit nectars have 
different front-of-pack labelling possibilities. Products sold as ‘fruit juices’ or ‘fruit juice 
from  concentrate’  cannot  contain  added  sugar  and  thus,  they  cannot  use  the  claim  ‘no 
sugar added’ or ‘contains naturally occurring sugars’248, whereas products sold as ‘fruit 
nectars’  can249.  Moreover,  when  sugar  or  sweetener  is  added  to  a  nectar,  as  for  all 

246 Commission Implementing Regulation 1333/2011 laying down marketing standards for bananas, rules on 
the verification of compliance with those marketing standards and requirements for notifications in the banana 
sector, OJ L 336/23. 
247  For  the  concept  of  force  majeure  see  e.g.  C  640/15,  Vilkas,  EU:C:2017:39,  paragraph  53, 
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=187124&doclang=EN. 
248  In  accordance  with  Regulation  (EC)  No  1924/2006  of  the  European  parliament  and  of  the  council  of  20 
December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods: “WITH NO ADDED SUGARS A claim stating 
that sugars have not been added to a food, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, 
may only be  made  where the product does not contain any added mono- or disaccharides or any other food 
used for its sweetening properties. If sugars are naturally present in the food, the following indication should 
also appear on the label: ‘CONTAINS NATURALLY OCCURRING SUGARS’.” 
249 The authorised ingredients of fruit nectars are defined in Annex 1, part II, section 2 of the Juice Directive 
as follows: “restored flavour, pulp and cells; sugars and/or honey up to 20 % of the total weight of the finished 
products;  and/or  sweeteners;  A  claim  stating  that  sugars  have  not  been  added  to  fruit  nectar,  and  any  claim 
likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product does not contain any 
added  mono-  or  disaccharides  or  any  other  food  used  for  its  sweetening  properties,  including  sweeteners  as 

138 

 
                                                 
 
labelled foods, there is no correlated obligation to feature it as part of the front-of-pack 
nutrition  label,  only  in  the  mandatory  ingredient  list.  Over  time,  this  has  created 
consumer confusion, in particular that consumers think that fruit juices can or do contain 
added sugar, and so misleading consumer choices250.  In addition, research has however 
shown that among several products with identical nutrition composition, the product with 
a nutrition claim would be preferred251. 

While  the  fruit  juice  producing  sector  would  like  to  be  able  to  communicate  that  ‘fruit 
juice’ contains ‘no added sugar’ or only ‘naturally occurring sugars’252, this is prevented 
by  the  current  European  legal  framework  on  consumer  information  that  stipulates  that 
‘food  information  shall  not  be  misleading,  particularly  [...]  by  suggesting  that  the  food 
possesses  special  characteristics  when 
in  fact  all  similar  foods  possess  such 
characteristics,  in  particular  by  specifically  emphasising  the  presence  or  absence  of 
certain ingredients and/or nutrients’253. 

In order to reduce the risk of consumer confusion and with a view to helping consumers 
to make better informed, healthy food choices, it seems therefore appropriate to adapt the 
front-of-pack labelling possibilities for fruit juices and fruit nectars in the Juice Directive. 

In  2012,  the  Juice  Directive  was  amended  and  the  addition  of  sugars  was  no  longer 
authorised  in  fruit  juices.  In  the  light  of  this  change  of  compositional  requirements  for 
fruit juices, the fruit juice industry was allowed to use, for a limited time, the following 
statement: “no fruit juices contain added sugars”. The objective was to inform consumers 
and  enable  them  to  make  an  immediate  clear  distinction  between  fruit  juices  and  other 
drinks in terms of the addition of sugars in the products. The time-span authorised proved 
insufficient, as for a proportion of consumers, it is still not clear that fruit juices do not 
contain added sugars. It is therefore appropriate to renew the possibility for the industry 
to communicate to consumers on this aspect. 

As  regards  nectars,  in  view  to  incentivising  consumers  to  make  informed  food  choices 
based  on  the  relevant  nutrient  information,  it  is  proposed  that  the  nutrition  claims 
regarding sugar content that can be made on the products covered by the Juice Directive 

defined  in  Regulation  (EC)  No  1333/2008.  If  sugars  are  naturally  present  in  fruit  nectar,  the  following 
indication should also appear on the label: ‘contains naturally occurring sugars’.” 
250  According  to  the  AIJN  surveys,  in  Germany,  43%  of  interviewed  nutritionists  believe  that  orange  juice 
contains  added  sugar.  In  Belgium  only  22%  of  Dutch  –  speaking  respondents  are  convinced  that  it  is  not 
allowed  to  add  sugar  to  100%  fruit  juice.  The  French-speaking  part  of  Belgian  dieticians  score  better,  with 
51% of respondents knowing it is not allowed – however this still leaves a remaining 49% without knowledge 
of  this  legislation.  Danish  clinical  dieticians  were  asked  the  same  question,  and  although  66%  of  them  do 
know  that  there  is  no  sugar  added  to  fruit  juices,  one  third  believes  that  there  must  be  artificial  sweeteners 
inside the product. Approaching consumers, surveys in France show that 61% of interviewed people believe 
there is added sugar in the pre-packed orange juice. In the Netherlands the percentage of consumers with the 
same  opinion  is  62%.  In  Poland,  over  76%  of  consumers  (representative  group  of  mothers,  as  per  study 
Promotion  of  Certification  of  Innovative  Processed  F&V,  IQS  Sp.  z  o.  o.,  December  2018,  CAWI  study, 
mother of children aged 3-18) believe that fruit juice may contain added sugar or sweeteners. 
251 Steinhauser J, Janssen M, Hamm U. Who Buys Products with Nutrition and Health  Claims?  A Purchase 
Simulation  with Eye Tracking on the Influence of  Consumers' Nutrition Knowledge and Health Motivation. 
Nutrients. 2019 Sep 12;11(9):2199. doi: 10.3390/nu11092199. PMID: 31547369; PMCID: PMC6769812. 
252 AIJN contribution of 9 December 2021. 
253  Article  7(1)(c)  of  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. 

139 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
be simplified and harmonised.  Concretely,  nectars  should be able to  continue using the 
nutrition  claim  “with  no  added  sugars”,  and  only  that  claim,  when  they  contain  only 
naturally occurring sugars and no added mono- or disaccharides or any other food used 
for  its  sweetening  properties,  including  sweeteners  as  defined  in  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1333/2008. 

The  overall  impact  on  the  economic  sector  is  foreseen  to  be  rather  small,  as  operators 
should  move  within  the  same  market  segment  changing  some  of  their  factors  of 
competitiveness,  such  as  recipes  (towards  healthier  ones),  price,  taste  and  other  health 
claims; these adjustments mainly concerning only the operational capital should be rather 
quick and not too costly to implement. 

Public authorities are supposed to be minimally impacted, as despite this change in rules 
the type and number of their controls will hardly change, as they are already based on a 
risk  analysis  for  all  marketing  standards254.  As  regard  consumers,  the  gains  are  rather 
evident  in  terms  of  transparency,  and  as  a  consequence  in  terms  of  ease  to  make  the 
healthier choices when choose a fruit-based drink, with positive effects for social health. 

To conclude, adapting the nutritional claims regarding sugar content on the front-of-pack 
label for fruit juice and nectars mainly aims to counterbalance the competitive advantage 
of which fruit nectars benefit when it comes to health claims compared to fruit juices and 
reduce  the  risk  of  consumer  confusion  regarding  the  presence  of  added  sugars,  with 
positive effects for consumers and little overall effects for the sector. 

This is coherent with the current FIC Regulation and its ongoing revision, which covers 
all  products  sold  for  consumer  consumption  and  does  not  provide  for  specific  rules 
regarding fruit juices, which are thus contained in the Juice Directive. The revision of the 
FIC Regulation will cover front-of-pack labelling (scoring) and nutrient profiles, and not 
nutritional claims. The change does derogate from the nutritional claims regulation (for 
which  no  revision  is  foreseen  in  the  near  future).  It  is  considered  necessary  so  that 
operators may better inform consumers about the actual source of sugar contained in fruit 
juices  (if  operators  choose  to  use  the  authorised  sentence  on  their  labels)  and  that 
operators may  use  harmonised sugar  claims  in  their marketing strategies for nectars, in 
line with the objectives defined in the F2F Strategy to facilitate the shift to healthy diets 
and to empower consumers to make informed and healthy food choices. 

7. 

Use of the term ‘marmalade’ 

As  regards  the  sales  designations  for  jams,  the  Jam  Directive255  restricts  the  term 
‘marmalade’ to citrus fruit mixtures.  However, in a number of European languages the 
term  ‘marmalade’  had  traditionally  been  used  as  a  generic  term  for  jams  of  all  fruits. 

254  Article  90a(3)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 1308/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 
17 December  2013  establishing  a  common  organisation  of 
in  agricultural  products: 
“Member States  shall  carry  out  checks,  based  on  a  risk  analysis,  in  order  to  verify  whether  the  products 
referred  to  in  Article 1(2)  conform  to  the  rules  laid  down  in  this  Section  and  shall  apply  administrative 
penalties as appropriate.” 
255 Article 2 and Annex I of Council Directive 2001/113/EC relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and 
sweetened chestnut purée, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/113/2013-11-18. 

the  markets 

140 

 
                                                 
There  has  been  a  growing  number  of  calls  to  adjust  the  rules  on  the  use  of  the  term 
accordingly256. 

So  as  to  take  into  account  its  traditional  understanding  in  many  EU  languages,  the 
marketing standards revision would consist in adding in the Jam Directive a derogation 
to allow MSs to authorise that the term ‘marmalade’ can be used to designate what today, 
under the Jam Directive, are jams. This would promote consumer information and trust in 
certain MSs where variations of the term ‘marmalade’ have been traditionally used257. 

What is currently designated as ‘marmalade’ in the EU would have to be designated as 
‘citrus  marmalade’  according  to  the  international  standard  (Codex  Alimentarius)  and  it 
would be up to  the MSs to  regulate how the term  ‘marmalade’ could  then be used.  By 
aligning the EU standard with the international standard, the designations for the sector 
would  be  simplified258  and  this  would  remove  the  need  for  specific  interpretations  and 
exceptions259. 

This revision is therefore technical, as it will mainly concern the response to derogation 
requests  to  the  current  EU  legislation  from  different  national  legislations  and  align  the 
EU rule to existing international standards. The economic impact foreseen for operators, 
public authorities and consumers, would be limited as the use (decided by a MS) would 
be allowed by the change to the Jam Directive but not mandated; also, some MSs already 
have a derogation for the use of the term ‘marmalade’. 

B.  ANIMAL PRODUCTS 

1. 

Dual use of outdoor areas in free-range production systems for eggs 

About  12%  of  the  EU  laying  hens  produce  in  free  range  systems  that  allow  daytime 
access  to  open air  runs.  Free-range production is  particularly strong in  Ireland (43% of 
the  hens),  Austria  (27%),  France  (23%)  and  Germany  (21%).  Under  the  current  egg 
marketing  standards,  using  the  outdoor  runs  in  free-range  production  systems  for  other 
purposes than that for orchards, woodland or livestock grazing is not allowed. 

There is  increasing interest  to  allow the installation of solar panels  in the outdoor area, 
which  can  not  only  improve  the  economic  and  environmental  performance  of  farms 
through the generation of income and production of renewable energy, but also serve as 
shelter for hens (protecting them from the sun or, especially, birds of prey). 

256 See Bulgaria’s notification regarding rosehip marmalade (Nº 2021/579/BG), EP question of 7 March 2017 
E-001555-17,  Petition  No  0001/2021  by  M.P.  (German)  on  Council  Directive  2001/113/EC  relating  to  fruit 
jams,  jellies  and  marmalades  and  sweetened  chestnut  purée,  direct  citizen  enquiry  of  6  January  2021  ref 
101000763451. 
257 See, e.g., Parliamentary question for written answer E-001555-17 of 7 March 2017, Jakob von Weizsäcker 
(S&D):  ‘In Great Britain the  term ‘marmalade’ is  used for fruit  spreads  which, aside  from  sugar and  water, 
only  contain  citrus  fruits  —  unlike  in  Germany  or  Austria  where  the  name  is  traditionally  also  used  for 
strawberry,  plum  and  various  other  ‘marmalades’.  To  avoid  overwhelming  our  British  friends,  the  term  has 
been used exclusively for citrus fruit marmalades throughout the EU since 1979  — to the disappointment of 
consumers, particularly in Germany and  Austria,  who since then  have only been able to buy  fruit  spread or 
jams instead of normal marmalade.’ 
258 Codex Alimentarius makes a distinction between citrus marmalade (which corresponds to marmalade as 
defined in the Directive) and non citrus marmalade. 
259 Council Directive 2004/84/EC, Annex I, fn 1, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2004/84/oj. 

141 

 
                                                 
Making the marketing standards more flexible would allow operators generate additional 
income for and stimulate the production of ‘green’ energy; it will also reduce the burden 
that controlling and enforcing strict standards impose on public authorities. There is no 
direct  impact  on consumers, but  greater supply of energy  from  renewable sources is  of 
interest to them. 

The overwhelming majority of free-range egg producers are SMEs. A more flexible use 
of  open-air  runs  for  creating  additional  income  (from  solar  energy)  would  improve  the 
economic situation of these SMEs that are often located in rural areas. In turn, this can 
allow them make other investments that improve their competitiveness. 

There are positive impacts in relation to animal welfare. Solar panels installed in open air 
runs can serve as additional shelter so that the outdoor area is more attractive to the hens. 
The  animals  move  also  further  away  from  the  barn  into  the  now  more  protected  free-
range area260. 

In  several  MSs,  there  is  strong  interest  to  authorise  solar  panels  in  free  range  areas261. 
This became clear in the consultations when the issue was highlighted from the producer 
side but also from the side of public administration. It is a long standing issue and had 
already been addressed in a parliamentary question in 2019 (E-004596/19). 

It  is  therefore  proposed  to  amend  the  marketing  standard  and  authorise  solar  panels  in 
free  range  areas.  It  is  a  technical  amendment,  largely  undisputed  and  with  clear 
economic, social and environmental benefits. 

2. 

Inconsistency between egg standards and organic rules 

Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza is a disease that appears every winter in the EU. It is 
transmitted  by  migratory  birds.  In  order  to  avoid  outbreaks  in  domestic  holdings, 
veterinary  authorities  can  impose  housing  orders  on  poultry  (for  example  in  case  of 
Avian Influenza outbreaks in their vicinity). By derogation, the eggs of free-range hens 
and organic hens are continuing to be marketed as ‘free-range’ and ‘organic’ even if the 
hens had no access to open air runs. 

There is an inconsistency between egg standards and organic rules concerning derogation 
for  the  period  during  which  producers  of  ‘free  range’  eggs  can  keep  their  ‘free  range’ 
status in the event of prolonged veterinary housing orders. 

According  to  the  egg  marketing  standards,  free  range  egg  producers  can  preserve  their 
‘free  range’  status  and  label  eggs  as  ‘free  range’  for  a  period  of  maximum  16  weeks 
during  which  hens  can  be  kept  indoors  based  on  veterinary  orders.  After  16  weeks  the 
eggs can only be marketed as ‘barn eggs’ at a ~50% lower price. However, such period 
of derogation is  of unlimited duration under the EU organic rules (cf. Regulation (EU) 
848/2018, Annex II, point 1.9.4.4.(d))262). 

260 https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2011.11051. 
261 https://poultry.network/3019-solar-panels-not-acceptable-on-free-range-farms-eu-says/. 
262 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/848/oj. 

142 

 
                                                 
Aligning  the  provisions  in  the  egg  marketing  standard  would  abolish  an  unjustified 
competitive disadvantage of non-organic free range egg producers versus organic ones. 

Due to  the economic losses, players in  the  egg sector often  approach public authorities 
and lobby  for a lifting of the veterinary restrictions before the 16 weeks limit  has been 
reached, even if the disease is still present in wild birds in the area. If the derogation in 
the egg marketing standard would be aligned with the already existing derogation under 
organic rules, equal treatment of producers would be ensured. 

The impact on consumers would be that they would buy free range eggs from hens that 
have no outdoor access (the same as organic) during veterinary restriction, even if it lasts 
longer  than  16  weeks.  However,  already  during  previous  epidemics  retailers  used 
voluntary labelling to allow consumers to support egg producers by paying a higher price 
for free-range eggs that have been produced without access to open-air runs263. 

Free range egg producers are mainly SMEs in  rural  areas,  which suffer from  economic 
losses under the current inflexible rules. 

Currently there is discrepancy between ‘free range’ and ‘organic’, two farming methods 
that  have  a  high  public  acceptance,  first  and  foremost  because  of  an  animal  welfare 
friendly production. Respecting veterinary restrictions is in the interest of the society, and 
such alignment would reduce the incentive of farmers to obtain lighter veterinary orders 
in  the name of economic considerations. The health of the animal  needs to  be weighed 
against the ability of the animals to move freely outdoors when there is a high risk to be 
infected by diseases such as avian flu. Both animal welfare friendly production methods 
(free  range  and  organic)  should  be  treated  in  the  same  way  in  relation  to  derogations 
linked to veterinary restrictions. 

Aligning  the  rules  for  ‘organic’  and  free  range  eggs  contributes  to  more  coherent 
consumer information, but allowing hens to be kept indoors whose eggs can be labelled 
‘free range’, even if for veterinary reasons, may mislead consumers. 

MSs apply different administrative practices and interpretations in relation to the current 
rules  so  that  the  Commission  is  frequently  asked  for  clarification264.  The  discrepancy 
between marketing  standards and organic rules leads to  unequal  treatment  of producers 
under  veterinary  restrictions.  Stakeholders  highlighted  this  unequal  treatment  in  the 
public  consultation.  Public  authorities  are  increasingly  confronted  with  lack  of 
understanding of this unequal treatment265. This makes enforcement extremely difficult. 

Revising the current standard would allow aligning derogations between free-range and 
organic, both production systems that are generally regarded as sustainable. We see this 
as a technical amendment without political controversy. 

263 https://verbund.edeka/presse/pressemeldungen/edeka-zeigt-solidarität-mit-geflügel-haltern.html. 
264 Letter from Germany. 
265 Letter from Germany. 

143 

 
                                                 
3. 

Durability of eggs 

Minimum durability of food in general is regulated in FIC. In addition, the egg marketing 
standard fixes a maximum limit of 28 days for minimum durability (‘best before’ date) of 
shell  eggs  (Article  13).  This  leads  to  food  waste  because  some  consumers  may  throw 
eggs away after the 28 days.266 

Food  business  operators  are  free  to  guarantee  minimum  durability  for  any  kind  of 
foodstuff  and  should  be  free  to  grant  also  more  than  28  days  for  eggs  (under  optimum 
storage  conditions  eggs  can  keep  their  quality  for  several  months).  Food  safety  aspects 
fall not within the scope of marketing standards. In relation to eggs they are fully covered 
by  Regulation  (EC)  No  853/2004  that  fixes  the  sell-by-date  at  21  days  after  laying 
(Annex III, Section X (3))267. Possible consumer confusion about the sell-by-date could 
be addressed in a separate action under the F2F (No 27). 

Eggs  are  the  only  example  where  marketing  standards  define  maximum  limits  for 
minimum durability. The provisions were established long time before Regulation (EU) 
No  1169/2011  came  into  force.  By  removing  the  provision  in  the  marketing  standards 
operators  would  be  free  to  define  the  minimum  durability  in  the  same  way  as  for  any 
other product  based on  horizontal rules for food labelling and date marking based on a 
risk based approach in line with EFSA guidance (Guidance on date marking and related 
food information268). 

The abolition of the ‘best before’ date in the marketing standard for eggs is a technical 
adjustment and will align the egg sector with horizontal rules on date marking under the 
FIC regulation. This will put eggs in line with all other food products. 

4. 

Obligatory marking of eggs on the farm 

In accordance with current egg marketing standards eggs can be marked either on farm or 
at  later  stages  at  packing  centres.  If  done  at  packing  centres,  a  certain  risk  of  false 
marking  (unintended  or  intended)  cannot  be  excluded  entirely,  because  eggs  from 
different farms and production systems may be mixed up and mislabelled. 

Obligatory marking of eggs on the farm is an option already in place in several MSs (NL, 
BE, AT and DE). On the other hand, some MSs have well established systems in place to 
mark  eggs  in  the  first  packing  centre  (e.g.  DK  and  FI),  and  their  official  control 
procedures have been designed to work well at the level of packing centres. There is no 
impact on imports, EU import rules do not regulate the place of marking. 

It is, therefore, foreseen to introduce obligatory marking of eggs on farm as general rule 
but  maintain  the  option  to  mark  eggs  in  packing  centres  by  way  of  derogation  by  the 
competent authorities. 

Compulsory marking on farm as general rule would improve traceability of eggs, also in 
the  event  of  food  safety  incidents  by  allowing  the  identification  of  eggs  coming  from 

266 https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/apr/09/britons-throw-away-720m-eggs-a-year-over-best-before-
date-fears. 
267 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/853/oj. 
268 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6306. 

144 

 
                                                 
individual farm holdings. In justified cases, the legislation would allow for a derogation 
to the subsequent stage of supply chain (packing centre) taking into account the situation 
in MSs that developed a well-functioning labelling system in packing centres. 

Marking of eggs is  laid down in  Annex VII to  Regulation  (EU) No 1308/2013. Due to 
this  special  legislation  marking  of  eggs  would  not  fall  under  Regulation  1069/2011  on 
food information to consumers. 

5. 

Optional  reserved  terms  to  label  types  of  farming  in  poultrymeat 
production 

The  current  marketing  standard  for  poultrymeat  defines  certain  optional  reserved  terms 
(ORTs) for informing consumers about farming methods. 

ORTs are established according to Article 84 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 in order 
to  make  it  easier  for  producers  of  agricultural  products  that  have  value-adding 
characteristics or attributes to communicate those characteristics or attributes within the 
single market. 

The current system of optional reserved for poultrymeat is, however, not flexible enough 
for labelling new farming methods.  The current  marketing standards allows only  a few 
clearly defined ORTs. No other product information is possible. 

Detailed rules on the ORTs relating to poultry are provided in Articles 11-14 and Annex 
V  of  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  543/2008.  The  following  ORTs  are  defined  to 
indicate  on  the  label  the  respective  ‘type  of  farming’  in  poultry  (with  the  exception  of 
organic farming which is defined in the organic farming rules). 

a)  ‘fed with …% …’; 
b)  ‘extensive indoor’ (‘barn-reared’); 
c)  ‘free range’; 
d)  ‘traditional free range’; 
e)  ‘free range – total freedom’. 
f)  ‘oats-fed goose’. 

These  provisions  represent  a  rather  rigid  framework  for  the  marketing  of  poultrymeat. 
Indeed, the marketing standard stipulates that no other terms except those set out in the 
Regulation may appear on the labelling. 

Therefore,  the  use  of  other  terms  indicating  other  types  of  farming  at  national  level, 
falling outside the scope of the terms defined above, should be allowed, if those terms are 
not misleading consumers. 

The main shortcoming raised by many stakeholders is that the rules are excessively rigid 
and  lacking  the  flexibility  needed  to  promote  product  innovation  and  a  mechanism  to 
promote additional credence attributes to the consumer. For example, the inability to add 
a  label  indicating  ‘no  use  of  antibiotics’  or  the  lack  of  provisions  for  ‘in-between’ 

145 

 
production  systems  (e.g.  ‘Chicken  of  tomorrow’269,  ‘Privathof’270),  that  are  above 
baseline but not to the level of the listed ORTs, are also raised. 

Increased  flexibility  of  ORTs  can  make  production  systems  viable  that  deliver  higher 
level  of  animal  welfare  or  health  than  the  baseline  level.  The  flexibilisation  of  ORTs 
could facilitate also the labelling of more environmentally friendly farming methods than 
current minimum standards. 

6. 

Limits for water content in poultry 

The  EU  marketing  standard  provides  for  a  limit  on  the  total  water  content  in  frozen 
poultrymeat.  Poultry  meat  that  exceeds  the  water  content  limit  can  only  be  sold  with  a 
clear indication ‘water content exceeds EU limit’. In practice, such meat is therefore not 
used in retail sales but for further processing and food services. 

Water  content  limits  are  controlled  at  slaughterhouse  level  at  set  frequencies.  The 
marketing  standard  should  be  amended  to  allow  risk  based  controls.  This  would  allow 
higher  control  frequencies  where  shortcomings  have  been  detected  and  reduce 
administrative burden in establishments with a high degree of compliance. 

Currently  the  marketing  standard  foresees  two  test  procedures  to  determine  the  water 
content of poultry meat: a chemical test and a simple drip test. Due to unreliable results 
the drip test should be abolished. 

Furthermore,  the  current  marketing  standard  contains  inconsistencies  in  relation  to  the 
applicability of test procedures for frozen and fresh poultry. This had been highlighted in 
an EU funded study on water content of poultry271. 

Apart from the listed technical amendments it is foreseen to maintain the legal limits for 
water  in  the  poultry  marketing  standard,  even  if  their  modification  is  controversially 
debated. Both, the physiological (intrinsic) water and the added water count against the 
water limit of the standard. The rationale of the water limit is that consumers should not 
be  incited  to  buy  chicken  that  contains  a  lot  of  (invisible)  water  that  evaporates  when 
cooked and leaves the product significantly smaller than it appeared to the consumer at 
first glance. This policy context implies that alternative options are not relevant. 

The actual purpose of the limit was to prevent water from being added. Given the lack of 
suitable technical methods to distinguish between intrinsic and added water, the limit is 
based  on  the  total  water  content.  However,  production  methods  changed  and  faster 
growing breeds are now used; those birds have a shorter life span at slaughter and contain 
more  intrinsic  water  than  slower  growing  breeds272.  (Fast  growing  broiler  breeds  reach 
their  slaughter  weight  currently  in  about  35  days,  slow  growing  breeds  in  50  days  or 
more.) Controls increasingly demonstrate that a significant part of the products destined 

269 https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/publication/13761/Industry-wide-arrangements-for-the-so-called-
Chicken-of-Tomorrow-restrict-competition. 
270 https://www.wiesenhof-privathof.de/. 
271 LGC (2016): Study on state of play of processing technologies and the absorption of water in poultrymeat, 
pages 8-9, Publications Office of the EU, https://doi.org/10.2762/620936. 
272 The muscular water content declines with the age of an animal. Slow growing chicken breeds reach their 
slaughter weight at a higher age and lower water content than fast growing chicken breeds. 

146 

 
                                                 
for  sales  to  consumers  do  not  meet  the  current  water  limit273.  In  2020,  about  35%  of 
tested  chicken  breast  poultrymeat  of  EU  origin  exceeded  the  limit.  In  fact,  imported 
poultry has a lower compliance rate than EU poultry274. However, imported poultrymeat 
is nearly exclusively used for processed products and is not sold to consumers, whether 
fresh or frozen. 

It is against this backdrop that the poultry industry advocates for increasing the limits on 
water content so to ‘modernise’ the standard and align it with its breeding targets. 

As regards consumers, a higher total water content means they pay more for water and 
less for protein. Then again, the prices for such products may become cheaper compared 
to products from slower growing breeds, as their costs of production are lower. 

Moreover,  water  content  in  poultry  can  be  seen  as  a  proxy  for  animal  welfare  related 
aspects: today’s  fast-growing breeds are  reported to  give  rise to  serious  animal  welfare 
issues275 (some national animal welfare labels have sprung up that promote slow-growing 
breeds  as  a  result276).  Adjusting  the  water-limit  upward  is  therefore  also  difficult  to 
reconcile with sustainability considerations. Not adjusting the water content limit would 
stimulate the poultry sector to stay with or switch to slower growing breeds, which will 
have for effect to increase the animal welfare benefits. 

7. 

Downgrading of whole batches of poultrymeat during inspections 

The  current  marketing  standards  foresee  that,  when  controls  detect  batches  where 
individual pieces of poultry meat have visual defects, the whole batch is downgraded and 
often ends up as pet food. However, the meat in the batch is fit for human consumption 
and ways should be found to sort out just the pieces with visual defects. 

The  applicable  rules  on  control  related  to  the  marketing  standard  for  poultrymeat 
stipulate  that  poultrymeat  is  free  of  visual  defects.  When  during  quality  controls  by 
public  authorities  visual  defects  are  discovered,  i.e.  when  pieces  are  found  non-
compliant, the whole batch is downgraded. This means the meat will only be useable for 
processed products, sometimes even only ending up as pet food. 

In the public consultation, poultrymeat processors suggested that the rule be modified in 
a way that  allows removing individual non-compliant pieces  but  keeping the compliant 
pieces eligible for the intended marketing to consumers. 

The commercial loss for operators would be limited if the identification of non-compliant 
cuts of poultrymeat destined for the retail market did not lead to the whole batch being 
downgraded  to  processing-grade  meat.  Public  authorities  would  still  have  a  solid  legal 
basis to downgrade poultrymeat with visual defects. If the sanction for visual defects of 

273 Commission Staff Working Document 2020, pp.11-12. 
274  2021  Annual  Report  of  the  Board  of  Experts  in  Monitoring  Water  Content  in  Poultrymeat  following 
Regulation (EC) No 543/2008, p. 7-10. 
275 Report from the Commission to the EP and the Council on the impact of genetic selection on the welfare of 
chickens 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0182. 
276 https://www.poultryworld.net/Health/Articles/2019/11/4-slow-growing-broiler-genotypes-get-approval-
494133E/. 

production, 

Section 

meat 

kept 

3.2. 

for 

147 

 
                                                 
pieces is to downgrade the whole batch – which can mean a significant financial loss – 
there might be pressure on control authorities to accept small visual defects so as to avoid 
downgrading a whole batch. 

During controls, the competent authorities would have the possibility to apply sanctions 
in a more proportionate way and be subject to less pressure from operators to accept cuts 
with minor defects, but there would not be a direct effect on the administrative burden as 
controls  have  to  take  place  either  way.  The  adaptation  of  the  rule  would  facilitate 
compliance and lead to cost savings for the operators. We consider this amendment as a 
technical one without political implications. 

8. 

Update definitions of poultry products 

The current marketing standard for poultry define certain types of poultry (e.g. chicken, 
capon,  poussin)  and  also  cuts  (e.g.  breast,  leg,  drumstick,  wing)  that  are  commercially 
relevant;  these  terms  are  sales  designations277.  Since  establishing  the  standard,  new 
poultry  products  appeared  on  the  market  or  gained  commercial  relevance  that  are  not 
defined  in  the  marketing  standard.  These  technical  terms  need  to  be  updated  and 
expanded. Several suggestions for new products have been proposed already by poultry 
stakeholders (e.g. feet, paws, neck, head,). Most of these terms are defined internationally 
by the UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 

Not  adapting  the  useable  sales  designations  for  poultry  products  would  continue  a 
situation  where  certain  terms  are  used  but  have  a  different  meaning  for  operators  and 
consumers.  There  is  no  direct  economic  impact  but  an  indirect  one.  In  case  the  sales 
designations  were  adjusted  operators  and  traders  would  benefit  from  clearly  described 
products  in  their  business-to-business  dealings,  and  consumers  would  be  better  off  as 
they  would  be  able  to  understand  the  characteristics  of  the  product  by  way  of  more 
appropriate  sales  designations  than  is  currently  the  case.  Public  authorities  would 
likewise benefit from greater clarity for their control activities. 

Harmonising  and  adjusting  product  definitions  also  contribute  to  improved  consumer 
information. Defining new products that have an animal welfare or ethical dimension  – 
like ‘Bruderhahn’ (fattening male chicks of laying breeds)278 – would also have a positive 
impact  on  social  sustainability.  To  the  extent  that  better  product  definitions  help 
producers  valorise  more  poultry  parts  and  help  consumers  better  understand  what  they 
are buying, the revision may also contribute to the prevention of food waste if producers 
and consumers discard fewer poultry products as a consequence. 

Updating  and  extending  certain  poultry  definitions  would  improve  business-to-business 
relations and simplify the exchange of goods, i.e. the adjustments will also result in the 
simplification of trade. Adjusting would not imply an administrative burden. For several 
of the products internationally agreed industry standards exist already that are, however, 
not legally binding279. 

277 See Articles 1 and 4 of Regulation 543/2008. 
278 https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8110176; https://www.landwirtschaft.de/landwirtschaft-
verstehen/haetten-sies-gewusst/tierhaltung/was-ist-ein-bruderhahn. 
279 https://unece.org/trade/wp7/UNECE-Standards-meat. 

148 

 
                                                 
Mainly slaughterhouses and meat processors would be affected. To a limited extend also 
primary  producers.  They  would  get  assurance  that  the  terms  they  use  have  the  same 
meaning  in  the  whole  EU.  Consumers  would  benefit  from  a  harmonised  definition  of 
poultry products that are offered on the market. They could be sure that the product they 
buy follows the same product definition even if supplied by different operators. 

9. 

ORTs for production systems other than poultry 

There are currently no ORTs for livestock production systems other than for poultry (e.g. 
free range). In the public consultation a number of responses pointed at the introduction 
of  additional  ORTs  (similar  to  the  poultry  example)  that  would  define  production 
methods, for example with positive environmental or animal welfare outcomes, in sectors 
such  as  beef  meat,  pig  meat  or  dairy  products.  In  this  context,  ‘pasture-based’,  ‘grass-
fed’, ‘outdoor’ or ‘free-range’ production systems are often mentioned. 

Nevertheless, the preferred option is to not establish at this stage ORTs for animal sectors 
other than poultry. 

Terms like ‘outdoor’, ‘free-range’, ‘pasture-based’, ‘grass-fed’ or ‘hay milk’ are already 
widely  used  and  sometimes  constitute  established  quality  marks  (e.g.  under  national  or 
regional quality schemes). 

As regards dairy products, ‘hay milk’ is for example covered by a registered ‘traditional 
speciality guaranteed’ (TSG)280 at the EU level, which defines it as ‘produced according 
to  traditional  production  conditions  that  comply  with  the  ‘Heumilchregulativ’281 
(regulations  on  haymilk  production).  This  form  of  milk  is  distinguished  by  rules 
forbidding  the  use  of  fermented  fodder,  such  as  silage,  and  rules  forbidding  the  use  of 
animals  and  feed  which  are  to  be  identified  as  ‘genetically  modified’  under  prevailing 
legislation’282.  This  does  not  impede  the  existence  of  other  schemes  where  the  use  of 
grass is also at the heart of the definition of the production method. The association ‘lait 
de paturages’ in France defines such milk as being obtained from cows that are grazing 
on average 150 days per year (minimum 120 days) for at least 6 hours a day283. 

For  beef  there  are  several  schemes  that  define  rules  related  to  the  production  method. 
Currently, the Commission is examining a request for a protected geographical indication 
(PGI)  concerning  Irish  grass-fed  beef,284  where  the  production  method  is  defined  as 
basing at least 90% of the feed intake on grass, primarily grazed, with winter feeding of 
conserved  grass,  and  with  animals  spending  a  minimum  of  220  days  per  year  grazing 
(such  request,  if  successful,  will  not  reserve  the  use  of  the  term  ‘grass-fed’  for  beef 
meat).  Many  ‘Label  Rouge’  schemes  in  France  also  include  these  criteria  of  access  to 
quality feed and to the exterior, during the life of an animal (together with other criteria 
such as the breed). These schemes are perceived, according to a recent study, as bringing 

280 https://europa.eu/!BM98Bp. 
281 https://www.heumilch.com/heumilch/regulativ/. 
282 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/304. 
283 https://www.lait-de-paturage.fr/la-marque/#referentiels. 
284 https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/61632-national-appeal-procedure-for-irish-grass-fed-beef/. 

149 

 
                                                 
about animal welfare improvements compared to baseline in the beef sector285. The same 
study  considers  that  ‘Label  Rouge’  schemes  for  pig  meat  in  France  are  not  necessarily 
delivering production methods higher than baseline in terms of sustainability. 

Furthermore, several MSs already developed national systems to label farming methods, 
mainly based on animal welfare criteria (e.g. ‘Bedre Dyrevelfærd’ in Denmark286, ‘Beter 
Leven’  in  the  Netherlands287,  ‘Haltungsform’  in  Germany288).  Going  beyond  the 
minimum legal requirements, these systems define criteria like outdoor access, additional 
space, straw bedding and enrichment material. A forthcoming study lists these schemes 
and assesses benefits and costs for operators and consumers. It mentions that pigs is the 
animal species that is most often covered by such animal welfare related labelling289. 

The current national value adding labels are well established. They bring to producers a 
value  adding  complement,  in  form  of  either  a  price  premium  or  at  least  more  stable 
demand  and  better  access  to  markets  for  their  products.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the 
introduction  of  additional  ORTs  in  an  area  where  many  initiatives  exist  already  would 
bring  added  value  for  farmers,  especially  given  geographically  different  production 
conditions that pose challenges to find ‘one-size-fits-all’ terms, definitions and standards 
that would do justice to  farmers  and the very heterogeneous production systems  across 
the EU  (only  commercial  egg and poultry production is  largely  standardised across the 
EU, if not globally). 

Without  a  clear  benefit,  introducing  ORTs  at  the  level  of  the  EU  entails  costs  for 
producers  and  (through  the  need  for  enforcement)  for  authorities.  For  consumers,  they 
could mean a bigger choice of more differentiated products. 

Farmers are nearly exclusively SMEs, processors of regional quality products (e.g. ‘hay 
milk’,  ‘Weiderind’)  also  mostly  qualify  as  SMEs.  Such  SMEs  would  benefit  of  higher 
visibility and common understanding and definition relative to their production methods, 
which  could  benefit  from  higher  demand  through  mainstreaming.  However,  those 
engaged in existing initiatives would be affected by an EU wide definition of their terms, 
either having to align to new definitions, or having to face stronger competition. Given 
the  challenges  of  creating  standards  that  fit  the  different  production  systems  across  the 
EU,  introducing  general  ORTs  at  EU-level  could  also  mean  some  farmers  are 
disadvantaged. 

Leaving it to MSs to manage schemes for the labelling of production systems other than 
poultry will not reduce the possibility for such schemes to offer better animal welfare or 
inform  consumers,  whereas  the  tailoring  of  such  schemes  to  national  and  regional 
production systems can help livestock production in the respective rural areas. 

The discussion on ORTs for poultry has shown that farming methods for other products 
than poultry are very  diverse  and less  standardised. This  would be even  more complex 

285  https://www.quechoisir.org/action-ufc-que-choisir-labels-alimentaires-et-signes-de-qualite-promesses-non-
tenues-une-revision-s-impose-n94920/. 
286 https://bedre-dyrevelfaerd.dk/servicemenu/english/. 
287 https://beterleven.dierenbescherming.nl/. 
288 https://www.haltungsform.de/. 
289 EC (forthcoming), Study on animal welfare labelling. 

150 

 
                                                 
with  species  that  live  longer  than  poultry  (cattle,  pigs,  sheep)  and  are  kept  in  different 
holdings  and  under  different  production  systems  during  their  life.  Production  systems 
depend very much also on climatic conditions and can differ considerably within the EU 
(e.g.  pasture  periods,  fodder  crops).  Experience  in  the  past  with  the  definition  of  veal 
marketing  standards  (Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  566/2008290)  has  shown  serious 
difficulties  to  agree  on  an  EU-wide  definition  of  the  relatively  easy  term  ‘veal’.  The 
result is a long list of derogations and specific terms for individual MSs. The aspect of 
language diversity should not be underestimated either. 

Provided the difficulties mentioned above are overcome, a common definition of certain 
terms would however simplify the understanding by operators and controllers of the rules 
that need to be followed and controlled. 

Whereas  poultry  has  a  relatively  short  fattening  period  of  several  weeks,  this  period  is 
much longer for other animals (cattle, sheep, pigs). It takes several months and it is quite 
common  that  these  animals  are  moved  between  different  farms  (with  different  farming 
methods)  during  their  life.  Defining  and  controlling  ORTs  (e.g.  on  farming  methods) 
would  require  specific  traceability  systems  along  the  food  chain  that  allows  that 
information on production methods is passed on (together with the good) from the farm 
up  to  the  retail  shelf.  This  implies  additional  costs,  that  are  often  covered  through 
certification schemes, be they  geographical  indications or TSG or through collective or 
certification  trademarks  (which  is  not  the  case  for  ORTs:  costs  would  be  for  the 
administrative control bodies). 

Most affected would be producers who have already invested to comply with established 
product  specifications.  Organisations  (producer  organisations,  processors,  retailers)  that 
established and control the use of certain terms  would also be affected if their schemes 
would be replaced by ORTs at the EU-level. 

The results of the public consultation on marketing standards revealed that views on this 
subject  are  divided.  Although,  in  the  public  consultation,  ORTs  are  seen  as  useful  and 
bringing more benefits than costs, there seem to be difficulties in agreeing on ‘candidate’ 
terms that would be able to span the different production conditions across EU MSs. For 
example,  the  term  ‘grass-fed  beef’  is  mentioned  as  a  controversial  case,  as  can  mean  a 
variety of production systems across the EU (for example, as seen above, beef grown in 
areas  where  pastures  area  accessible  nearly  the  whole  year  round  like  in  the  Atlantic 
coasts,  as  compared  to  animals  bred  in  mountain  areas  that  have  to  spend  some  time 
indoor  when  pastures  are  covered  by  snow).  The  corollary  that  certain  terms  would 
therefore  only  be  used  in  some  parts  of  the  EU  or  that  the  use  of  the  same  term 
presupposes different  conditions  in  different  parts of the EU would fit ill with  the very 
idea underpinning ORTs. 

Given  that  no  marketing  standard  for  ORTs  other  than  poultry  exist,  the  only  option 
would be to establish a completely new standard for that purpose. There is no evidence 
that  a  harmonisation  of  existing  private,  regional  and  national  schemes  and  definitions 
would  bring  significant  economic,  social  and  environmental  benefits  compared  to  the 
existing  non-harmonised  schemes,  while  the  complexity  of  the  operation  (defining 

290 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/566/oj. 

151 

 
                                                 
common EU wide definitions for production methods that vary widely in the EU) seems 
evident. In addition, the animal welfare baseline conditions will be subject to revision in 
the coming months, rendering even more delicate the definition at EU level of ORTs in 
the animal sectors that would have an animal welfare vocation. 

C.  ARABLE CROPS AND OLIVE OIL 

1. 

Allowing the sales of bulk olive oil 

There  is  a  development  of  retail  practices  in  low  packaging  supermarkets  towards 
refillable recipients for olive oil, commonly known as ‘bulk sales’. This saves packaging 
as consumers come with their own reusable recipients. The practice is in line with current 
initiatives at EU level, such as the F2F and are targeted at reducing waste, both as regards 
packaging and food. However, olive oil can be distinguished from other products sold in 
bulk through its high value. Also, its packaging is part of the guarantees for quality and 
authenticity, as direct sunlight and heat accelerate its natural degradation. 

The current marketing standard requires that olive oil is presented to the final consumer 
in a packaging of a maximum capacity of five litres with an opening system that can no 
longer be sealed after the first  time it  is opened.291  In addition,  it is mandatory that the 
quality292 of the olive oil is preserved up to the best before date293. Indeed an oil has to 
preserve  all  its  quality  characteristics294,  including  its  organoleptic  characteristics 
(median of fruitiness and median of defects) up to the best before date.  To achieve this 
for bulk olive oil, producers will have to take into account that the natural degradation of 
olive oil, may be accelerated when olive oil is sold in bulk. Currently, the only validated 
method  to  assess  the  organoleptic  characteristics  is  the  organoleptic  method  of  the 
International  Olive  Council,  included  both  the  Regulation  2568/91  and  the  Codex 
Standard for Olive Oils and Olive Pomace Oils295. While the method has its contestants, 
no validated alternatives are currently available, neither in the EU nor worldwide. Olive 
oil must also be labelled with a number of mandatory particulars. The reasons are related 
to the higher value of olive oil in relation to other vegetable oils, the need for authenticity 
of olive oil and the concern about fraudulent practises. Therefore, the current legislation 

291  Article  2  of  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  29/2012  of  13  January  2012  on  marketing 
standards for olive oil, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2012/29/oj. 
292  The  European  Union  being  a  member  of  the  International  Olive  Council,  it  is  bound  to  apply  the 
International  Agreement  on  Olive  Oil  and  Table  Olives.  This  Agreement  defines  inter  alia  the  different 
categories of olive oils and olive-pomace oils. The European Union cannot on its own initiative set additional 
quality requirements on olive oil  without promoting  such  changes at international level and having  the IOC 
trade standard amended. Any change to the marketing standards for olive oil at EU level should be compliant 
with the IOC agreement. 
293 See Article 2(4) of Regulation 2568/91. 
294  Currently,  approximatively  30  physico-chemical  and  organoleptic  parameters  are  used  to  determine  the 
quality and the purity of the different categories of olive oil. Each parameter is checked by using appropriate 
analytical  methods and shall  respect strict limits defined by the legislation. The parameters, as  well as their 
limits and the related methods of analysis are based and updated taking into consideration the latest scientific 
developments.  The  organoleptic  assessment  is  the  method  used  at  international  level  to  determine  whether 
organoleptic properties of virgin olive oils comply with the limits established for organoleptic parameters. The 
EU has recently funded a research project to further develop in particular the organoleptic assessment method, 
and  the  results  obtained  in  that  context  contribute  to  experts  discussion  at  international  level.  As  such,  they 
cannot be transposed to policy yet. 

152 

 
                                                 
 
does  not  allow  the  bulk  sale  of  olive  oil.  In  some  cases,  low  packaging  (‘zero  waste’) 
supermarkets add condiments to olive oil, so that they can circumvent this interdiction. 

There is a balance to  achieve between more sustainable retail practices and the need to 
guarantee the authenticity of olive oil. Citizens and consumer organisations would like to 
be able to buy olive oil in bulk, provided equivalent authenticity guarantees and hygiene, 
labelling and traceability rules are respected. On the other side, producers are against the 
bulk sale of olive oil, considering that ‘it would diminish the value of extra virgin olive 
oil  and  may  compromise  its  quality  label’296.  From  the  MSs,  most  producing  MSs 
(totalling more than 90% of the EU olive oil production) oppose bulk sales. 

Due  to  the  opposition  from  the  main  producing  MSs  and  a  majority  of  businesses  or 
business  associations,  permitting  bulk  sales  of  olive  oil  is  presented  as  an  option, 
allowing  MSs  to  adopt  national  rules  for  bulk  sale  of  olive  oil  under  conditions  that 
guarantee the safety  and quality of the product  (for the MSs to decide and implement). 
This would provide as well for legal certainty. 

As  an  example,  France  –  interpreting  the  existing  rules  –  has  put  in  place  a  system 
whereby the filling of recipients can take place at the retail stage provided the retailer is 
certified/registered as a final conditioner by the national authorities. This system allows 
the filling operation to take place under the eyes of the consumer, in a container of less 
than five litres provided with a tamper-proof closure system and in compliance with the 
labelling requirements. This interpretation of the rules was not challenged so far. 

In general terms, the main economic impact for operators relates to the bottling margin, 
which might differ significantly depending on several elements: quality oriented vs. price 
oriented, marketing costs, economies of scale, etc. The results of the consultation showed 
a perceived loss of value by operators of olive oil, a high-quality product. This seems the 
main  argument  of  farmers  and  producer  associations  for  being  against  the  option 
possibility to allow bulk sales of olive oil. 

Mandatory  conformity  checks  for  olive  oil  already  exist  and  they  are  based  on  risks 
analysis297.  MSs  would  consider  allowing  bulk  sales,  depending  on  the  increase  in  the 
cost  of  checks.  This  would  in  turn  be  dependent  on  the  rules  they  would  establish 
nationally to allow the bulk sales on their territory. However, the relatively high costs of 
enforcing the current olive oil marketing standards derive rather from the laboratory and 
organoleptic tests (SWD 2020). 

For consumers, the economic impact is less clear, as the bottling margin could simply be 
transferred to the retail level, but bulk sales could also be less expensive, especially if a 
system of returnable bottles is implemented. No specific impacts on trade are expected, 
due to the limited number of countries exporting to the EU. 

296 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12772-Agricultural-products-
revision-of-EU-marketing-standards/public-consultation_en. 
297 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 of 11 July 1991 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive-
residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis; OJ L 248, 5.9.1991, p. 1–83; Article 2a. 

153 

 
                                                 
2. 

Sales descriptions of plant-based preparations 

The  current  EU  marketing  standard  in  the  CMO  Regulation  concerning  milk  and  dairy 
products reserves certain terms (e.g. milk, butter, cheese, cream) exclusively for products 
that are derived from milk from animals.298 The term ‘soy milk’ can thus not be used. In 
the framework of the CAP reform, the European Parliament proposed an amendment to 
extend the protection of dairy designations to the mere evocation of dairy terms, but this 
amendment was abandoned by the co-legislators during the trilogue discussions. 

The CMO Regulation does not restrict in the same manner the use of terms that initially 
derive  from  meat  products.  Provided  that  consumers  are  not  misled  (see  FIC),  plant-
based products can carry sales names such as ‘steak’, ‘sausage’, ‘escalope’, ‘burger’ or 
‘hamburger’. During the CAP reform, the European Parliament discussed an amendment 
to introduce restrictions to the use of such terms, but the amendment was not endorsed. 

The  issue  of  sales  descriptions  of  plant-based  preparations  was  the  subject  of  a  strong 
interest  from  stakeholders  and  MSs  during  the  public  consultation.  Therefore,  it  is 
necessary to mention it in this impact assessment. 

In October 2021, France notified to the Commission under TRIS (Technical Regulation 
Information  System)299  a  draft  decree  that  would  prohibit  the  use  of  ‘meat  terms’  for 
plant-based preparations produced and marketed in France. Some stakeholders involved 
in the production of meat alternatives contacted the Commission to oppose this initiative. 
Several MSs called for a reflection at the EU level. The Commission expressed concerns 
regarding the consistency of the French decree with the sustainability objectives of F2F, 
in  particular  the  promotion  of  sustainable  food  consumption  and  the  shift  to  healthy, 
sustainable  diets.  It  also  considers  that  the  existing  EU  law  (FIC)  already  provides  an 
appropriate level of protection to the consumer against misleading, inaccurate or unclear 
information. However, in the absence of any rule whereby the use of ‘meat terms’ would 
be  explicitly  allowed  for  plant-based  preparations  and  in  the  absence  of  EU  marketing 
standards for sales descriptions for plant-based preparations, the French initiative seems 
not to be incompatible with existing EU marketing standards. 

At  this  stage,  the  Commission  takes  note  that  the  views  of  stakeholders  on  the  use  of 
such  terms  for  sales  descriptions  of  plant-based  preparations  are  very  divided.  In  the 
framework of the CAP reform, Members of Parliament had extensive discussions on the 
topic at the end of which the status quo was kept. Not least with a view to this outcome at 
the level of the legislator, a change of the regime governing sales descriptions for plant-
based preparations is not part of the present revision of EU marketing standards. 

3. 

Indication of the country of origin for pulses 

With  their  nutritional  value,  being  rich  in  proteins,  pulses  can  bring  climate  and 
environmental benefits and contribute significantly to healthy and sustainable diets, and 

298 See CMO regulation, Annex VII, Part III. Narrow exceptions are possible for these terms as laid down in 
Annex I of Commission Decision 2010/791 of 20 December 2010, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2010/791/oj. 
299 Notification 2021/638/FR in https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tris/en/. 

154 

 
                                                 
they  can play an important  role in  the shift  to  a more plant-based diet300. A substantial 
part of 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 purposes301. 
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%)302. 
Italy and Spain are the main importing Member States of lentils and chickpeas.. 

Consumers are interested to know about the origin of the products they buy, in particular 
the place of production303. 

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 F&V), 
the  labelling  of  the  origin  of  dry  pulses  is  voluntary  at  the  initiative  of  food  business 
operators,  provided  they  fulfil  the  applicable  provisions  of  FIC.  Voluntary  origin 
labelling is rarely used and, where it occurs, tends to be in the high value segment of the 
market.  Pulses  that  do  not  belong  to  high  value  segments  (including  when  they  are 
protected  by  a  geographical  indication,  PDO  or  PGI304)  are  usually  not  origin  labelled. 
For  convenience  reasons,  significant  volumes  of  pulses  are  commercialised  as  pre-
cooked  products  e.g.  in  cans  or  in  glass  jars  (since  cooking  of  dry  pulses  takes  a  long 
time). 

The labelling could be global (like ‘EU/non-EU’), or more specific (like the country of 
origin). The level of information of a label EU/non-EU is often considered as too generic 
by the final consumers and is likely to have little impact305. The labelling of the country 
of origin is expected to lead to higher consumer satisfaction and would be more coherent 
with existing F&V rules applicable to pulses harvested green for food purpose. Several 
MSs are supporting the mandatory labelling of the country origin of dry pulses following 
the F&V model306. 

An  extension  of  origin  labelling  obligation  to  cooked  dry  leguminous  vegetables  will 
increase  the  scope  and  reinforce  the  impacts  of  the  proposed  modification  of  the 
marketing  standards.  The  mandatory  origin  labelling  would  therefore  concern  dry 
leguminous vegetables, shelled, whether or not skinned or split (CN Code 0713) intended 

300 https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/plants-and-plant-products/plant-
products/cereals/development-pla%20nt-proteins_en 
301 DG AGRI source – Protein crops balance sheet. 
302 COMEXT data 2021. 
303 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. 
304 https://europa.eu/!BM98Bp. 
305 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  –  Food  Chain 
Evaluation Consortium (FCEC), page 64. 
306  For  the  F&V  model,  see  in  particular,  Article  76(1)  of  CMO  Regulation  and  Articles  6  and  7  of 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011. 

155 

 
                                                 
for human consumption and dry leguminous vegetables cooked without any ingredients, 
except salt and additives (CN Code 2005). 

If  consumers  demand  more  pulses,  this  has  likely  positive  repercussions  for  EU 
producers  and  importers.  Such  an  increase  of  the  demand  is  not  expected  to  have  a 
significant  impact  on  consumer  prices,  though,  since  it  is  expected  that  the  additional 
demand will be compensated by an increase of EU production thanks, among others, to 
national protein strategies that favour the development of protein crops including pulses. 

The compulsory labelling of the origin  would imply new controls by public authorities 
that would generate additional costs. Taking into account that pulses are not high value 
products  and  that  the  risk  of  fraud  on  the  origin  will  remain  low,  it  is  not  intended  to 
require additional traceability requirements. The default traceability requirement, i.e. one 
step forward one step back traceability, will remain applicable. 

Compulsory origin labelling may imply limited additional costs for operators due to the 
necessary adaptations of sourcing, packaging and marketing practices, in particular when 
operators handle pulses from several origins. Those costs would be mitigated by the fact 
that mixes of origin 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,  the  labelling  will  be  less 
costly  than  for  products  that  go  through  a  high  number  of  production  stages  and 
places307. 

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. 

The compulsory labelling of the origin of pulses is coherent with: 

 

 

 

the CMO in the sense that it aligns provisions with those applicable to similar products 
like F&V. The compulsory labelling of the origin of pulses being an extension of an 
obligation  already  applicable  to  F&V,  it  will  remain  in  the  scope  of  the  CMO 
marketing  standards  and  will  not  overlap  with  the  current  FIC  Regulation  and  its 
undergoing revision that will not cover the origin of pulses; 
the new CAP that provides plenty of opportunities for MSs to develop the production 
of EU plant protein sources, including pulses, through several supportive instruments; 
the objectives of the Green Deal, F2F and other initiatives of the Commission related 
to the sustainability of the food chain. 

307  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). 

156